[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8599-8610]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 794. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the 
system for enhancing automobile fuel efficiency, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 795. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional tax incentives for enhancing motor vehicle fuel efficiency, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a package of 
legislation--two bills--designed to put us back on track for improved 
fuel efficiency among automobiles.
  I support a balanced, forward-looking energy policy, which should 
include a strong provision to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. In 
2002, the Senate spent several weeks debating energy policy, including 
fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, a strong bill on this topic was not 
enacted into law last year.
  Both chambers of Congress are currently crafting a national energy 
policy. As the challenging times we currently face demonstrates, we 
cannot delay in addressing our national energy policy, including oil 
consumption.

[[Page 8600]]

  Throughout the debate on energy policy, I have emphasized that the 
best way to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to improve 
the fuel efficiency of our automobiles. Transportation as a sector is 
the largest user of petroleum. If we are truly committed to crafting a 
forward-thinking energy policy, automobile fuel efficiency is the place 
to start.
  In 1975 the United States Congress had a vision: to double the fuel 
efficiency of our Nation's passenger vehicles in ten years. By 1985 the 
automotive industry achieved the goal that Congress set. As of 2001, 
thanks to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, law, oil 
consumption was about 2.8 million barrels per day lower than it 
otherwise would be.
  Unfortunately, progress is now at a stand-still, and in fact, the 
average fuel economy in the United States has slipped since 1985. Since 
peaking at 22.1 mpg in 1987 and 1998, average fuel economy declined 
nearly eight percent to 20.4 in 2001, lower than it had been at any 
time since 1980. Average fuel economy for automobiles 8,500 pounds and 
fewer continues to decline. One major factor in this regression is the 
fact that passenger standards have not increased since 1985. While the 
Bush Administration has recently increased non-passenger standards by a 
modest 1.5 mpg, this is not enough to compensate for the progress we 
have failed to achieve for more than a decade.
  Another reason why we are losing ground in terms of fuel efficiency 
is the exploitation of the ``non-passenger vehicle'' category. 
Originally intended to cover trucks used for business-oriented 
purposes, such as farming and construction, this category soon was 
seriously abused, so that it now includes minivans, sport utility 
vehicles, SUVs, and cross-over utility vehicles, CUVs.
  In addition, out-dated provisions of our tax code have encouraged 
increased manufacturing and purchasing of non-passenger vehicles. For 
example, the Federal gas guzzler excise tax, enacted in 1978, exempted 
non-passenger vehicles. At the time, few non-passenger vehicles 
existed, aside from heavy duty trucks and vans. But today, sales of 
SUVs, minivans, and CUVs make up over 30 percent of new vehicle 
purchases. As these sales have grown, these vehicles have enjoyed 
increasing subsidies by the Federal Government. In 1999, the SUV 
loophole in the gas guzzler tax cost the government $5.6 billion in 
uncollected taxes.
  For those in America who want to make a difference in terms of energy 
policy: take a look at the parking lots across America. Take a look at 
the inefficient vehicles we are driving on the road today, because this 
Congress and country have not shown the leadership to spur development 
of more efficient cars and trucks in America.
  We can improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. We have done it in 
the past, and we can do it again. A panel at the National Academy of 
Sciences, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other reputable 
organizations have documented the myriad technologies available today, 
and emerging technologies, that will reduce or eliminate the need for 
oil in our vehicles.
  Today we squarely face the question and challenge of energy security. 
I believe American families are ready to do their part for their 
country by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. And I believe the 
auto manufacturers, scientists and engineers of this country are ready 
to step up to the plate and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. By 
supporting improved fuel economy, we can lead and demonstrate to future 
generations that we are prepared to make a sacrifice for our national 
security, environment, and public health.
  Many have already voiced their support for decreasing our dependence 
on oil. I am submitting for the record several editorials, which are 
just a sample of the many public calls for enacting an energy policy 
that includes a way to conserve oil. I also am submitting letters from 
national organizations calling for more fuel efficient vehicles. I ask 
that these documents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  Today I am introducing two bills to get us back on the track of 
progress, to increase fuel efficiency for both passenger and non-
passenger vehicles.
  The Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act will increase the 
fuel economy standard for both types of vehicles. It will increase the 
CAFE standard of passenger automobiles to 40 miles a gallon by 2015, a 
60 percent increase above the current average of 25 miles a gallon, 
with the first increase required in model year 2006. The bill also will 
increase the fuel economy of non-passenger automobiles to 27.5 miles a 
gallon by 2015, a 60 percent increase above the current average of 17.5 
miles a gallon, with the first increase required in model year 2006. 
Through the CAFE standards required this bill, we will save a 
cumulative 123 billion gallons of gasoline, and over 250 million metric 
tons of carbon dioxide emissions, by 2015.
  This bill also will close the loopholes in the non-passenger vehicle 
definition. It will update the weight cut-off for passenger and non-
passenger automobiles, to reflect changing trends in vehicle weight. 
Many vehicles, such as the new SUV called the Hummer, weigh more than 
8,500 pounds, the current weight cut-off for regulation under CAFE. 
This bill will regulate vehicles up to 12,000 pounds, in order to 
prevent large passenger vehicles from circumventing the system. In 
addition, SUVs, minivans, and CUVs would be considered passenger 
vehicles under this bill.
  Another provision of this bill would establish a Federal procurement 
requirement for the purchase of vehicles that exceed CAFE standards. 
The bill also requires a study to improve the accuracy of the EPA test 
for fuel economy, and would implement necessary changes to the test, so 
that we can better account for improvements in fuel efficiency based on 
how vehicles are truly performing on the roads. Finally, this bill 
would update the civil penalties for violating CAFE laws, to adjust the 
amounts for inflation.
  The second bill I am introducing today, the Tax Incentives for Fuel 
Efficient Vehicles Act, would modify the tax code. First, this bill 
would create a new tax credit for purchasers of passenger and non-
passenger vehicles that exceed CAFE standards by at least 5 miles a 
gallon. Second, this bill would modify the gas guzzler tax, effective 
at the beginning of Model Year 2006, so that SUVs and other passenger 
vehicles currently escaping the tax through an existing loophole would 
be included. Heavy-duty trucks and vans would continue to be excluded.
  Modifying the gas guzzler tax to include SUVs, minivans, and CUVs 
will help us advance the policy goal of discouraging vehicles that are 
especially inefficient in terms of energy consumption, while at the 
same time raising revenues that can be used to provide an incentive for 
vehicles that are especially fuel-efficient. This approach will help 
spawn investment in automobiles that are better for our environment, 
energy security and consumers.
  I would ask my colleagues to note that it is my intention that the 
Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Act will have virtually no 
cost to the Federal Government. If the revenues raised by the expansion 
of the gas guzzler tax do not adequately compensate for the cost of the 
credit, I will adjust the size of the credit accordingly.
  I am proud to have the support of Senators Nelson of Florida, 
Jeffords, Corzine, Reed and Kennedy in introducing the Automobile Fuel 
Efficiency Improvements Act. Also I am pleased that the following 
organizations are supporting the Automobile Fuel Efficiency 
Improvements Act: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, U.S. PIRG, National Environmental Trust, 
Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, The Wilderness Society, Citizen 
Action Illinois, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, National 
Council of Churches, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of 
America, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 
Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Central Conference of American 
Rabbis, MoveOn, and Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

[[Page 8601]]

  For the benefit of our children and future generations, I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.


                                                  Sierra Club,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2003.
       Dear Congress Member: Protecting our environment and the 
     health and safety of our families are values that are clearly 
     and consistently supported by the majority of Americans. As 
     the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental 
     organization, the Sierra Club looks forward to working with 
     you and your staff to keep America's promise to leave a 
     cleaner planet to future generations.
       The challenge facing the 108th Congress is not merely to 
     maintain existing protections, but to take common-sense steps 
     to protect our communities from environmental hazards and to 
     safeguard our natural heritage. Poll after poll confirms that 
     Americans--regardless of demographics or political 
     persuasion--care about protecting our special places, 
     restoring our forests, promoting smart growth, and improving 
     the safety of our clean air and water.
       However, public support alone is not enough. It is for this 
     reason that the Sierra Club works with our more than 750,000 
     members nationwide to educate their neighbors about 
     environmental threats and opportunities, mobilize their 
     communities to demand environmental protection, and to hold 
     public officials accountable for their actions.
       Sierra Club members are looking to their elected 
     representatives to continue progress on protecting our 
     communities, improving the quality of our air and water, and 
     ensuring a natural heritage of wilderness, parks and open 
     spaces for future generations. As the 108th Congress begins, 
     I would like to inform you about the particular issues on 
     which the Sierra Club's members will be seeking your support:
       Oppose efforts to weaken the framework of existing laws 
     that safeguard public health and the environment and improve 
     the quality of our air and water, and protect our communities 
     from toxic pollution;
       Support measures that safeguard America's wildlife and 
     unique natural heritage from Alaska's Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge to the wildlands of Utah and California;
       Provide adequate funding for the enforcement of 
     environmental protection programs;
       In reauthorizing TEA-21, give priority to maintaining 
     existing roads and bridges over new construction, and defend 
     the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air 
     Conformity laws from attack;
       Push for policies that reduce global warming pollution, 
     reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our energy 
     security by increasing our fuel economy, energy efficiency 
     and reliance on clean renewable sources of energy;
       Protect the health and integrity of National Forests along 
     with the public's right to participate in the management of 
     our public lands;
       Fully fund international and domestic family planning 
     programs that are critically important to stabilizing 
     population;
       Ensure tough environmental standards in future US trade 
     agreements, and the personal safety and civil liberties of 
     those on the front lines of environmental protection around 
     the world.
       Many of your constituents are also our members, which is 
     why we would like to work together in Washington and in your 
     district to protect the land we all love. Attached is a 
     contact sheet of our issue experts in several policy areas. 
     If you have any questions about upcoming legislation, would 
     like to find out more about Sierra Club positions, or would 
     like to get in touch with our members in your district, 
     please do not hesitate to contact us.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     staff to protect America's environment, for our families, for 
     our future.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debbie Sease,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2003.
     Re Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget resolution.

     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the over 550,000 members 
     of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), I thank you for 
     supporting the Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget 
     resolution preventing oil and gas development in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge.
       You have voted to insure the continued protection of the 
     Arctic Refuge's ``biological heart,'' critical to nearly 200 
     species of wildlife. This area known as America's Serengeti 
     serves as a denning area for polar bears in the winter, a 
     nesting and/or feeding area for millions of migratory birds, 
     and the calving grounds for the 130,000 member Porcupine 
     caribou herd which returns every summer to calf and feed. 
     This herd has supported the Gwich'in Indian's way of life for 
     thousands of generations. The American public overwhelmingly 
     agrees with you that the coastal plain--one of our nation's 
     most spectacular wilderness areas--is too precious to 
     destroy.
       Drilling in the Arctic Refuge makes no sense. It won't 
     lower gasoline prices and, it won't give us energy 
     independence or security. The best estimate is that there is 
     less than a six-month supply equivalency of oil that can be 
     economically produced from the Refuge--a mere drop in the 
     bucket--and, we won't get it for ten years.
       Improving fuel efficiency of our automobiles is the 
     cheapest, fastest and cleanest energy solution. Efficiency 
     savings can be tapped immediately and would cost less than 
     half as much as producing oil from the Arctic Refuge. 
     Improving the fuel efficiency of America's automobile fleet 
     by just one percent per year would save more than 10 times as 
     much oil as is likely to be available in the Arctic Refuge. 
     Advanced hybrid electric vehicles announced by Ford and 
     already being produced by Honda and Toyota achieve about a 
     50% improvement in fuel economy. In contrast to drilling in 
     the Arctic Refuge, increasing fuel efficiency will help slow 
     down global warming.
       We thank you for your leadership to save this irreplaceable 
     natural treasure. We salute your dedication to the protection 
     of this great crown jewel.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    John H. Adams,
     President, Natural Resources Defense Council.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 2003]

                      The Missing Energy Strategy

       The Senate struck a blow for the environment and for common 
     sense last week, defeating President Bush's second attempt in 
     less than a year to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     to oil exploration. Credit goes to the Democrats, who mainly 
     held firm in a close 52-to-48 vote, and to a small, sturdy 
     group of moderate Republicans, which now includes Norm 
     Coleman, a Minnesota freshman who wisely chose not to renege 
     on his campaign promise to protect the refuge despite an 
     aggressive sales pitch from senior Republicans and the White 
     House.
       The pitch included the usual hyperbole from the Alaska 
     delegation, which typically inflates official estimates of 
     economically recoverable oil in the refuge by a factor of 
     four. It also included a new but equally spurious argument 
     minted for the occasion, namely that rising gas prices and 
     the war in Iraq made drilling more urgent than ever. In 
     truth, Arctic oil will have no influence on gas prices until 
     it actually comes out of the ground, and even then it is 
     likely to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by only a 
     few percentage points.
       Nevertheless it is much too soon for the environmental 
     community or its Senate champions, like Joseph Lieberman, 
     John McCain and James Jeffords, to rest on their well-earned 
     laurels. Drilling proposals will almost certainly resurface, 
     most likely in energy bills now on the drawing boards in both 
     the House and Senate. Beyond that, neither the White House 
     nor the Republican leadership shows any appetite for 
     developing what America really needs: innovative policies 
     that point toward a cleaner, more efficient and less oil-
     dependent energy future. Instead, the White House and its 
     Congressional allies continue to push a retrograde strategy--
     of which Arctic drilling was just one component--that 
     faithfully caters to President Bush's friends in the oil, gas 
     and coal industries and remains heavily biased toward the 
     production of fossil fuels.
       On this score, the energy bills now being drawn up on 
     Capitol Hill offer no more hope than the 2002 models. Last 
     year's energy plan, which mercifully expired in a conference 
     committee, was top-heavy with subsidies for industry and 
     light on incentives for energy efficiency, alternative fuels 
     and other forms of conservation. The news from the relevant 
     Congressional committees suggests more of the same. Just last 
     week, Edward Markey of Massachusetts offered his colleagues 
     on the House energy committee a proposal to increase fuel 
     economy standards for cars and light trucks, including 
     S.U.V.'s, by about 20 percent by 2010. This is not an 
     unreasonable goal, given Detroit's technological 
     capabilities, and would save 1.6 million barrels a day, more 
     than double the recent imports from Iraq and far more than 
     the Arctic refuge could produce in the same time frame. The 
     committee crushed the idea.
       The last two years have given the country plenty of reasons 
     to re-examine its energy policies: a power crisis in 
     California, the attacks of 9/11 and now a war in the very 
     heart of the biggest oil patch in the world. It is plainly 
     time to move forward in a systematic way with new ideas. But 
     the best we can do, it appears, is to beat back bad ones.
                                  ____


           [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 8, 2002]

                            More Per Gallon

       Standards: Congress must approve higher vehicle mileage 
     requirements in order to reverse a troubling trend.
       Body: Each year the Environmental Protection Agency trots 
     out mileage ratings for new car models. And year after year, 
     the news is depressing.
       On Oct. 29, the EPA reported that the average fuel economy 
     for all 2003-model cars and passenger trucks is a paltry 20.8 
     miles per gallon.
       That's down slightly from last year. But more notably, it's 
     6 percent below the peak

[[Page 8602]]

     for passenger vehicle efficiency of 22.1 mpg set 15 years 
     ago.
       In the past decade and a half, automakers have made 
     technological improvements that have increased engine 
     efficiency significantly. But those gains have been offset by 
     millions of Americans buying ever-larger gas guzzlers.
       Much of the blame lies in Washington, where the Bush 
     administration and Congress haven't been able to come to a 
     consensus on energy policy and apparently lack the will to 
     mandate even a modest increase in the Corporate Average Fuel 
     Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles.
       Those standards--which haven't been changed for 17 years--
     require that each automaker's fleet of new cars averages 27.5 
     mpg. Light trucks (which include pickups, minivans and sport 
     utility vehicles) must average only 20.7 mpg.
       The solution is simple: Congress should raise the CAFE 
     standards significantly, particularly for light trucks. But 
     the new standards should be reasonable ones that automakers 
     can meet.
       Continued improvement in engine technology is one key to 
     meeting higher standards.
       Some mileage gains also can be achieved even if automakers 
     make no further technological improvements and Congress 
     continues to sit on its hands.
       Higher mileage standards would cut fuel consumption, which 
     in turn would reduce air pollution, decrease America's 
     dependence on foreign oil, save motorists money at the pump 
     and increase the chances that metropolitan areas such as 
     North Texas will be able to attain federal air quality 
     standards.
       Those are compelling reasons for Congress and the White 
     House to adopt standards that will, for a change, result in 
     higher annual mileage ratings instead of continued declines.
                                  ____


             [From the St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 16, 2002]

                     More Fuel-Efficiency Is Needed

       Americans are getting a confusing message on automobile 
     mileage. ``By driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle, a 
     vehicle powered by alternative fuels, or even by driving our 
     current vehicles more efficiently, we can all do our part to 
     reduce our Nation's reliance on imported oil and strengthen 
     our energy security,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
     recently announced.
       Good advice. But Abraham chose an odd occasion to make his 
     appeal. He and Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie 
     Whitman were announcing the mileage figures for 2003 cars and 
     passenger trucks. The average of 20.8 MPG continued a 
     downward trend on fuel efficiency that has continued for the 
     past decade and a half.
       In fact, the percentage of cars getting more than 30 MPG 
     declined in the new model year to only 4 percent of cars, 
     down from 6 percent last year. So it is even more difficult 
     for American drivers to heed Abraham's call to conserve.
       If President Bush, who is Abraham's boss, or Congress 
     really wanted to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, they 
     would have embraced tougher mileage requirements. Yet, Vice 
     President Dick Cheney set the tone for the administration by 
     scorning energy conservation. Congress also backed away from 
     more stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, 
     which have been frozen since 1994. Even pro-environment 
     Democrats played along with the makers of gas-guzzling SUVs 
     when the United Auto Workers union opposed improved fuel 
     efficiency, arguing it would cost jobs (and union members).
       Improving mileage isn't that difficult. ``We could be 
     averaging close to 30 to 40 miles per gallon, and that's with 
     conventional technology: nonhybrids, better engines, better 
     transmission, improved aerodynamics,'' said David Friedman, a 
     senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
       Instead, our wasteful ways complicate foreign policy in the 
     Middle East, whose oil fuels not only our cars but also 
     repressive regimes and terrorism. Soon enough, American 
     soldiers could be in harm's way in the region. Rather than 
     winking at the decline in fuel efficiency, our leaders should 
     set about reversing the troubling trend.
       The president and congressional leaders should require 
     automakers to improve CAFE standards. They also should call 
     on Americans to share the sacrifices that lie ahead. We are 
     likely to respond.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 8, 2002]

         Stop Your Grousing, Auto Makers, and Get the Gases Out

                           (By Carl Zichella)

       The auto industry howled when Gov. Gray Davis signed 
     California's landmark global warming control bill. Litigation 
     to overturn the new law, which restricts automobile emissions 
     of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases, was 
     threatened before his signature was dry.
       For auto industry observers, there was a sense of deja vu 
     about this hysterical response. Every time the government has 
     required new safety or efficiency standards, auto makers have 
     claimed that the result would be financial ruin, the 
     elimination of thousands of jobs and the loss of consumer 
     choice.
       The truth is that the industry was wrong at every turn, and 
     it is wrong now. Car makers, instead of suing to overturn 
     this much-needed law, should get busy complying with it. No 
     new technology needs to be developed.
       This is the industry that fought turn signals, seat belts 
     and safety glass. Henry Ford II called laminated windshields, 
     padded 
     interiors and collapsible steering wheels ``unreasonable, 
     arbitrary and technically unfeasible.''
       When Congress required auto manufacturers to build cleaner 
     cars in 1973, the industry response was hyperbolic. ``If GM 
     is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across the 
     board . . . it is conceivable that complete stoppage of the 
     entire production could occur,'' warned a GM vice president. 
     The company easily complied, consumers benefited and GM 
     suffered no appreciable hardship.
       In 1974, a Ford official told a congressional committee 
     that ``corporate average fuel economy''--CAFE--standards 
     would ``result in a Ford product line consisting either of 
     all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles ranging 
     from sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick.'' That couldn't 
     have been more wrong.
       According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, from 1977 to 
     1983 American-built cars increased in efficiency by seven 
     miles per gallon. From 1977 through 1985, the U.S. gross 
     domestic product rose 27% while oil imports fell by 42%. OPEC 
     lost an eighth of its market. Few public policies have ever 
     been such a resounding success. Vehicle choice expanded while 
     oil prices declined.
       The sky isn't falling for auto manufacturers, but the 
     planet is getting warmer, and the consequences for California 
     are severe. If the snowpack in the Sierra declines, bitter 
     competition for water will result since about 70% of 
     California drinking water originates there.
       Further, farmland will become more arid and sea levels will 
     rise, reducing food production and flooding coastal cities. 
     Forests will shrink and some of the most valuable wildlife 
     habitat on Earth will vanish or be altered.
       The good news is that some simple solutions are at hand. 
     This year Ford sponsored a ``Future Truck'' competition for 
     university engineering students to build more-efficient sport 
     utility vehicles. If you believe the industry's rhetoric, 
     you'd think that SUVs will be abolished. But Ford's ``Future 
     Truck'' contestants showed the ridiculousness of this charge.
       Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison this year 
     modified a Ford Explorer to get the equivalent of 38 mpg. 
     Others built a GMC Suburban that emits about half the carbon 
     dioxide of the production version. More-efficient vehicles 
     mean less CO2 emissions. You don't need to require 
     mileage standards--something that federal law forbids the 
     state to do--to get these benefits; all the state needs to do 
     is require the auto makers use the best technology available.
       If university students can do this, why can't the Big 
     Three? Ford boasts that it plans to introduce a hybrid gas-
     electric SUV in 2003. This model would meet the standard far 
     ahead of the new law's generous 2009 deadline. Instead of 
     suing California, auto makers should do what is right and 
     comply with the law.

 Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join 
with my colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and others, in 
introducing a Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency bill that requires 
passenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency of 40 miles per 
gallon and nonpassenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency 
27.5 miles per gallon by 2015.
  This proposal should be an important part of the upcoming debate on 
the energy needs of our country. I was very disappointed last year 
during the energy debate when several meaningful CAFE proposals were 
defeated.
  Now, as we again embark on the important task of determining how our 
country's energy needs will be met in the coming decades, CAFE 
increases should be a part of the plan.
  It has been said many times, but is worth repeating: the purpose of 
increasing CAFE is to reduce fuel consumption.
  The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, but only has 3 
percent of the world's reserves--so we have to use less of it and find 
alternatives.
  Our national security depends on it. If we don't have to rely on 
other countries, many of whom do not support our policies and may be in 
fact be working against us, for our energy, we as a nation are more 
secure.
  And increasing CAFE protects the environment. Toxic air emissions and 
carbon dioxide emissions are reduced--thereby slowing global warming.
  The automobile manufacturers won't embrace this proposal, but they 
should. The 2001 National Academy of

[[Page 8603]]

Sciences' report said 40 mph is possible and feasible.
  The technology exists to raise CAFE significantly with no net 
consumer costs. And, developing technologies, including hybrid vehicle 
designs, could improve vehicle fuel economy by 20-40 percent. We're 
perfectly willing to give auto manufacturers the lead time necessary to 
make these strides, but the benchmark has to be there to spur them into 
action.
  The pay off to our national security, environment, level of 
technological expertise and market share will be worth the effort.
  I have faith in the ingenuity of our automakers and the adaptability 
of the American consumer to make an increased CAFE standard profitable.
  For these reasons, I lend my support to Senator Durbin's measure and 
look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue during the 
upcoming energy debate.
                                 ______
                                 
           By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
nonrefundable tax credit for contributions to congressional candidates; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill with my 
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, that provides tax incentives 
for American families to participate in political campaigns. It will 
empower millions of Americans to become engaged in our political 
system, by providing a tax credit to those who donate money to 
congressional candidates.
  As campaigns become more and more expensive, the number of small 
contributors is actually decreasing. The current campaign finance 
system is becoming dominated by big dollar contributors, a trend that 
is troubling to me.
  Our bill would make middle income Americans more able to donate to 
candidates. Specifically, the bill would provide a maximum $400 tax 
credit to married couples earning up to $120,000 for their campaign 
contributions. For singles with income up to $60,000, the tax credit 
would apply to contributions up to $200. This credit will provide a 
dollar for dollar offset for contributions, an incentive that could 
encourage the many working families to consider contributions to the 
candidates of their choice.
  This is not a new idea. This type of credit was a part of our tax 
system for more than a decade in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been a 
part of many campaign finance reform proposals over the years, 
proposals that have been introduced and supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans. And this policy proposal is the focus of a study last year 
by the American Enterprise Institute, AEI, which concluded that this 
approach would help to elevate small donors from the supporting role 
that they now play. So, our proposal has been successful in the past, 
and it has had broad support from both parties over the past thirty 
years.
  Participation in the political process is key to a strong democracy. 
This bill will help broaden participation and will provide an incentive 
for more Americans to be included in political campaigns.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 804

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL 
                   CANDIDATES.

       (a) General Rule.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25C. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     total of contributions to candidates for the office of 
     Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, the Congress.
       ``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     for a taxable year shall not exceed $200 ($400 in the case of 
     a joint return).
       ``(c) Verification.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     shall be allowed, with respect to any contribution, only if 
     such contribution is verified in such manner as the Secretary 
     shall prescribe by regulations.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Candidate; contribution.--The terms `candidate' and 
     `contribution' have the meanings given such terms in section 
     301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       ``(2) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual' 
     means any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income for the 
     taxable year does not exceed $60,000 ($120,000 in the case of 
     a joint return).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 642 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to special rules for credits and deductions of 
     estates or trusts) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(j) Credit for Certain Contributions Not Allowed.--An 
     estate or trust shall not be allowed the credit against tax 
     provided by section 25C.''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 25B the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 25C. Contributions to congressional candidates.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to contributions made after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after 
     such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 805. A bill to enhance the rights of crime victims, to establish 
grants for local governments to assist crime victims, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of 
National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year 
to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am 
pleased to take this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good 
friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors, 
Senators Corzine, Kerry, Murray, and Schumer. Our bill, the Crime 
Victims Assistance Act of 2003, represents the next step in our 
continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of 
crime.
  My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago 
when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and 
witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since 
to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the 
rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents 
additional ordeals for those already victimized.
  I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution 
to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past 
two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills 
have included: the Victims of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of 
Rights of 1990; the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the 
Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution 
Act of 1996; the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997; the Crime 
Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998; the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000; the Victims of 
Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001; and the September 11th Victim 
Compensation Fund of 2001.
  The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance 
Act of 2003, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive 
reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections 
for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides 
crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to 
detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally 
requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and 
interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process. 
Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, 
the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert 
the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial.

[[Page 8604]]

  Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed 
rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the 
administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative 
authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate 
victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of 
criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice 
employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment 
of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including 
suspension or termination of employment.
  In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill 
proposes several innovative new programs to help States provide better 
services to victims of State crimes. The bill authorizes technology 
grants for local authorities to develop state-of-the-art notification 
systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important 
dates. Grants would also be available to improve compliance with State 
victim's rights laws, encourage further experimentation with the 
community-based restorative justice model, streamline access to victim 
services through the use of case managers, and expand the capacity of 
victim service providers to serve victims with limited English 
proficiency.
  Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would improve the manner in 
which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most 
significantly, the bill would eliminate the annual cap on spending from 
the Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of Fund deposits from 
reaching victims and supporting essential services. We should not be 
imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while substantial unmet needs 
continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would replace the 
cap with a self-regulating system, supported by crime victim groups, 
that would ensure the stability and protection of Fund assets, while 
allowing more money to be distributed for victim programs.
  These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year 
with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not 
overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to 
amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of 
implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of 
crime victims.
  I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate 
the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to 
amend the Constitution. Regretfully, many opportunities for progress 
have been squandered. One notable exception was the passage, as part of 
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, of several significant amendments to the 
Victims of Crime Act that Senator Kennedy and I had proposed in an 
earlier version of the Crime Victims Assistance Act. I am glad that we 
could get those important provisions signed into law, but we still have 
more to do.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims 
groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can 
most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and 
State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights 
over the past 20 years and we have an opportunity to make additional, 
significant progress this year to provide the greater voice and rights 
that crime victims deserve. It is my hope that Democrats and 
Republicans, and supporters and opponents of the proposed 
constitutional amendment, will join in advancing the Crime Victims 
Assistance Act through Congress. We can make a difference in the lives 
of crime victims right now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by-
section analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 805

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Crime 
     Victims Assistance Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention.
Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial.
Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea.
Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial.
Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing.
Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment, discharge 
              from psychiatric facility, and executive clemency.
Sec. 107. Procedures to promote compliance.

                TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State crime 
              victim's rights laws.
Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art systems for 
              notifying crime victims of important dates and 
              developments.
Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants.
Sec. 204. Grants to develop interdisciplinary coordinated service 
              programs for victims of crime.
Sec. 205. Grants for services to crime victims with special 
              communication needs.

         TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984

Sec. 301. Formula for distributions from the crime victims fund.
Sec. 302. Clarification regarding antiterrorism emergency reserve.
Sec. 303. Prohibition on diverting crime victims fund to offset 
              increased spending.

              TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

     SEC. 101. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING DETENTION.

       (a) Right To Consult Concerning Detention.--Section 503(c) 
     of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     10607(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) A responsible official shall--
       ``(A) arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection 
     from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with 
     or at the behest of the suspected offender; and
       ``(B) consult with a victim prior to a detention hearing to 
     obtain information that can be presented to the court on the 
     issue of any threat the suspected offender may pose to the 
     safety of the victim.''.
       (b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Chapter 
     207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3142--
       (A) in subsection (g)--
       (i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) the views of the victim; and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Views of the Victim.--During a hearing under 
     subsection (f), the judicial officer shall inquire of the 
     attorney for the Government if the victim has been consulted 
     on the issue of detention and the views of such victim, if 
     any.''; and
       (2) in section 3156(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) the term `victim' includes all persons defined as 
     victims in section 503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and 
     Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)(2)).''.

     SEC. 102. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

       Section 3161(h)(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) The interests of the victim (as defined in section 
     503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)(2)) in the prompt and appropriate 
     disposition of the case, free from unreasonable delay.''.

     SEC. 103. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING PLEA.

       (a) Right To Consult Concerning Plea.--Section 503(c) of 
     the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     10607(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) A responsible official shall make reasonable efforts 
     to notify a victim of, and consider the views of a victim 
     about, any proposed or contemplated plea agreement. In 
     determining what is reasonable, the responsible official 
     should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and 
     practicality of giving notice and considering views in the 
     context of the particular case, including--
       ``(A) the impact on public safety and risks to personal 
     safety;
       ``(B) the number of victims;
       ``(C) the need for confidentiality, including whether the 
     proposed plea involves confidential information or 
     conditions; and
       ``(D) whether time is of the essence in negotiating or 
     entering a proposed plea.''.

[[Page 8605]]

       (b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Rule 11 
     of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subdivisions (g) and (h) as 
     subdivisions (h) and (i), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subdivision (f) the following:
       ``(g) Views of the Victim.--Notwithstanding the acceptance 
     of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment 
     upon such plea without making inquiry of the attorney for the 
     Government if the victim (as defined in section 503(e)(2) of 
     the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990) has been 
     consulted on the issue of the plea and the views of such 
     victim, if any.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
       (2) Action by judicial conference.--
       (A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report containing 
     recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to be 
     heard on the issue of whether or not the court should accept 
     a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
       (B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28, 
     United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made 
     by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this 
     paragraph.
       (3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by 
     law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
       (A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2) 
     containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and 
     those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by 
     subsection (b), the amendments made by subsection (b) shall 
     become effective 30 days after the date on which the 
     recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph 
     (2);
       (B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2) 
     containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and 
     those recommendations are different in any respect from the 
     amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made 
     pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days 
     after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to 
     Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is 
     passed overturning the recommendations; and
       (C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made 
     by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this 
     section (including any amendment made pursuant to the 
     recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding 
     commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.

     SEC. 104. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT TRIAL.

       (a) Amendments to Victim Rights Clarification Act.--Section 
     3510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Application to Televised Proceedings.--This section 
     applies to any victim viewing proceedings pursuant to section 
     235 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
     1996 (42 U.S.C. 10608), or any rule issued pursuant to that 
     section.
       ``(d) Standing.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the request of any victim of an 
     offense, the attorney for the Government may assert the right 
     of the victim under this section to attend and observe the 
     trial.
       ``(2) Victim standing.--If the attorney for the Government 
     declines to assert the right of a victim under this section, 
     then the victim has standing to assert such right.
       ``(3) Appellate review.--An adverse ruling on a motion or 
     request by an attorney for the Government or a victim under 
     this subsection may be appealed or petitioned under the rules 
     governing appellate actions, provided that no appeal or 
     petition shall constitute grounds for unreasonably delaying a 
     criminal proceeding.''.
       (b) Amendment to Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 
     1990.-- Section 502(b) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) The right to be present at all public court 
     proceedings related to the offense, unless the court 
     determines that testimony by the victim at trial would be 
     materially affected if the victim heard the testimony of 
     other witnesses.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``attorney'' and 
     inserting ``the attorney''.

     SEC. 105. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT SENTENCING.

       (a) Views of the Victim.--Section 3553(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) the impact of the crime upon any victim of the 
     offense as reflected in any victim impact statement and the 
     views of any victim of the offense concerning punishment, if 
     such statement or views are presented to the court; and''.
       (b) Enhanced Right To Be Heard Concerning Sentence.--Rule 
     32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
       (1) in subdivision (c)(3)(E)--
       (A) by striking ``if the sentence is to be imposed for a 
     crime of violence or sexual abuse,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``written or oral'' before ``statement''; 
     and
       (2) by amending subdivision (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this rule, the term 
     `victim' means any individual against whom an offense has 
     been committed for which a sentence is to be imposed, but the 
     right of allocution under subdivision (c)(3)(E) may be 
     exercised instead by--
       ``(1) a parent or legal guardian, if the victim is 
     incompetent or has not reached 18 years of age; or
       ``(2) 1 or more family members or relatives designated by 
     the court, if the victim is deceased or incapacitated,

     if such person or persons are present at the sentencing 
     hearing, regardless of whether the victim is present.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
       (2) Action by judicial conference.--
       (A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report containing 
     recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to 
     participate during the presentencing and sentencing phase of 
     the criminal process.
       (B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28, 
     United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made 
     by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this 
     paragraph.
       (3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by 
     law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
       (A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2) 
     containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and 
     those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by 
     subsection (b), the amendments made by subsection (b) shall 
     become effective 30 days after the date on which the 
     recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph 
     (2);
       (B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2) 
     containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and 
     those recommendations are different in any respect from the 
     amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made 
     pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days 
     after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to 
     Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is 
     passed overturning the recommendations; and
       (C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made 
     by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this 
     section (including any amendment made pursuant to the 
     recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding 
     commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.

     SEC. 106. RIGHT TO NOTICE CONCERNING SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT, 
                   DISCHARGE FROM PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY, AND 
                   EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 503(c) of the 
     Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     10607(c)), as redesignated by section 103 of this Act, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) After trial, a responsible official shall provide a 
     victim the earliest possible notice of--
       ``(A) the scheduling of a parole hearing or a hearing on 
     modification of probation or supervised release for the 
     offender;
       ``(B) the escape, work release, furlough, discharge or 
     conditional discharge, or any other form of release from 
     custody of the offender, including an offender who was found 
     not guilty by reason of insanity;
       ``(C) the grant of executive clemency, including any 
     pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of 
     fine, to the offender; and
       ``(D) the death of the offender, if the offender dies while 
     in custody.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--The Attorney General shall 
     submit biannually to the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate a report on executive 
     clemency matters or cases delegated for review or 
     investigation to the Attorney General by the President, 
     including for each year--
       (1) the number of petitions so delegated;
       (2) the number of reports submitted to the President;
       (3) the number of petitions for executive clemency granted 
     and the number denied;
       (4) the name of each person whose petition for executive 
     clemency was granted or denied and the offenses of conviction 
     of that

[[Page 8606]]

     person for which executive clemency was granted or denied; 
     and
       (5) with respect to any person granted executive clemency, 
     the date that any victim of an offense that was the subject 
     of that grant of executive clemency was notified, pursuant to 
     Department of Justice regulations, of a petition for 
     executive clemency, and whether such victim submitted a 
     statement concerning the petition.

     SEC. 107. PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of 
     victims of crime described in section 502 of the Victims' 
     Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606) and to 
     ensure compliance by responsible officials with the 
     obligations described in section 503 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10607).
       (b) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) establish an administrative authority within the 
     Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints 
     relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a 
     crime victim;
       (2) require a course of training for employees and offices 
     of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with 
     provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of 
     victims of crime, and otherwise assist such employees and 
     offices in responding more effectively to the needs of 
     victims;
       (3) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or 
     termination from employment, for employees of the Department 
     of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with 
     provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of 
     victims of crime; and
       (4) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of 
     the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the 
     complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the 
     final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.

                TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

     SEC. 201. PILOT PROGRAMS TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE 
                   CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS LAWS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       (1) Compliance authority.--The term ``compliance 
     authority'' means 1 of the compliance authorities established 
     and operated under a program under subsection (b) to enforce 
     the rights of victims of crime.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office for Victims of Crime.
       (3) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office for 
     Victims of Crime.
       (b) Pilot Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, acting through 
     the Director, shall establish and carry out a program to 
     provide for pilot programs in 5 States to establish and 
     operate compliance authorities to enforce the rights of 
     victims of crime.
       (2) Agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Director, shall enter into an agreement with a State to 
     conduct a pilot program referred to in paragraph (1), which 
     agreement shall provide for a grant to assist the State in 
     carrying out the pilot program.
       (B) Contents of agreement.--The agreement referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall specify that--
       (i) the compliance authority shall be established and 
     operated in accordance with this section; and
       (ii) except with respect to meeting applicable requirements 
     of this section concerning carrying out the duties of a 
     compliance authority under this section (including the 
     applicable reporting duties under subsection (f) and the 
     terms of the agreement), a compliance authority shall operate 
     independently of the Office.
       (C) No authority over daily operations.--The Office shall 
     have no supervisory or decisionmaking authority over the day-
     to-day operations of a compliance authority.
       (c) Objectives.--
       (1) Mission.--The mission of a compliance authority 
     established and operated under a pilot program under this 
     section shall be to promote compliance and effective 
     enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of 
     crime.
       (2) Duties.--A compliance authority established and 
     operated under a pilot program under this section shall--
       (A) receive and investigate complaints relating to the 
     provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim; and
       (B) issue findings following such investigations.
       (3) Other duties.--A compliance authority established and 
     operated under a pilot program under this section may--
       (A) pursue legal actions to define or enforce the rights of 
     victims;
       (B) review procedures established by public agencies and 
     private organizations that provide services to victims, and 
     evaluate the delivery of services to victims by such agencies 
     and organizations;
       (C) coordinate and cooperate with other public agencies and 
     private organizations concerned with the implementation, 
     monitoring, and enforcement of the rights of victims and 
     enter into cooperative agreements with such agencies and 
     organizations for the furtherance of the rights of victims;
       (D) ensure a centralized location for victim services 
     information;
       (E) recommend changes in State policies concerning victims, 
     including changes in the system for providing victim 
     services;
       (F) provide public education, legislative advocacy, and 
     development of proposals for systemic reform; and
       (G) advertise to advise the public of its services, 
     purposes, and procedures.
       (d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall submit an application to the 
     Director which includes assurances that--
       (1) the State has provided legal rights to victims of crime 
     at the adult and juvenile levels;
       (2) a compliance authority that receives funds under this 
     section will include a role for--
       (A) representatives of criminal justice agencies, crime 
     victim service organizations, and the educational community;
       (B) a medical professional whose work includes work in a 
     hospital emergency room; and
       (C) a therapist whose work includes treatment of crime 
     victims; and
       (3) Federal funds received under this section will be used 
     to supplement, and not to supplant, non-Federal funds that 
     would otherwise be available to enforce the rights of victims 
     of crime.
       (e) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give preference to a State that 
     provides legal standing to prosecutors and victims of crime 
     to assert the rights of victims of crime.
       (f) Oversight.--
       (1) Technical assistance.--The Director may provide 
     technical assistance and training to a State that receives a 
     grant under this section to achieve the purposes of this 
     section.
       (2) Annual report.--Each State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall submit to the Director, for each year in 
     which funds from a grant received under this section are 
     expended, a report that contains--
       (A) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant;
       (B) an assessment of the effectiveness of such activities 
     in promoting compliance and effective implementation of the 
     laws of that State regarding the rights of victims of crime;
       (C) a strategic plan for the year following the year 
     covered under subparagraph (A); and
       (D) such other information as the Director may require.
       (g) Review of Program Effectiveness.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute for 
     Justice shall conduct an evaluation of the pilot programs 
     carried out under this section to determine the effectiveness 
     of the compliance authorities that are the subject of the 
     pilot programs in carrying out the mission and duties 
     described in subsection (c).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate a written report on the results of 
     the evaluation required by paragraph (1).
       (h) Duration.--A grant under this section shall be made for 
     a period not longer than 4 years, but may be renewed for a 
     period not to exceed 2 years on such terms as the Director 
     may require.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, to remain available until expended--
       (A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2005 and 2006.
       (2) Evaluations.--Up to 5 percent of the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated under paragraph (1) in any fiscal year may 
     be used for administrative expenses incurred in conducting 
     the evaluations and preparing the report required by 
     subsection (g).

     SEC. 202. INCREASED RESOURCES TO DEVELOP STATE-OF-THE-ART 
                   SYSTEMS FOR NOTIFYING CRIME VICTIMS OF 
                   IMPORTANT DATES AND DEVELOPMENTS.

       The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 1404C the following:

     ``SEC. 1404D. VICTIM NOTIFICATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided 
     in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local 
     prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, 
     jails, and correctional institutions, and to qualified 
     private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-art 
     systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates and 
     developments relating to the criminal proceedings at issue on 
     a timely and efficient basis.
       ``(b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and 
     implemented under this section may be integrated with 
     existing case management systems operated by the recipient of 
     the grant.

[[Page 8607]]

       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(3) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 
     through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 203. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE GRANTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) hold juvenile offenders accountable for their offenses, 
     while ensuring the continuing safety of victims;
       (2) involve victims and the community in the juvenile 
     justice process;
       (3) obligate the offender to pay restitution to the victim 
     and to the community through community service or through 
     financial or other forms of restitution; and
       (4) equip juvenile offenders with the skills needed to live 
     responsibly and productively.
       (b) Authority To Make Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to units of local governments, tribal governments, 
     and qualified private entities to establish restorative 
     justice programs, such as victim and offender mediation, 
     family and community conferences, family and group 
     conferences, sentencing circles, restorative panels, and 
     reparative boards, as an alternative to, or in addition to, 
     incarceration.
       (c) Program Criteria.--A program funded by a grant made 
     under this section shall--
       (1) be fully voluntary by both the victim and the offender 
     (who must admit responsibility), once the prosecuting agency 
     has determined that the case is appropriate for this program;
       (2) include as a critical component accountability 
     conferences, at which the victim will have the opportunity to 
     address the offender directly, to describe the impact of the 
     offense against the victim, and the opportunity to suggest 
     possible forms of restitution;
       (3) require that conferences be attended by the victim, the 
     offender and, when possible, the parents or guardians of the 
     offender, and the arresting officer; and
       (4) provide an early, individualized assessment and action 
     plan to each juvenile offender in order to prevent further 
     criminal behavior through the development of appropriate 
     skills in the juvenile offender so that the juvenile is more 
     capable of living productively and responsibly in the 
     community.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

      SEC. 204. GRANTS TO DEVELOP INTERDISCIPLINARY COORDINATED 
                   SERVICE PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME.

       The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 1404D, as added by 
     section 202 of this Act, the following:

     ``SEC. 1404E. INTERDISCIPLINARY COORDINATED SERVICE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director is authorized to award 
     grants under section 1404(c)(1)(A) to States, tribal 
     governments, local governments, and qualified public or 
     private entities, to develop and implement interdisciplinary 
     coordinated service programs for victims of crime.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Interdisciplinary coordinated service program.--The 
     term `interdisciplinary coordinated service program' means a 
     case management program that coordinates the various systems 
     and programs that impact or assist victims of crime, 
     including--:
       ``(A) the criminal justice system;
       ``(B) public or private victim assistance organizations;
       ``(C) victim compensation programs;
       ``(D) public or private health care services;
       ``(E) public or private mental health services;
       ``(F) community-based victim service organizations;
       ``(G) public or private educational services, including 
     preschool, after-school care, and child care programs; and
       ``(H) other public or private sources of services or 
     assistance to victims of crime.
       ``(2) Emergency interdisciplinary coordinated service 
     program.--The term `emergency interdisciplinary coordinated 
     service program' means an interdisciplinary coordinated 
     service program that responds to a community crisis.
       ``(3) Community crisis.--The term `community crisis' means 
     a single crime or multiple related crimes that have a wide 
     impact or serious consequences on a community.
       ``(4) Lead entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `lead entity' means the State, 
     tribal government, local prosecutor's office, or qualified 
     public or private entity with experience working across 
     disciplines and agencies, that leads the interdisciplinary 
     coordinated service program or emergency interdisciplinary 
     coordinated service program.
       ``(B) Responsibilities.--The lead entity is responsible for 
     distributing funds to any entities collaborating on the 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service program or emergency 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service program, as necessary.
       ``(c) Mission.--The mission of a program developed and 
     implemented with a grant under this section shall be to--
       ``(1) streamline access to services by victims of crime;
       ``(2) eliminate barriers to services for victims of crime;
       ``(3) coordinate client services across disciplines to 
     assure continuity of care, including the use of technology to 
     link service providers to each other;
       ``(4) improve how victims of crime experience the criminal 
     justice system in order to promote cooperation and trust;
       ``(5) reduce duplication of effort in outreach and 
     provision of services to victims;
       ``(6) assist crime victims in avoiding unnecessary and 
     repetitive interviewing, retelling of victimization, and 
     completion of applications; and
       ``(7) improve service delivery through client input and 
     feedback.
       ``(d) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Director shall give preference to lead entities that 
     collaborate with the most comprehensive coalition of entities 
     that impact or serve victims of crime.
       ``(e) Oversight--
       ``(1) Funding proposal.--The proposed distribution of 
     funding among the lead entity and any collaborating entities 
     shall be included in any grant application for funding.
       ``(2) Report.--Each lead entity that receives a grant under 
     this section shall submit to the Director, for each year in 
     which funds from a grant under this section are expended, a 
     report assessing the effectiveness of the emergency 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service program or the 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service program.
       ``(f) Review of Program Effectiveness.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute 
     for Justice shall conduct an evaluation of the emergency 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service programs and the 
     interdisciplinary coordinated service programs carried out 
     under this section to determine the effectiveness and cost 
     effectiveness of the programs in carrying out the mission and 
     duties described under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice shall submit, to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a written 
     report on the results of the evaluation required under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(g) Duration.--The Director shall award grants under this 
     section for a period not to exceed 4 years, but may renew the 
     grant for a period not to exceed 2 years on such terms as the 
     Director may reasonably require.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated, 
     in addition to funds made available by section 
     1402(d)(4)(C)--
       ``(A) $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007 for emergency interdisciplinary service programs; and
       ``(B) $14,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007 for interdisciplinary service programs.
       ``(2) Deadlines.--Funds appropriated for emergency 
     interdisciplinary service programs shall be made available by 
     the Director not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     community crisis and distributed not later than 120 days 
     after the date of the community crisis.
       ``(3) Transfer of unexpended funds.--All funds 
     appropriated, but not expended, for emergency 
     interdisciplinary service programs during each fiscal year 
     shall be obligated to interdisciplinary service programs for 
     distribution in the subsequent fiscal year and shall not be 
     diverted to offset increased spending.
       ``(4) Evaluation.--Funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) may be used to carry out the provisions under subsection 
     (f).
       ``(5) Maintenance of effort.--Funds appropriated pursuant 
     to this section shall be used to supplement, and not 
     supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available 
     to support interdisciplinary service programs and emergency 
     interdisciplinary service programs.
       ``(i) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 
     through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this 
     section.''.

      SEC. 205. GRANTS FOR SERVICES TO CRIME VICTIMS WITH SPECIAL 
                   COMMUNICATION NEEDS.

       The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 1404E, as added by 
     section 204 of this Act, the following:

     ``SEC. 1404F. SERVICES TO VICTIMS WITH SPECIAL COMMUNICATION 
                   NEEDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director is authorized to award 
     demonstration grants under section 1404(c)(1)(A) to States, 
     tribal governments, local governments, and qualified public 
     or private entities to support the extension of services to 
     victims with special communication needs.

[[Page 8608]]

       ``(b) Mission.--The mission of a demonstration grant 
     awarded under this section shall be to expand the capacity of 
     victim service providers to serve crime victims with special 
     communication needs relating to limited English proficiency, 
     hearing loss, or developmental disabilities.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Activities funded under a 
     demonstration grant awarded under this section may include--
       ``(1) contracting with a telephonic interpreter service to 
     offer services to a specified pool of victim service 
     providers, at no additional cost to such service providers or 
     at a discounted rate;
       ``(2) the use of local interpreters;
       ``(3) the use of bilingual or multilingual victim advocates 
     or assistants;
       ``(4) foreign language classes and cultural competency 
     training for service providers;
       ``(5) translation of materials;
       ``(6) hearing assistance devices;
       ``(7) services to help individuals with developmental 
     disabilities understand court proceedings;
       ``(8) community outreach; and
       ``(9) other means to improve accessibility of victim 
     services for crime victims with special communication needs.
       ``(d) Task Forces.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State, tribal government, local government, 
     or qualified public or private entity shall have established 
     a task force to study needs and alternatives for promoting 
     greater access to services for crime victims with special 
     communication needs.
       ``(2) Membership.--The task force referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall be composed of representatives of--
       ``(A) system and non-system based victim service providers;
       ``(B) the predominant ethnic communities; and
       ``(C) individuals with severe hearing loss or developmental 
     disabilities.
       ``(3) Recommendations.--Each task force referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) study the issues described under paragraph (1) during 
     the period of any grant awarded; and
       ``(B) make specific recommendations for expenditures by the 
     grant recipient.
       ``(e) Annual Report.--Each entity that receives a grant 
     under this section shall submit to the Director, for each 
     year in which funds from a grant received under this section 
     are expended, a report containing--
       ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant;
       ``(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of such activities 
     in extending services to previously unserved and underserved 
     victims of crime;
       ``(3) a strategic plan for the year following the year 
     covered under paragraph (1); and
       ``(4) such other information as the Director may require.
       ``(f) Duration.--The Director shall award demonstration 
     grants under this section for a period not to exceed 4 years, 
     but may renew the grant for a period not to exceed 2 years on 
     such terms as the Director may reasonably require.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     which shall remain available until expended--
       ``(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 
     2007.
       ``(h) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 
     through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act') may be used for grants under this 
     section.''.

         TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984

     SEC. 301. FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CRIME VICTIMS 
                   FUND.

       (a) Formula for Fund Distributions.--Section 1402(c) of the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(c) Fund Distribution; Retention of Sums in Fund; 
     Availability for Expenditure Without Fiscal Year 
     Limitation.--
       ``(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the total amount to be distributed from the Fund in any 
     fiscal year shall be not less than 105 percent nor more than 
     115 percent of the total amount distributed from the Fund in 
     the previous fiscal year, provided that the amount shall at a 
     minimum be sufficient fully provide grants in accordance with 
     sections 1403(a)(1), 1404(a)(1), and 1404(c)(2).
       ``(B) In any fiscal year that there is an insufficient 
     amount in the Fund to fully provide grants in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A), the amounts made available for grants under 
     sections 1403(a), 1404(a), and 1404(c) shall be reduced by an 
     equal percentage.
       ``(C) In any fiscal year that the total amount available in 
     the Fund is more than 2 times the total amount distributed in 
     the previous fiscal year, up to 125 percent of the amount 
     distributed in the previous fiscal year may be distributed.
       ``(2) In each fiscal year, the Director shall distribute 
     amounts from the Fund in accordance with subsection (d). 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all sums 
     deposited in the Fund that are not distributed shall remain 
     in reserve in the Fund for obligation in future fiscal years, 
     without fiscal year limitation.''.
       (b) Establishment of Base Amount for Total Victim 
     Assistance Grants.--Section 1404(a)(1) of the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in section 1402(c)(1)(B), the 
     total amount distributed to States under this subsection in 
     any fiscal year shall not be less than the average amount 
     distributed for this purpose during the prior 3 fiscal 
     years.''.
       (c) Establishment of Base Amount for OVC Discretionary 
     Grants.--Section 1404(c)(2) of the Victims of Crime Act of 
     1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(c)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``(2)'' the following: ``Except as provided in section 
     1402(c)(1)(B), the amount available for grants under this 
     subsection in any fiscal year shall not be less than the 
     average amount available for this purpose during the prior 3 
     fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION REGARDING ANTITERRORISM EMERGENCY 
                   RESERVE.

       Section 1402(d)(5)(C) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 
     (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, and 
     any amounts used to replenish such reserve,'' after ``any 
     such amounts carried over''.

     SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON DIVERTING CRIME VICTIMS FUND TO 
                   OFFSET INCREASED SPENDING.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     amounts deposited in the Crime Victims Fund (as established 
     by section 1402(a) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601(a)) are distributed in a timely manner to assist 
     victims of crime as intended by current law and are not 
     diverted to offset increased spending.
       (b) Treatment of Crime Victims Fund.--Section 1402 of the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) For purposes of congressional points of order, the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, any limitation on 
     spending from the Fund included in the President's budget or 
     enacted in appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2004 or 
     any subsequent fiscal year shall not be scored as 
     discretionary savings.''.

    Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003--Section-by-Section Summary


                                overview

       The Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003 represents an 
     important step in Congress's continuing efforts to provide 
     assistance and afford respect to victims of crime. The bill 
     will accomplish three major goals. First, it will provide 
     enhanced rights and protections for victims of federal 
     crimes. Second, it will assist victims of State crimes 
     through grant programs designed to promote compliance with 
     State victim's rights laws. Third, it will improve the manner 
     in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved.


              TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

       Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention. Requires 
     the government to consult with victim prior to a detention 
     hearing to obtain information that can be presented to the 
     court on the issue of any threat the suspected offender may 
     pose to the victim. Requires the court to make inquiry during 
     a detention hearing concerning the views of the victim, and 
     to consider such views in determining whether the suspected 
     offender should be detained.
       Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial. Requires the court to 
     consider the interests of the victim in the prompt and 
     appropriate disposition of the case, free from unreasonable 
     delay.
       Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea. Requires the 
     government to make reasonable efforts to notify the victim 
     of, and consider the victim's views about, any proposed or 
     contemplated plea agreement. Requires the court, prior to 
     entering judgment on a plea, to make inquiry concerning the 
     views of the victim on the issue of the plea.
       Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial. Provides 
     standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the 
     right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Extends 
     the Victim Rights Clarification Act to apply to televised 
     proceedings. Amends the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act 
     of 1990 to strengthen the right of crime victims to be 
     present at court proceedings, including trials.
       Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing. 
     Requires the probation officer to include as part of the 
     presentence report any victim impact statement submitted by a 
     victim. Extends to all victims the right to make a statement 
     or present information in relation to the sentence. Requires 
     the court to consider the victim's views concerning 
     punishment, if such views are presented to the court, before 
     imposing sentence.
       Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment, 
     discharge from psychiatric facility, and executive clemency. 
     Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest 
     possible notice of (1) the scheduling of a hearing on 
     modification of

[[Page 8609]]

     probation or supervised release for the offender; (2) the 
     discharge or conditional discharge from a psychiatric 
     facility of an offender who was found not guilty by reason of 
     insanity; or (3) the grant of executive clemency to the 
     offender. Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress 
     concerning executive clemency matters delegated for review or 
     investigation to the Attorney General.
       Sec. 107. Procedures to promote compliance. Establishes an 
     administrative system for enforcing the rights of crime 
     victims in the Federal system.


                TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

       Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State 
     crime victim's rights laws. Authorizes the establishment of 
     pilot programs in five States to establish and operate 
     compliance authorities to promote compliance and effective 
     enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of 
     crime. Compliance authorities will receive and investigate 
     complaints relating to the provision or violation of a crime 
     victim's rights, and issue findings following such 
     investigations. Amounts authorized are $5 million through 
     FY2004, and such sums as necessary for the next two fiscal 
     years.
       Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art 
     systems for notifying crime victims of important dates and 
     developments. Authorizes grants to develop and implement 
     crime victim notification systems. Amounts authorized are $10 
     million through FY2004, and $5 million for each of the next 
     two fiscal years.
       Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants. Authorizes grants to 
     establish juvenile restorative justice programs. Eligible 
     programs shall: (1) be fully voluntary by both the victim and 
     the offender (who must admit responsibility); (2) include as 
     a critical component accountability conferences, at which the 
     victim will have the opportunity to address the offender 
     directly; (3) require that conferences be attended by the 
     victim, the offender, and when possible, the parents or 
     guardians of the offender, and the arresting officer; and (4) 
     provide an early, individualized assessment and action plan 
     to each juvenile offender. These programs may act as an 
     alternative to, or in addition to, incarceration. Amounts 
     authorized are $8 million through FY2004, and $4 million for 
     each of the next two fiscal years.
       Sec. 204. Grants to develop interdisciplinary coordinated 
     service programs for victims of crime. Authorizes grants to 
     establish or develop case management programs that can 
     coordinate the various systems and programs that impact or 
     assist victims, thereby streamlining access to services and 
     reducing ``revictimization'' within the criminal justice 
     system. Emergency interdisciplinary coordinated service 
     programs will respond to events that have serious 
     consequences on a particular community, such as terrorist 
     attacks. Amounts authorized are $6 million for each of the 
     next four fiscal years.
       Sec. 205. Grants for services to crime victims with special 
     communication needs. Authorizes demonstration grants to 
     expand the capacity of victim service providers to serve 
     victims with special communication needs, such as limited 
     English proficiency, hearing disabilities, and developmental 
     disabilities. Amounts authorized are $500,000 through FY2004, 
     and $5 million for each of the next three fiscal years.


           TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT

       Sec. 301. Formula for distributions from the Crime Victims 
     Fund. Replaces the annual cap on distributions from the Crime 
     Victims Fund with a formula that ensures stability in the 
     amounts distributed while preserving the amounts remaining in 
     the Fund for use in future years. In general, subject to the 
     availability of money in the Fund, the total amount to be 
     distributed in any fiscal year shall be not less than 105 
     percent nor more than 115 percent of the total amount 
     distributed in the previous fiscal year. This section also 
     establishes minimum levels of annual funding for both State 
     victim assistance grants and discretionary grants by the 
     Office for Victims of Crime.
       Sec. 302. Clarification regarding anti-
     terrorism emergency reserve. Clarifies the intent of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act regarding the restructured Antiterrorism 
     emergency reserve, which was that any amounts used to 
     replenish the reserve after the first year would be above any 
     limitation on spending from the Fund.
       Sec. 303. Prohibition on diverting crime victims fund to 
     offset increased spending. Ensures that the amounts deposited 
     in the Crime Victims Fund are distributed in a timely manner 
     to assist victims of crime as intended by current law and are 
     not diverted to offset increased spending.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, victims of crime deserve to have their 
voices heard and be notified about important events in the criminal 
justice system relating to their cases, and they deserve enforceable 
rights under the law.
  Today, my colleagues and I are introducing the Crime Victims 
Assistance Act. It is especially appropriate that we do so this week, 
which is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Our bill is intended to 
define the rights of victims more clearly, and establish effective 
means to implement and enforce these rights. Equally important, it does 
so without taking the unnecessary and time-consuming step of amending 
the Constitution.
  Our bill strengthens protections for victims of both violent and 
nonviolent Federal crimes, and gives them a greater voice in the 
criminal justice system. It gives victims a number of important rights, 
such as the right to be notified and consulted on detention and plea 
agreements; the right to be present and heard at trial and at 
sentencing; and the right to be notified of a scheduled hearing on a 
sentence adjustment, discharged from a psychiatric facility, or grant 
of clemency.
  The rights established by this bill will fill existing gaps in 
Federal criminal law and will be a major step toward guaranteeing that 
victims of crime receive fair treatment and are afforded the respect 
they deserve. Our bill achieves these goals in a way that does not 
interfere with the rights of the States to protect victims in ways 
appropriate to each State.
  Rather than mandating that States modify their criminal justice 
procedures in particular ways, our bill authorizes the use of Federal 
funds to establish effective programs to promote victim rights 
compliance. It increases resources for the development of state-of-the-
art systems for notifying victims of important dates and developments 
in their cases. It provides funds for the development of community-
based programs relating to those rights. It also provides funds for 
case management programs to streamline access to victims services and 
reduce ``revictimization'' by the criminal justice system, and enable 
service providers to help victims with special communication needs, 
such as limited English proficiency, hearing disabilities, and 
developmental disability.
  Finally, our bill replaces the cap on spending form the Crime Victims 
Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of fund deposits from 
reaching victims and supporting essential services. The bill adopts a 
new approach supported by victim groups to strengthen the stability of 
the fund and protect its assets, while allowing more funds to be 
distributed for victim programs.
  We do not have to amend the Constitution to achieve these important 
goals. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects 
the enduring principles of our country. The Framers deliberately made 
the Constitution difficult to amend because it was never intended to be 
used for normal legislative purposes. If it is not necessary to amend 
the Constitution to achieve particular goals, it is necessary not to 
amend it. Our legislation is well-designed to establish effective and 
enforceable rights for victims of crime, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 807. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a 
maximum term of supervised release of life for sex offenders; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation I have offered, along 
with Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is called the 
Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2003. It is supported by 
the U.S. Department of Justice.
  We will be seeking to include it within the child crimes bill, 
otherwise known as the PROTECT Act.
  Studies show that sexual offenders are prone toward recidivism 
throughout their lives. A 1988 study of sexual recidivism factors on 
child molesters showed that 43 percent of offenders sexually reoffended 
within a 4-year followup period--43 percent, almost half of them who 
were caught. Within a 4-year period, maybe others reoffended and were 
not caught. So one way to help curb that recidivism is to place the 
defendant on supervised release for a period of years after he or she 
is released from prison.
  Currently, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3543, a Federal judge is allowed 
to impose a term of 1 to 5 years supervised release on a convicted sex 
offender. In

[[Page 8610]]

a review of 42 studies regarding sexual-offender recidivism in which 
researchers followed up on the offenders, the researchers have found 
that the longer the followup period is, the greater is the percentage 
of those who will commit another crime. So it means they tend to 
reoffend way out into extended periods of time.
  So this will give the sentencing court discretion to place a sex 
offender on supervised release for a term of up to life if the court 
thinks that is appropriate.
  Mr. President, I had one of America's finest citizens in my office 
this afternoon, John Walsh of the ``America's Most Wanted'' program, of 
which he is known so well. He has been a champion of protecting 
children from sexual predators and abuse. He told me there is no 
doubt--and there is no doubt scientifically or any other way--that 
child predators and sexual offenders and child molesters tend to be 
recidivists. Pedophiles continue that activity. We wish it were not so, 
but we see that in the papers every day--people who have had prior 
problems, who have not just offended one time.
  When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted a number of individuals 
charged with sexual based offenses. In almost every instance, those who 
are apprehended--possessing child pornography, making child 
pornography--had a history prior to that, over a period of years, of 
the molestation of other children. In fact, I remember one who did not 
appear to have that history, and the agent ended up talking to his 
daughter or step-daughter, and she said when she was a young girl, he 
had molested her. So there was never one defendant that I had, in the 
fifteen years I prosecuted, who did not have a history of it.
  It is a problem that we know is real. And it is not correct or wise 
to have a judge maybe sentence somebody to jail for 5 years in custody, 
and then they get out, and the most the judge can supervise them is 1 
to 5 years. They may still be molesting children 25 years down the 
road. Supervision can help them avoid repeat offenses and can help 
protect children. And they will have a probation or parole officer 
supervising their activities, making them report, on a daily basis, 
knowing where they are working, making sure they are not working in an 
area that could endanger children.
  I think this is a commonsense bill. Senator Hatch and I are pleased 
to offer it. It is something that needs to be made a part of American 
law.
  I appreciate the leadership that John Walsh has committed to these 
issues and the PROTECT Act, in particular.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 807

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lifetime Consequences for 
     Sex Offenders Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.

       Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting ``on any such 
     revocation'' after ``required to serve'';
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``that is less than the 
     maximum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection 
     (e)(3)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term 
     of supervised release for any offense under section 1201 
     involving a minor victim, and for any offense under section 
     1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2244(a)(2), 2251, 2251A, 2252, 
     2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425, is any term of years 
     or life.''.

                          ____________________