[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22090-22108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I know under the unanimous consent 
agreement Senator Thompson would have the time until 4:30 when it was 
agreed the vote would be set. I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
sex trafficking bill for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, rather than not using the time, I 
thought it wise to go ahead and use this time to visit about this 
important vote that will be taking place. There may be some people who 
are just now focusing on what is happening.
  We have a base bill with sex trafficking. The Violence Against Women 
Act is the base of the bill, and it is put together in an overall piece 
of legislation with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 
Aimee's law, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, and

[[Page 22091]]

the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act. This is the combined bill soon to 
be voted on.
  A point of order has been raised and ruled against by the Chair, and 
we will be voting on appealing the ruling of the Chair. I hope my 
colleagues will vote in favor of the Chair and we will go to the final 
bill for a vote. To vote against the Chair and subtract Aimee's law, 
sends the bill back to the House, and we don't have time to get this 
done.
  This is an important day for women and children subject to violence, 
both domestically and abroad. It is an important day that this body is 
going to follow the House and put in place needed protections for 
people, women and children, subject to this violence, both domestically 
and abroad.
  It is an important day for those who have worked as advocacy groups 
and defenders of the defenseless, including people trafficked across 
international borders, with their papers burned and told: You owe.
  This is important also for women in abusive relationships, physically 
abusive, who need help.
  This addresses both of those issues. I think it is important this 
body, in the waning days of this session, go out with a strong 
statement that we are there with you; we are supporting those who are 
victimized in these situations, domestically and abroad. We are 
speaking out for those who, in many cases, have no voice.
  I can still see the girls I met in Nepal who were trafficked at 11 
and 12 years of age, coming back to their home country and to their 
villages, 16, 17 years of age, in terrible condition, having been 
subjected to sex trafficking, beaten by brothel owners, in some cases 
locked up at night, raped repeatedly, and told, ``You have to work this 
off; I own you,'' and then released to go home when they contract 
horrible diseases. In not all cases that works that way, but in too 
many cases it does work that way.
  This body is speaking today. We are speaking on behalf of those who 
are so defenseless in these particular types of situations.
  I want to recognize some people who have been particularly helpful on 
this. Senator Leahy has worked very hard with us on this, through many 
of the issues he has had on this. Senator Wellstone and I have worked 
on the trafficking. Senator Biden and Senator Hatch have worked on the 
Violence Against Women Act. This has been a true bipartisan and 
bicameral effort. Chris Smith and Sam Gejdenson in the House, 
Republican and Democrat, have worked with us to get this through. 
Chairman Hyde of the Judiciary Committee in the House has worked to get 
this on through. My staff, Karen Knudsen and Sharon Payt, have worked 
very hard. The outside advocacy groups range from Gloria Steinem to 
Chuck Colson in support of this legislation, saying this is something 
we need to speak out about; this is something we need to do.
  I want to recognize the leader, Trent Lott. In these waning hours of 
the session, there are about 150 different bills that want to get to 
the floor. Senator Lott has said this one is coming to the floor. Not 
only did he say it is coming to the floor, he gave us all day on 
October 11 to be able to carry this on through and get this through. 
This is precious time. It could have been spent and was being pushed to 
be spent on a number of different issues. Instead, Senator Lott said, 
no; we will go ahead and let this issue come forward. We will take the 
whole day debating it. People can be heard on this particular issue. 
Then we will have two votes at the end of the day.
  That is a great statement on his part in support of women and 
children who are subject to these horrifying conditions, both 
domestically and abroad. I applaud his effort and his leadership and 
his work getting this done.
  I just came from a press conference with Senator Santorum on Aimee's 
law, an important piece of legislation concerning what happened to 
Aimee Willard, an act perpetrated by a person was released early from 
prison in Nevada and went to Pennsylvania. She was an all-American 
lacrosse player at George Mason University. She was traveling, her car 
was taken over by this guy who had been previously convicted and 
released early out of a Nevada prison, then he takes her, kidnaps her, 
rapes her, and murders her.
  This is legislation that does not federalize crimes, but it 
encourages States to step up and say: If a person is convicted of one 
of these crimes, keep him in for at least 85 percent of what he was 
sentenced for; or if they go to another State and commit this 
recidivism crime, then the State that has to prosecute and incarcerate 
this person, the criminal who did this, they can get part of the 
Federal moneys from the State that let the person go free early.
  I think it is a sensible approach to try pushing this on forward. It 
is a good piece of legislation. It is something that deserves passage. 
Here in these waning hours of this session, I would just say I am very 
pleased to be a part of this body that would stand up and speak out and 
step forward on important legislation like this for the defenseless, 
for the voiceless, for those who are in harm's way. I applaud that. I 
hope my colleagues will vote as the House did, overwhelmingly, for this 
legislation. It passed in the House 371-1.
  If I can encourage you any more, I say pull out a picture from your 
billfold, pull out a picture of a child or grandchild. Those are the 
ages, somewhere between 9 and 15, who are the most frequently 
trafficked victims. Young ages. Aimee Willard was a young age--not 
quite that young. But you get young ages of people who are subjected to 
this. We are stepping up and doing something on their behalf.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the time I have been able to 
use for this. I urge the President to sign this legislation when it 
gets to his desk. I am hopeful he will. I do not know of any reason he 
would not sign this legislation. This will be a major accomplishment of 
this Congress that is going to be completed at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is an interesting precedent being set 
as the Senate considers adopting Aimee's law as part of the conference 
report on the Sex Trafficking Act. The supporters of Aimee's law argue 
that states have a financial responsibility regarding the protection, 
or lack of protection, offered by state law.
  I have expressed my concerns about Aimee's law and I want to put my 
colleagues on notice. If Congress and the President determine that this 
Act will become law, there are important ramifications that should be 
reflected in future legislation on many issues.
  For example, the application of the Aimee's law standard to state 
responsibility should also be applied to pollution and waste that also 
crosses state borders. I think it will be interesting to see in the 
future whether supporters of Aimee's law will also support efforts to 
make states responsible for air pollution that is generated in their 
states but falls downwind on other states to damage the environment and 
endanger the health of children and individuals who suffer from asthma.
  My colleagues in the Northeast will all recognize this issue--we are 
collectively suffering from the damage inflicted on our forests, 
waterways, and public health every day by the tons of uncontrolled 
pollution emitted from power plants in the midwest. In 1997, out of the 
12,000,000 tons of acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide emitted by the 
United States, Vermont was the source of only ten--or 0.00008%. Yet my 
state suffers disproportionately from the ecological and financial 
damage of acid rain, from stricken sugar maple trees to fishless lakes 
and streams. Vermont, like many other New England states, spends 
significant funds to test fish for mercury and issue fish advisories 
when levels are too high--mercury that also has its source at 
uncontrolled midwestern plants. All of our hospitals also spend money 
for tests for respiratory problems for children exposed to ozone-thick 
air, air that drifts into Vermont from the urban centers to the south 
and west.
  I would like to put the Senate on notice that when the Senate 
considers any amendments to the Clean Air Act, I will consider offering 
an amendment that will hold states responsible for the

[[Page 22092]]

cost of the pollution they generate and which falls downwind. It will 
be interesting to see whether the supporters of the logic behind 
Aimee's law will support a Federal Government mandate that Vermont be 
paid by midwestern states for every ton of uncontrolled pollution that 
crosses into our state and results in costs to our environment and our 
citizens.
  I provide this background to highlight the underlying problems with 
Aimee's law. While done with the best of intentions, the solution 
achieved with this provision is on questionable constitutional ground 
and has the potential to set a precedent that will have far reaching 
implications for many issues Congress will address in the future.
 Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this conference report is a splendid 
example of Congress reasserting its moral underpinning in U.S. foreign 
policy. It will effectively combat the disgrace of women and children 
being smuggled, bought and sold as pathetic commodities--most often for 
the human beasts who thrive on prostitution.
  The conference report deals with all aspects of sex trafficking, from 
helping victims to punishing perpetrators.
  Significantly, the legislation calls on the executive branch to 
identify clearly the nations where trafficking is the most prevalent. 
For regimes that know there is a problem within their borders, but 
refuse to do anything about it, there will be consequences.
  No country has a right to foreign aid. The worst trafficking nations 
must have such U.S. aid cut off. And if they don't receive U.S. 
bilateral aid, then their officials will be barred from coming onto 
American soil. Our principles demand these significant and important 
symbolic steps.
  Some may complain that this is another ``sanction'' in the alleged 
proliferation of sanctions Congress passes. But denying taxpayer-
supported foreign aid is not a ``sanction.'' Foreign aid is not an 
entitlement.
  I commend Senator Brownback for his unyielding efforts to help the 
victims of sex trafficking, which is nothing less than modern-day 
slavery. The inevitable controversies over differences between House 
and Senate bills were ironed out because of Senator Brownback's 
leadership.
  Time and again, Senator Brownback personally intervened with 
conferees, with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and with the 
House and Senate leadership in order to obtain agreement on this 
important legislation.
  Sam Brownback is devoted to helping less fortunate citizens, whether 
they are farmers struggling to keep their farms in Kansas or the 
helpless women and children caught up in the trafficking of human 
beings. I salute Senator Brownback for his remarkable efforts.
  Also of particular significance is a provision authored by 
Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida, which will assist victims of 
terrorism. Senator Mack and others who have had a longstanding interest 
in this issue were instrumental in helping this provision find a place 
in the conference report. The provision helps families struck by the 
horrors such as the attack on Pan Am 103 get fair restitution, coming 
in part from the frozen assets of terrorist states.
  The conference report is a solid and effective measure to help the 
victims of violence and abuse, the kind of abuse which is nothing short 
of evil. Those victims are most often women and children, and this 
legislation goes a long way to protect them.
 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Victims 
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 conference report. 
While I have some reservations of some parts of the conference report, 
I am pleased that a number of important provisions have been included.
  I would like to focus my comments today on three specific provisions 
of this report: the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism Act, and the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement 
Act.
  I strongly supported the Violence Against Women Act when we passed it 
6 years ago. VAWA was the most comprehensive bill ever passed by 
Congress to deal with the corrosive problem of domestic violence. I 
believed then and believe now that this legislation was long overdue.
  For far too long, there has been an attitude that violence against 
women is a ``private matter.'' If a woman was mugged by a stranger, 
people would be outraged and demand action. However, if the same woman 
was bruised and battered by her husband or boyfriend, they would simply 
turn away.
  Attitudes are hard to change. But I believe that VAWA has helped.
  In the last 5 years, VAWA has enhanced criminal penalties on those 
who attack women, eased enforcement of protection orders from State to 
State, and provided over $1.6 billion over 6 years to police, 
prosecutors, battered women's shelters, a national domestic violence 
hotline, and other provisions designed to catch and punish batterers 
and offer victims the support they need to leave their abusers.
  The Violence Against Women Act works. A Department of Justice study 
recently found that, during the 6-year period that VAWA has been in 
effect, violence against women by intimate partners fell 21 percent.
  However, the same study found that much more work remains to be done. 
For example:
  Since 1976, about one-third of all murdered women each year have been 
killed by their partners;
  Moreover, women are still much more likely than men to be attacked by 
their intimate partners. During 1993-1998, women victims of violence 
were more than seven times more likely to have been attacked by an 
intimate partner than male victims of violence.
  VAWA 2000 will help us complete that work. This legislation would do 
three things.
  First, the bill would reauthorize through fiscal year 2005 the key 
programs in the original Violence Against Women Act. These include STOP 
grants, pro-arrest grants, rural domestic violence and child abuse 
enforcement grants, the national domestic violence hotline, and rape 
prevention and education programs. The bill also reauthorizes the 
court-appointed and special advocate program, CASA, and other programs 
in the Victims of Child Abuse Act.
  Second, the bill makes some improvements to VAWA. These include:
  Funding for grants to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, 
and sexual assault who need legal assistance because of that violence;
  Assistance to states and tribal courts to improve interstate 
enforcement of civil protection orders, as required by the original 
Violence Against Women Act;
  Funding for grants to provide short-term housing assistance and 
short-term support services to individuals and their dependents fleeing 
domestic violence who are unable to find quickly secure alternative 
housing;
  A provision providing supervised visitation of children for victims 
of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse to reduce the 
opportunity for additional domestic violence during visitations;
  A provision strengthening and refining protections for battered 
immigrant women; and
  An expansion of several of the primary grant programs to cover 
violence that arises in dating relationships.
  I was disappointed that the conference did not agree to extend the 
recently expired Violent Crime Reduction Fund. The money for the trust 
fund comes from savings generated by reducing the Federal workforce by 
more than 300,000 employees, and it was the primary source of money for 
VAWA programs. This will mean that VAWA will likely be funded directly 
by tax revenues.
  However, I am pleased that the conference agreed to restore language 
that would allow grant money to be used to deal with dating violence. 
Without this language, women could not benefit from VAWA unless they 
cohabited with their abusers. That makes no sense. In fact, the 
Department of Justice study on intimate partner violence found that 
women between the ages of 16 and 24--prime dating ages--are the most

[[Page 22093]]

likely to experience violence within their relationships.
  VAWA has been particularly important to my own state of California. 
VAWA funds have trained hundreds of California police officers, 
prosecutors, and judges. They have provided California law enforcement 
with better evidence gathering and information sharing equipment.
  VAWA funds have also hired victims' advocates and counselors in 
scores of California cities. They have provided an array of services to 
California women and children--from 24-hour hotlines to emergency 
transportation to medical services.
  I have heard numerous stories from women in California who have 
benefitted from VAWA. For instance, one woman wrote to me to how she 
fled from an abusive relationship but was able to get food, clothing, 
and shelter for her and her four children from a VAWA-supported center. 
If it was not for VAWA, she wrote, ``I would have lost my four children 
because I didn't have anywhere to go. I was homeless with my 
children.''
  And the head of the Valley Trauma Center in Southern California wrote 
me about another tragic case. Four men kidnaped a woman as she walked 
to her car and raped her repeatedly for many hours. Incredibly, because 
the men accused the victim of having sex with them voluntarily and one 
of the men was underage, the woman herself was charged with having sex 
with a minor. As a result, the woman lost her job. Fortunately, the 
center, using VAWA funds, was able to intervene. They helped get the 
charges against the victim dismissed and assisted the woman through her 
trauma.
  There is no question that VAWA has made a real difference in the 
lives of tens of thousands of women and children in California. Let me 
give you some more examples:
  Through VAWA funding, California has 23 sexual assault response 
teams, 13 violence response teams, and scores of domestic violence 
advocates in law enforcement agencies throughout the state. These teams 
have responded to hundreds of incidents of domestic violence, saving 
lives and helping protect California women and children from abuse.
  Since 1997, eight counties in California have developed stalking and 
threat assessment teams, STATs. Since VAWA was enacted, there has been 
a 200-percent increase in the number of felony stalking cases filed by 
the Los Angeles District Attorney.
  Within 2 weeks of launching an antistalking educational campaign 
using VAWA money, the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women, 
LACAAW, received about 40 calls to its crisis hotline. These calls 
resulted in numerous investigations by the local STAT.
  Since LACAAW receive VAWA money in 1997, it has seen a 64 percent 
increase in the number of victims served. Moreover, its rape prevention 
education program services have doubled in this period.
  In the last 5 years, Women Escaping a Violent Environment, WEAVE, a 
victim service provider in Sacramento, has doubled its legal advocacy 
efforts and crisis and referral services. It responds to over 20,000 
domestic violence and sexual assault calls to its crisis line annually 
and 35 requests for legal services daily.
  In Alameda County, the district attorney's office has used VAWA funds 
to institute comprehensive training regarding the investigation and 
prosecution of domestic violence and stalking cases. Two hundred sixty 
prosecutors in Alameda and Contra Costa county and 350 police officers 
in Alameda country have been trained. The result: 30 new stalking cases 
and numerous new domestic violence cases being investigated and 
prosecuted just in 3 months.
  Lideres Campasinas has used VAWA money to establish itself in 12 
communities in California and has trained 25,000 immigrant and migrant 
women. Before it received this money, Lideres Campasinas did not 
address the problem of domestic violence among farmworker women. Now, 
three tribal organizations and 4 States have contacted it about setting 
up similar programs in their jurisdictions.
  The California Coalition Against Sexual Assault's Rape Prevention 
Resource Center has, using VAWA money, assembled over 4,000 items 
focused exclusively on issues related to violence against women in the 
U.S. Over 4,000 items are currently available in its lending library.
  In short, VAWA 2000 renews our commitment to fighting violence 
against women and children. I am delighted to support its passage 
today.
  Let me also say a few words about the Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act, which is also in the conference report.
  I strongly support this bill, which will help American victims of 
terrorism abroad collect court-awarded compensation and ensures that 
the responsible State sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their 
crimes.
  Just let me talk about one example of why this new law is necessary.
  In 1985, David Jacobsen was residing in Beirut, Lebanon, and was the 
chief executive officer of the American University of Beirut Medical 
Center. His life would soon take a dramatic and irreversible change for 
the worse, and he would never again be the same.
  Shortly before 8:00 a.m. on May 28, 1985, Jacobsen was crossing an 
intersection with a companion when he was assaulted, subdued and forced 
into a van by several terrorist assailants. He was pistol-whipped, 
bound and gagged, and pushed into a hidden compartment under the floor 
in the back of the van.
  Jacobsen was held by these men, members of the Iranian-backed 
Hizballah, for 532 days--nearly a year and a half. He was held in 
darkness and blindfolded during most of that time, chained by his 
ankles and wrists and wearing nothing but undershorts and a t-shirt. He 
has said in the past that he was allowed to see sunlight just twice in 
those 17 months.
  The food during his captivity was meager--sometimes the guards would 
even spit in his food before handing it over.
  Jacobsen was subjected to regular beatings, and often threatened with 
immediate death. He was forced to listen as fellow captives were 
killed.
  As a result of this physical and mental torture, Jacobsen has been 
under continuous treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder since his 
release in November of 1986--nearly 13 years ago.
  In August of 1998, David Jacobsen was awarded $9 million by a U.S. 
Federal Court. The judgement was against the Government of Iran, and 
pursuant to a bill that Congress signed in 1996 allowing victims of 
foreign terrorism to recover against terrorist nations.
  But David Jacobsen has collected nothing. He cannot go to Iran to ask 
for the verdict. And our own Government has essentially turned its 
back. Some have estimated the United States Government has frozen more 
than a billion dollars of Iranian assets. Yet not one cent has been 
paid to David Jacobsen. The administration has invoked waiver after 
waiver--even as Congress has modified the 1996 bill to clarify our 
intent.
  The same has been true for others victimized by agents of designated 
terrorist-sponsoring nations, including Alisa Flatow, Terry Anderson, 
Joseph Ciccippio, Frank Reed, Matthew Eisenfeld, Sarah Duker, Armando 
Alejandre, Carlos A. Costa, and Mario de la Pena.
  The legislation included in this conference report replaces the 
waiver authority in current law to make it both more clear, and more 
narrow. It is my hope that once Congress has again spoken on this 
issue, money frozen from terrorist nations will finally begin to flow 
to the victims of those terrorist acts.
  The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act also contains an amendment 
authored by Senator Leahy and myself that will offer more immediate and 
effective assistance to victims of terrorism abroad, such as those 
Americans killed or injured in the embassy bombings in Kenya and 
Tanzania and in the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. This 
amendment does not involve any new funding; all the money for victims 
would come out

[[Page 22094]]

of the existing emergency reserve fund for the Department of Justice's 
Office for Victims of Crime, OVC.
  The Leahy-Feinstein amendment aims to provide faster and better 
assistance to victims of terrorism abroad. Under current Federal law, 
if there is a terrorist attack against Americans abroad, the victims 
and their families must generally go to the victims' services agencies 
in their home States to receive assistance and compensation. However, 
victims' services vary widely from State to State, and some overseas 
victims receive no relief at all because they cannot establish 
residency in a particular State.
  Let me give you a couple of real-life examples created by current 
law:
  Two American victims, standing literally yards apart, were injured in 
the bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Each received severe 
injuries, was permanently disabled, and spent 7 months recovering at 
the same hospital. However, because the two were residents of different 
States, they received very different victims' assistance: one received 
$15,000 in compensation and one $100,000. And one waited a week for a 
decision on the money and the other 5 months.
  Another American was also severely injured in the embassy bombings. 
Because he was not able to establish residency in a particular State, 
he could not receive any victims' assistance or compensation at all. In 
fact, because he lacked health insurance, he had to pay his medical 
bills himself.
  The Office for Victims of Crime has been able to get around the 
problem in certain cases by transferring money to the FBI or U.S. 
attorney's offices, which then transfer the money to victims. However, 
this cannot be done in some situations. Moreover, even where such 
transfers can be done, OVC and the victims have run into a lot of 
redtape and delays. An example:
  Because of current law, OVC was not able to respond directly to the 
needs of victims of the embassy bombings. So they transferred money to 
the Executive Office of the U.S. attorneys, which then transferred the 
money to the State Department, which then transferred the money to the 
victims. This triple transfer took 8 months. In the meantime, the 
victims and their families had to pay medical bills, transportation 
costs, funeral expenses, and other expenses themselves.
  The Leahy-Feinstein amendment will immediately benefit terrorist 
victims. For example, the amendment ensures that the OVC can assist 
victims directly with regard to the upcoming trial in New York City of 
the individuals who allegedly bombed our embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania.
  The Leahy-Feinstein amendment fixes the problem in three ways.
  First, it creates a single, centralized agency to help victims of 
terrorism abroad. This agency--OVC--has more expertise and resources to 
help overseas terrorism victims than a typical State victims' services 
agency. For example, OVC can much more easily get information from U.S. 
and foreign government agencies to process victims' claims than, say, 
the Wyoming Victim Services Division.
  Second, it eliminates the gaps and inconsistencies in Federal and 
State victims' services statutes that result in disparate treatment of 
similarly situated victims of terrorism. The amendment provides OVC 
with much more flexibility to assist victims of terrorism directly, 
avoiding unfair results.
  Third, it cuts redtape that has unnecessarily delayed services to 
victims of terrorism.
  Specifically, the Leahy-Feinstein amendment:
  Authorizes OVC to establish a terrorism compensation fund and to make 
direct payments to American citizens and noncitizen U.S. Government 
employees for emergency expenses related to terrorist victimization. 
The money would be used to pay emergency travel expenses, medical 
bills, and the cost of transporting bodies.
  Allows OVC to pay for direct services to victims, regardless of where 
a terrorist attack occurs. This includes counseling services, a 
victims' website, and closed-circuit TV so victims and their families 
can monitor trial proceedings.
  Raises the cap on OVC's emergency reserve fund from $50 million to 
$100 million. This would enable OVC to access additional funds in the 
event of a terrorist attack involving massive casualties.
  Makes it easier for OVC to replenish its emergency reserve fund with 
money that it de-obligates from its other grant programs.
  Expands the range of organizations that OVC may fund to include the 
Department of State, Red Cross, and others.
  I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. 
While he and I have sometimes disagreed on how to address the lack of 
victims' rights in this Nation, I am glad that we were able to work 
together to pass this important amendment.
  Finally, I would like to discuss one last provision of this 
conference report. Specifically, I want to address the so-called 
Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, S. 577, now included as part of 
this conference report. I want it to be perfectly clear that this 
provision is simply a jurisdictional statute with a very narrow and 
specific purpose. The bill is not intended to allow the enforcement of 
invalid or unconstitutional State liquor laws in the Federal courts, 
and is certainly not intended to allow States to unfairly discriminate 
against out-of-State sellers for the purposes of economic 
protectionism.
  The Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act would add a new section 
(section 2) to the Webb-Kenyon Act, granting Federal court jurisdiction 
to injunctive relief actions brought by State attorneys general seeking 
to enforce State laws dealing with the importation or transportation of 
alcoholic beverages. It is important to emphasize that Congress is not 
passing on the advisability or legal validity of the many State laws 
dealing with alcoholic beverages. Whether a particular State law on 
this subject is a valid exercise of State power is, and will continue 
to be, a matter for the courts to decide.
  As you know, the powers granted to the States under section 2 of the 
21st amendment are not absolute. As the Supreme Court has made clear 
since 1964, State power under the 21st amendment cannot be read in 
isolation from other provisions in the Constitution. In Hostetter v. 
Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324 (1964), the Court 
began to use a ``balancing test'' or ``accommodation test'' to 
determine whether a state liquor law was enacted to implement a ``core 
power'' of the 21st amendment or was essentially an effort to unfairly 
regulate or burden interstate commerce with an inadequate connection to 
the temperance goals of the second section of the 21st amendment.
  The Court said in Hostetter that ``[B]oth the 21st amendment and the 
commerce clause are parts of the same Constitution. Like other 
provisions of the Constitution, each must be considered in the light of 
the other, and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in 
any concrete case.'' The Court in that case also emphasized that to 
draw the conclusion that the 21st amendment has repealed the commerce 
clause, would be ``patently bizarre'' and ``demonstrably incorrect.''
  Subsequently, in a series of other decisions over the last 35 years, 
the Supreme Court has held that the 21st amendment does not diminish 
the force of the supremacy clause, the establishment clause, the 
export-import clause, the equal protection clause, and, again, the 
commerce clause; nor does it abridge rights protected by the first 
amendment.
  In case after case (Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 
691, 712 (1984) (supremacy clause); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 
U.S. 116, 122 (1982) (establishment clause); Department of Revenue v. 
James Beam Co., 377 U.S. 341 (1964) (export-import clause); Craig v. 
Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 209 (1976) (equal protection); Bacchus Imports, 
Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 275 (1984) (commerce clause); 44 
Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996) (first 
amendment)), the Court has made it clear that the powers granted to the 
States under the 21st amendment must be read in conjunction with other 
provisions in the Constitution.

[[Page 22095]]

  In Bacchus Imports, the Court stated that the 21st amendment was not 
designed ``to empower States to favor local liquor industries by 
erecting barriers to competition.'' Nor are State laws that constitute 
``mere economic protectionism . . . entitled to the same deference as 
laws enacted to combat the perceived evils of an unrestricted traffic 
in liquor.'' The Bacchus decision stands for the legal principle that 
the 21st amendment cannot be used by the States to justify liquor laws 
which, by favoring instate businesses, discriminate against out-of-
state sellers or otherwise burden interstate commerce. Economic 
discrimination is not a core purpose of the 21st amendment.
  Earlier this year, when the Senate Judiciary Committee considered S. 
577, I offered an amendment to the ``Rules of Construction'' section of 
Senator Hatch's substitute to S. 577. The amendment was intended to 
clarify that Congress recognizes the important line of cases I have 
described today and does not intend to tip or alter the critical 
balance between the 21st amendment and other provisions in the 
Constitution, such as the commerce clause. I also thought it was 
important that we make it clear that, in passing this jurisdictional 
statute, we are neither endorsing any existing State liquor laws nor 
prejudging the validity of any State liquor laws. In making a decision 
as to whether to issue an injunction, the Federal judge will look at 
the underlying State statute and determine whether or not it has been 
violated and whether it is a constitutionally permissible exercise of 
State authority.
  The committee adopted my amendment by a unanimous voice vote and the 
language of subsection 2(e) now reflects the committee's intent. It 
states that this legislation is to be construed only to extend the 
jurisdiction of the Federal courts in connection with a State law that 
is a valid exercise of State power: (1) under the 21st amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution as such an amendment is interpreted by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, including interpretations in conjunction 
with other provisions of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) under the first 
section of the Webb-Kenyon Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court of 
the United States. Further, S. 577 is not to be construed as granting 
the States any additional power.
  The legislative history of both the Webb-Kenyon Act and the second 
section of the 21st amendment reflect the fact that Congress intended 
to protect the right of the individual States to enact laws to 
encourage temperance within their borders. So both before the 
establishment of nationwide prohibition and after its repeal, the 
States have been free to enact statewide prohibition laws, and to enact 
laws allowing the local governments (i.e. counties, cities, townships, 
etcetera) within their borders to exercise ``local option'' 
restrictions on the availability of alcoholic beverages. Further, the 
States are also free to enact laws limiting the access of minors to 
alcoholic beverages under their police powers.
  The language in subsection 2(e) reinforces the Supreme Court 
decisions holding that the 21st amendment is not to be read in 
isolation from other provisions contained in the U.S. Constitution. 
These cases have recognized that State power under section 2 of the 
21st amendment is not unlimited and must be balanced with the other 
constitutional rights protected by commerce clause, the supremacy 
clause, the export-import clause, the equal protection clause, the 
establishment clause and the first amendment.
  The substitute to S. 577 offered in the Judiciary Committee by 
Senator Hatch also made a number of other positive changes in this 
legislation.
  Federal court jurisdiction is granted only for injunctive relief 
actions by State attorneys general against alleged violators of State 
liquor laws. However, actions in Federal court are not permitted 
against persons licensed by that State, nor are they permitted against 
persons authorized to produce, sell, or store intoxicating liquor in 
that State.
  The Hatch substitute also made other changes ensuring that the bill 
tracks the due process requirements of rule 65 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure concerning suits for injunctive relief in Federal 
court. Under subsection 2(b), a State attorney general must have 
``reasonable cause'' to believe that a violation of that State's law 
regulating the importation or transportation of intoxicating liquor has 
taken place. Further, under subsection 2(d)(1) the burden of proof is 
on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a 
violation of State law has occurred. Similarly, subsection 2(d)(2) 
makes it clear that no preliminary injunction may be granted except 
upon evidence: (A) demonstrating the probability of irreparable injury; 
and (B) supporting the probability of success on the merits. Also, 
under subsection 2(d)(3) no preliminary or permanent injunction may be 
issued without notice to the adverse party and an opportunity for a 
hearing on the merits. While the legislation makes it clear that an 
action for injunctive relief under this act is to be tried before the 
Court without a jury, at the same time a defendant's rights to a jury 
trial in any separate or subsequent State criminal proceeding are 
intended to be preserved.
  The amendments adopted in the Judiciary Committee bring both balance 
and fairness to this legislation. As amended, the Twenty-First 
Amendment Enforcement Act will assist in the enforcement of legitimate 
State liquor laws that are genuinely about encouraging temperance or 
prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. At the same time, the 
amended bill reflects a recognition on the part of the Judiciary 
Committee, the Senate, and the Congress that S. 577 is solely a 
jurisdictional statute and is not intended to allow the enforcement of 
invalid or unconstitutional State liquor laws in the Federal 
courts.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
two very important pieces of legislation to the women of this country: 
the Violence Against Women Act and the National Breast and Cervical 
Cancer Treatment Act.
  Combating domestic violence and child abuse has been a top priority 
for me. I am an early cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act of 
2000 . . . And I joined with my colleagues in 1994 to pass the Violence 
Against Women Act, making it clear that violence against women is 
unacceptable.
  Changing our laws and committing $1.6 billion over six years to 
police, prosecutors, and battered women shelters has helped America 
crack down on abusers and extend support to victims.
  My home state of Arkansas has received almost $16 million in 
resources to help women who have been or are being abused. This money 
has made a tremendous difference to women and their families in 
Arkansas.
  According to the Department of Justice, fewer women were killed by 
their husbands or boyfriends in the first two years after the Act's 
passage than in any year since 1976. We cannot stop this progress now.
  By voting to continue the Violence Against Women Act, we send a 
signal to women across the country that they and their children will 
have options to chose from and a support network to rely on when they 
leave an abusive relationship. It also reinforces the message to 
abusers that their actions will not be tolerated or ignored.
  I am also glad to see the Act expanded to include funding for 
transitional housing for women and children who are victims of 
violence, as well as resources for specific populations such as Native 
Americans and the elderly . . . Mr. President, I'd also like to take a 
minute to recognize National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to call 
on the House to pass the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment 
Act.
  This bill will provide treatment to low-income women screened and 
diagnosed through the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early 
Detection Program.
  Since 1990, the Centers for Disease Control's National Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program screens and diagnoses low-
income women for breast and cervical cancer, but does not guarantee 
them treatment once diagnosed.
  Nationwide, thousands of women are caught in a horrible federal 
loophole--

[[Page 22096]]

they are told they have a deadly disease with no financial hope for 
treatment.
  The American Cancer Society estimates that in the year 2000, 400 
women in Arkansas will die of breast cancer, and 1,900 women will be 
diagnosed with it.
  Luckily, my home state is currently administering an effective breast 
cancer screening program for uninsured women. This program has helped 
improve the rate of early diagnosis and also provides financial 
assistance for treatment.
  However, right now, the CDC program reaches only 15 percent of 
eligible women . . .
  Through the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, Arkansas would 
benefit from being able to free up resources for education and 
outreach, to help more women across the state.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the fight to enact this legislation is 
not over.
  After a 421-1 passage in the House in May, this critical bill passed 
the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2000 by unanimous consent. It now 
must go back to the House of Representatives for a vote on the Senate-
passed version and then be sent to the President for his signature. I 
urge my colleagues in the House to move on this legislation, so that 
the President can sign it into law.
  And I also urge all of the women in my state to get screened this 
month. Every three minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and 
every 12 minutes a woman dies from breast cancer. Early detection is 
key.
  I hope the women of Arkansas, especially if they have a family 
history of the disease, will take time during National Breast Cancer 
Awareness Month to take a step that could save their lives.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe one item I 
was very pleased to see included in this legislation. The item to which 
I refer is a proposal of mine, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act. I 
would like to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Biden for their 
cooperation in getting this proposal included in the Violence Against 
Women Act, which has now been incorporated into the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act.
  The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that, when a convicted 
sex offender enrolls or begins employment at a college or university, 
members of the campus community will have the information they need to 
protect themselves. Put another way, my legislation ensures the 
availability to students and parents of the information they would 
already receive--under Megan's Law and related statutes--if a 
registered sex offender were to move into their own neighborhood.
  Current law requires that those convicted of crimes against minors or 
sexually violent offenses to register with law enforcement agencies 
upon their release from prison and that communities receive 
notification when a sex offender takes up residence. The Campus Sex 
Crimes Prevention Act provides that offenders must register the name of 
any higher education institution where they enroll as a student or 
commence employment. It also requires that this information be promptly 
made available to law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions where 
the institutions of higher education are located.
  Here is how this should work. Once information about an offender's 
enrollment at, or employment by, an institution of higher education has 
been provided to a state's sex offender registration program, that 
information should be shared with that school's law enforcement unit as 
soon as possible.
  The reason for this is simple. An institution's law enforcement unit 
will have the most direct responsibility for protecting that school's 
community and daily contact with those that should be informed about 
the presence of the convicted offender.
  If an institution does not have a campus police department, or other 
form of state recognized law enforcement agency, the sex offender 
information could then be shared with a local law enforcement agency 
having primary jurisdiction for the campus.
  In order to ensure that the information is readily accessible to the 
campus community, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act requires 
colleges and universities to provide the campus community with clear 
guidance as to where this information can be found, and clarifies that 
federal laws governing the privacy of education records do not prevent 
campus security agencies or other administrators from disclosing such 
information.
  The need for such a clarification was illustrated by an incident that 
occurred last year at Arizona State University when a convicted child 
molester secured a work furlough to pursue research on campus. 
University officials believed that the federal privacy law barred any 
disclosure of that fact.
  Without a clear statement that schools are free to make this 
information available, questions will remain about the legality of 
releasing sex offender information. The security unit at Arizona State 
and its counterparts at a number of other colleges asked for this 
authority, and we should give it to them.
  The House of Representatives passed a similar provision--authored by 
Congressman Matt Salmon--earlier this year. Since then, I--along with 
Congressman Salmon--have worked to address the concerns that some in 
the higher education community had about possible unintended 
consequences of this legislation. I am pleased to report that, in the 
course of those negotiations, we were able to reach agreement on 
language that achieved our vital objectives without exposing colleges 
to excessive legal risks.
  For the helpful role they played in those discussions, I must thank 
not only Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and Congressman Salmon, but 
Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  I appreciate the opportunity briefly to describe what I have tried to 
accomplish with this amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today will vote 
on legislation to reauthorize the landmark Violence Against Women Act. 
The legislation is part of a larger bill that also helps end the 
trafficking of women and children into international sex trades, 
slavery, and forced labor. This bill passed the House of 
Representatives last week, and I am confident the President will sign 
it into law.
  I have been involved in the campaign to end domestic violence in our 
communities dating back to 1983 when I introduced legislation in the 
South Dakota State Legislature to use marriage license fees to help 
fund domestic abuse shelters. At that time, thousands of South Dakota 
women and children were in need of shelters and programs to help them. 
However, few people wanted to acknowledge that domestic abuse occurred 
in their communities, or even their own homes.
  In 1994, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I helped 
get the original Violence Against Women Act passed into law. Since the 
passage of this important bill, South Dakota has received over $8 
million in funding for battered women's shelters and family violence 
prevention and services. Nationwide, the Violence Against Women Act has 
provided over $1.9 billion toward domestic abuse prevention and 
victims' services.
  In South Dakota alone, approximately 15,000 victims of domestic 
violence were provided assistance last year, and over 40 domestic 
violence shelters and outreach centers in the state received funding 
through the Violence Against Women Act. Shelters, victims' service 
providers, and counseling centers in South Dakota rely heavily on these 
funds to provide assistance to these women and children. Some of these 
examples include:
  The Mitchell Area Safehouse started the first Family Visitation 
Center in the state with these funds. The center ensures that children 
receive safe and monitored visits with their parents when violence has 
been a factor in their home environment. Now there are 9 such centers 
in the state.
  The Winner Resource Center for Families received funding to provide

[[Page 22097]]

emergency shelter, counseling services, rent assistance, and clothing 
to women and children in south-central South Dakota.
  Violence Against Women Act funding has also allowed Minnehaha County 
and Pennington County to hire domestic court liaisons to assist with 
the Protection Order process.
  In Rapid City, Violence Against Women Act funding also allowed 
Working Against Violence Inc. (WAVI) to develop a Sexual Assault 
Program and provide specialized crisis intervention and follow-up for 
child and adult survivors of rape.
  On the Crow Creek reservation, Violence Against Women Act funding 
helped the tribal justice system to develop stalking, sexual assault, 
and sexual harassment tribal codes. Similar efforts have been realized 
on the Rosebud and Sisseton-Wahpeton reservations through this program.
  The original Violence Against Women Act expired last Saturday, 
October 1, and I once again led the fight in the Senate this year to 
reauthorize this legislation. The bill that the Senate will vote on 
today authorizes over $3 billion for domestic abuse prevention 
programs. I am especially pleased that the bill includes a provision I 
supported that targets $40 million a year in funding for rural areas.
  The National Domestic Violence Hotline is also reauthorized in this 
legislation. As you know, this hotline has received 500,000 calls from 
women and children in danger from abuse since its creation in 1994. The 
hotline's number is 1-800-799-SAFE, and I encourage any woman or child 
who is in an abusive environment to call for help.
  The original Violence Against Women Act increased penalties for 
repeat sex offenders, established mandatory restitution to victims of 
domestic violence, codified much of our existing laws on rape, and 
strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. I 
am pleased to support efforts this year that strengthen these laws, 
expand them to include stalking on the internet and via the mail, and 
extend them to our schools and college campuses.
  Passage of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill is 
another important step in the campaign against domestic violence. While 
I am pleased that this historic legislation will soon be on its way to 
the President for his signature, the fact remains that domestic 
violence remains a reality for too many women and children in our 
country and in South Dakota. I will continue to do all that I can, as a 
member of the United States Senate and a concerned citizen of South 
Dakota, to help victims of domestic violence and work to prevent abuse 
in the first place.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act and I want to commend my colleagues Senator 
Brownback and Senator Wellstone for their hard work on this 
legislation.
  Inge had hoped for a better life when she left her home in Veracruz, 
Mexico--for legitimate work that would pay her well. She was hoping to 
earn money in a restaurant or a store and earn money to bring back to 
her family.
  She never expected a smuggling debt of $2,200. She never expected to 
be beaten and raped until she agreed to have sex with 30 men a day. She 
never expected to be a slave--especially not in the United States--not 
in Florida.
  So she got drunk before the men arrived. And when her shift was done, 
she drank some more. Inge would soak herself in a bathtub filled with 
hot water--drinking, crying, smoking one cigarette after another--
trying any way she could to dull the pain. And she would go to sleep 
drunk or pass out--until the next day when she had to do it all again.
  Unfortunately, Inge's case is not unique. It is a horrific story 
played out every day in countries all over the world. In fact, at least 
50,000 women and children are trafficked into the U.S. each year and at 
least 700,000 women and children are trafficked worldwide. These women 
and children are forced into the sex industry or forced into harsh 
labor, often by well organized criminal networks. Traffickers 
disproportionately target the poor, preying on people in desperate 
economic situations. They disproportionately target women and girls--
all of this for money.
  Trafficking of women and children is more than a crime--it is an 
assault on freedom. It is an assault on that founding principle of our 
nation, ``. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed 
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . .'' It is an 
assault on the very dignity of humanity.
  Yet the protections we have against trafficking are inadequate. That 
is why the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is so vital.
  This legislation takes several approaches to address this human 
rights abuse. It requires expanded reporting by the State Department in 
its annual human rights report on trafficking, including an assessment 
and analysis of international trafficking patterns and the steps 
foreign governments have taken to combat trafficking. It also requires 
the President to establish an interagency task force to monitor and 
combat trafficking.
  As a means of deterring trafficking, the President, through the 
Agency for International Development (AID) must establish initiatives, 
such as microlending programs to enhance economic opportunities for 
people who might be deceived by traffickers' promises of lucrative 
jobs. In addition, this legislation establishes certain minimum 
standards for combating trafficking and authorizes funding through AID 
and other sources to assist countries to meet these standards. The 
President can take other punitive measures against countries that fail 
to meet these standards.
  The bill also creates protections and assistance for victims of 
trafficking, including a new nonimmigrant ``T'' visa. At the same time, 
punishments for traffickers are increased through asset seizure and 
greater criminal penalties.
  All of these provisions are important for strengthening U.S. and 
foreign law and for combating trafficking. I strongly support them.
  It is a sad consequence of globalization that crime has become more 
international in its scope and reach. These seedy sex industries know 
no boundaries. Traffickers use international borders to trap their 
victims in a foreign land without passports, without the ability to 
communicate in the local language, and without hope.
  But just as trafficking has become global, so must our efforts to 
fight trafficking. That is why I also support an appropriation in the 
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill for $1.35 million earmarked 
for the Protection Project. This legal research institute at the Johns 
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is a comprehensive 
analysis of the problem of international trafficking of women and 
children. Led by Laura Lederer, a dozen researchers have been 
documenting the laws of 190 independent states and 63 dependencies on 
trafficking, forced prostitution, slavery, debt bondage, extradition, 
and other relevant issues. When it is complete, the Protection Project 
will produce a worldwide legal database on trafficking, along with 
model legislation for strengthening protections and recommendations for 
policy makers.
  At the moment, the Protection Project is at a critical phase of 
research and funding is crucial. For the last few years, the State 
Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
Affairs has been funding the project, along with private donations made 
to Harvard University, where the project was formerly housed. However, 
with its transition to Washington and Johns Hopkins, the project has 
lost private funding and has suffered a nine-month delay in its 
research.
  I urge my colleagues on the CJS conference to retain the Senate 
earmark for this project. The research that the project is producing is 
critical to understanding, fighting, and ultimately winning the war 
against international trafficking of women and children.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the adoption of 
the conference report to H.R. 3244, the Sexual Trafficking Victims 
Protection

[[Page 22098]]

Act. This conference report contains two pieces of legislation that are 
critically important for ensuring the safety of women and their 
children in our Nation as well as around the world, the Reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the Sexual Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act. I am extraordinarily pleased that the Senate is 
finally poised to join our colleagues in the House and pass both of 
these legislative proposals. Although it is unfortunate that Congress 
allowed the Violence Against Women Act to expire at the end of the 
fiscal year on September 30, 2000, today's action on this legislation 
goes a long way towards sending a message to battered women and their 
children that domestic violence is a national concern deserving the 
most serious consideration.
  An important component of the Reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act that is contained in the conference report today is the 
provision of resources for transitional housing. Due to the fact that 
domestic violence victims often have no safe place to go, these 
resources are needed to help support a continuum between emergency 
shelter and independent living. Many individuals and families fleeing 
domestic violence are forced to return to their abusers because of 
inadequate shelter or lack of money. Half of all homeless women and 
children are fleeing domestic violence. Even if battered women leave 
their abusers to go to a shelter, they often return home because the 
isolation from familiar surroundings, friends, and neighborhood 
resources makes them feel even more vulnerable. Shelters and 
transitional facilities are often located far from a victim's 
neighborhood. And, if emergency shelter is available, a supply of 
affordable housing and services are needed to keep women from having to 
return to a violent home.
  Due to the importance of ensuring that battered women may access 
transitional housing, I remain concerned that the conference report 
provides only a one-year authorization for the transitional housing 
programs. Consequently, I intend to work closely with my colleagues 
throughout next year to ensure the continued authorization and funding 
of these critical programs. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to strengthen transitional housing programs for battered 
women and their children and I hope they will lend their strong support 
to this effort.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I rise to express my strong support for this conference 
report. It contains two very important measures: the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act, aimed at combating the scourge of sex 
trafficking, and the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, aimed at 
reauthorizing and improving on federal programs and other measures 
designed to assist in the fight against domestic violence.
  I would first of all like to extend my compliments to Senator 
Brownback, Congressman Smith, Senator Wellstone, Senator Helms, Senator 
Hatch, and others, including their staff, who worked so hard on the 
trafficking portion of this legislation. The problem of international 
sex trafficking that they have tackled is a particularly ugly one, and 
I commend them for all the work they have invested in devising 
effective means to address it.
  I would like to concentrate my own remarks on the second half of this 
legislation, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. I was proud to be 
an original cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, and I am very 
pleased to see that the efforts of everyone involved are about to 
become law.
  The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has been crucial in reducing 
violence perpetrated against women and families across America. VAWA 
1994 increased resources for training and law enforcement, and 
bolstered prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic 
violence cases. States have changed the way they treat crimes of 
violence against women; 24 States and the District of Columbia now 
mandate arrest for most domestic violence offenses.
  States have also relieved women of some of the costs associated with 
violence against them. For example, as a result of VAWA, all have some 
provision for covering the cost of a forensic rape exam. Most notably, 
VAWA 1994 provided much-needed support for shelters and crisis centers, 
funded rape prevention and education, and created a National Domestic 
Violence Hotline.
  Nevertheless, much remains to be done. In Michigan alone, in 1998 we 
had more than 47,000 incidents of domestic violence, including 46 
homicides. About 85 percent of the victims of those incidents were 
women. We must continue to do what we can to deter and prevent this 
kind of violence, and to make services available to its victims.
  The legislation before us today continues the important work begun in 
1994 by reauthorizing these important programs. And make no mistake 
about it, we must do so if we are to continue with the progress we have 
made.
  In Michigan, for example, despite our much heightened awareness of 
the devastating impact of sexual abuse, in many communities VAWA grants 
are the only source of funding for services for rape victims. I am told 
that this is true nationally as well. Forty-five shelters serving 83 
counties receive funding from VAWA grants. Reauthorizing VAWA is 
critical so as to provide the assurance of continued congressional 
commitment needed to ensure that these services do not dry up.
  That is why I am so delighted that this conference report is about to 
be enacted into law. I would especially like to note how pleased I am 
with the results the conference reached on a couple of particular 
provisions.
  First, I would like to discuss the funding the bill provides for rape 
education, services to victims, and prevention. This critical funding 
is used for, among other things, helping survivors of rape and sexual 
assault come to terms with what has happened to them so that they are 
able to get on with their lives and also assist in the prosecution of 
the perpetrators of these crimes. It is also used to educate 
investigators and medical personnel on the best protocols to use to 
collect evidence in these cases.
  I would like to give a few examples of instances of how this is 
working in Michigan. A 21-year-old single woman was raped. She became 
pregnant as a result of the rape. She decided that she wanted to carry 
the baby to term. She had to deal with her own very complex emotions 
about her pregnancy, her changed relationship with her boyfriend, and 
the enormous difficulties of raising a child as a single parent. The 
VAWA money for rape services funded the counseling to help her with 
this overwhelmingly difficult set of decisions and circumstances.
  VAWA rape money also funded services for a 63-year-old woman who was 
sexually assaulted. With that help, she was able to come to terms with 
what had happened, and testify against the rapist.
  To give just one more example: VAWA rape money is being used right 
now to fund a new sexual assault nurse examining program. This program 
provides a sympathetic and expert place for survivors to go after they 
have been assaulted where they will be treated with respect and 
understanding and where the evidence will be collected correctly.
  The reason I have come to know so much about this particular aspect 
of VAWA is that when my wife Jane met with the Michigan Coalition 
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence in Oakland County on June 30 of 
this year, its director, Mary Keefe, indicated to her that while she 
was generally very pleased with the reauthorization legislation we were 
working on here in the Senate, the $50 million we were proposing for 
this particular aspect of VAWA, the rape education and prevention 
component, just wasn't enough. She indicated her hope that we would be 
able to raise that to the $80 million figure in the House bill. Jane 
passed that along to me, and once I understood how this money was used 
and was able to explain how important it was, with Senator Hatch's and 
Senator Biden's assistance, the Senate proposal was increased to $60 
million.
  I continued to follow this matter as the bill was progressing through 
conference. Yesterday I was delighted to be able to tell my staff to 
let Ms. Keefe

[[Page 22099]]

know that the conference bill accommodates her request fully, and 
authorizes $80 million in funding for these grants for the next 5 
years. One important purpose for which I am sure some of these funds 
will be used is educating our kids about relatively less well known 
drugs like GHB, the date rape drug that claimed the life of one of my 
constituents and was the subject of legislation I worked on earlier 
this Congress.
  Second, I am pleased that the conference report contains the new 
Federal law against cyberstalking that I introduced a few months ago. 
As the Internet, with all its positives, has fast become an integral 
part of our personal and professional lives, it is regrettable but 
unsurprising that criminals are becoming adept at using the Internet as 
well.
  Hence the relatively new crime of ``cyberstalking,'' in which a 
person uses the Internet to engage in a course of conduct designed to 
terrorize another. Stalking someone in this way can be more attractive 
to the perpetrator than doing it in person, since cyberstalkers can 
take advantage of the ease of the Internet and their relative anonymity 
online to be even more brazen in their threatening behavior than they 
might be in person.
  Some jurisdictions are doing an outstanding job in cracking down on 
this kind of conduct. For example, in my own State, Oakland County 
Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard and Oakland County Prosecutor Dave Gorcyca 
have developed very impressive knowledge and expertise about how to 
pursue cyberstalkers.
  This legislation will not supplant their efforts. It will, however, 
address cases that it is difficult for a single State to pursue on its 
own, those where the criminal is stalking a victim in another State. In 
such cases, where the criminal is deliberately using the means of 
interstate commerce to place his or her victim in reasonable fear of 
serious bodily injury, my bill will allow the Federal Government to 
prosecute that person.
  The existence of a Federal law in this area should also help 
encourage local authorities who do not know where to start when 
confronted with a cyberstalking allegation to turn to Federal 
authorities for advice and assistance. There is little worse than the 
feeling of helplessness a person can get if he or she is being 
terrorized and just cannot get help from the police. Much of VAWA 2000 
is aimed at helping the authorities that person turns to respond more 
effectively. That is a central function of the cyberstalking provisions 
as well.
  Finally, I am very pleased that the conference report includes the 
core provisions from the Senate bill that I developed along with 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Biden to address ways in 
which our immigration laws remain susceptible of misuse by abusive 
spouses as a tool to blackmail and control the abuse victim.
  This potential arises out of the derivative nature of the immigration 
status of a noncitizen or lawful permanent resident spouse's 
immigration status. Generally speaking, that spouse's right to be in 
the U.S. derives from the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse's 
right to file immigration papers seeking to have the immigration member 
of the couple be granted lawful permanent residency.
  In the vast majority of cases, granting that right to the citizen or 
lawful permanent resident spouse makes sense. After all, the purpose of 
family immigration 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 can 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 subject 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.
  The conference report follows the Senate VAWA reauthorization bill in 
building on the important work of VAWA 1994 in these areas. I will not 
describe all of the provisions of title V of division B of this bill, 
but I will discuss one of them, which I believe is the most important 
one.
  In this bill, we establish procedures under which a battered 
immigrant can take all the steps he or she needs to take to become a 
lawful permanent resident without leaving this country. Right now, no 
such mechanism is available to a battered immigrant, who can begin the 
process here but must return to his or her home country to complete it.
  VAWA 1994 created a mechanism for the immigrant to take the first 
step, the filing of an application to be classified as a battered 
immigrant spouse or child. But it did not create a mechanism for him or 
her to obtain the necessary papers to get lawful permanent residency 
while staying in the U.S. That is because at the time it was enacted, 
there was a general mechanism available to many to adjust here, which 
has since been eliminated. As a result, under current law, the battered 
immigrant has to go back to his or her home country, get a visa, and 
return here in order to adjust status.
  That is not true of spouses whose citizens or lawful permanent 
resident husband or wife is filing immigration papers for them. They do 
have a mechanism for completing the whole process here. Section 1503 of 
this bill gives the abused spouse that same right.
  The importance of such a provision is demonstrated, for example, by 
the case of a battered immigrant whose real name I will not use, but 
whom I will instead call Yaa. I use her as an example because her case 
arose in my own State of Michigan.
  Yaa is a 38-year-old mother of two from Nigeria. She met her husband, 
whom I will call Martin, while he was visiting family members in 
Nigeria. After a long courtship, Martin persuaded Yaa to marry him and 
join him in the United States. He told her he would help her further 
her education and file the necessary papers to enable her to become a 
lawful permanent resident.
  Following their marriage, Martin assisted Yaa in obtaining a 
visitor's visa. When she arrived in the United States, however, he did 
not follow through on any of his promises. He refused to support her 
going to school, and indeed would not let her leave the house for fear 
that other men might find her attractive and steal her away. He also 
refused to file immigration papers for her and threatened her with 
deportation if she ever disobeyed his orders.
  After the birth of their first child, Martin began physically abusing 
Yaa. He slapped her if she questioned his authority or asked about her 
immigration status. He spat on her if she refused to have sex with him. 
He used a hidden recording device to tape all of her phone 
conversations. As a result, she came to feel that she was a prisoner in 
her own home.
  On one occasion, Martin beat Yaa with his fists and a bottle of 
alcohol. Yaa suffered severe facial injuries and had to be rushed to a 
hospital by ambulance for treatment. This incident resulted in Martin's 
arrest and prosecution for domestic violence. Martin retaliated by 
refusing to pay the mortgage, buy food, or other necessities. At that 
point, with the help of her best friend, Yaa moved out, found a job, 
and filed a self-petition under VAWA. INS approved her self-petition, 
and Yaa has obtained a restraining order against Martin.

[[Page 22100]]

  Unfortunately, she still has to go to Nigeria to obtain a visa in 
order to complete the process of becoming a lawful permanent resident. 
And this is a major problem. Martin's family in Nigeria blames her for 
Martin's conviction. They have called her from there and threatened to 
have her deported because she ``brought shame'' to the family. They 
also know where she lives in Nigeria and they have threatened to hurt 
her and kidnap the children if she comes back. She has no one in the 
U.S. to leave the children with if she were to return alone. She is 
also frightened of what Martin's family will do to her if she sets foot 
in Nigeria.
  Yaa should be allowed to complete the process of becoming a lawful 
permanent resident here in the United States, without facing these 
risks. Our legislation will give her the means to do so.
  Of all the victims of domestic abuse, the immigrant dependent on an 
abusive spouse for her right to be in this country faces some of the 
most severe problems. In addition to the ordinary difficulties that 
confront anyone trying to deal with an abusive relationship, the 
battered immigrant also is afraid that if she goes to the authorities, 
she risks deportation at the instance of her abusive spouse, and either 
having her children deported too or being separated from them and 
unable to protect them.
  We in Congress who write the immigration laws have a responsibility 
to do what we can to make sure they are not misused in this fashion. 
That is why I am so pleased that the final version of this legislation 
includes this and other important provisions.
  I would like to extend special thanks to Senator Kennedy and his 
staff, especially Esther Olavarria, who has worked tirelessly on this 
portion of the bill; to Senator Hatch and his staff, especially Sharon 
Prost, whose assistance in crafting these provisions and willingness to 
invest time, effort and capital in making the case for them has been 
indispensable; to Senator Biden and his staff, especially Bonnie Robin-
Vergeer, whose commitment to these provisions has likewise been vital; 
to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde and House Crime Subcommittee 
Chairman Bill McCollum, for their support at key moments; to the 
indefatigable Leslye Orloff of the NOW Legal Defense Fund, whose 
ability to come up with the ``one more thing'' desperately needed by 
battered immigrants is matched only by her good humor and 
professionalism in recognizing that the time for compromise has come; 
and to the sponsors of H.R. 3244 and S. 2449, for allowing their bill 
to become the vehicle for this important legislation.
  I would also like to thank all of the organizations in Michigan that 
have been working so hard to help in the fight against domestic and 
sexual violence. I would like to extend particular thanks to a couple 
of the people there who have been particularly helpful to me, to my 
wife Jane, and to members of my office as we have been learning about 
these issues: to Mary Keefe of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic 
and Sexual Violence, whom I mentioned earlier; to Hedy Nuriel and 
Deborah Danton of Haven; to Shirley Pascale of the Council Against 
Domestic Assault; to Deborah Patterson of Turning Point, and to Valerie 
Hoffman of the Underground Railroad.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, with the passage of the Violence Against 
Women Act in 1994, the Federal Government for the first time adopted a 
comprehensive approach to combating violence against women. This bill 
included tough new criminal penalties and also created new grant 
programs to help both women and children who are victims of family 
violence.
  Since that time, violence against women has significantly decreased. 
But in spite of these improvements, far more needs to be done.
  Every 20 seconds a woman is raped and/or physically assaulted by an 
intimate partner and nearly one-third of women murdered each year are 
killed by a husband or boyfriend.
  Domestic violence still remains the leading cause of injury to women 
ages 15 to 44 and sadly, there are children under the age of twelve in 
approximately four out of ten houses that experience domestic violence.
  Many victims of domestic violence are not recognized and therefore do 
not get the help that they need.
  I am happy to report that the conference report includes several 
provisions that I authored with Senator Collins to assist both older 
and disabled women who are the victims of domestic violence. Those 
provisions were part of S. 1987, the Older and Disabled Women's 
Protection from Violence Act.
  Unfortunately for some, domestic violence is a life long experience. 
Those who perpetrate violence against their family members do not stop 
because the family member grows older. Neither do they stop because the 
family member is disabled. To the contrary, several studies show that 
the disabled suffer prolonged abuse compared to non-disabled domestic 
violence victims. Violence is too often perpetrated on those who are 
most vulnerable.
  In some cases, the abuse may become severe as the victim ages or as 
disability increases and the victim becomes more isolated from the 
community with their removal from the workforce. Other age-related 
factors such as increased frailty may increase a victim's 
vulnerability.
  It also is true that older and disabled victims' ability to report 
abuse is frequently confounded by their reliance on their abuser for 
care or housing.
  Every 7 minutes in Illinois, there is an incidence of elder abuse.
  Several research studies have shown that elder abuse is the most 
under reported familial crime. It is even more under reported than 
child abuse with only between one in eight and one in fourteen 
incidents estimated to be reported.
  National and State specific statistics are not available for domestic 
abuse against disabled individuals. However, several studies of 
specific areas indicate that abuse is of longer duration for women with 
disabilities compared to women without a disability. Canadian studies 
over the last decade indicate that the incidence in that country at 
least of battery for women with disabilities was 1.5 times higher than 
for women without a disability. 3 other independent studies indicated 
that ``Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or class, 
women with disabilities are assaulted, raped and abused at a rate of 
more than two times greater than non-disabled women'' Sobsey 1994, 
Cusitar 1994, DisAbled Women's Network 1988.
  Older and disabled individuals who experience abuse worry they will 
be banished to a nursing home or institutions if they report abuse.
  Many older women were raised to believe that family business is a 
private matter. Problems within families were not to be discussed with 
anyone, especially strangers or counselors.
  They also must struggle with the ethical dilemma of reporting abuse 
by their children to the authorities and thus increasing their child's 
likelihood of going to jail. Shame and fear gag them so that they 
remain ``silent victims.''
  Disabled women also wrestle with the fear that they may lose their 
children in a custody case if they report abuse.
  This bill includes modifications of the STOP law enforcement state 
grants program and the ProArrest grants program to increase their 
sensitivity to the needs of older and disabled women. These programs 
provide funding for services and training for officers and prosecutors 
for dealing with domestic violence. This training needs to be sensitive 
to the needs of all victims, young and old, disabled and non-disabled. 
The images portrayed in the media of the victims of domestic violence 
generally depict a young woman, with small children. Consequently, many 
people including law enforcement officers may not readily identify 
older or disabled victims as suffering domestic abuse.
  Only a handful of domestic abuse programs throughout the country are 
reaching out to older and disabled women and law enforcement rarely 
receive training in identifying victims who are either older or 
disabled.

[[Page 22101]]

  The bill also sets up a new training program for law enforcement, 
prosecutors and others to appropriately identify, screen and refer 
older and disabled women who are the victims of domestic violence.
  Improvement in this program can be made with respect to identifying 
abuse among all age groups especially seniors who are often overlooked. 
When the abuser is old, there may be a reticence on the part of law 
enforcement to deal with this person in the same way that they might 
deal with a younger person. Who wants to send an ``old guy'' to jail? 
However, lack of action jeopardizes the victim further because then the 
abuser has every reason to believe that there are no consequences for 
their actions. Another common problem is differentiating between 
injuries related to abuse and injuries arising from aging, frailty or 
illness. Too many older or disabled women's broken bones have been 
attributed to disorientation, osteoporosis, or other age-related 
vulnerabilities without any questions being asked to make sure that 
they are not the result of abuse.
  With the graying of America, the problems of elder domestic abuse in 
all its many ugly manifestations, is likely to grow. I believe that we 
need to take a comprehensive look at our existing family violence 
programs and ensure that these programs serve seniors and are sensitive 
and knowledgeable of elder domestic abuse.
  In addition, the disabled's injuries may be falsely attributed to 
their disability and the bill authorizes a new program for education 
and training for the needs of disabled victims of domestic violence.
  I thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Biden for working with me to 
include these provisions that should help to ensure that Federal Anti-
Family Violence Programs are indeed available for all victims whether 
young or old, or whether able-bodied or a woman with a disability.
  In just the past year, the Supreme Court offered an important ruling 
on the Violence Against Women Act. The decision was certainly not one 
that I would have hoped for.
  In the case of U.S. v. Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down a 
provision of the Violence Against Women Act that gave victims of rape 
and domestic violence the right to sue their attackers in federal 
court. Congress passed this law to give women an additional means of 
pursuing justice when they are the victims of assault. We passed this 
law because the States themselves did not always adequately pursue 
rapists and assailants. And the States acknowledged this.
  Thirty-six States had entered this suit on behalf of the woman who 
had been victimized. They wanted victims of violence against women to 
retain the right to bring their attackers to court. But the Supreme 
Court, in a narrow vote, decided otherwise. The vote: five to four.
  This action by the Senate reauthorizing the Violence Against Women 
Act will overcome that court decision.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to offer my strong support 
for the conference report on H.R. 3244, a bill that will strengthen our 
laws in order to protect women, children and all victims of domestic 
violence. The conference report that we will vote on today includes 
several sections, each of which provides additional protections for 
vulnerable members of society.
  First, the bill contains the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 
legislation that has been the passion of the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Brownback, and the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. This 
legislation will combat sexual trafficking of women and children--the 
deepest violation of human dignity and an unspeakable tragedy. Second, 
the conference report contains a bill that we have heard a lot about in 
the last several weeks--the reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act--to provide funding for programs to combat domestic violence 
and assist victims of domestic violence--both male and female. The 
original Violence Against Women Act authorization expired on October 1, 
2000, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the reauthorization bill 
sponsored by Senators Hatch and Biden (S. 2787). The third main section 
of the bill contains anti-crime measures including provisions to 
encourage States to incarcerate, for long prison terms, individuals 
convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous sexual offenses. Together, 
these provisions form a comprehensive approach to fighting abuse 
against the most vulnerable members of society.
  It is tragic that as we stand on the brink of the 21st Century the 
world is still haunted by the practice of international trafficking of 
women and children for sex, forced labor and for other purposes that 
violate basic human rights. The frequency of these practices is 
frightening. For example, an estimated 10,000 women from the former 
Soviet Union have been forced into prostitution in Israel; two million 
children are forced into prostitution every year, half of them in Asia; 
and more than 50,000 women are trafficked into the United States every 
year. Unfortunately, existing laws in the United States and other 
countries are inadequate to deter trafficking, primarily because they 
do not reflect the gravity of the offenses involved. Where countries do 
have laws against sexual trafficking, there is too often no 
enforcement. For example, in 1995, the Netherlands prosecuted 155 cases 
of forced prostitution, and only four resulted in the conviction of the 
traffickers. In some countries, enforcement against traffickers is 
hindered by indifference, corruption, and even official participation.
  The conference report before us seeks to improve the lives of women 
and children around the world by providing severe punishment for 
persons convicted of operating trafficking enterprises within the 
United States and the possibility of severe economic penalties against 
traffickers located in other countries. In addition, it provides 
assistance and protection for victims, including authorization of 
grants to shelters and rehabilitation programs, and a limited provision 
for relief from deportation for victims who would face retribution or 
other hardships if deported. The bill also creates an Interagency Task 
Force to monitor and combat trafficking, in order to facilitate and 
evaluate progress in trafficking prevention, victim assistance, and the 
prosecution of traffickers. I would like to thank the Senator from 
Kansas for his tireless work on this issue, and am pleased to support 
this legislation.
  The second main section of this conference report, the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2000, reauthorizes the Violence Against 
Women Act through Fiscal Year 2005. VAWA contains a number of grant 
programs, including the STOP grants, Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic 
Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline, and three programs for victims of child abuse, 
including the court-appointed special advocate program (CASA). In 
addition, there are targeted improvements to the original language that 
have been made, such as providing funding for transitional housing 
assistance, expanding several of the key grant programs to cover 
violence that arises in dating relationships, and authorizing grants 
for legal assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and 
sexual assault.
  There is another issue that has been raised recently and that is the 
eligibility of men to receive benefits and services under the original 
Violence Against Women Act and under this bill. It was the original 
intent of this legislation to direct federal funds toward the most 
pressing problem--that of domestic violence against women, and violence 
against women in particular, since the statistics show that the 
majority of domestic violence is perpetrated against women. But 
although women are more often victims of such violence than men, it 
does not mean that men are never victims, or that the problems of 
domestic violence when men are victims should be ignored. It was not, 
and is not, the intent of Congress to exclude men who have suffered 
domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and services 
under the Violence Against Women Act. Maybe the bill should be renamed 
the ``Stop Domestic Violence Act'' in order to more accurately reflect 
the purposes

[[Page 22102]]

of this bill. The Act defines such key terms as ``domestic violence'' 
and ``sexual assault,'' which are used to determine eligibility under 
several of the grant programs, 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. I am pleased that this 
clarification was added to this bill.
  I am committed to confronting domestic violence because I believe 
that all forms of violence and crime destroy lives, hopes, and 
opportunities. All citizens should be safe from violence at home, in 
their neighborhoods and at schools. Protecting public safety is a 
fundamental duty of government, and we must make it clear to criminals 
that if they commit crime and violence, they will be punished swiftly 
and severely.
  Domestic violence has been a problem in the State of Missouri. In 
1999, according to data from the Highway Patrol Criminal Records 
Division, there were 754 incidents for every 100,000 Missourians. This 
number is too high, despite the fact that it has been falling from a 
high of 815/100,000 in 1997. The early nineties saw a disturbing rise 
in domestic violence reports, from 657 per 100,000 Missourians in 1993 
to the high in 1997.
  I have worked aggressively in the past, while in service to the state 
of Missouri, to confront domestic violence. As Governor, I established 
a special Task Force on Domestic Violence. This task force conducted a 
comprehensive review of domestic violence in Missouri and researched 
the efficiency of various programs and services for victims of abuse. 
Additionally, I supported the Adult Abuse Act of 1989, which provided 
new protection against domestic violence as well as new services for 
victims.
  October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I would like 
to enter into the Record an article by Doctor Hank Clever, a well-known 
pediatrician in St. Charles, Missouri. This article appeared in The St. 
Charles County Post, on October 2, 2000. Dr. Clever outlines the 
severity of the problem of domestic violence and provides a checklist 
of behaviors that may help one distinguish if you or someone you know 
is being abused.
  The conference report we are voting on today provides real tools to 
combat violence against women and children, here in the United States 
and around the world, as well as new resources to curb domestic 
violence of all types. I support this conference report and thank 
Senator Brownback for his leadership in the fight against sex-
trafficking, Senators Hatch and Biden for their work in the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and the other 
members of the Conference Committee for their success in fashioning 
such strong legislation.
  There being no objections, this article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows.

         [From the St. Charles County (MO) Post, Oct. 2, 2000]

  Domestic Violence, in All Forms, Is the Leading Cause of Injury for 
                            Women Ages 15-44

                          (By Dr. Hank Clever)

       Hank Clever is a well-known pediatrician in St. Charles. 
     Since retiring from private practice in 1998, Dr. Clever has 
     continued to speak to community groups and organizations 
     about a variety of health-related topics. The Doctor Is In 
     column runs each Monday in the St. Charles County Post. Send 
     questions for Dr. Clever to the Doctor Is In, c/o Public 
     Relations Department, St. Joseph Health Center, 300 First 
     Capitol Drive, St. Charles, Mo. 63301.
       October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. 
     Before you think, ``Oh, that doesn't affect me,'' think 
     again. Domestic violence affects everyone in the community--
     abuser, victim, children, family, employers, co-workers and 
     friends. The U.S. surgeon general says domestic violence is 
     the leading cause of injury to women ages 15-44. Domestic 
     violence is more common than rapes, muggings and auto 
     accidents combined.
       Domestic violence isn't limited by socioeconomic status, 
     race, ethnicity, age, education, employment status, physical 
     ability or marital status. And, although some men are abused 
     by women, the majority of domestic violence victims are 
     female, making domestic violence one of the most serious 
     public health issues facing women today.
       Cathy Blair is with the AWARE program. AWARE stands for 
     Assisting Women with Advocacy, Resources and Education. She 
     is working with the staff at SSM St. Joseph Health Center, 
     SSM St. Joseph Hospital West and the Catholic Community 
     Services of St. Charles County to present a program called 
     ``Strengthening Our Response: The Role of Health Care 
     Provider in Ending Domestic Violence'' on Thursday, Oct. 12, 
     at St. Joseph Health Center.
       ``Health care providers are often on the front lines to 
     recognize abuse. Their response to the victim and the abuser 
     can be crucial to proper treatment not only of the immediate 
     trauma, but also long-term problem of abuse,'' Blair told me.
       When most people think of domestic violence, they think of 
     battered women. However, domestic violence can take many 
     forms, including psychological abuse, emotional abuse, 
     economic abuse, sexual abuse and even legal abuse when a 
     women tries to leave an unhealthy relationship.
       ``Recognizing what behaviors are part of domestic violence 
     is not always easy, even for victims themselves,'' Blair 
     said. ``This is in part because domestic violence is much 
     more than physical abuse.''
       Blair offers the following checklist of behaviors that may 
     help you distinguish if you or someone you know is being 
     abused:
       Does your partner use emotional and psychological control--
     call you names, yell, put you down, constantly criticize or 
     undermine you and your abilities, behave in an overprotective 
     way, become extremely jealous, make it difficult for you to 
     see family or friends, bad-mouth you to family and friends, 
     prevent you from going where you want to, or humiliate and 
     embarrass you in front of other people?
       Does your partner use economic control--deny you access to 
     family assets such as bank accounts, credit cards or car, 
     control all the finances, make you account for what you 
     spend, or take your money, prevent you from getting or 
     keeping a job or from going to school, limit your access to 
     health, prescription or dental insurance?
       Does your partner make threats--make you afraid by using 
     looks, actions or gestures, threaten to report you to the 
     authorities for something you didn't do, threaten to harm or 
     kidnap the children, display weapons as a way of making you 
     afraid, use his anger as a threat to get what he wants?
       Does your partner commit acts of physical violence--carry 
     out threats to you, your children, pets, family members, 
     friends, or himself, destroy personal property or throw 
     things around, grab, push, hit, punch, slap, kick, choke, or 
     bite you, force you to have sex when you don't want to, 
     engage in sexual acts that you don't want to do, prevent you 
     from taking medications or getting medical care, deny you 
     access to foods, fluids or sleep?
       If any of these things are happening in your relationship, 
     Blair wants you to know that you are not alone and you have a 
     right to be safe. ``Millions of women are abused by their 
     partners every year,'' she said. ``For free, safe and 
     confidential services, call AWARE at 314-362-9273.''
       In addition to AWARE, many other domestic violence 
     resources, including shelters, support services and legal 
     services are available. The AWARE staff will be happy to give 
     you that information.
       Physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, students 
     and Allied Health professionals who would like to learn more 
     about domestic violence and the important role they can play 
     in identifying and stopping it, should plan to attend the 
     program. The conference is free and includes complimentary 
     parking and lunch, but registration in required. Call 636-
     947-5621 for more information and to register.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I rise to support the passage of 
H.R. 3244, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. 
In 1994, when I voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act I 
supported the purposes of the legislation and I believed the grants 
authorized in VAWA would provide the resources needed by New Mexico 
organizations, local governments and tribal governments to tackle the 
growing problem of domestic violence. Now it is six years later and I 
am pleased to report that I have witnessed first-hand the many benefits 
of VAWA to New Mexico. I now realize how important VAWA was to New 
Mexico and I fully appreciate the strides New Mexico was able to make 
as a result of this legislation. Women and families in New Mexico have 
benefitted tremendously from VAWA and I rise today to lend my support 
to passage of VAWA II.

[[Page 22103]]

  In New Mexico, we now have several organizations that are devoted to 
stopping violence against women. One example is the PeaceKeepers 
Domestic Violence Program based at San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico. 
PeaceKeepers is a domestic violence program that serves individuals 
that reside within the Eight Northern Pueblos which include the pueblos 
of Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, 
Tesuque and Taos. Peacekeepers is a consortium of individuals and is 
comprised of social workers, counselors, victims advocates, a civil 
attorney and a prosecutor. Because of VAWA grants, PeaceKeepers has 
been able to implement a comprehensive approach to address domestic 
violence in Indian Country.
  The social workers and counselors provide counseling to victims, 
batterers and children of victims. Approximately twenty men have 
completed the 24 week batterers therapy program and are working to 
improve their lives and the lives of their families. The victims 
advocates provide support in court, assist with obtaining and enforcing 
protection orders and aid victims with legal matters and basic housing 
needs. The prosecutor on the Peacekeepers panel is made possible 
because of a VAWA Rural Victimization grant.
  PeaceKeepers also provides training for tribal courts, law 
enforcement and tribal government personnel on domestic violence 
issues. The civil attorney also assists victims with legal assistance 
on matters such as child support, custody issues and protection orders. 
Safety for victims and accountability for offenders is the primary goal 
of PeaceKeepers. In the end, PeaceKeepers is about providing 
information, options and advocacy to victims of domestic violence.
  When VAWA passed in 1994, the States and local organizations were 
finally provided with the resources they needed to implement programs 
to respond to the problem of violence against women. I am told 
repeatedly by sheriffs in counties throughout New Mexico that their 
urgent calls are usually the result of a domestic violence situation 
occurring. While VAWA has not stopped domestic violence from occuring, 
it has provided law enforcement agencies and courts with the training 
and resources they need to respond to domestic violence cases. Most 
importantly, VAWA has provided States and local organizations with the 
resources to begin tackling the underlying problems of domestic 
violence and given them resources to develop innovative methods to 
start breaking the cycle of violence in our communities.
  Another organization in New Mexico that I am proud to support is the 
Esperanza Domestic Violence Shelter in northern New Mexico. I became 
acquainted with Esperanza a few years ago when they approached me 
because they were having trouble meeting the needs of their community. 
Esperanza operates in four counties and in 1998, Esperanza helped more 
than 2,000 people, including 1,100 victims of domestic violence, 510 
children and teens and 424 abusers. As the name indicates, Esperanza 
offers women and families hope. Hope that they can live in a safe home, 
hope that they can survive outside of an abusive relationship and hope 
that they can offer a better life for their children. Esperanza has 
provided the supportive services needed for victims that reside in the 
extensive rural areas of New Mexico--victims who were often overlooked 
before VAWA.
  I am very disappointed that it has taken so long for the Senate to 
take up and reauthorize VAWA. Last year when the reauthorization bill 
was introduced by Senator Biden, I agreed to cosponsor the legislation 
because I understand the importance of VAWA to New Mexico. Since 1994, 
New Mexico agencies have received over $17 million in VAWA grants. 
These VAWA grants have reached all four corners of my state and they 
have impacted the lives of thousands of New Mexicans.
  One of the benefits of VAWA is that it authorized grants to address a 
variety of problems associated with violence against women. In 1999, 
Northern New Mexico Legal Services, Inc. received $318,500 under the 
Civil Legal Assistance grant program. In 1998, the City of Albuquerque 
received $482,168 under the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies grant 
program. And between 1996 and this year, 20 New Mexico organizations 
received grants under the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse grant 
program--20 grants totaling over $6.5 million.
  In addition, Indian tribes in New Mexico have benefitted 
significantly from the passage of VAWA. So far, nine tribal governments 
and tribal-related organizations received nearly $2 million in grants 
under the Violence Against Women Discretionary Grants for Indian 
Programs. I am pleased to see that the pueblos of Acoma, Jemez, Laguna, 
San Felipe, Santa Ana and Zuni have been proactive and sought out these 
VAWA grants to make their pueblos a safer place for women and a better 
place for families. The State of New Mexico has also benefitted 
enormously from VAWA. Since 1995, the New Mexico Crime Victims 
Reparations Commission has been awarded over $6 million in VAWA funds.
  Unless VAWA is reauthorized, domestic violence shelters in New Mexico 
will be closed, rape crisis centers will be shut down and thousands of 
victims of violence will be left without the options they have been 
provided under VAWA. This isn't speculation. I have received calls from 
police chiefs, shelter directors, church leaders, and other citizens 
who have told me that they will have to shut down their programs unless 
VAWA is reauthorized. Moreover, many prosecutors in New Mexico will 
lose the resources they have utilized to prosecute crimes against 
women. Because of the objections to bringing up VAWA for debate in the 
Senate, the original VAWA was allowed to expire on September 30th. That 
should not have happened. The House of Representatives voted 
overwhelmingly in favor of reauthorizing VAWA by a vote of 415-3 before 
VAWA expired. We need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and 
we need to do it now.
  While violence in the United States has fallen dramatically over the 
past 6 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that almost one-
third of women murdered each year are killed by a husband or boyfriend. 
I believe the drop in crime we have experienced over the past 6 years 
is partly attributable to the passage of VAWA and the resources it made 
available to combat violence against women. We should not turn back the 
clock and go back to the level of violence we experienced in 1993. We 
should not go back to the days when people did not discuss domestic 
violence and women in abusive relationships lacked options for them and 
their children.
  I commend Senator Leahy and Senator Biden for their work on VAWA and 
their commitment to stopping domestic violence in this country. The 
amendments to VAWA will take the program further and expand the number 
of people benefitting from VAWA grants. I am pleased that the amount 
available for use by Indian tribal governments under the STOP grants 
was increased from 4 percent to 5 percent. In addition, 5 percent of 
the $40 million Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement 
grants will be set aside for use by Indian tribal governments in the 
new bill.
  I am also pleased to see that institutions of higher education will 
be provided with resources to address violence on college campuses. 
Schools will now be able to utilize $30 million in VAWA grants to 
install lighting and other deterrent measures to enhance the security 
of their campuses.
  I also support the addition of transitional housing assistance to the 
VAWA. Many individuals who stay in abusive relationships often do so 
because they are financially dependent on their abuser. Transitional 
housing assistance will provide these victims and their families with 
temporary housing while they regain their financial independence.
  The battered immigrant women provision is also important to many New 
Mexico residents. No longer will battered immigrant women and children 
be faced with deportation for reporting an abuser on whom they may be 
dependent on for an immigration benefit.

[[Page 22104]]

No person residing in the United States should be immune from 
prosecution for committing a violent crime because of a loophole in an 
immigration law.
  Mr. President, VAWA is worthy legislation that is good for New Mexico 
and women and families across the country. VAWA should be reauthorized 
and passed in the form proposed today.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support 
this conference report which contains the important reauthorization of 
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
  Over five years ago, Congress recognized the need for the Federal 
Government to take action and help combat domestic violence by passing 
VAWA. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that important legislation and 
have been pleased with the positive impact it has had in Vermont and 
around the United States.
  The Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault has 
been a leader in creating innovative and effective programs toward our 
goal of eliminating domestic violence. Vermont has used funding under 
VAWA to provide shelter to battered women and their children and 
``wrap-around'' services for these victimized families. Through VAWA, 
Vermont has also been able to help victims access legal assistance in 
the form of trained attorneys and advocacy services. In addition to 
fully utilizing funding available to train and educate law enforcement 
and court personnel, I am proud to say that Vermont is a national 
leader in the education and training of health care, welfare and family 
service workers who are likely to come in contact with victims of 
domestic violence.
  While we have made advances in combating domestic violence in Vermont 
and all around the United States by programs funded through VAWA, there 
is still more work to be done. Every nine seconds across the country an 
individual falls victim to domestic violence. Recently, this statistic 
was brought home when churches and town halls in Vermont rang their 
bells in recognition and to raise awareness of this tragic violence 
that impacts so many lives. We must continue and strengthen our focus 
on this important issue.
  I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this reauthorization when 
it was introduced this June, and feel that this legislation made many 
important improvements and additions to the programs and funding of 
VAWA while ensuring the maintenance of its core focus of combating 
domestic violence. Some important provisions of this legislation to 
Vermont include:
  Reauthorization of current domestic violence programs through the 
Department of Health and Human Services and increasing funding for 
these programs so they can provide more shelter space to accommodate 
more people in need;
  Extension of the discretionary grant program which mandates and 
encourages police officers to arrest abusers;
  Creation of a five percent set aside towards State domestic violence 
coalitions;
  Extension of state programs that deal with domestic violence in rural 
areas; and
  Establishment of a new grant program to educate and train providers 
to better meet the needs of disabled victims of domestic violence.
  In addition, I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Biden for 
including a reauthorization of the Family Violence Prevention and 
Services Act in the Violence Against Women Act. As the primary source 
of funding for local shelters, the Family Violence Prevention and 
Services Act is a vital cornerstone in the Federal response to domestic 
violence. This reauthorization ensures that this program can continue 
to grow with an increased authorization level. The Family Violence 
Prevention and Services Act is normally part of the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act reauthorization process which is scheduled 
to be completed next year. As Chairman of the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions, I will be working with domestic violence 
organizations to see what, if any, changes need to be made in the 
Family Violence Prevention and Treatment Act to increase its capacity 
to serve the victims of family violence.
  I am pleased with the fine work of Senators Biden and Hatch in 
crafting the original VAWA, and that these two Senators were able to 
further formulate a bipartisan, compromise version of this 
reauthorization which I was happy to cosponsor.
  Since July, I have both written and talked to the Majority Leader 
calling for Senate consideration of this important legislation. While 
it was somewhat delayed, I am grateful that the Senate will be 
endorsing the reauthorization of VAWA today. While the reauthorization 
of VAWA is an important step, I remain committed to continuing to enact 
legislation to eliminate domestic violence in Vermont and all around 
the United States.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking up and voting on 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Conference Report, which 
includes the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I 
commend the sponsors of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is 
estimated that approximately 50,000 women and children are trafficked 
in the United States every year, many of whom are sexually exploited 
and forced into involuntary servitude. This bill will provide a 
comprehensive approach to prevent trafficking as well as ensure 
vigorous prosecution of those involved in this deplorable practice.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes the Violence Against Women 
Act, VAWA, which has provided an unparalleled level of support for 
programs to end domestic and sexual violence. VAWA grants have made it 
possible for communities across the nation to provide shelter and 
counseling for hundreds of thousands of women and their children. Since 
1995, more than $1.5 billion has been appropriated under VAWA's grant 
programs. Michigan has been awarded about $50 million in Federal grants 
under VAWA. Those grants provided invaluable resources to survivors of 
domestic and sexual violence in Michigan. For example, Rural grants 
have permitted 12 rural counties in Michigan to hire full time 
advocates for providing services to victims through outreach programs. 
VAWA Civil Legal Assistance Grants have allowed more than 5 Michigan 
communities to develop Civil Legal Assistance Programs, which provide 
quality legal assistance to hundreds of women and children. In 
addition, 35 Sexual Assault Services Programs and more than 20 Sexual 
Assault Prevention Programs have been created or strengthened in our 
state as a direct result of VAWA.
  Furthermore, VAWA has been tremendously successful in the training of 
judges, court personnel, prosecutors, police and victims' advocates. 
Mary Keefe, Executive Director of the Michigan Coalition Against 
Domestic and Sexual Violence, explained in a letter to me that ``with 
the heightened training of police, prosecutors, and other in the 
criminal justice field, many of these systems are now routinely 
referring the victims they encounter to domestic violence and rape 
crisis programs.''
  VAWA programs have been especially important to women in rural 
communities, where support networks had been limited due to distance. 
Here is just one case of such a victim--forwarded to me from the 
Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence--whose life was 
possibly saved by a VAWA grant.

       ``Jamie'' (not her real name) was referred to the Domestic 
     Violence Program by the Prosecutor. Jamie had shared with the 
     prosecutor that she was ``afraid for life,'' and that she was 
     afraid to participate in prosecution because of repercussions 
     she may have to bear from her assailant. She soon fell out of 
     contact with the prosecutor and the case against her 
     assailant was on shaky ground.
       The county prosecutor referred Jamie to the VAWA funded 
     advocate. She came to the program in January, reluctant and 
     fearful, but open to talking to the advocate. The advocate 
     was able to provide two full days of intensive interaction 
     with this survivor. Counseling her, preparing a safety plan 
     for her and her children, telling her how the legal system 
     works and preparing her for what she could expect each step 
     of the way.
       The advocate was actually able to pick Jamie up, drive her 
     to court each time, sit by her, reassure her throughout the 
     process, listen to her when she was angry and fearful, 
     explain what was going on, and nurture her through the 
     process of being a witness to this case.

[[Page 22105]]

       The perpetrator was eventually convicted on several counts, 
     and is serving time in the County jail.
       Jamie has begun picking up the pieces of her life and is 
     hopefully on the road to safety.

  Despite the successes of VAWA, almost 900,0000 women continue to be 
victims of domestic violence each year, making it the number one health 
risk for women between the ages of 15 and 44. This Violence Against 
Women Act Reauthorization will build on the successes of VAWA by more 
than doubling the amount available for programs to support women and 
children subject to domestic abuse.
  Although I support the underlying Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 
I am concerned about a provision in this bill referred to as Aimee's 
Law. When the Senator from Pennsylvania introduced this provision as an 
amendment to he juvenile justice bill, I was one of the few who voted 
against it. I understand the positive motive of those who support this 
provision and I agree that we should act to limit the number of 
tragedies that occur when persons convicted of serious offenses are 
paroled and then subsequently commit the same offense, but I do not 
support this unworkable procedure.
  I remain concerned that this bill will federalize state criminal 
court systems. Currently, the crimes covered in this bill are defined 
differently in different states, which is appropriate since the 50 
state court systems handle 95 percent of all criminal cases in this 
country. It is inappropriate to apply federal definitions and federal 
sentencing guidelines to criminal cases tried in state courts. I also 
remain concerned about how the penalties will be imposed since the 
average terms of imprisonment imposed by states are different than 
actual lengths of imprisonment and the cost of incarceration can not be 
known unless one can predict life expectancy.
  On balance, I will vote for this Conference Report because I strongly 
support the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Violence Against 
Women Act.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Violence 
Against Women Act of 2000, which is included in the conference report 
for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3244). Current 
authorization for these programs expired at the end of September, and I 
believe that we must take immediate action to ensure that these 
programs are reauthorized before we go home. This bill has broad 
support on both sides of the aisle, with 73 cosponsors.
  Domestic violence, no matter who commits it, is an extremely serious 
and tragically common crime that devastates families and takes a great 
toll on our society. Moreover, domestic violence often goes unreported, 
in large part because the incident is seen as a private and personal 
issue or because of the fear of a repeated attack by the assailant.
  In my view, Congress must continue to address domestic violence in a 
comprehensive manner by providing resources for states and communities 
to disseminate education about domestic violence; provide counseling to 
the victim, the aggressor, and any children in the family; and ensure 
shelter to every person and child who needs to leave their home due to 
domestic violence. It is also important that health professionals are 
trained to identify and treat the medical conditions arising from 
domestic violence. This is a crime that we must put an end to and we 
must let those people who are suffering know there is help on the way.
  Violence knows no gender barriers, but we must not turn a blind eye 
to the fact that women are especially likely to be vulnerable to danger 
and crime. The Violence Against Women Act is a critical tool in our 
fight to combat domestic violence across America. It is an absolutely 
essential bill for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, relatives, 
friends, and co-workers.
  One of the most important issues facing women today is the threat of 
violence. Three to four million American women are battered by their 
husbands or partners every single year. At least a third of all female 
emergency room patients are battered women. A third of all homeless 
women and children in the U.S. are fleeing domestic violence. At least 
5,000 women are beaten to death each year. A woman in the United States 
is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male 
partner than by any other assailant. And women are six times more 
likely than men to be the victims of a violent crime.
  This is more than just a nightmare for women. It is an America that 
millions of women and girls must wake up to each day. It is a grim 
reality millions of women and girls must enter each day of their lives 
just to go to work or attend school. It is real life America for 
millions of women and girls. And it is an unspeakable tragedy.
  How many of us were shocked in June to read that women were attacked 
in New York City's Central Park in broad daylight following a parade? 
For days afterward we read headlines entitled ``Defenseless in the 
Park'' . . . ``Six More Arrested in Sex Attacks in Park'' . . . 
``Police Study Central Park Mob's 35-Minute Binge of Sexual Assault.'' 
The litany of tragedy and violence against the women assaulted that day 
in Central Park paints a full, stark and disheartening picture of a 
nation unable to protect a woman's safety.
  One of the victims, Emma Sussman Starr, wrote the New York Times 
about her attack and about the prevalence of violence against women in 
America. She said: ``Women learn early which streets are safe to walk 
on, when it's safe to be there and even how to walk (hands wrapped 
around keys, eyes straight ahead). We accept that we must pay for our 
safety in the form of cabs and doorman buildings in more expensive 
neighborhoods.'' What a sad statement.
  The threat of violence is pervasive, and as Ms. Starr writes, it 
influences every decision a woman makes. Every time a woman changes her 
pattern of behavior--for example, when she walks home from work a 
different way--in order to avoid potential violence such as rape, 
stalking, domestic assault, she is ultimately making a decision about 
how to live her life.
  The original Violence Against Women Act, enacted in 1994, was a 
landmark piece of legislation. For the first time, Congress took a 
comprehensive look at the problem of violence against women, created 
the programs, and funded the shelters to help women out of these 
violent situations. Since then, thousands of women across the country 
have been given the opportunity to free themselves from violence.
  But the problem of violence against women has not been solved in 
these six years since the original bill was signed into law. We must 
continue to talk about ways in which we can guarantee women's safety, 
further secure women's rights, and strengthen our ability as a nation 
to protect those inalienable rights as guaranteed under the 
Constitution.
  After all, how can we defend a woman's right to ``life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness'' when we cannot as a nation protect women 
from ``Rape, battery, and the onslaught of violence?''
  The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 reauthorizes these fundamental 
programs. The bill provides funding for grants to prevent campus crimes 
against women; extends programs to prevent violence in rural areas; 
builds on the progress we have made in constructing shelters for women 
who are victims of violent crimes; and strengthens protections for 
older women from violence.
  I believe that no matter whatever else Congress does for women--from 
enacting public policies and designing specific programs aimed to 
promote women's health, education, economic security, or safety, we 
must also ensure that women have equal protection under our country's 
law and in our constitution. Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women 
Act programs is an important step in this direction.
  It isn't often that Congress can claim to enact a law that literally 
may mean life or death for a person. The Violence Against Women Act is 
such a law, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we will not have the opportunity to vote 
today

[[Page 22106]]

on the merits of Aimee's Law, but instead, on a jurisdictional issue 
regarding whether the bill was properly included in the Sex Trafficking 
Conference Report. Because I believe the jurisdictional objection is 
unfounded and I am unwilling to jeopardize the passage of the other 
significant pieces of legislation included in the Conference Report--
most importantly, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000--I 
will vote against Senator Thompson's point of order.
  I supported a similar version of Aimee's Law in the form of an 
amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill last year. Upon reflection, 
however, I believe that my support was misplaced. I am troubled by this 
legislation from both a practical and a constitutional perspective.
  Aimee's Law requires the Attorney General, in any case in which a 
State convicts an individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual 
offense, when that individual has a prior conviction for any one or 
more of those offenses in another State, to transfer federal law 
enforcement assistance funds that have been allocated to the first 
State in an amount equal to the costs of incarceration, prosecution, 
and apprehension of that individual, to the second State. The bill 
contains a ``safe harbor'' exempting from this substantial penalty 
those States in which No. 1 the individual offender at issue has served 
85 percent or more of his term of imprisonment, and No. 2 the average 
term of imprisonment imposed by the State for the prior offense at 
issue is at or above the average term of imprisonment imposed for that 
offense in all States.
  As a practical matter, this bill can only promote a ``race to the 
top,'' as States feel compelled to ratchet up their sentences--not 
necessarily because they view such a shift as desirable public policy--
but in order to avoid losing crucial federal law enforcement funds. 
Ironically, those States that are apt to benefit most from federal law 
enforcement assistance may well be those with the poorest record of 
keeping dangerous offenders behind bars, the same States likely to lose 
these valuable crime-fighting funds. Nor can States readily assess 
where they stand relative to other States since they are always 
striving to hit a moving target and maintain sentences at or above an 
elusive average of all state sentences for various qualifying offenses.
  The law also will spawn an administrative nightmare for the Attorney 
General, who is charged under the legislation with the responsibility 
of constantly tabulating and retabulating the average sentences across 
the nation for a host of different serious offenses, as well as with 
the responsibility of keeping track of which State's federal funds 
should be reallocated to which other States every time a released 
offender commits another qualifying crime. The law even requires the 
Attorney General to consult with the governors of those States with 
federal funds at risk to establish a payment schedule. It's no wonder 
that the nation's governors so strongly oppose this law.
  As a constitutional matter, I have grave concerns about Aimee's Law's 
seeming disregard of basic principles of federalism. Congress's 
spending authority is undeniably broad. But I have serious reservations 
about the wisdom and constitutionality of a law that, instead of 
clearly conditioning a federal grant upon a State's performance of a 
specific and clearly stated task, penalizes a State for conduct that 
occurs after the fact and that is not entirely within the State's 
control--the offender's commission of another serious crime in another 
State. In this sense, Aimee's Law is far more onerous and far less 
respectful of fundamental principles of federal-state comity than a 
straightforward law conditioning federal spending upon the States' 
adoption of more stringent sentencing laws--the likely result of this 
legislation. In a climate in which the U.S. Supreme Court is quick to 
strike down Acts of Congress that, in the Court's view, infringe upon 
the States' prerogatives, Aimee's Law, I fear, presents an all too 
inviting target and needlessly risks creating bad precedent regarding 
the scope of Congress's spending authority.
  It is my hope that Congress and the President will monitor the 
operation of this law and revisit it if necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from 
Tennessee for having the courage to speak out against this ill-advised 
legislation known as Aimee's law. I say he has courage because there is 
a lot of emotion involved in any debate concerning serious violent 
crime such as murder, rape, or other sexual offenses. Some have said it 
is dangerous to vote against, much less speak against, any crime bill 
that is named after a real person. That is certainly the case here in 
this incredibly tragic case that underlies this legislation.
  I also know that anything goes in a conference, including adding 
provisions for political reasons that do not withstand even the most 
basic scrutiny of whether they will work or can even be understood by 
the people or the entities that are supposed to abide by them.
  I am sorry to say that Aimee's law is bad law--perhaps well 
intentioned--but bad law. I will support the Thompson point of order in 
order to state my objection to this provision.
  The young woman who inspired this bill was tragically raped and 
murdered in Pennsylvania. A shocking crime was committed against her, 
against her family, and, indeed against all of us. All of us in this 
body feel horrible about that crime and its consequences.
  But that does not absolve us of the duty to analyze legislation that 
comes before us, even if it bears the name of a child who was 
tragically killed. This legislation violates important principles of 
federalism. It will handcuff our states in their fights against violent 
crime. And most important, it just won't work. It won't accomplish what 
its sponsor and supporters say they want to accomplish. So I support 
Senator Thompson's point of order and hope my colleagues will as well.
  Before turning to the bill itself, let me again compliment the 
Senator from Tennessee. He has shown time and time again that his 
commitment to federalism is principled and real. He does not oppose 
federal intrusion into state affairs as a political tactic, as I fear 
so many of my colleagues do. He truly believes that our states deserve 
autonomy and is willing to stand up for them, even when it is 
politically unpopular, as it no doubt is here.
  I want the Senator from Tennessee to know that I respect his 
principles as well as support them. We miss his judgment and restraint, 
I must say, in the Judiciary Committee on which he served until the 
beginning of this Congress.
  Here, of course, we are not preparing to pass a new federal murder, 
rape, or sexual offense statute. But we might as well do that because 
in Aimee's Law we are forcing the states through the use of federal law 
enforcement assistance funds to increase their penalties for these 
offenses. Since when is it the province of the federal government to 
determine the sentences for state crimes? That is what we are doing 
here.
  Mr. President, in addition to furthering the federalization of the 
criminal law, this provision is very poorly thought out. As the 
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments and the Department of 
Justice have told us, it won't work. Even if states wish to comply with 
this law they won't be able to do.
  Here's why: Under this bill, if a person who has been convicted of a 
murder, rape or dangerous sexual offense is released from prison and 
commits a serious crime in another state, the original state becomes 
liable to the second state for all the costs of investigation, 
prosecution, and incarceration of the second crime. To avoid that 
liability, which the Attorney General must enforce through reallocation 
of the second states' federal law enforcement assistance funds, the 
second state must comply with two conditions.
  First, it must make sure that persons convicted of these serious 
offenses

[[Page 22107]]

serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. So far, so good. States 
can comply with that federal sentencing requirement if they want to 
avoid risking their federal money. But the federal coercion doesn't 
stop there. The state must make sure that the average sentence for the 
original crime is greater than the average sentence for such crimes in 
all the states. This is a remarkable condition, Mr. President, that 
actually makes it impossible for all 50 states to be in compliance at 
any one time.
  Now Mr. President, think about this. Suppose a state determines that 
its average sentence for rape is 20 years, but the average for all 
states for that crime is 25 years. So the state raises its sentence to 
26 years. That act will itself change the average sentence for all the 
states, possibly putting other states under the average and encouraging 
them to raise their sentences. The average sentence for all the states 
will therefore almost never be constant or predictable. Every time a 
state changes its sentencing guidelines to try to get above the 
average, the average will change and other states will be forced to 
revise their own sentences. We will have rolling averages and no 
certainty in sentencing or in the availability of federal money for 
important state law enforcement purposes.
  And that does not even take into account that the average sentence 
for an individual state will even sometimes change as different 
criminals are convicted and sentenced to slightly different terms. So 
the averages that states are supposed to keep track of in order to keep 
their law enforcement assistance funds will literally change day by 
day. This bill is an administrative nightmare for our states, even if 
they want to comply.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of the 
Wisconsin Department of Corrections in opposition to this bill be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. After setting out a number of the difficulties of 
complying with this bill, Secretary Jon Litscher concludes the 
following:

       Given the complexity of administering this bill and pitting 
     one state against another, I don't believe this legislation 
     will enhance the criminal justice system.

  I believe that Mr. Litscher's view is shared by criminal justice 
professionals all over the country, along with Governors and other 
elected officials, all of whom are working just as hard to reduce 
violent crime as the sponsors of this bill.
  I cannot leave this topic of how this provision creates a ``race to 
the top'' in sentencing without commenting on how it will effect the 
death penalty. Currently, 38 states have the death penalty for some 
crimes. That is more than half the states. Now I am not sure how you 
calculate an average sentence when some jurisdictions use the death 
penalty. But there would certainly be a strong argument that the states 
that do not use the death penalty will risk losing federal law 
enforcement assistance funds if a convicted murderer is let out on 
parole and commits another serious crime. Basically, this policy could 
force states to either enact the death penalty or never release a 
person convicted of murder on parole.
  Now maybe that is what some people want. But I believe that whether 
to impose the ultimate penalty of death should be up to the states and 
their citizens. Federal coercion has no place in this question of 
conscience. A number of states, including my own, have long and proud 
histories of opposition to the death penalty. We should not use federal 
funds to force them to change their positions.
  If this bill had gone through the Judiciary Committee, some of the 
difficulties in interpreting and applying it might have been worked 
out. Here all the negotiating has gone on behind closed doors. This is 
what happens when the normal legislative process is circumvented as it 
has been so often this year. It's now the norm for the majority to look 
for conference reports as vehicles for bills that they want to enact 
without going through the legislative process.
  We used to have a rule, as my colleagues know, that prevented items 
from being added to a conference report that were beyond the scope of 
the conference. Last year, the minority leader offered an amendment to 
restore the rule, but it was voted down on a near party line vote.
  So now, anything goes in a conference, including adding provisions 
for purely political reasons that don't withstand even the most basic 
scrutiny of whether they will work, or can even be understood by the 
people or entities that are supposed to abide by them. I am sorry to 
say that Aimee's law is bad law. Perhaps well-intentioned, but bad law. 
I will support the Thompson point of order in order to state my 
objection to this provision.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               State of Wisconsin,


                                    Department of Corrections,

                                    Madison, WI, October 10, 2000.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: It has come to my attention that the 
     provisions of H.R. 894 (Aimee's Law) have been attached to 
     other legislation that may be considered by the United States 
     Senate on Wednesday, October 11th. I am very concerned about 
     the negative fiscal/policy ramifications on the Department of 
     Corrections and the State of Wisconsin.
       Aimee's law provides that in any case in which a person is 
     convicted of a dangerous sexual offense, murder or rape, and 
     that person has been previously convicted of that offense in 
     another state, the state of the prior conviction will incur 
     fiscal liabilities. It will have deducted from its federal 
     criminal justice funds the cost of apprehension, prosecution 
     and incarceration of the offender. These funds will then be 
     transferred to the state where the subsequent offense 
     occurred.
       This legislation has a very confusing array of provisions. 
     For example:
       1. Retroactivity--While this bill has an effective date of 
     January 1, 2002, it doesn't appear to have an applicability 
     section that is normally drafted into bills introduced in the 
     Wisconsin legislature. Many states have passed truth-in-
     sentencing laws that make them eligible for federal grant 
     money. However, a state cannot change the sentencing 
     structure for persons sentenced under a prior law. 
     Wisconsin's truth-in-sentencing law (TIS) applies to persons 
     who commit a felon on or after December 31, 1999 and inmates 
     must serve 100% of the term of imprisonment imposed by the 
     court.
       2. Section (3)(a), ``the average term of imprisonment 
     imposed by State . . .'' does not specify the term nor time 
     period in which the averaging figure applies--does it apply 
     at the time of sentencing for a similar crime across all 
     states? Is the average for a specific time frame? Does the 
     sentencing average only apply to cases sentenced to prison, 
     or does it include persons sentenced to a jail term and 
     probation? We don't know what the nationwide average is now 
     and this figure will constantly be changing.
       3. Determination of Comparable State Statutes--There is no 
     uniform criminal code for all states. It will be very 
     difficult to determine comparable state statutes to 
     ``Dangerous Sexual Offense,'' ``Murder,'' and ``Rape.'' This 
     will be subject to significant variation across the nation.
       This bill pits each state against the others. The costs 
     associated with administration of the law, and the resulting 
     ``loss'' of funds may be greater than the grant funds to 
     which the state would otherwise be entitled. States may opt 
     to not administer the law (not ``charge'' another state) so 
     that another state will not charge them. Enforcement of this 
     law will be dependent upon each state agreeing to fully 
     implement its provisions.
       If the intent of the bill is to insure that each state has 
     implemented TIS, retroactive application is unnecessary. You 
     only need to apply the bill to states that haven't passed TIS 
     and exempt those that have enacted laws that require at least 
     85% of a term of imprisonment to be served.
       Given the complexity of administering this bill and the 
     pitting of one state against another, I don't believe this 
     legislation will enhance the criminal justice system.
       Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jon E. Litscher,
                                                        Secretary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 4:30 p.m. having arrived, under 
the previous order the Senate will now proceed to a vote in relation to 
the appeal of the Senator from Tennessee. The question is, Shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 22108]]


  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, Lincoln
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Bond
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90; the nays are 5. 
The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________