[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12501-12504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. DeWine, 
        and Ms. Collins):
  S. 3561. A bill to amend the Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act to 
improve restitution for victims of crime, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Grassley, 
Durbin, DeWine and Collins in introducing legislation called the 
Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2006. This legislation will 
give Justice Department officials the tools they say are needed to help 
them do a better job of collecting court-ordered restitution and other 
federal criminal debt.
  Over the past several years, the Government Accountability Office 
conducted at my request and the request of others a study of the amount 
of federal criminal debt owed victims and the reasons why much of it is 
still uncollected. The GAO's findings revealed what many victims 
already know, that the current system for collecting restitution and 
other federal criminal debt is failing those it is intended to help.
  Let me describe what criminal debt is. You go to court. Someone is 
convicted of a crime, and a fine is levied. The question is, Is that 
fine being paid? Or you go to court and the judge assigns guilt to a 
defendant and says: You must make restitution. So that becomes a debt.
  The problem is that the amount of uncollected restitution and other 
federal criminal debt has spiraled upward while the percentage of that 
debt ultimately recovered for crime victims has plummeted. The amount 
of uncollected federal criminal debt skyrocketed from $6 billion in 
1996 to over $41 billion by the end of fiscal year 2005. That's a 
nearly sevenfold increase in uncollected criminal debt owed to the 
victims of federal crimes. Some $15 million in criminal debt ordered by 
federal courts in North Dakota remained uncollected at the end of 2005, 
according to information from the Justice Department.
  The percentage of debt that is collected or recovered for crime 
victims in the form of restitution has fallen to embarrassingly low 
levels. According to the GAO, Federal criminal justice officials 
collected an average of just 4 cents on every dollar that has been 
ordered in restitution and other criminal debt. This is restitution 
ordered by the courts to be paid to crime victims from those who 
perpetrated the crime.
  The victims of crime deserve better. At the very least, crime victims 
should not be concerned that their prospects for financial restitution 
are being diminished because criminal offenders are frittering away 
their ill-gotten gains on lavish lifestyles and the like.
  There is plenty of blame to go around for our failure to aggressively 
tackle this criminal debt problem. Some of the Nation's top law 
enforcement officials did not pursue a number of major recommendations 
made by the GAO in 2001 and again in 2004 and 2005 to boost our 
embarrassingly low criminal debt collection rate. These officials only 
started to take this matter seriously after I added language to an 
omnibus spending bill that required the Attorney General to establish a 
joint federal task force to develop a strategic plan for improving 
federal criminal debt collection. Second, Congress has not yet held 
extensive hearings about the federal government's recent track record 
on criminal debt collection and the related GAO reports.
  I understand that criminal debt collection can be a tough job. It may 
be impossible to collect the full amount of restitution owed to victims 
in some cases. Clearly criminal debt collections may be more difficult 
in cases where convicted criminals are in prison, ill-gotten gains are 
already gone or these criminals are without any other financial means 
to pay their full restitution. However, GAO's work also made clear that 
more financial assets could be recovered.
  Let me tell you why I and my colleagues have introduced this 
legislation. I had the GAO review a number of white-collar financial 
fraud cases and report what is happening with respect to these cases.
  I will cite some examples.
  One offender, someone who was judged to be guilty criminally in the 
Federal court system, and his immediate family owned and resided at 
property that was worth millions of dollars. Yet he was not making the 
full restitution that had been ordered by the court to the victim.
  Two offenders in Federal court cases who were ordered to make 
restitution to victims took overseas trips while on supervised release 
but had not made restitution to the victims.
  One offender and his family established trusts, foundations, and 
corporations for their assets about the same time that they closed many 
of their bank and brokerage accounts and had not paid restitution to 
the victims of their crime.
  Over the course of several years, one offender converted to personal 
use hundreds of millions of dollars obtained through illegal white-
collar business schemes.
  Several years prior to one judgment, one offender's minor child, who 
is now an adult, was given the offender's entire company. As of the 
completion of the GAO's work, that company had employed the offender. 
Restitution still had not been paid to the victim.
  One offender and his family rented a very lavishly furnished 
residence--which they had previously owned--from a relative. The 
offender still had not made restitution he was ordered to pay.
  Again, unpaid restitution and other criminal debt has gone from $6 
billion to $41 billion over the last decade. We think that is an 
outrage. We have worked with the Justice Department as a result of the 
three GAO reports, and because of that, we have put together a 
bipartisan piece of legislation. The legislation is comprised of the 
comprehensive package of recommendations by the Justice Department that 
stem in large part from the work of the Task Force on Improving the 
Collection of Criminal Debt. Justice Department officials believe these 
changes will remove many of the current impediments to better debt 
collection.

[[Page 12502]]

  For example, Justice Department officials described a circumstance 
where they were prevented by a court from accessing $400,000 held in a 
criminal offender's 401(k) plan to pay a $4 million restitution debt to 
a victim because that court said the defendant was complying with a 
$250 minimum monthly payment plan and that payment schedule precluded 
any other enforcement actions. Our bill would remove impediments like 
this in the future.
  This legislation will also address a major problem identified by the 
GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection; that is, many 
years can pass between the date a crime occurs and the date a court 
orders restitution. This gives criminal defendants ample opportunity to 
spend or hide their ill-gotten gains. Our bill sets up pre-conviction 
procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. These tools 
will help ensure that financial assets traceable to a crime are 
available when a court imposes a final restitution order on behalf of a 
victim. These tools are similar to those already used by Federal 
officials in some asset forfeiture cases and upheld by the courts.
  Our bill has the support of the administration, and the support of 
many victims organizations.
  I have a long list of them: The National Center for Victims of Crime, 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Organization for Victims 
Assistance--all of these organizations support the legislation we are 
introducing today--the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, 
Parents of Murdered Children, Inc., Justice Solutions, the National 
Network to End Domestic Violence, National Association of VOCA 
Assistance Administrators. The list is rather substantial. It also 
includes U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley in Fargo, ND, who said this 
legislation ``represents important progress toward ensuring that 
victims of crime are one step closer to being made whole.''
  That is the basis on which we introduce this legislation. Among other 
things, our bill would clarify that court-ordered Federal criminal 
restitution is due immediately in full upon imposition, just like in 
civil cases and that any payment schedule ordered by a court is only a 
minimum obligation of a convicted offender. It would allow Federal 
prosecutors to access financial information about a defendant in the 
possession of the U.S. Probation Office--without the need for a court 
order. This legislation would also clarify that final restitution 
orders can be enforced by criminal justice officials through the Bureau 
of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. Our bill would 
help ensure better recovery of restitution by requiring a court to 
enter a pre-conviction restraining order or injunction, require a 
satisfactory performance bond, or take other action necessary to 
preserve property that is traceable to the commission of a charged 
offense or to preserve other nonexempt assets if the court determines 
that it is in the interest of justice to do so. In addition, this 
legislation would clarify that a victim's attorney fees may be included 
in restitution orders, including cases where such fees are a 
foreseeable result from the commission of the crime, are incurred to 
help recover lost property or expended by a victim to defend against 
third party lawsuits resulting from the defendant's crime. It would 
also allow courts in their discretion to order immediate restitution to 
those that have suffered economic losses or serious bodily injury or 
death as the result of environmental felonies. Under current law, 
courts can impose restitution in such cases as a condition of probation 
or supervised release but this means that many victims of environment 
crimes must wait for years to be compensated for their losses, if at 
all.
  Let me make a couple of final points. First, while this legislation 
reflects the entire set of recommendations from the Justice Department 
to improve Federal criminal debt collection, it may not include every 
possible improvement to the current system. For instance, the GAO has 
suggested making willful failure to pay court-ordered restitution a 
criminal offense. This is already the case for criminal defendants who 
willfully fail to pay a court-ordered fine. It is my hope the Senate 
Judiciary Committee will consider this and any other helpful 
improvements when it reviews this legislation.
  In summary, Senator Grassley and myself and others believe that it is 
outrageous that unpaid criminal debt ordered by Federal courts to be 
paid by criminals now exceeds $40 billion. That is wrong and it ought 
to be dealt with. Our legislation will do so in a thoughtful, 
bipartisan way. It is legislation that is supported by the 
administration and by Republicans and Democrats who have joined in this 
legislation.
  With the Justice Department's help, we can make criminal debt 
collection a top priority once again. That is good news for the 
criminal justice system and great news for crime victims.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with 
Senator Dorgan the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2006.
  This bill is needed to recover some of the mounting uncollected 
Federal criminal debt. The Federal Government is collecting just 
pennies on each dollar of Federal criminal debt that is owed. In my 
home State of Iowa for fiscal year 2005, for example, the Justice 
Department has an outstanding balance of nearly $82 million in 
uncollected criminal debt. Compared to other districts, Iowa's northern 
and southern districts have relatively small outstanding balances. 
Nationwide, over $41 billion remains outstanding.
  The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act improves the procedures used 
to collect restitution. It also provides the authority to preserve 
assets to satisfy restitution orders. This bill gives our Federal 
criminal justice system the channels they need to not only successfully 
prosecute criminals but to recover the debts owed.
  Both the Justice Department and the victims' rights community support 
this bill and recognize that it will significantly improve the current 
collection system.
  This is an important bill and I am glad to join my good friend from 
North Dakota in introducing it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 3563. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
studies to determine the feasibility and environmental impact of 
rehabilitating the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and the Milk 
River Project, to authorize the rehabilitation and improvement of the 
St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, to develop an emergency 
response plan for use in the case of catastrophic failure of the St. 
Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the St. Mary 
Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006. In 
1903, Secretary of Interior Hitchcock authorized construction of the 
Milk River Project as one of the first five reclamation projects under 
the new reclamation service. Two years later, construction was 
authorized for the St. Mary Diversion Facilities. Completed in 1915, 
the Milk River Project and the St. Mary Diversion Facilities have been 
in operation for nearly 100 years with minimum repairs and 
improvements.
  The Milk River Project and the accompanying St. Mary Diversion 
Facilities are known as the Lifeline of the Hi-Line. The St. Mary and 
Milk River basins are home to approximately 70,000 people with a meager 
per capita income of approximately $19,500. Most of these people 
depend--directly or indirectly--on the project and would be 
dramatically impacted by its failure and the loss of water.
  The Milk River is the backbone of the region's agricultural economy. 
It provides water to irrigate over 110,000 acres on approximately 660 
farms. This project provides municipal water to approximately 14,000 
people. Fisheries, recreation, tourism, water quality, and wildlife are 
all impacted by the water flow.
  But now the St. Mary Diversion Facilities and the Milk River Project 
are facing catastrophic failure. The steel

[[Page 12503]]

siphons have leaks and slope stability problems. Landslides along the 
canal and the deteriorated condition of the structure make the project 
an unreliable water source.
  As authorized in 1903, the Milk River Project is operated as a 
single-use irrigation project. Since completion, nearly 100 percent of 
the cost to operate and maintain the diversion infrastructure has been 
borne by irrigators. The average annual O & M cost from 1998 to 2003 
was $420,000, of which irrigators were responsible for 98 percent. In 
addition, irrigators are responsible for reimbursing reclamation for 
the initial construction costs of the diversion facilities. Maintenance 
costs have increased with the accelerating deterioration of the aging 
facilities.
  In 2003, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group was formed to 
address the pressing needs of the system. This broad coalition of 
interests came together to find workable solutions. This legislation is 
a result of their efforts and dedication.
  The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project 
Act of 2006 will provide a feasible and comprehensive approach to 
rehabilitating the aging and deteriorating infrastructure while still 
meeting the needs of the folks in Montana. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the Senate to move this important piece of 
legislation forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Isakson):
  S. 3564. A bill to provide for comprehensive border security and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I 
believe offers us an opportunity to move forward in the immigration 
debate. My bill takes a first-things-first approach. It is imperative 
that we secure our borders now. This first step cannot--and should not 
have to--wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. Once we secure our 
borders, we can look at all of the other illegal immigration related 
issues that remain. There is a bipartisan consensus on what needs to be 
done on border security and the provisions that make up this consensus 
were included with other more controversial elements in S. 2611--the 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. While the other body is 
holding hearings on the ``comprehensive'' part of that bill, we should 
not hold our border security hostage.
  My bill will significantly increase the assets available for 
controlling our borders. It provides more inspectors, more marshals, 
and more border patrol agents on both the northern and southern 
borders. It provides new aerial vehicles and virtual fencing--camera, 
sensors, satellite and radar coverage, et cetera. It increases our 
surveillance assets and their deployment, and provides for new 
checkpoints and ports of entry. It includes Senator Sessions' amendment 
for greater fencing along our southern border, including 370 miles of 
triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. It also 
provides for the acquisition of more helicopters, powerboats, motor 
vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global 
positioning devices, night vision equipment, body armor, weapons, and 
detention space.
  While we know these resources will be critical improvements, it does 
not just throw resources at the problem. My bill requires a 
comprehensive national strategy for border security, surveillance, 
ports of entry, information exchange between agencies, increasing the 
capacity to train border patrol agents and combating human smuggling. 
It enhances initiatives on biometric data, secure communications for 
border patrol agents, and document fraud detection. It includes Senator 
Ensign's amendment to temporarily deploy the National Guard to support 
the border patrol in securing our southern land border. Additionally, 
it increases punishment for the construction of border tunnels or 
passages.
  When our borders are not secure, it is our cities and counties are on 
the frontlines, particularly those closest to the borders. 
Unfortunately, the negative impacts of illegal immigration are not 
limited to our border towns. Recently I worked with communities in 
Southeastern Pennsylvania--Allentown, Easton, Bethlehem, Reading and 
Lancaster--as well as the U.S. Attomey for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan, to get one of the six recent Anti-Gang 
Initiative grants given by the Department of Justice. This area, called 
the Route 222 Corridor, was the only nonmetropolitan area to receive 
one of the $2.5 million grants to combat growing criminal activity in 
part because of illegal immigrants. However, I raise this issue here 
because U.S. Attorney Meehan's letter explains this issue very 
succinctly. He stated ``[e]ach city is seeing extensive Latino 
relocation to its poorer neighborhoods and housing projects. Once 
largely Puerto Rican, the minority populations are increasingly from 
Central America. Simultaneously, Mexican workers migrate to the 
agricultural areas around Lancaster, creating a southern link to 
criminal networks. The urban core is therefore transient, poor, non-
English speaking and often undocumented . . . In this fertile 
environment, the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA and lately MS-13, are 
recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug 
markets. Violence is a daily byproduct.''
  My bill provides relief for cities, counties and States dealing with 
increased costs because of illegal immigration--specifically those 
caused by the criminal acts of illegal immigrants. There are four 
programs included in my bill to address these issues. First, there are 
grants to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the Canadian or 
Mexican borders or such agencies where there is a lack of security and 
a rise in criminal activity because of the lack of border security, 
including a preference for communities with less than 50,000 people. 
Second, local governments can be reimbursed for costs associated with 
processing criminal illegal aliens such as indigent defense, criminal 
prosecution, translators and court costs. Third, State and local law 
enforcement agencies can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the 
detention and transportation of an illegal alien to Federal custody. 
Finally, reimbursements are available for costs incurred in prosecuting 
criminal cases that were federally-initiated but where the Federal 
entity declined to prosecute. In addition, my bill requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to provide sufficient transportation and 
officers to take illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law 
enforcement officers into custody for processing at a detention 
facility operated by the Department, and that the Secretary designate 
at least one Federal, State, or local facility in each State as the 
central facility to transfer custody to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  This bill also expedites the removal of criminal aliens from 
correctional facilities and expands border security programs through 
the Department of Commerce such as the Carrier Initiative, the Americas 
Counter Smuggling Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and 
the Free and Secure Trade Initiative.
  Throughout the debate on immigration reform, I have consistently 
stated that the first thing we must do is secure our Nation's borders. 
While the House and Senate are working to come to an agreement on the 
broader issues in the immigration bill, I am pleased to be introducing 
the Border Security First Act today with my colleague from Georgia, 
Senator Isakson, and my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, 
because our borders must be secured now--not later. In the post 9/11 
world we live in, our national security depends on our border security. 
We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, 
and what they are doing here. We must put first things first--we must 
secure our Nation's borders. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join 
me in recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue without delay.

[[Page 12504]]



                          ____________________