[House Report 104-787]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-787
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                   CARJACKING CORRECTION ACT OF 1996

                                _______
                                

 September 16, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3676]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3676) to amend title 18, United States Code, clarify 
the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking 
prohibition, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

The Amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings............     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     4
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     5
Agency Views.....................................................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FEDERAL CARJACKING 
                    PROHIBITION.

    Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in 
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 
would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title'' after (as defined in 
section 1365 of this title''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3676, the ``Carjacking Corrections Act of 1996,'' 
amends Sec. 2119 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify 
that rape constitutes a serious bodily injury for the purposes 
of the penalty enhancement provided for in the federal 
carjacking statute. Currently, a defendant convicted under the 
federal carjacking statute can be imprisoned for up to fifteen 
years. However, a penalty enhancement is provided under 
Sec. 2119(2) when serious bodily injury results. In the case of 
a carjacking conviction involving serious bodily injury, the 
maximum penalty rises to twenty-five years. This bill makes 
clear that rape or other sexual assault constitutes a serious 
bodily injury for the purposes of the enhancement.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Congress amended the federal carjacking statute, Sec. 2119 
of title 18, United States Code, as part of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-711). Also 
included in the 1994 Crime Bill was the Violence Against Women 
Act. Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was motivated in 
part by the fact that victims of rape are often unable to find 
justice or protection in the criminal justice system. From the 
initial report through prosecution, trial and sentencing, 
crimes against women are often treated differently and less 
seriously than other crimes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rep. No. 103-138, 103rd Congress, 1st Sess. 42 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These were the statistics that Congress was aware of at the 
time it passed the Violence Against Women Act: over 60% of rape 
reports do not result in arrests, and a rape case, in 
comparison to murder, is more than twice as likely to be 
dismissed and nearly 40% more likely to be dismissed than a 
robbery case. Less than half of the individuals arrested for 
rape are convicted of rape. In comparison, 69% of those 
arrested for murder are convicted of murder, and 61% of those 
arrested for robbery are convicted of robbery. Finally, over 
one-half of all convicted rapists serve an average of one year 
or less in prison.\2\ Thus, at the time it was amending the 
carjacking bill, Congress was acutely aware of the plight of 
women in the criminal justice system, and was attempting to 
ensure that crimes against women were treated seriously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite this legislative history, the First Circuit Court 
of Appeals, in a May 21, 1996 opinion, overturned District 
Court Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez's decision enhancing the 
sentence of a convicted carjacker. Judge Perez-Gimenez had 
found the sentence of a convicted carjacker. Judge Perez-
Gimenez had found that the carjacker had caused ``serious 
bodily injury,'' as defined in Sec. 1365 of title 18, United 
States Code, by raping his victim.\3\ Under Sec. 1365, 
``serious bodily injury'' is defined as ``a substantial risk of 
death,'' ``extreme physical pain,'' ``protracted and obvious 
disfigurement,'' or ``protracted loss or impairment of the 
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United States v. Rivera, 83 F.3rd 542 (1st Cir. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A First Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned this 
decision, holding that treating rape as a serious bodily injury 
would ``broaden measurably the limited category of injuries 
that Congress designated as justifying a substantial increase 
in punishment for carjacking.'' \4\ The First Circuit found 
that rape in this case was not a serious bodily injury because 
there was ``no evidence of any cuts or bruises in [the 
victim's] vaginal area.'' \5\ Under the First Circuit's 
interpretation of the statute, it is possible--indeed 
probable--that a carjacker who breaks someone's arm during a 
carjacking would receive a longer sentence than an offender who 
rapes a woman at gunpoint while stealing her car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 548.
    \5\ Id. at 547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disturbed by this decision, First Circuit Judge Sandra 
Lynch took the unusual step of requesting that the First 
Circuit reconsider its decision en banc. This request was 
denied. In her dissent, Judge Lynch stated that she believed 
that the holding that rape is not a serious bodily injury for 
the purposes of the sentencing enhancement ``is directly 
contrary to the intent of the statute and Congress would be 
appalled at this outcome.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ United States v. Rivera, 83 F. 3rd 542, reh'g denied, Order of 
Court, June 18, 1996, (Lynch, J. Dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judge Lynch correctly noted that the First Circuit had 
considered the definition of ``serious bodily injury'' so 
narrowly that it produced a result ``wholly at odds with larger 
considerations of congressional sentencing policy and intent.'' 
\7\ Judge Lynch concluded that she doubted Congress ``intended 
the statute to be applied in such a way that a brutal rape 
could fail to constitute a `serious bodily injury,' or that the 
application of that term to rape could be made to turn on 
whether the victim testified as to how much the rape physically 
hurt her.'' \8\ The Committee agrees with Judge Lynch's reading 
of the intent of Congress in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id at 14.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the fact that the definition of ``serious bodily 
injury'' stems from a statute prohibiting tampering with 
consumer products, courts should be guided by common sense, and 
should consider what Congress would assume would fall within 
the definition. Given that at least one circuit has 
misconstrued congressional intent, H.R. 3676 is intended to 
make clear that offenders who commit rape during a carjacking 
should get the penalty enhancement provided for in the statute.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 3676.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 10, 1996, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3676 by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On September 11, 1996, the 
Full Committee met in open session and ordered reported 
favorably the bill H.R. 3676 without amendment by a voice vote, 
a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) or rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 3676, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 13, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 3676, the Carjacking Correction Act of 1996, as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
September 11, 1996. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would 
result in no significant costs to the federal government. H.R. 
3676 would not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-
you-go procedures would not apply. The bill contains no 
private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Violators of the federal carjacking law face prison 
sentences of up to 15 years, or up to 25 years if serious 
bodily injury results from the crime. H.R. 3676 would clarify 
the definition of serious bodily injury to include sexual 
abuse. Enacting the bill could result in some offenders 
receiving longer prison sentences than they would under current 
law. Based on information from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 
however, we expect that very few federal cases would be 
affected. Thus, enacting H.R. 3676 would not have any 
significant impact on federal spending.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee estimates that H.R. 
3676 will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1. Short Title.--This section states that the short 
title of the bill is the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996.''
    Sec. 2. Clarification of Intent of Congress In Federal 
Carjacking Prohibition.--This section amends Sec. 2119(2) of 
title 18, United States Code, to make clear that the definition 
of ``serious bodily injury'' in the federal carjacking statute 
includes conduct that constitutes aggravated sexual abuse or 
sexual abuse under Sec. Sec. 2241 and 2242 of title 18, United 
States Code.

                              Agency Views

                        U.S. Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                     Washington, DC, July 31, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Committee on the Judiciary 
prepares to mark up H.R. 3676, I write to express the support 
of the Department of Justice for this bill.
    H.R. 3676 would amend the federal carjacking statute (18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2119). The statute punishes the taking of a motor 
vehicle that has moved in interstate or foreign commerce from 
the person or presence of another by force or by intimidation 
and with ``the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.'' 
The statute carries a basic penalty of up to fifteen years' 
imprisonment, but the maximum penalty rises to twenty-five 
years if the offense results in ``serious bodily injury (as 
defined in section 1365 of this title).'' H.R. 3676 would 
ensure that this higher penalty level is available in a case in 
which the victim is raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, 
thereby overturning a recent decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We believe that this is 
a proper amendment of the statute.
    In the future, we would urge the Committee to consider 
eliminating the intent or scienter requirement of this law as 
well. This unique element--which does not appear in other, 
comparably punished robbery statutes, e.g. 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1951, 2113 and 2118--inappropriately makes 
carjackings difficult or impossible to prosecute in certain 
circumstances. At this time, we urge approval of H.R. 3676 as a 
limited measure to ensure that those engaging in carjacking and 
who in the course of the offense commit a sexual act on the 
victim do not escape the increased penalties provided by the 
law.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of 
additional assistance concerning this or any other matter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Andrew Fois,
                                        Assistant Attorney General.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 2119 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 2119. Motor vehicles

    Whoever, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily 
harm takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, 
or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person 
or presence of another by force and violence or by 
intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall--
          (1) * * *
          (2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 
        1365 of this title, including any conduct that, if the 
        conduct occurred in the special maritime and 
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would 
        violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) results, be 
        fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 
        years, or both, and
          * * * * * * *