[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2063-2068]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 AMY AND VICKY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY VICTIM RESTITUTION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report S. 295.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 295) to amend section 2259 of title 18, United 
     States Code, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for moving 
ahead on S. 295, which we call the Amy and Vicky Act.
  The need for this bill arises because of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 
decision last year in Paroline v. United States.
  The Court at that time limited the recovery that a victim of a child 
pornography offense could receive, even as

[[Page 2064]]

additional wrongdoers saw her image as it was repeatedly posted on the 
Internet.
  Rather than making the offender provide restitution for all the harms 
caused by the repeated viewings, the Supreme Court limited the recovery 
against any one defendant to the relative harm that defendant caused.
  This bill will expand the categories of loss for which the victim 
could recover. It would reverse, then, the Supreme Court by permitting 
the victim to recover up to the full loss from any one defendant, 
subject to a minimum amount, depending upon the defendant's conduct. No 
longer, then, would the victim receive restitution from each defendant 
limited to that defendant's own actions. Each defendant would be 
jointly and severally liable for the victim's entire loss.
  The bill sets up a contribution procedure for those defendants, which 
then would make the victim whole. Of course, that is the main point.
  The choice is between the convicted child pornography offender being 
held responsible for the full loss and the innocent victim not 
receiving full compensation.
  The Supreme Court ruled that the victim could not receive all her 
restitution from any one single defendant, even as her damage suffered 
was compounded. This bill appropriately rejects that. I hope it is not 
the last time this Congress overturns a Supreme Court decision.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, as I was 
in the last Congress. I was pleased that the first legislation the 
Judiciary Committee took up when I became chairman was this bipartisan 
child pornography bill, and I am glad to have shepherded that bill 
through the committee so that the Senate at this time can take it up as 
one of its first legislative items.
  We should all commend, as I do, Senator Hatch for his work on this 
very important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I am very pleased to see the Senate will 
pass the bipartisan Justice for Amy and Vicky Act.
  As an original co-sponsor of this bill, it's great to see that the 
Senate is helping ensure that victims of child pornography are able to 
receive full restitution for the terrible harms that they have 
suffered.
  Last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision that sharply limited 
the remedies available to victims of child pornography.
  The case involved Pennsylvania resident ``Amy.''
  ``Amy'' was just eight and nine years old when her uncle raped her. 
Amy received help from a therapist and her family, and began to heal. 
Then, at age 17, Amy learned that her uncle recorded the events and 
traded them over the Internet. Amy is believed to be the most widely 
traded image of child pornography: Her attorney estimates that over 
70,000 people have viewed these images.
  I cannot begin to imagine the devastation Amy feels, so I turn to her 
own words. Amy writes:

       Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone 
     will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be 
     humiliated all over again. It hurts me to know someone is 
     looking at them--at me--when I was just a little girl being 
     abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now 
     I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do 
     sick things. I want it all erased. I want it all stopped. But 
     I am powerless to stop it just like I was powerless to stop 
     my uncle. . . . My life and my feelings are worse now because 
     the crime has never really stopped and will never really 
     stop. . . . It's like I am being abused over and over and 
     over again.

  Amy has struggled to hold down a steady job, facing repeated 
breakdowns. Amy estimates she has suffered $3.4 M in lost income and 
counseling costs over the years.
  Amy sought restitution from those who viewed and traded her image. 
The Federal restitution statute allows a victim of child pornography to 
collect restitution from those convicted of producing, trafficking, or 
viewing images of the victim's abuse.
  But Amy faced a problem common in child pornography cases: Tens of 
thousands of people have trafficked in her image. When she attempted to 
collect restitution, could she collect the full amount from any one 
person? Or would she have to wait for tens of thousands of people to be 
criminally convicted, collecting a small amount from each person, in 
order to be made whole?
  Last April, in the case of Paroline v. United States, the Supreme 
Court decided that Federal statute required the latter. The Supreme 
Court recognized that this was unworkable, and it called on Congress to 
provide a legislative remedy.
  Last year, I responded to the Supreme Court's call by introducing the 
Justice for Amy Act, which would ensure that victims of child 
pornography are able to receive full restitution, without having to 
appear in thousands of court cases.
  It sought to amend the Federal restitution statute to provide that 
all defendants who produce, traffic, or possess child pornography of a 
victim are jointly and severally liable for all of that victim's 
damages, and may sue one another for contribution. This goal is to take 
the burden off of the child victim, and places it on the child 
pornographers. Once one defendant is found guilty, he is held liable 
for the full damages and the burden is on him to sue all other 
wrongdoers to help pay the restitution award.
  I am pleased to see that this commonsense approach has been adopted 
by and incorporated into the Justice for Amy and Vicky Act. I am proud 
to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation that the 
Senate will pass today.
  This bill provides one important first step in ensuring that victims 
of child sexual abuse receive the help they need. I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleagues to provide additional protections 
for America's children.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as a father of four, I am deeply 
concerned by the very need for legislation like S. 295, the Amy and 
Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act. It is 
appalling that even a single one of our children is subject to such 
base and vile exploitation. As parents, and as a Nation, it is 
paramount we guard our children when there are those who would exploit 
them in pornography, who would enslave them in human and sex 
trafficking, and who would perpetrate this sickening crime upon them.
  The Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Act is one 
more step in laying the full consequences of these heinous crimes upon 
the perpetrators. While current law brings criminals to justice before 
the courts, it can leave the victims to reconstruct their lives with 
only limited resources on hand. This bill would make sure victims of 
child pornography have what they need to rebuild and restore their 
lives by making the perpetrators financially responsible.
  Yet while it is a good and necessary step, nothing can ever truly be 
done by the law or the courts to repair the damage that has been 
wrought on these lives. We must stop it before it begins. So let us 
help those who are in need of healing and stop those who would continue 
this violence.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that any time during the quorum 
calls be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 2065]]




                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, later this month, on February 27, funding 
for the Department of Homeland Security will run out. I think we all 
agree this is a critical time for our country's national security, and 
it is important that we fully fund Department of Homeland Security to 
protect Americans against terrorist attacks.
  But in recent days several of my friends across the aisle have spoken 
on this floor asserting that Republicans are trying to force a 
Department of Homeland Security shutdown. Nothing could be further from 
the truth.
  Essentially, their argument is that unless Republicans choose to 
completely agree with President Obama's egregious constitutional 
violation of executive power to implement major changes in our 
immigration laws--an issue which is clearly the responsibility of the 
people's elected representatives--then Republicans will be responsible 
for any lapse in DHS funding.
  So to put all this in perspective regarding this situation and the 
assertion that a few of my colleagues have made, let me give you some 
thoughts. First, let's remember how we got into this situation to start 
with. In 2008, a Presidential candidate by the name of Barack Obama 
said the following:

       I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest 
     problems that we are facing right now have to do with trying 
     to bring more and more power into the executive branch and 
     not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to 
     reverse when I am President of the United States of America.

  He went on to say when he was President:

       America is a nation of laws, which means that as President, 
     I am obligated to enforce that law. I don't have a choice 
     about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for 
     changes in the law so that we can have a country that is 
     respectful of the law but also continues to be a great 
     country of immigrants.

  Here is the key statement:

       With respect to the notion that I can just suspend 
     deportations through executive order, that is just not the 
     case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has 
     passed.

  I could go on and on about what the President has said about his 
limitation of powers both as a candidate and as the President of the 
United States. Of course, he has violated and trampled on every word he 
has said, broken many promises he has made, and taken just the reverse 
position on everything he said about this issue on the Senate floor as 
a Senator and now as President.
  So Republicans have responded by simply saying: ``That is a violation 
of your Executive power. We think these issues ought to be debated and 
worked through the people's representatives, as they have been in the 
past.''
  Because there is an association between the Department of Homeland 
Security funding and funding for certain aspects of immigration, 
Republicans thought it would be worthwhile to bring a debate to the 
floor so the public could hear what we have to say on this issue and so 
that we could make adjustments through this process.
  Having suffered through 6 years of this Presidency--4 years for me--
led by a then majority leader of the Democratic Party, with Republicans 
not being allowed to debate on the floor any significant issues that 
perhaps did not fit the Democratic agenda, new management has taken 
over here and opened up the process so that we can again be the 
people's representatives and speak and debate on the floor, offer 
amendments--winning some, losing some--and come to a conclusion.
  Looking for the right vehicle, the only real vehicle, that would 
allow us to at least debate and offer our amendments in opposition to 
what the President is trying to do has been totally stifled through 
Democrat filibustering, not even allowing us to move forward with the 
bill. So we are stuck here in a difficult situation, wanting to address 
this egregious abuse of the power constitutionally designated to the 
President and at the same time needing to fund our necessary security 
needs through the Department of Homeland Security.
  By not allowing us to even bring this issue to the floor of the 
Senate and debate it back and forth, offering amendments to address 
each Senator's various concerns, we neglect to move forward on 
legislation that addresses these two important needs: Number 1, the 
funding of our national security through DHS, and Number 2, the issue 
of the President's constitutional overreach.
  So we stand here frustrated with our inability to be able to go 
forward in the way the American people expect us to go forward, in the 
way this Senate has traditionally operated. Here we stand in a 
stalemate because one party says: ``No, we don't even want to let you 
talk about it.'' One party says: ``No, we don't even want to take it 
up, offer our amendments.'' Maybe they are afraid they will not pass. 
That is how it works here.
  The irony is that at least eight Democrats, as I count, were very 
critical when the President issued his Executive order regarding 
immigration. They basically said: ``Yes, that does exceed his powers, 
and he should not have done that.''
  Here is an opportunity for them to weigh in with their votes instead 
of just their rhetoric. Yet they will not even allow that to happen.
  So we are caught here in this dilemma. But let me make a couple of 
things absolutely clear, at least from my perspective. I do not believe 
a departmental shutdown is the appropriate response to this issue. 
Funding and paying for essential functions of the Department of 
Homeland Security at a time when threats have never been higher is 
absolutely critical. So we have to achieve that by whatever means.
  By the same token, addressing this egregious constitutional violation 
and the President's broken promises relative Executive power on 
immigration is a key issue the American people want debated now. It 
needs to be debated. Both sides have agreed that we need immigration 
reform. But it ought to be done through the people's representatives 
and not through the wishes of the President of the United States when 
he does not have the power to make these changes.
  So I trust that we will be able to work through this in the next 
several days leading up to our recess or the end of this month when we 
have to come to a conclusion. We are working hard to do that. We just 
would like the opposing party, the Democrat Party, to allow its Members 
to say where they stand, to offer changes, to offer alternatives, and 
to offer amendments. It is important enough for us to do what we were 
sent here to do, and that is to represent the people in this country on 
the critically important issues that lie before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the bill before us proves the axiom that 
big things come in small packages. This bill, the Amy and Vicky Child 
Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, may only be several 
pages long, but it is a very big bill.
  In 1994, by enacting the Violence Against Women Act, Congress 
required that defendants who commit certain crimes pay restitution to 
their victims. I had a lot to do with that bill. These are crimes--such 
as the sexual exploitation of children--that have a particularly 
devastating impact on victims, and they need help to put their lives 
back together.
  Last year, in a case titled ``Paroline v. United States,'' the 
Supreme Court concluded that the restitution statute cannot provide the 
restitution that Congress promised for child pornography victims. The 
only way to fix this problem is to amend the restitution statute in a 
way that accounts for the insidious and evil nature of child 
pornography itself.
  The Supreme Court held in Paroline that under the statute as 
currently written, a victim can seek restitution only for losses that 
are directly related to an individual defendant's distribution or 
possession of specific images of her abuse. That is not only virtually 
impossible to prove, but it pretends that defendants and images are 
isolated and self-contained. The truth is that in the Internet age, 
defendants are

[[Page 2066]]

part of a growing, shifting, and constantly active group of individuals 
who keep the victimization going. As the Supreme Court put it in 
Paroline last year, each viewing of child pornography is a repetition 
of the child's abuse. Everyone who drives the trafficking in those 
images repeats that abuse and contributes to a victim's losses. Some of 
them will be caught and prosecuted, while others will hide in the 
shadows and seek safety in numbers.
  The harsh reality for a victim is that the Internet has multiplied 
the number of individuals who harm her and, at the same time, made it 
harder to identify them so she can seek restitution--or should I say, 
she really can't seek restitution.
  The bill before us today addresses this cruel catch-22. This bill is 
named for Amy and Vicky, the victims in two of the most widely viewed 
child pornography series in the world.
  When I reintroduced this bill on January 28, I also shared the story 
of Andy, a young man in Utah who is the victim in another widely 
distributed child pornography series.
  He is the named victim in more than 700 cases but has been granted 
restitution under Paroline in only one-quarter of the cases in which he 
has sought it and actually received restitution in just two of those 
cases.
  This bill provides judges with options for calculating a victim's 
total losses and imposing restitution in different kinds of cases. That 
is not always easy for the very reason that I just described. A judge 
must impose restitution in an individual case for losses that flow from 
ongoing harm. But that is the diabolical nature of child pornography, 
and we must equip the criminal justice system to address it.
  This bill helps victims in another important way. Today a victim must 
chase every single defendant to seek restitution, only to be told that 
she must seek the impossible and, therefore, receive next to nothing. 
In addition to providing a way for judges to require meaningful 
restitution in individual cases, this bill allows defendants who harm 
the same victim to seek contribution from each other to spread that 
restitution cost.
  Let me put it as simply as I can. The current statute maximizes a 
victim's burden and minimizes her restitution. This bill minimizes a 
victim's burden and maximizes her restitution.
  Both Amy and Vicky personally endorse this bill. National victim 
advocacy groups also support it, including the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization for Victim 
Assistance, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National 
Center for Victims of Crime, the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Rape, Abuse and Incest 
National Network.
  Last October I received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the 
attorneys general of 43 States--22 Republicans and 21 Democrats. This 
has, in fact, been a truly bipartisan effort.
  The senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has been my partner 
from the start in developing this legislation and has been a champion 
for crime victims for many years. It is important to have him on this 
bill. He is one of the great leaders in the Senate today, and we intend 
to do more together in the future.
  The cosponsors include 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats. Big things 
really do come in small packages.
  I have been contacted by advocates working with dozens of countries 
around the world to tackle the problem of child pornography and 
exploitation. They emphasize the need for meaningful restitution and 
say that this legislation can be an example for other countries to 
follow.
  Congress in 1994 required full restitution for child victims of 
sexual exploitation. The Supreme Court last year confirmed that the 
restitution statute cannot keep that promise to victims of child 
pornography.
  Enacting this legislation shows Congress at its best, stepping up and 
taking the action necessary to address this problem. Amy, Vicky, and 
Andy are counting on us.
  This is an extremely important bill. It means that victims of child 
pornography--usually videos that are shipped all around the world and 
seen by, maybe, millions--have the chance of being able to get true 
restitution under this bill. Before that, they would have to go and sue 
everyone who was involved, and there is no way they could find that 
out, no way they could really do that, no way they could really get 
restitution and justify the attorneys' fees, and no way they could 
really vindicate themselves and show these people, these horrible 
people who do these things to children, that they are not going to get 
away with it anymore.
  This bill eliminates all of that. This bill makes it possible for the 
victims of pornography and childhood exploitation to be able to recover 
and to get restitution for the very poor treatment they have undergone.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Amy and 
Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, which my 
good friend Senator Orrin Hatch has requested a vote on this afternoon.
  First, I thank Senator Hatch for his work on this important 
legislation. I was proud to work alongside him as the Democratic 
cosponsor of his bill, and he has been an absolute force in pushing 
this bill in the Judiciary Committee and to the floor today. We have 
had a great partnership and have worked on many things together, and I 
think I join every one of my 99 colleagues in telling the Senator from 
Utah how much respect we have for him.
  Our bill does one important thing. It fixes a flaw in our restitution 
system for pornography victims. You see, in this day and age, victims 
of child pornography face ongoing harm every time a video or picture of 
them is shared and viewed on the Internet. As the Supreme Court 
explained about a victim:

       These sexual abuse crimes are compounded by the 
     distribution of images of her abuser's horrific acts, which 
     meant the wrongs inflicted upon her were in effect repeated; 
     for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be 
     renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of 
     wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her.

  The horror of sexual abuse can be long lasting. It can constitute the 
loss of income, medical care, psychiatric counseling, and therapy. The 
victims of sexual abuse, therefore, are absolutely in the right to seek 
restitution from those evil criminals who perpetuate the original crime 
by sharing and viewing images of the crime.
  A 2014 Supreme Court case, Paroline v. United States, placed a heavy 
burden on the child pornography victims trying to recover restitution. 
The tragic effect of the Supreme Court's decision in the Paroline case 
was this: The more widely viewed the pornographic image of a victim and 
the more offenders there are, the more difficult it is for the victim 
to recover for her anguish and her damages.
  For the perpetrators of child pornography, there should not be safety 
in numbers.
  Now, the bill that Senator Hatch has led on and I was proud to 
cosponsor rights this wrong. Our bill provides a method for these 
victims to seek restitution for the total harm they endured from this 
horrific victimization. Specifically, the Amy and Vicky Act does three 
things that reflect the nature of these crimes. First, it considers the 
total harm to the victim, including from individuals who may not yet 
have been identified. Second, it requires real and timely restitution. 
And, third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same 
victims' harm to spread the restitution cost among themselves.
  These specific changes are supported by the attorneys general of 43 
States and countless national victim advocacy groups, such as the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and they have wide 
bipartisan support in the Senate.

[[Page 2067]]

  Once again, I commend my colleague Senator Hatch for the great work 
he has done on this and other things.
  As I said while he was not in the Chamber, I look forward to our 
working on many other causes together. He is a great leader and very 
well respected by me and all of his colleagues.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure to give more 
power to the victims of sexual abuse to seek redress, closure, and 
justice for the crimes--the dastardly crimes--committed against them.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 250 is agreed to.
  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To Improve the Bill)

       On page 4, beginning on line 22, strike ``sexual conduct 
     (as those terms are defined in section 2246)'' and insert 
     ``sexual contact (as those terms are defined in section 2246) 
     or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in 
     section 2256)''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, shall it pass?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator form Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moran
     Reid
       
  The bill (S. 295), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 295

       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 ``Amy and Vicky Child 
     Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The demand for child pornography harms children because 
     it drives production, which involves severe and often 
     irreparable child sexual abuse and exploitation.
       (2) The harms caused by child pornography are more 
     extensive than the harms caused by child sex abuse alone 
     because child pornography is a permanent record of the abuse 
     of the depicted child, and the harm to the child is 
     exacerbated by its circulation. Every viewing of child 
     pornography is a repetition of the victim's original 
     childhood sexual abuse.
       (3) Victims suffer continuing and grievous harm as a result 
     of knowing that a large, indeterminate number of individuals 
     have viewed and will in the future view images of their 
     childhood sexual abuse. Harms of this sort are a major reason 
     that child pornography is outlawed.
       (4) The unlawful collective conduct of every individual who 
     reproduces, distributes, or possesses the images of a 
     victim's childhood sexual abuse plays a part in sustaining 
     and aggravating the harms to that individual victim. Multiple 
     actors independently commit intentional crimes that combine 
     to produce an indivisible injury to a victim.
       (5) It is the intent of Congress that victims of child 
     pornography be fully compensated for all the harms resulting 
     from each and every perpetrator who contributes to their 
     anguish.
       (6) Congress intends to adopt and hereby adopts an 
     aggregate causation standard to address the unique crime of 
     child pornography and the unique harms caused by child 
     pornography.
       (7) Victims should not be limited to receiving restitution 
     from defendants only for losses caused by each defendant's 
     own offense of conviction. Courts must apply a less 
     restrictive aggregate causation standard in child pornography 
     cases, while also recognizing appropriate constitutional 
     limits and protections for defendants.

     SEC. 3. MANDATORY RESTITUTION.

       Section 2259 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Definition.--(A) For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `full amount of the victim's losses' includes any costs 
     incurred by the victim for--
       ``(i) lifetime medical services relating to physical, 
     psychiatric, or psychological care;
       ``(ii) lifetime physical and occupational therapy or 
     rehabilitation;
       ``(iii) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and 
     child care expenses;
       ``(iv) lifetime lost income; and
       ``(v) attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred.
       ``(B) For purposes of this subsection, the term `full 
     amount of the victim's losses' also includes any other losses 
     suffered by the victim, in addition to the costs listed in 
     subparagraph (A), if those losses are a proximate result of 
     the offense.
       ``(C) For purposes of this subsection, the term `full 
     amount of the victim's losses' also includes any losses 
     suffered by the victim from any sexual act or sexual contact 
     (as those terms are defined in section 2246) or sexually 
     explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256) in 
     preparation for or during the production of child pornography 
     depicting the victim involved in the offense.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Determining Restitution.--
       ``(1) Harmed by one defendant.--If the victim was harmed as 
     a result of the commission of an offense under section 2251, 
     2251A, 2252, 2252A, or 2260 by 1 defendant, the court shall 
     determine the full amount of the victim's losses caused by 
     the defendant and enter an order of restitution for an amount 
     that is not less than the full amount of the victim's losses.
       ``(2) Harmed by more than one defendant.--If the victim was 
     harmed as a result of offenses under section 2251, 2251A, 
     2252, 2252A, or 2260 by more than 1 person, regardless of 
     whether the persons have been charged, prosecuted, or 
     convicted in any Federal or State court of competent 
     jurisdiction within the United States, the court shall 
     determine the full amount of the victim's losses caused by 
     all such persons, or reasonably expected to be caused by such 
     persons, and enter an order of restitution against the 
     defendant in favor of the victim for--
       ``(A) the full amount of the victim's losses; or
       ``(B) an amount that is not more than the amount described 
     in subparagraph (A) and not less than--
       ``(i) $250,000 for any offense or offenses under section 
     2251(a), 2251(b), 2251(c), 2251A, 2252A(g), or 2260(a);
       ``(ii) $150,000 for any offense or offenses under section 
     2251(d), 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3), 2252A(a)(1), 
     2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(3), 2252A(a)(4), 2252A(a)(6), 
     2252A(a)(7), or 2260(b); or
       ``(iii) $25,000 for any offense or offenses under section 
     2252(a)(4) or 2252A(a)(5).
       ``(3) Maximum amount of restitution.--No order of 
     restitution issued under this section may exceed the full 
     amount of the victim's losses.
       ``(4) Joint and several liability.--Each defendant against 
     whom an order of restitution is issued under paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall be jointly and severally liable to the victim with all 
     other defendants against whom an order of restitution is 
     issued under paragraph (2)(A) in favor of such victim.

[[Page 2068]]

       ``(5) Contribution.--Each defendant who is ordered to pay 
     restitution under paragraph (2)(A), and has made full payment 
     to the victim equal to or exceeding the statutory minimum 
     amount described in paragraph (2)(B), may recover 
     contribution from any defendant who is also ordered to pay 
     restitution under paragraph (2)(A). Such claims shall be 
     brought in accordance with this section and the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure. In resolving contribution claims, the 
     court may allocate payments among liable parties using such 
     equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate so 
     long as no payments to victims are reduced or delayed. No 
     action for contribution may be commenced more than 5 years 
     after the date on which the defendant seeking contribution 
     was ordered to pay restitution under this section.'';
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by striking ``a 
     commission of a crime under this chapter,'' and inserting 
     ``or by the commission of (i) an offense under this chapter 
     or (ii) a series of offenses under this chapter committed by 
     the defendant and other persons causing aggregated losses,''; 
     and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim 
     Restitution Improvement Act of 2015, the Attorney General 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the progress, if any, of 
     the Department of Justice in obtaining restitution for 
     victims of any offense under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 
     2252A, or 2260.''.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________