[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7003-7006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Begich, Mr. Franken, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Schatz, Mr. 
        Tester, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Mr. King):
  S. 2299. A bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to 
reauthorize a provision to ensure the survival and continuing vitality 
of Native American languages; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today Senator Murkowski 
and I introduce the Native American Languages Reauthorization Act of 
2014. We are also joined by our fellow colleagues and cosponsors of 
this bill: Senators Begich, Franken, Heinrich, Hirono, King, Schatz, 
Tester, and Tom Udall.
  Since the Native American Languages Act of 1992 became law, we have 
made considerable progress in keeping native languages alive. The 
Native American Languages Act of 1992 established a grant program 
within the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to ensure the survival 
of native languages. Through the Health and Human Services Department 
Administration for Native Americans, the native languages grant program 
has made documented impacts on the revival of Native languages across 
Indian Country.
  The bill we introduce today will reauthorize the native languages 
grant program until fiscal year 2019. The Native language grant program 
has made several reports to Congress on the significant impacts that 
its grants have for native communities. In the 2012 report on the 
Impact and Effectiveness of Administration for Native American 
Projects, out of the 63 total language grantees, Administration for 
Native Americans evaluated 22 language projects from across Indian 
Country. The 2012 impact data showed that from these 22 projects a 
total of 178 language teachers were trained; 2,340 youth had increased 
their ability to speak a Native language or achieved fluency; and 2,586 
adults had increased their ability to speak a Native language or 
achieved fluency.
  Promoting Native language programs will strengthen our Native 
cultures and, according to the National Indian Education Association, 
will also promote higher academic success in other areas of learning. 
The continuity of Native languages is a link to previous generations 
and should be preserved for future generations.
  The Native Americans Languages Act has helped to save native 
languages and encourages both young children and adults to develop a 
fluency in their Native language. Across South Dakota and Indian 
Country, this

[[Page 7004]]

vital grant funding gives the opportunity for our cherished Native 
elders to sit down with the younger generation to pass on native 
languages. We must continue our efforts to promote Native language 
revitalization programs to ensure the preservation of Native American 
cultures, histories, and traditions.
  I urge my colleagues to join us and reauthorize this important 
legislation to save and preserve native languages before it is too 
late.
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Portman, Mr. Markey, 
        Mr. Toomey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. 
        Pryor):
  S. 2301. A bill to amend section 2259 of title 18, United States 
Code, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation that 
will help victims of one of the most vicious crimes and one of the most 
evil crimes in our society: child pornography.
  When Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act more than 20 
years ago--and I had a lot to do with that, and then-Senator Biden 
deserves an awful lot of the credit for that--the law required that the 
defendant in a child sexual exploitation case must pay restitution 
``for the full amount of the victim's losses.'' Those losses can 
include lost income as well as expenses for medical services, therapy, 
rehabilitation, transportation, and childcare.
  The restitution statute works in a straightforward way for crimes 
that involve individual defendants who cause specific harm to 
particular victims. But child pornography is different. Victims not 
only suffer from the initial abuse, but they continue to suffer as 
images of that abuse are created, distributed, and possessed. As the 
Supreme Court recently put it, ``Every viewing of child pornography is 
a repetition of the victim's abuse.''
  In the Internet age, a child pornography victim's abuse never ends, 
but identifying everyone who contributes to that ongoing abuse can be 
difficult, if not impossible. A predator who commits and records the 
abuse might be readily identified. Those who distribute those images, 
however, are harder to find, and many who obtain and possess them might 
never be identified at all. They may get lost in the crowd. They may 
seek safety in shadows. But the harm they cause to victims is no less 
devastating.
  Our challenge is to craft a restitution statute suited for this 
unique kind of crime. We are meeting that challenge today by 
introducing the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution 
Improvement Act. Amy and Vicky are victims in two of the most widely 
distributed child pornography series in the world. They know how 
difficult it is to seek restitution for ongoing harm caused by unknown 
people.
  The Supreme Court reviewed Amy's case and issued a decision on April 
23, titled ``Paroline v. United States.'' The Court said the existing 
restitution statute is not suited for her kind of case because it 
requires proving how one defendant's possession of particular images 
concretely harmed an individual victim. That is simply impossible to 
prove and puts the burden on victims forever to chase defendants only 
to recover next to nothing.
  Several of my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, joined me 
on a legal brief in that case. We hoped that the Supreme Court would 
construe the existing statute in a way that was workable to protect 
child pornography victims. The Court chose not to do that, and it is up 
to Congress to craft a statute that works. I believe we are up to the 
task, and the bill I am introducing today is the way to do it.
  The Amy and Vicky act creates an effective, balanced restitution 
process for victims of child pornography that responds to the Supreme 
Court's decision in Paroline v. United States. It does three things. 
First, it considers a victim's total losses, including from individuals 
who may not have yet been identified. This step reflects the unique 
nature of child pornography and its ongoing impact on its victims. 
Secondly, the bill requires real and timely restitution and gives 
judges options for making that happen. Third, it allows defendants who 
have contributed to the same victim's losses to spread the cost of 
restitution among themselves. If a victim was harmed by a single 
defendant, the defendant must pay full restitution for all of the 
victim's losses, but if a victim was harmed by multiple individuals, a 
judge has options for imposing restitution on a defendant, depending on 
the circumstances of the case. The defendant can be required to pay the 
full amount of the victim's losses or the defendant can pay less than 
the full amount but at least a statutory minimum for crimes, such as 
possession, distribution or production of the child pornography.
  In its decision in the Paroline case, the Supreme Court discussed 
whether a defendant should pay full restitution for harms that he did 
not cause entirely by himself. At the same time, the Court recognized 
that the harm from child pornography flows from the trade or the 
continuing traffic in the images. It would be perverse to say that as 
more individuals contribute to a victim's harm and loss by obtaining 
images of her abuse, the less responsible each of them is so that the 
victim ends up with nothing. The Amy and Vicky act addresses these 
issues.
  A defendant may sue others who have harmed the same victim in order 
to spread the costs of restitution but must do so in a timely fashion 
and only after the victim has received real and timely payment. As my 
colleagues may know, Federal law already provides for criminal 
defendants who must pay restitution to do so on a payment schedule 
suitable for their individual circumstances.
  I wish to thank three groups of people who have been critical in 
bringing us to this point only 2 weeks after the Supreme Court's 
decision. First and foremost, I wish to recognize and thank both Amy 
and Vicky, the brave women for whom this bill is named who represent so 
many child pornography victims. Amy and Vicky both endorse this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from each of them be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Amy's Letter Supporting the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim 
                  Restitution Improvement Act of 2014

       I am writing today to give my support to the Amy and Vicky 
     Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2014. 
     It is very important that this law get passed as soon as 
     possible.
       The past eight years of my life have been filled with hope 
     and horror. Life was pretty horrible when I realized that the 
     pictures of my childhood sex abuse were on the Internet for 
     anyone and everyone to see. Imagine the worst most 
     humiliating moments of your life captured for everyone to see 
     forever. Then imagine that as a child you didn't even really 
     know what was happening to you and you didn't want it to 
     happen but you couldn't stop it. You were abused, raped, and 
     hurt and this is something that other people want. They enjoy 
     it. They can't stop collecting it and asking for it and 
     trading it with other people. And it's you. It's your life 
     and your pain that they are enjoying. And it never stops and 
     you are helpless to do anything ever to stop it. That's 
     horror.
       There was also hope. Hope in finding someone who could help 
     me like my parents and my lawyer. And hope in meeting Joy, my 
     psychologist, who was the first person who really understood 
     what I was going through. Then I met Cindy, my therapist, who 
     also really helped me with all the twists and turns with what 
     I was feeling when I tried to make sense of my life and what 
     had happened to me as a child and what is happening to me on 
     the Internet. I felt lots of hope when my lawyer started 
     collecting restitution to help me pay my bills and my 
     therapist and for a car to drive to therapy and to just try 
     to create some kind of 'normal' life. Things were getting 
     better and better.
       Then we started having problems with the restitution law. 
     Judges sometimes gave me just $100 and sometimes nothing at 
     all. A few judges really got it, like when I was at the Fifth 
     Circuit oral argument two years ago and the judges agreed 
     that the child sex abuse images of me really do cause ongoing 
     and long-term harm. The article by Emily Bazelon in the New 
     York Times also really helped to tell my story so that people 
     can understand what it's like to live with child pornography 
     every day of your life. I was really happy to discover 
     recently that her article received honorable mention in a 
     contest recognizing excellence in journalism.

[[Page 7005]]

       After a long time and a lot of court hearings all over the 
     country, my case was finally at the Supreme Court. I couldn't 
     believe how long and how far my case and my story had gone 
     until I was sitting there in the Supreme Court surrounded by 
     so many of the people who have supported me and helped me 
     during these years. To hear the justices discussing my case 
     and my life was really overwhelming and gave me lots of hope 
     not just for myself but for other victims like Vicky who I 
     met for the first time right before the oral argument. I know 
     there were other victims there too who are too afraid to 
     speak out and too afraid to even think about what happened to 
     them and what is happening to them online, on the Internet, 
     because of their childhood sexual abuse and child 
     pornography. I hoped that at last the very important people 
     on the Supreme Court would decide that not just me, but all 
     the victims like me--who were so young when all these 
     horrible things happened to us--could get the restitution we 
     need to try and live a life like everyone else.
       All the justices were respectful and it was obvious that 
     they had thought a lot about the issues. When the oral 
     argument finished I was really hopeful that we would win the 
     case. It felt good doing something this significant to make a 
     difference in the world. It was a great feeling after so many 
     years of just trying to get it right.
       My hope turned to horror when the Court decided two weeks 
     ago that restitution was ``impossible'' for victims like me 
     and Vicky and so many others. I couldn't believe that 
     something which is called mandatory restitution (twice) was 
     so hard to figure out. It just seemed like something 
     somewhere was missing. Why, if so many people are committing 
     this serious crime, why are the victims of that crime, who 
     are and were children after all, left out? The Court's 
     decision was even worse than getting no restitution at all. 
     It was sort of like getting negative restitution. It was a 
     horrible day.
       This is why I am so happy, and hopeful, that Congress can 
     fix this problem once and for all. Maybe if they put 
     mandatory in the law for a third time judges will get it that 
     restitution really really really must be given to victims! 
     After all this time and all the hearings and appeals and the 
     Supreme Court, I definitely agree that restitution needs 
     improvement and hopefully this bill, the Amy and Vicky Child 
     Pornography Restitution Improvement Act of 2014, can finally 
     make restitution happen for all victims of this horrible 
     crime.
       Thank you for supporting this law and working so hard to 
     give victims the hope and help they need to overcome the 
     nightmares and memories that most others will never know. 
     Thank you Senator Hatch and Senator Schumer for making my 
     hope real!
     Amy (no longer) Unknown.
                                  ____

                                  ``Vicky,'' c/o Carol L. Hepburn,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                         Seattle, WA, May 3, 2014.
     Re Support for Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Restitution 
         Improvement Act
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Senator, U.S. Congress,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I am the subject of the ``Vicky'' 
     series of child pornography images, which I have been told by 
     law enforcement agents is one of the most widely traded in 
     the world. I am writing to you under pseudonym, and through 
     my attorney, because I have been stalked by pedophiles in the 
     recent past and I am concerned that disclosure of my legal 
     name and address could lead to further stalking.
       I appreciate the Supreme Court's recent recognition in the 
     Paroline decision of the pain and loss suffered by victims 
     and the need for mandatory restitution. This upholds both the 
     victim's need for compensation and helping the offender 
     realize they have hurt an actual person. The difficult part 
     of this decision is the immense amount of time and work 
     investment that will be required by the victim to collect 
     restitution, without the guarantee that they will ever 
     collect the full amount to be made whole again. With each 
     case in which the victim seeks restitution from someone who 
     has possessed and/or distributed their images, there is an 
     emotional cost just for being involved in the case. It brings 
     up the painful reality of the victim's situation of never-
     ending humiliation and puts it right in the victim's face 
     once again. This decision places on the victim the huge 
     burden of several years of litigation without any promise of 
     closure. This is a dismal prospect because it leaves victims 
     like Amy and myself with the choice between not pursuing 
     restitution (which would not provide us with the help we 
     desperately need to heal) or continuing to have this painful 
     part of our lives in our face on a regular basis for several 
     more years, if not decades. Without any guidelines as to how 
     the district courts will calculate restitution from each 
     offender, I worry that the emotional toll may not be 
     adequately compensated for in the end. I sincerely hope that 
     Congress will take the time to create some guidelines for 
     restitution for victims of child pornography possession and 
     distribution that will protect the victim and enable them to 
     receive full compensation.
       I would be happy to talk with you about this at some later 
     time. I am currently very pregnant and due to deliver my 
     first child in two weeks. I respectfully ask that you support 
     this legislation and do all that you can to see that it 
     becomes law.
           Very truly yours,
                                                        ``Vicky''.

  Mr. HATCH. Second, I wish to thank Amy and Vicky's legal team who 
were instrumental in developing this legislation. They include 
Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah School of Law, one of 
the leading authorities on criminal law in this country, and attorneys 
James Marsh of New York and Carol Hepburn in Seattle. Professor Cassell 
argued the Paroline case before the Supreme Court, and it is the 
experience of these tireless advocates that informed how to respond to 
that decision.
  Third, I wish to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
join me in introducing this bill. In particular, I wish to recognize 
the senior Senator from New York Mr. Schumer who also signed on to the 
legal brief I filed in the Paroline case. We serve together on the 
Judiciary Committee, and he has long been a champion for crime victims.
  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's Washington 
Post be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2014]

 Congress Needs To Act To Allow Victims of Child Sex Abuse To Recover 
                              Restitution

                          (By Editoria1 Board)

       ``I am a 19 year old girl and I am a victim of child sex 
     abuse and child pornography. I am still discovering all the 
     ways that the abuse and exploitation I suffer has hurt me. . 
     . .'' So began the victim impact statement of a young woman 
     who was 8 when she was raped but whose abuse has never ended 
     because the uncle who assaulted her took pictures that have 
     been widely trafficked on the Internet. ``It is hard to 
     describe what it feels like to know that at any moment, 
     anywhere, someone is looking at pictures of me as a little 
     girl being abused by my uncle and is getting some kind of 
     sick enjoyment from it,'' she wrote.
       The Supreme Court did not dispute her suffering nor her 
     right to receive restitution from viewers who take pleasure 
     in her abuse and create the sordid market demand for child 
     pornography. But the court set aside the $3.4 million awarded 
     her. Now Congress needs to fix the law.
       The 5-to-4 ruling in Paroline v. United States is a double-
     edged sword for the advocates of child pornography victims. 
     It upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act, which 
     calls for restitution to victims such as ``Amy Unknown,'' as 
     the woman is identified in court papers, but it limits the 
     amount of damages proximate to the harm caused by a specific 
     offender--a standard that puts the burden on the victim and 
     makes it difficult to collect damages.
       Doyle Randall Paroline, who pleaded guilty to possessing 
     child pornography that included images of Amy, was ordered by 
     an appeals court to pay all of the $3.4 million owed to Amy 
     for the psychological damage and lost income she has 
     suffered. The court's majority, in an opinion written by 
     Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, ruled that Mr. Paroline should be 
     assessed an amount that is not trivial but comports with 
     ``the defendant's relative role in the causal process that 
     underlies the victim's general losses.''
       Justice Kennedy acknowledged that his approach ``is not 
     without difficulties.'' How should a court calculate the harm 
     caused by one person's possession of an image seen by 
     thousands? Mathematically dividing the total amount by the 
     number of estimated views produces an amount so small as to 
     be insulting rather than therapeutic. What, in short, is the 
     right number between zero and $3.4 million?
       The justices are right in thinking that Congress should 
     revisit the issue. Legislation set to be introduced Wednesday 
     by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-
     Utah) seems to be a step in the right direction, with its 
     outline of options for full victim recovery when multiple 
     individuals are involved and giving multiple defendants who 
     have banned the same victim the ability to sue each other to 
     spread the cost of restitution. The court was clear in its 
     opinion that ``the victim should someday collect restitution 
     for all her child pornography losses.'' Congress needs to 
     provide the tools to turn that someday into reality.

  Mr. HATCH. It says that the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim 
Restitution Improvement Act is ``a step in the right direction.''
  I urge all of my colleagues to join us in enacting this legislation. 
It creates a practical process and recognizes the unique kind of harm 
caused by child

[[Page 7006]]

pornography and requires restitution in a manner that will actually 
help victims.
  In her letter, Amy writes that the legislation we are introducing 
today ``can finally make restitution happen for all victims of this 
horrible crime.''
  Let's get it done.

                          ____________________