|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Go back to Immigration Daily
[Congressional Record: October 11, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S10188-S10210]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr11oc00-66]
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
Continued
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank you as well as the chairman of
our committee, Mr. Hatch, and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy, for
yielding me a brief amount of time to talk on the Violence Against
Women Act.
I commend our leader on Judiciary, Senator Leahy, for his diligent
work on so many of the issues contained here. I know there are some
differences on a few. I commend Senator Biden, who has worked long and
hard on this issue for many years. We all owe him a debt of gratitude
for his strenuous efforts. I also thank the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer. When Senator Biden first introduced the bill in the Senate,
Senator Boxer, then Congress Member Boxer, was the House sponsor; I was
the cosponsor. When she moved on to the Senate, I became the lead House
sponsor and managed the bill as it was signed into law.
When it was first enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act
signaled a sea change in our approach to the epidemic of violence
directed at women. Until the law, by and large it had been a dirty
little secret that every night hundreds of women showed up at police
precincts, battered and bruised, because they were beaten by their
spouse or their boyfriend or whatever. All too often they were told by
that law enforcement officer, who really had no education, no training,
or no place to send the battered woman: Well, this is a domestic
matter. Go home and straighten it out with your husband.
So deep were the traditions ingrained that it was very hard to remove
them. In fact, the expression ``rule of thumb'' comes from the medieval
law that said a husband could beat his wife with a stick provided that
stick was no wider than his thumb.
The Violence Against Women Act took giant strides to take this
terrible, dirty secret, bring it above ground, and begin really to
cleanse it. The new law acknowledged that the ancient bias showed
itself not just in the virulence of the perpetrators of violence but in
the failure of the system and the community to respond with sufficient
care and understanding. Shelters grew, police departments were
educated, the VAWA hotline--which we added to the law as an
afterthought, I remember, in the conference--got huge numbers of calls
every week, far more than anybody ever expected. The increased
penalties for repeat sex offenders did a great deal of good.
In my State alone, for instance, the act provided $92 million for
purposes such as shelter, such as education, such as rape crisis
centers, and such as prevention education for high school and college
students, and victims' services. But, as impressive as the advances
were under the original VAWA, we still have a long way to go; this
horrible activity is ingrained deeply in our society. Building on the
success of VAWA I, VAWA II--the Violence Against Women Act II--is now
before us. It is still the case that a third of all murdered women die
at the hands of spouses and partners and a quarter of all violent
crimes against women are committed by spouses and partners. Indeed, the
latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics actually show an
increase of 13 percent in rape and sexual assault.
So we have a long way to go. The battle continues. It is why the
Violence Against Women Act is so important and will make such a
difference in the lives of women across America. I will not catalog its
provisions. That has been done by my colleagues before me. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this legislation.
In conclusion, let us hope this law will hasten the time when
violence against women is not a unique and rampant problem requiring
the attention of this body. Let us pray for the time when women no
longer need to live in fear of being beaten.
I yield my time and thank my colleagues.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from
Iowa, on the floor. I yield him 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Vermont for
yielding me this time to voice my support for the reauthorization of
the Violence Against Women Act. It is an important act that should be
passed forthwith.
I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994, and I am
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that
has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in my State of
Iowa and across the Nation. Iowa has received more than $8 million
through grants of VAWA. These grants fund the domestic violence hotline
and keep the doors open at domestic violence shelters, such as the
Family Violence Center in Des Moines.
VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual
assault victims just this year, and more than 20,559 Iowa students this
year have received information about rape prevention through this
Federal funding.
The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found
that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent
from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that State and community
efforts are indeed working. But this fight is far from over. The
reauthorization of this important legislation will allow these efforts
to continue without having to worry that this funding will be lost from
year to year. I commend the Democratic and Republican leadership for
working to get this bill done before we adjourn.
I believe my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are
suffering from a split personality. They are willing to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act, but they are not willing to put a judge on
the Federal bench who knows more about this law, has done more to
implement this law than any other person in this country, and that is
Bonnie J. Campbell, who right now heads the Office of Violence Against
Women that was set up by this law in 1994. In fact, Bonnie Campbell has
been the head of this office since its inception, and the figures bear
out the fact that this office is working, and it is working well.
Bonnie Campbell's name was submitted to the Senate in March. She had
her hearing in May. All the paperwork is done. Yet she is bottled up in
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yesterday, the Senator from Alabama appeared on the CNN news show
``Burden of Proof'' to discuss the status of judicial nominations. I
want to address some of the statements he made on that show.
Senator Sessions said Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience.
The truth: Bonnie Campbell's qualifications are exemplary. The American
Bar Association has given her their stamp of approval. She has had a
long history in law starting in 1984 with her private practice in Des
Moines where she
[[Page S10189]]
worked on cases involving medical malpractice, employment
discrimination, personal injury, real estate, and family law.
She was then elected attorney general of Iowa, the first woman to
ever hold that office. In that position, she gained high marks from all
ends of the political spectrum as someone who was strongly committed to
enforcing the law to reducing crime and protecting consumers.
As I said, in 1995, she led the implementation of the Violence
Against Women Act as head of that office under the Justice Department.
Her strong performance in this role is reflected in last month's House
vote to reauthorize VAWA--415-3.
Senator Sessions from Alabama says she has no courtroom experience. I
will mention a few of the judicial nominees who have been confirmed who
were criticized for having little or no courtroom experience.
Randall Rader--my friend from Utah might recognize that name--was
appointed to the U.S. Claims Court in 1988 and then to the Federal
circuit in 1990. Before 1988, Mr. Rader had never practiced law, had
only been out of law school for 11 years, and his only post-law-school
employment had been with Congress as counsel to Senator Hatch from
Utah. Yet today, he sits on a Federal bench. But Senator Sessions from
Alabama says Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience; that is why
she does not deserve to be on the Federal court.
Pasco Bowman serves on the Eighth Circuit. He was confirmed in 1983.
Before his nomination--
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. He was criticized for his lack of experience because he
had been in private practice for 5 years out of law school, and the
rest of that time he was a law professor. Now he is on the Eighth
Circuit.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I want to agree with that.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. I do not think it is critical
that a person have prior trial experience to be nominated to the
Federal bench.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
Mr. HATCH. There are many academics who have not had 1 day of trial
experience. There have been a number of Supreme Court Justices who have
not had 1 day of trial experience. I do criticize the Senator in one
regard, and that is for bringing up the name of Randall Rader because
Randy happened to be one of the best members of our Senate Judiciary
Committee. He is now one of the leading lights in all intellectual
property issues as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge. The fact
is, he has a great deal of ability in that area. I agree with that.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? I am not
criticizing Randall Rader.
Mr. HATCH. I didn't think you were.
Mr. HARKIN. I am saying here is a guy on the court, probably doing a
great job for all I know, but he didn't have any courtroom experience
either.
Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator.
Let me just say this. I am in agreement with my friend and colleague
from Iowa. I believe it is helpful to have trial experience, especially
when you are going to be a trial judge. I do not think it is absolutely
essential, however. I also believe some of the greatest judges we have
had, on the trial bench, the appellate bench, and on the Supreme Court,
never stepped a day into a courtroom other than to be sworn into law to
practice.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with that.
Mr. HATCH. That isn't the situation.
Now, I have to say, I appreciate my two colleagues from Iowa in their
very earnest defense, and really offense, in favor of Bonnie Campbell.
She is a very nice woman and a very good person. Personally, I wish I
could have gotten her through. But it isn't all this side's fault. As
the Senator knows, things exploded here at the end because of continual
filibusters on motions to proceed and misuse of the appointments
clause, holds by Democrats, by the Democrat leader, on their own
judges, and other problems that have arisen that always seem to arise
in the last days.
So I apologize to the distinguished Senator I couldn't do a better
job in getting her through. But I agree with him, and I felt obligated
to stand and tell him I agreed with him, that some of our greatest
judges who have ever served have never had a day in court. I might add,
some of the worst who have ever served have never had a day in court
also. I think it is only fair to make that clear. But there are also
some pretty poor judges who have been trial lawyers, as well. So it
isn't necessarily any particular experience.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am just pointing out what the Senator from Alabama, who
is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
Mr. HATCH. I understand.
Mr. HARKIN. I was not saying anything about the Senator from Utah. I
was just pointing out, as he just did, some good judges on the
appellate level never had trial experience.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield again, if we made that the
criterion, that you have to have a lot of trial experience, I am afraid
we would hurt the Federal Judiciary in many respects because there are
some great people----
Mr. HARKIN. I agree.
Mr. HATCH. Who have served in very distinguished manners who have not
had trial experience. I think it is helpful, but it does not
necessarily mean you are going to be a great judge.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will note
the big difference between Judge Rader and Bonnie Campbell. I think
Judge Rader is a very good judge. I supported him. Judge Rader got an
opportunity to have a vote on his nomination, and he was confirmed.
Bonnie Campbell, who was nominated way back in March, has never been
given a vote. There is a big difference.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. It is not trial experience. There is a big difference. She
deserved a vote just as much as anybody else. She never got the vote.
Had she gotten the vote, then I think she would have been confirmed. It
is not a question of Judge Rader, whom I happen to like, who is a close
personal friend of mine, and whom I supported; it is a question of who
gets a vote around here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Iowa has
expired.
Mr. LEAHY. I assumed the time of the Senator from Utah was coming
from his side.
Mr. HARKIN. I yielded to him.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 more
minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I just point out, J. Harvie Wilkinson is another judge in
the Fourth Circuit. Again, he never had any courtroom experience
either.
I am just pointing out, the Senator from Alabama yesterday, on the
same TV show, said Bonnie Campbell was nominated too late. Nonsense.
Gobbledy-gook.
Bonnie Campbell was nominated on March 2 of this year. The four
judicial nominees who were confirmed just last week were nominated
after Bonnie Campbell. Why didn't Senator Sessions from Alabama stop
them from going out of committee? They were nominated after Bonnie
Campbell. Three of them were nominated, received their hearings, and
were reported out of the committee during the same week in July. Bonnie
Campbell had her hearing in May, and she has since been bottled up in
committee.
I keep pointing out, in 1992 President Bush nominated 14 circuit
court judges. Nine had their hearing, nine were referred, and nine were
confirmed--all in 1992. I guess it was not too late when the
Republicans had the Presidency, but it is too late if there is a
Democrat President.
Here is the year: 2000. Seven circuit court judges have been
nominated; two have had their hearing, one has been referred, and one
has been confirmed--one out of seven.
So who is playing politics around this place?
The Senator from Alabama said the Judiciary Committee is holding
hearings, just as they did in the past.
In 1992, there were 15 judicial hearings; this year, there have been
8.
The Senator from Alabama also said some Republican Senators claim
Bonnie Campbell is too liberal.
But Bonnie Campbell has bipartisan support. Senator Grassley, law
enforcement people, and victims services
[[Page S10190]]
groups also all support her. Is that the test?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. HARKIN. May I have 2 more minutes?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator
from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Thirty seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
Unanimous Consent Request--Nomination Of Bonnie J. Campbell
Mr. HARKIN. Since this may be my only opportunity today, I will do
it, as I will every day we are in session.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee
be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie J.
Campbell, that after the two rollcall votes at 4:30----
Mr. HATCH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HATCH. I will wait until the Senator finishes.
Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to finish--that the Senate proceed to this
nomination, with debate limited to 2 hours equally divided and,
further, that the Senate vote on this nomination at the conclusion of
the yielding back of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I get a little tired of some of these
comments about judges when we put through 377 Clinton-Gore judges, only
5 fewer than Ronald Reagan, the all-time high. I get a little tired of
the anguishing.
There has never been, to my recollection, in my 24 years here, a time
where we have not had problems at the end of a Presidential year.
Whether the Democrats are in power or we are in power, there is always
somebody, and others--quite a few people--who foul up the process. But
that is where we are. And to further foul it up is just not in the
cards.
Senator Harkin has spoken at length about one nominee: Bonnie J.
Campbell. Let me respond.
It always is the case that some nominations ``die'' at the end of the
Congress. In 1992, when Democrats controlled the Senate, Congress
adjourned without having acted on 53 Bush nominations. I have a list
here of the 53 Bush nominees whose nominations expired when the Senate
adjourned in 1992, at the end of the 102nd Congress. By comparison,
there are only 40 Clinton nominations that will expire when this
Congress adjourns. My Democratic colleagues have discussed at length
some of the current nominees whose nominations will expire at the
adjournment of this Congress, including Bonnie Campbell. I ask
unanimous consent that this list of 53 Bush nominations that Senate
Democrats permitted to expire in 1992 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
53 BUSH NOMINATIONS RETURNED BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE IN 1992
AT THE CLOSE OF THE 102D CONGRESS
Nominee Court
Sidney A. Fitzwater of Texas.............. Fifth Circuit.
John G. Roberts, Jr. of Maryland.......... D.C. Circuit.
John A. Smietanka of Michigan............. Sixth Circuit.
Frederico A. Moreno of Florida............ Eleventh Circuit.
Justin P. Wilson of Tennessee............. Sixth Circuit.
Franklin Van Antwerpen of Penn............ Third Circuit.
Francis A. Keating of Oklahoma............ Tenth Circuit.
Jay C. Waldman of Pennsylvania............ Third Circuit.
Terrance W. Boyle of North Carolina....... Fourth Circuit.
Lillian R. BeVier of Virginia............. Fourth Circuit
James R. McGregor......................... Western District of
Pennsylvania.
Edmund Arthur Kavanaugh................... Northern District of New
York.
Thomas E. Sholts.......................... Southern District of
Florida.
Andrew P. O'Rourke........................ Southern District of New
York.
Tony Michael Graham....................... Northern District of
Oklahoma.
Carlos Bea................................ Northern District of
California.
James B. Franklin......................... Southern District of
Georgia.
David G. Trager........................... Eastern District of New
York.
Kenneth R. Carr........................... Western District of Texas.
James W. Jackson.......................... Northern District of Ohio.
Terral R. Smith........................... Western District of Texas.
Paul L. Schechtman........................ Southern District of New
York.
Percy Anderson............................ Central District of
California.
Lawrence O. Davis......................... Eastern District of
Missouri.
Andrew S. Hanen........................... Southern District of Texas.
Russell T. Lloyd.......................... Southern District of Texas.
John F. Walter............................ Central District of
California.
Gene E. Voigts............................ Western District of
Missouri.
Manual H. Quintana........................ Southern District of New
York.
Charles A. Banks.......................... Eastern District of Arizona.
Robert D. Hunter.......................... Northern District of
Alabama.
Maureen E. Mahoney........................ Eastern District of
Virginia.
James S. Mitchell......................... Nebraska.
Ronald B. Leighton........................ Western District of
Washington.
William D. Quarles........................ Maryland.
James A. McIntyre......................... Southern District of
California.
Leonard E. Davis.......................... Eastern District of Texas.
J. Douglas Drushal........................ Northern District of Ohio.
C. Christopher Hagy....................... Northern District of
Georgia.
Louis J. Leonatti......................... Eastern District of
Missouri.
James J. McMonagle........................ Northern District of Ohio.
Katharine J. Armentrout................... Maryland.
Larry R. Hicks............................ Nevada.
Richard Conway Casey...................... Southern District of New
York.
R. Edgar Campbell......................... Middle District of Georgia.
Joanna Seybert............................ Eastern District of New
York.
Robert W. Kostelka........................ Western District of
Louisiana.
Richard E. Dorr........................... Western District of
Missouri.
James H. Payne............................ Oklahoma.
Walter B. Prince.......................... Massachusetts.
George A. O'Toole, Jr..................... Massachusetts.
William P. Dimitrouleas................... Southern District of
Florida.
Henry W. Saad............................. Eastern District of
Michigan.
Mr. HATCH. I would note that the Reagan and Bush nominations that
Senate Democrats allowed to expire Congresses included the nominations
of minorities and women, such as Lillian BeVier, Frederic Moreno, and
Judy Hope.
I do not have any personal objection to the judicial nominees who my
Democratic colleagues have spoken about over the last few weeks. I am
sure that they are all fine people. Similarly, I do not think that my
Democratic colleagues had any personal objections to the 53 judicial
nominees whose nominations expired in 1992, a the end of the Bush
presidency.
Many of the Republican nominees whose confirmations were blocked by
the Democrats have gone on to great careers both in public service and
the private sector. Senator Jeff Sessions, Governor Frank Keating, and
Washington attorney John Roberts are just a few examples that come to
mind.
I know that it is small comfort to the individuals whose nominations
are pending, but the fact of the matter is that inevitably some
nominations will expire when the Congress adjourns. I happens every two
years. I personally believe that Senate Republicans should get some
credit for keeping the number of vacancies that will die at the end of
this Congress relatively low. As things now stand, 13 fewer nominations
will expire at the end this year than expired at the end of the Bush
Presidency.
Madam President, I rise today to express my pride and gratitude that
the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 will pass the Senate today and
soon become law. This important legislation provides tools that will
help women in Utah and around the country who are victims of domestic
violence break away from dangerous and destructive relationships and
begin living their lives absent of fear.
I commend all of my fellow Senators and colleagues in the House of
Representatives with whom I worked to ensure the Violence Against Women
Act is reauthorized through the year 2005. The Republican and
Democratic Senators and Representatives who worked to make sure that
this legislation passed understood and understand that violence knows
no boundaries and it can affect the lives of everyone.
This has been a truly bipartisan effort of which everyone can be
extremely proud. Specifically, I thank Senator Joseph Biden for his
unyielding commitment to this bill. His leadership and dedication has
ensured VAWA's passage. I must say, though, that all along I remained
more optimistic than he that we would pass this bill I promised him we
would.
I want to take a moment to briefly summarize some of the important
provisions in this legislation. First, the bill reauthorizes through
fiscal year 2005 the key programs included in the original Violence
Against Women Act, such as the STOP and Pro-Arrest grant programs. The
STOP grant program has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors,
working in close collaboration with victim services providers, into the
fight to end violence against women. The STOP grants were revised to
engage State courts in fighting violence against women by targeting
funds to be used by these courts for the training and education of
court personnel, technical assistance, and technological improvements.
The Pro-Arrest grants have helped to develop and strengthen programs
and policies that mandate and encourage police officers to arrest
abusers who commit acts of violence or violate protection orders. These
grants have been expanded to include expressly the enforcement of
protection orders as a focus for the grant program funds. The
[[Page S10191]]
changes also make the development and enhancement of data collection
and sharing systems to promote enforcement of protection orders a
funding priority. Another improvement requires recipients of STOP and
Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a condition of funding, to facilitate the
filing and service of protection orders without cost to the victim in
both civil and criminal cases.
Additionally, the legislation reauthorizes the National Domestic
Violence Hotline and rape prevention and education grant programs. It
also contains three victims of child abuse programs, including the
court-appointed special advocate program. The Rural Domestic Violence
and Child Abuse Enforcement Grants are reauthorized through 2005. This
direct grant program, which focuses on problems particular to rural
areas, will specifically help Utah and other states and local
governments with large populations living in rural areas.
Second, the legislation includes targeted improvements that our
experience with the original Act has shown to be necessary. For
example, VAWA authorizes grants for legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. It provides funding
for transitional housing assistance, an extremely crucial complement to
the shelter program, which was suggested early on by persons in my home
state of Utah. It also improves full faith and credit enforcement and
computerized tracking of protection orders by prohibiting notification
of a batterer without the victim's consent when an out-of-state order
is registered in a new jurisdiction. Another important addition to the
legislation expands several key grant programs to cover violence that
arises in dating relationships. Finally, it makes important revisions
to the immigration laws to protect battered immigrant women.
There is no doubt that women and children in my home state of Utah
will benefit from the improvements made in this legislation. Mr.
President, this is the type of legislation that can effect positive
changes in the lives of all Americans. It provides assistance to
battered women and their children when they need it the most. It
provides hope to those whose lives have been shattered by domestic
violence.
I am proud to have worked with the women's groups in Utah and
elsewhere in seeing that VAWA is reauthorized. With their help, we have
been able to make targeted improvements to the original legislation
that will make crucial services better and more available to women and
children who are trapped in relationships of terror. I am proud of this
achievement and what it will do to save the lives of victims of
domestic violence.
In closing, I again want to thank Senators Biden and Abraham,
Congressman Bill McCollum, and Congresswoman Connie Morella for their
leadership on and dedication to the issue of domestic violence.
Legislators from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress
have been committed to ensuring that this legislation becomes law. I am
proud to have worked with my fellow legislators to achieve this goal,
which will bring much needed assistance to the victims of domestic
violence.
Madam President, I am not just talking about violence against women
legislation and the work that Senator Biden and I have done through the
years to make it a reality. I actually worked very hard in my home
State to make sure we have women-in-jeopardy programs, battered women
shelters, psychiatric children programs, and other programs of
counseling, so that they can be taken care of in conjunction with the
Violence Against Women Act and the moneys we put up here. In fact, we
hold an annual charitable golf tournament that raises between $500,000
and $700,000 a year, most of which goes for seed money to help these
women-in-jeopardy programs, children's psychiatric, and other programs
in ways that will help our society and families.
I believe in this bill. I believe it is something we should do. I
think everybody ought to vote for it, and I hope, no matter what
happens today, we pass this bill, get it into law, and do what is right
for our women and children--and sometimes even men who are also covered
by this bill because it is neutral. But I hope we all know that it is
mostly women who suffer. I hope we can get this done and do it in a way
that really shows the world what a great country we live in and how
much we are concerned about women, children, families, and doing
something about some of the ills and problems that beset us.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, let me use 1 more minute, and I will make
a couple more comments. I want to express my strong support for the
underlying bill in this conference report dealing with victims of sex
trafficking. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on the
Foreign Relations Committee, led by Senators Brownback and Wellstone
for much of this past summer, on the significant criminal and
immigration provisions in this legislation. This is an important
measure that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement to combat
international sex trafficking and provide needed assistance to the
victims of such trafficking. I think we can all be very proud of this
effort.
Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to thank all of the
committed staff members on both sides of the aisle and on several
committees for their talented efforts to get this legislation done.
First, on Senator Biden's staff, I thank Alan Hoffman, chief of Staff
for his tireless commitment, as well as current counsel Bonnie Robin-
Vergeer and former counsel Sheryl Walters. They are truly
professionals.
On Senator Abraham's staff, I'd like to thank Lee Otis, and her
counterpart on Senator Kennedy's staff, Esther Olavarria.
On the Foreign Relations Committee, I'd like to express my thanks to
staff Director Biegun and the committed staffs of Senator Brownback and
Wellstone, including Sharon Payt and Karen Knutson.
And finally, Mr. President, there are many dedicated people on my own
staff who deserve special recognition. I thank my chief counsel and
staff director, Manus Cooney, as well as Sharon Prost, Maken Delrahim,
and Leah Belaire.
I ask unanimous consent that a joint managers' statement be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, we are very pleased that the Senate has
taken up and passed the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women
Act of 2000 today. We have worked hard together over the past
year to produce a bipartisan, streamlined bill that has
gained the support of Senators from Both sides of the aisle.
The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994
signaled the beginning of a national and historic commitment
to the women and children in this country victimized by
family violence and sexual assault. Today we renew that
national commitment.
The original Act changed our laws, strengthened criminal
penalties, facilitated enforcement of protection orders from
state to state, and committed federal dollars to police,
prosecutors, battered women shelters, a national domestic
violence hotline, and other measures designed to crack down
on batterers and offer the support and services that victims
need in order to leave their abusers.
These programs are not only popular, but more importantly,
the Violence Against Women Act is working. The latest
Department of Justice statistics show that overall, violence
against women by intimate partners is down, falling 21
percent from 1993 (just prior to the enactment of the
original Act) to 1998.
States, counties, cities, and towns across the country are
creating a seamless network of services for victims of
violence against women--from law enforcement to legal
services, from medical care and crisis counseling, to
shelters and support groups. The Violence Against Women Act
has made, and is making, a real difference in the lives of
millions of women and children.
Not surprisingly, the support for the bill is overwhelming.
The National Association of Attorneys General has sent a
letter calling for the bill's enactment signed by every state
Attorney General in the country. The National Governors'
Association support the bill. The American Medical
Association. Police chiefs in every state Sheriffs. District
Attorneys. Women's groups. Nurses, Battered women's shelters.
The list goes on and on.
For far too long, law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts,
and the community at large treated domestic abuse as a
``private family matter,'' looking the other way when women
suffered abuse at the hands of their supposed loved ones.
Thanks in part to the original Act, violence against women is
no longer a
[[Page S10192]]
private matter, and the time when a woman has to suffer in
silence because the criminal who is victimizing her happens
to be her husband or boyfriend has past. Together--at the
federal, state, and local levels--we have been steadily
moving forward, step by step, along the road to ending this
violence once and for all. But there is more that we can do,
and more that we must do.
The Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000
accomplishes two basic things:
First, the bill reauthorizes through Fiscal Year 2005 the
key programs included in the original Violence Against Women
Act, such as the STOP, Pro-Arrest, Rural Domestic Violence
and Child Abuse Enforcement, and campus grants programs;
battered women's shelters; the National Domestic Violence
Hotline; rape prevention and education grant programs; and
three victims of child abuse programs, including the court-
appointed special advocate program (CASA).
Second, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 makes some
targeted improvements that our experience with the original
Act has shown to be necessary, such as--
(1) Authorizing grants for legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
(2) Providing funding for transitional housing assistance;
(3) Improving full faith and credit enforcement and
computerized tracking of protection orders;
(4) Strengthening and refining the protections for battered
immigrant women;
(5) Authorizing grants for supervised visitation and safe
visitation exchange of children between parents in situations
involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking; and
(6) Expanding several of the key grant programs to cover
violence that arises in dating relationships.
Although this Act does not extend the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund, it is the managers' expectation that if
the Trust Fund is extended beyond Fiscal Year 2000, funds for
the programs authorized or reauthorized in the Violence
Against Women Act of 2000 would be appropriated from this
dedicated funding source.
Several points regarding the provisions of Title V, the
Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, bear special
mention. Title V continues the work of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA'') in removing obstacles
inadvertently interposed by our immigration laws that many
hinder or prevent battered immigrants from fleeing domestic
violence safely and prosecuting their abusers by allowing an
abusive citizen or lawful permanent resident to blackmail the
abused spouse through threats related to the abused spouse's
immigration status. We would like to elaborate on the
rationale for several of these new provisions and how that
rationale should inform their proper interpretation and
administration.
First, section 1503 of this legislation allows battered
immigrants who unknowingly marry bigamists to avail
themselves of VAWA's self-petition procedures. This provision
is also intended to facilitate the filing of a self-petition
by a battered immigrant married to a citizen or lawful
permanent resident with whom the battered immigrant believes
he or she had contracted a valid marriage and who represented
himself or herself to be divorced. To qualify, a marriage
ceremony, either in the United States or abroad, must
actually have been performed. We would anticipate that
evidence of such a battered immigrant's legal marriage to the
abuser through a marriage certificate or marriage license
would ordinarily suffice as proof that the immigrant is
eligible to petition for classification as a spouse without
the submission of divorce decrees from each of the abusive
citizen's or lawful permanent resident's former marriages.
For an abused spouse to obtain sufficient detailed
information about the date and the place of each of the
abuser's former marriages and the date and place of each
divorce, as INS currently requires, can be a daunting,
difficult and dangerous task, as this information is under
the control of the abuser and the abuser's family members.
Section 1503 should relieve the battered immigrant of that
burden in the ordinary case.
Second, section 1503 also makes VAWA relief available to
abused spouses and children living abroad of citizens and
lawful permanent residents who are members of the uniformed
services or government employees living abroad, as well as to
abused spouses and children living abroad who were abused by
a citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in
the United States. We would expect that INS will take
advantage of the expertise the Vermont Service Center has
developing in deciding self-petitions and assign it
responsibility for adjudicating these petitions even though
they may be filed at U.S. embassies abroad.
Third, while VAWA self-petitioners can include their
children in their applications, VAWA cancellations of removal
applicants cannot. Because there is a backlog for
applications for minor children of lawful permanent
residents, the grant of permanent residency to the applicant
parent and the theoretical available of derivative status to
the child at that time does not solve this problem. Although
in the ordinary cancellation case the INS would not seek to
deport such a child, an abusive spouse may try to bring about
that result in order to exert power and control over the
abused spouse. Section 1504 directs the Attorney General to
parole such children, thereby enabling them to remain with
the victim and out of the abuser's control. This directive
should be understood to include a battered immigrant's
children whether or not they currently reside in the United
States, and therefore to include the use of his or her parole
power to admit them if necessary. The protection offered by
section 1504 to children abused by their U.S. citizen or
lawful permanent resident parents is available to the abused
child even though the courts may have terminated the parental
rights of the abuser.
Fourth, in an effort to strengthen the hand of victims of
domestic abuse, in 1996 Congress added crimes of domestic
violence and stalking to the list of crimes that render an
individual deportable. This change in law has had unintended
negative consequences for abuse victims because despite
recommended procedures to the contrary, in domestic violence
cases many officers still makes dual arrests instead
of determining the primary perpetrator of abuse. A
battered immigrant may well not be in sufficient control
of his or her life to seek sufficient counsel before
accepting a plea agreement that carries little or no jail
time without understanding its immigration consequences.
The abusive spouse, on the other hand, may understand
those consequences well and may proceed to turn the abuse
victim in to the INS.
To resolve this problem, section 1505(b) of this
legislation provides the Attorney General with discretion to
grant a waiver of deportability to a person with a conviction
for a crime of domestic violence or stalking that did not
result in serious bodily injury and that was connected to
abuse suffered by a battered immigrant who was not the
primary perpetrator of abuse in a relationship. In
determining whether such a waiver is warranted, the Attorney
General is to consider the full history of domestic violence
in the case, the effect of the domestic violence on any
children, and the crimes that are being committed against the
battered immigrant. Similarly, the Attorney General is to
take the same types of evidence into account in determining
under sections 1503(d) and 1504(a) whether a battered
immigrant has proven that he or she is a person of good moral
character and whether otherwise disqualifying conduct should
not operate as a bar to that finding because it is connected
to the domestic violence, including the need to escape an
abusive relationship. This legislation also clarifies that
the VAWA evidentiary standard under which battered immigrants
in self-petition and cancellation proceedings may use any
credible evidence to prove abuse continues to apply to all
aspects of self-petitions and VAWA cancellation as well as to
the various domestic violence discretionary waivers in this
legislation and to determinations concerning U visas.
Fifth, section 1505 makes section 212(i) waivers available
to battered immigrants on a showing of extreme hardship to,
among others, a ``qualified alien'' parent or child. The
reference intended here is to the current definition of a
qualified alien from the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, found at 8 U.S.C.
1641.
Sixth, section 1506 of this legislation extends the
deadline for a battered immigrant to file a motion to reopen
removal proceedings, now set at 90 days after the entry of an
order of removal, to one year after final adjudication of
such an order. It also allows the Attorney General to waive
the one year deadline on the basis of extraordinary
circumstances or hardship to the alien's child. Such
extraordinary circumstances may include but would not be
limited to an atmosphere of deception, violence, and fear
that make it difficult for a victim of domestic violence to
learn of or take steps to defend against or reopen an order
of removal in the first instance. They also include failure
to defend against removal or file a motion to reopen within
the deadline on account of a child's lack of capacity due to
age. Extraordinary circumstances may also include violence or
cruelty of such a nature that, when the circumstances
surrounding the domestic violence and the consequences of the
abuse are considered, not allowing the battered immigrant to
reopen the deportation or removal proceeding would thwart
justice or be contrary to the humanitarian purpose of this
legislation. Finally, they include the battered immigrant's
being made eligible by this legislation for relief from
removal not available to the immigrant before that time.
Seventh, section 1507 helps battered immigrants more
successfully protect themselves from ongoing domestic
violence by allowing battered immigrants with approved self-
petitions to remarry. Such remarriage cannot serve as the
basis for revocation of an approved self-petition or
rescission of adjustment of status.
There is one final issue that has been raised, recently,
which we would like to take this opportunity to address, and
that is the eligibility of men to receive benefits and
services under the original Violence Against Women Act and
under this reauthorizing legislation. The original Act was
enacted in 1994 to respond to the serious and escalating
problem of violence against women. A voluminous legislative
record compiled after four years of congressional hearings
demonstrated convincingly that certain violent crimes, such
as domestic violence and sexual assault, disproportionally
affect women, both in terms of the sheer number of assaults
and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. Accordingly,
the Act, through several complementary grant programs, made
it
[[Page S10193]]
a priority to address domestic violence and sexual assault
targeted at women, even though women, of course, are not
alone in experiencing this type of violence.
Recent statistics justify a continued focus on violence
targeted against women. For example, a report by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in
May 2000 on Intimate Partner Violence confirms that crimes
committed against persons by current or former spouses,
boyfriends or girlfriends--termed intimate partner violence--
is ``committed primarily against women.'' Of the
approximately 1 million violent crimes committed by intimate
partners in 1998, 876,340, or about 85 percent, were
committed against women. Women were victims of intimate
partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of men. That
same year, women represented nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the
1,830 murders attributed to intimate partners. Indeed, while
there has been a sharp decrease over the years in the rate of
murder of men by intimates, the percentage of female murder
victims killed by intimates has remained stubbornly at about
30 percent since 1976.
Despite the need to direct federal funds toward the most
pressing problem, it was not, and is not, the intent of
Congress categorically to exclude men who have suffered
domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and
services under the Violence Against Women Act. The Act
defines such key terms as ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual
assault,'' which are used to determine eligibility under
several of the grant programs, including the largest, the
STOP grant program, in gender-neutral language. Men who have
suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under
current law to apply for services and benefits that are
funded under the original Act--and they will remain eligible
under the Violence Against Women Act of 2000--whether it be
for shelter space under the Family Violence Protection and
Services Act, or counseling by the National Domestic Violence
Hotline, or legal assistance in obtaining a protection order
under the Legal Assistance for Victims program.
We anticipate that the executive branch agencies
responsible for making grants under the Act, as amended, will
continue to administer these programs so as to ensure that
men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual
assault will receive benefits and services under the Act, as
appropriate.
We append to this joint statement a section by section
analysis of the bill and a more detailed section by section
analysis of the provisions contained in Title V.
Thank you.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two section-
by-section summaries of the Violence Against Women Act be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Division B, The violence Against Women Act of 2000--Section-by-Section
Summary
Sec. 1001. Short Title
Names this division the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
Sec. 1002. Definitions
Restates the definitions ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual
assault'' as currently defined in the STOP grant program.
Sec. 1003. Accountability and Oversight
Requires the Attorney General or Secretary of Health and
Human Services, as applicable, to require grantees under any
program authorized or reauthorized by this division to report
on the effectiveness of the activities carried out. Requires
the Attorney General or Secretary, as applicable, to report
biennially to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on
these grant programs.
Title I--Strengthening Law Enforcement to Reduce Violence Against Women
Sec. 1101. Improving Full Faith and Credit Enforcement of
Protection Orders
Helps states and tribal courts improve interstate
enforcement of protection orders as required by the original
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Renames Pro-Arrest Grants
to expressly include enforcement of protection orders as a
focus for grant program funds, adds as a grant purpose
technical assistance and use of computer and other equipment
for enforcing orders; instructs the Department of Justice to
identify and make available information on promising order
enforcement practices; adds as a funding priority the
development and enhancement of data collection and sharing
systems to promote enforcement or protection orders.
Amends the full faith and credit provision in the original
Act to prohibit requiring registration as a prerequisite to
enforcement of out-of-state orders and to prohibit
notification of a batterer without the victim's consent when
an out-of-state order is registered in a new jurisdiction.
Requires recipients of STOP and Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a
condition of funding, to facilitate filing and service of
protection orders without cost to the victim in both civil
and criminal cases.
Clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction
to enforce protection orders in matters arising within the
authority of the tribe.
Sec. 1102. Enhancing the Role of Courts in Combating Violence
Against Women
Engages state courts in fighting violence against women by
targeting funds to be used by the courts for the training and
education of court personnel, technical assistance, and
technological improvements. Amends STOP and Pro-Arrest grants
to make state and local courts expressly eligible for funding
and dedicates 5 percent of states' STOP grants for courts.
Sec. 1103. STOP Grants Reauthorization
Reauthorizes through 2005 this vital state formula grant
program that has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors
in close collaboration with victim services providers into
the fight to end violence against women. (``STOP'' means
``Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors'').
Preserves the original Act's allocations of states' STOP
grant funds of 25 percent to police and 25 percent to
prosecutors, but increases grants to victim services to 30
percent (from 25 percent), in addition to the 5 percent
allocated to state, tribal, and local courts.
Sets aside five percent of total funds available for State
and tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions
and increases the allocation for Indian tribes to 5 percent
(up from 4 percent in the original Act).
Amends the definition of ``underserved populations'' and
adds additional purpose areas for which grants may be used.
Authorization level is $185 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $206.75 million (including a $28 million
earmark for civil legal assistance)).
Sec. 1104. Pro-Arrest Grants Reauthorization
Extends this discretionary grant program through 2005 to
develop and strengthen programs and policies that mandate and
encourage police officers to arrest abusers who commit acts
of violence or violate protection orders.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $65 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $34 million).
Sec. 1105. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 these direct grant programs that help
states and local governments focus on problems particular to
rural areas.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $40 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $25 million).
Sec. 1106. National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction
Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this grant program to assist states
and local governments in improving databases for stalking and
domestic violence.
Authorization level is $3 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $2.75 million).
Sec. 1107. Clarify Enforcement to End Interstate Battery/
Stalking
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to persons
crossing United States borders as well as crossing state
lines by use of ``interstate or foreign commerce language.''
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to battery or
violation of specified portions of protection order before
travel to facilitate the interstate movement of the victim.
Makes the nature of the ``harm required for domestic
violence, stalking, and interstate travel offenses consistent
by removing the requirement that the victim suffer actual
physical harm from those offenses that previously had
required such injury.
Resolves several inconsistencies between the protection
order offense involving interstate travel of the offender,
and the protection order offense involving interstate travel
of the victim.
Revises the definition of ``protection order'' to clarify
that support or child custody orders are entitled to full
faith and credit to the extent provided under other Federal
law--namely, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980,
as amended.
Extends the interstate stalking prohibition to cover
interstate ``cyber-stalking'' that occurs by use of the mail
or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, such as by
telephone or by computer connected to the Internet.
Sec. 1108. School and Campus Security
Extends the authorization through 2005 for the grant
program established in the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 and administered by the Justice Department for grants
for on-campus security, education, training, and victim
services to combat violence against women on college
campuses. Incorporates ``dating violence'' into purpose areas
for which grants may be used. Amends the definition of
``victim services'' to include public, nonprofit
organizations acting in a nongovernmental capacity, such as
victim services organizations at public universities.
Authorization level is $10 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $10 million earmark for this use).
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants through 2003
to states, units of local government, and Indian tribes to
provide improved security, including the placement and use of
metal detectors and other deterrent measures, at schools and
on school grounds.
Authorization level is $30 million/year.
Sec. 1109. Dating Violence
Incorporates ``dating violence'' into certain purposes
areas for which grants may be used under the STOP, Pro-
Arrest, and Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement grant programs. Defines ``dating violence'' as
violence committed by a person:
[[Page S10194]]
(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic
or intimate nature with the victim; and (B) where the
existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on
consideration of the following factors: (i) the length of the
relationship; (ii) the type of relationship; and (iii) the
frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the
relationship.
Title II--Strengthening Services to Victims of Violence
Sec. 1201. Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
Building on set-asides in past STOP grant appropriations
since fiscal year 1998 for civil legal assistance, this
section authorizes a separate grant program for those
purposes through 2005. Helps victims of domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault who need legal assistance as a
consequence of that violence to obtain access to trained
attorneys and lay advocacy services, particularly pro bono
legal services. Grants support training, technical
assistance, data collection, and support for cooperative
efforts between victim advocacy groups and legal assistance
providers.
Defines the term ``legal assistance'' to include assistance
to victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault
in family, immigration, administrative agency, or housing
matters, protection or stay away order proceedings, and other
similar matters. For purposes of this section,
``administrative agency'' refers to a federal, state, or
local governmental agency that provides financial benefits.
Sets aside 5 percent of the amounts made available for
programs assisting victims of domestic violence, stalking,
and sexual assault in Indian country; sets aside 25 percent
of the funds used for direct services, training, and
technical assistance for the use of victims of sexual
assault.
Appropriation is $40 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $28 million earmark for this use).
Sec. 1202. Expanded Shelter for Battered Women and Their
Children
Reauthorizes through 2005 current programs administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services to help
communities provide shelter to battered women and their
children, with increased funding to provide more shelter
space to assist the tens of thousands who are being turned
away.
Authorization level is $175 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $101.5 million).
Sec. 1203. Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of
Domestic Violence
Authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to
make grants to provide short-term housing assistance and
support services to individuals and their dependents who are
homeless or in need of transitional housing or other housing
assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of domestic
violence, and for whom emergency shelter services are
unavailable or insufficient.
Authorization level is $25 million for FY 2001.
Sec. 1204. National Domestic Violence Hotline
Extends through 2005 this grant to meet the growing demands
on the National Domestic Violence Hotline established under
the original Violence Against Women Act due to increased call
volume since its inception.
Authorization level is $2 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $2 million).
Sec. 1205. Federal Victims Counselors Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this program under which U.S. Attorney
offices can hire counselors to assist victims and witnesses
in prosecution of sex crimes and domestic violence crimes.
Authorization level is $1 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $1 million).
Sec. 1206. Study of State Laws Regarding Insurance
Discrimination Against Victims of Violence Against Women.
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify state laws that address insurance discrimination
against victims of domestic violence and submit
recommendations based on that study to Congress.
Sec. 1207. Study of Workplace Effects from Violence Against
Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national survey
of programs to assist employers on appropriate responses in
the workplace to victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault and submit recommendations based on that study to
Congress.
Sec. 1208. Study of Unemployment Compensation For Victims of
Violence Against Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify the impact of state unemployment compensation
laws on victims of domestic violence when the victim's
separation from employment is a direct result of the domestic
violence, and to submit recommendations based on that study
to Congress.
Sec. 1209. Enhancing Protections for Older and Disabled Women
from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Adds as new purposes areas to STOP grants and Pro-Arrest
grants the development of policies and initiatives that help
in identifying and addressing the needs of older and disabled
women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants for training
programs through 2005 to assist law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, and relevant court officers in recognizing,
addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder
abuse, neglect, and exploitation and violence against
individuals with disabilities, including domestic violence
and sexual assault, against older or disabled individuals.
Authorization is $5 million/year.
Title III--Limiting the Effects of Violence on Children
Sec. 1301. Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program
Establishes through 2002 a pilot Justice Department grant
program aimed at reducing the opportunity for domestic
violence to occur during the transfer of children for
visitation purposes by expanding the availability of
supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange for the
children of victims of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual
assault, or stalking.
Authorization level is $15 million for each year.
Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of Victims of Child Abuse Act
Grants
Extends through 2005 three grant programs geared to assist
children who are victims of abuse. These are the court-
appointed special advocate program, child abuse training for
judicial personnel and practitioners, and grants for
televised testimony of children.
Authorization levels are $12 million/year for the special
advocate programs, $2.3 million/year for the judicial
personnel training program, and $1 million/year for televised
testimony (FY 2000 appropriations were $10 million, $2.3
million, and $1 million respectively).
Sec. 1303. Report on Parental Kidnapping Laws
Requires the Attorney General to study and submit
recommendations on federal and state child custody laws,
including custody provisions in protection orders, the
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, and the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act adopted by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in
July 1997, and the effect of those laws on child custody
cases in which domestic violence is a factor. Amends
emergency jurisdiction to cover domestic violence.
Authorization level is $200,000.
Title IV--Strengthening Education & Training To Combat Violence Against
Women
Sec. 1401. Rape Prevention and Education Program
Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this Sexual Assault Education and
Prevention Grant program; includes education for college
students; provides funding to continue the National Resource
Center on Sexual Assault at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Authorization level is $80 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $45 million).
Sec. 1402. Education and Training to End Violence Against and
Abuse of Women with Disabilities
Establishes a new Justice Department grant program through
2005 to educate and provide technical assistance to providers
on effective ways to meet the needs of disabled women who are
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Authorization level is $7.5 million/year.
Sec. 1403. Reauthorization of Community Initiatives to
Prevent Domestic Violence
Reauthorizes through 2005 this grant program to fund
collaborative community projects targeted for the
intervention and prevention of domestic violence.
Authorization level is $6 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $6 million).
Sec. 1404. Development of Research Agenda Identified under
the Violence Against Women Act.
Requires the Attorney General to direct the National
Institute of Justice, in consultation with the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the National Academy of Sciences,
through its National Research Council, to develop a plan to
implement a research agenda based on the recommendations in
the National Academy of Sciences report ``Understanding
Violence Against Women,'' which was produced under a grant
awarded under the original Violence Against Women
Act. Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this section.
Sec. 1405. Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual
Assault Forensic Examinations
Requires the Attorney General to evaluate existing
standards of training and practice for licensed health care
professions performing sexual assault forensic examinations
and develop a national recommended standard for training; to
recommend sexual assault forensic examination training for
all health care students; and to review existing protocols on
sexual assault forensic examinations and, based on this
review, develop a recommended national protocol and establish
a mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.
Authorization level is $200,000 for FY 2001.
Sec. 1406. Education and Training for Judges and Court
Personnel.
Amends the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act of
1994, authorizing $1,500,000 each year through 2005 for
grants for education and training for judges and court
personnel instate courts, and $500,000 each year through 2005
for grants for education and training for judges and court
personnel in federal courts. Adds three areas of training
eligible for grant use.
[[Page S10195]]
Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force
Requires the Attorney General to establish a task force to
coordinate research on domestic violence and to report to
Congress on any overlapping or duplication of efforts among
the federal agencies that address domestic violence.
Authorization level is $500,000.
Title V--Battered Immigrant Women
Strengthens and refines the protections for battered
immigrant women in the original Violence Against Women Act.
Eliminates a number of ``catch-22'' policies and unintended
consequences of subsequent changes in immigration law to
ensure that domestic abusers with immigrant victims are
brought to justice and that the battered immigrants Congress
sought to help in the original Act are able to escape the
abuse.
Title VI--Miscellaneous
Sec. 1601. Notice Requirements for Sexually Violent Offenders
Amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require sex
offenders already required to register in a State to provide
notice, as required under State law, of each institution of
higher education in that State at which the person is
employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student. Requires
that state procedures ensure that this registration
information is promptly made available to law enforcement
agencies with jurisdiction where the institutions of higher
education are located and that it is entered into appropriate
State records or data systems. These changes take effect 2
years after enactment.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require
institutions of higher education to issue a statement, in
addition to other disclosures required under the Act,
advising the campus community where law enforcement agency
information provided by a State concerning registered sex
offenders may be obtained. This change takes effect 2 years
after enactment.
Amends the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 to clarify that nothing in that Act may be construed to
prohibit an educational institution from disclosing
information provided to the institution concerning registered
sex offenders; requires the Secretary of Education to take
appropriate steps to notify educational institutions that
disclosure of this information is permitted.
Sec. 1602. Teen Suicide Prevention Study
Authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services of predictors of suicide among at-risk and other
youth, and barriers that prevent the youth from receiving
treatment, to facilitate the development of model treatment
programs and public education and awareness efforts.
Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary.
Sec. 1603. Decade of Pain Control and Research
Designates the calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001,
as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research.''
____
Title V, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000--Section-
by-Section Summary
Title V is designed to improve on efforts made in VAWA 1994
to prevent immigration law from being used by an abusive
citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse as a tool to
prevent an abused immigrant spouse form reporting abuse or
living the abusive relationship. This could happen because
generally speaking, U.S. immigration law gives citizens and
lawful permanent residents the right to petition for their
spouses to be granted a permanent resident visa, which is the
necessary prerequisite for immigrating to the United States.
In the vast majority of cases, granting the right to seek the
visa to the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse makes
sense, since the purpose of family immigration visas is to
allow U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to live
here with their spouses and children. But in the unusual case
of the abusive relationship, an abusive citizen or lawful
permanent resident can use control over his or her spouse's
visa as a means to blackmail and control the spouse. The
abusive spouse would do this by withholding a promised visa
petition and then threatening to turn the abused spouse in to
the immigration authorities if the abused spouse sought to
leave the abuser or report the abuse.
VAWA 1994 changed this by allowing immigrants who
demonstrate that they have been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouses to file their own petitions for visas
without the cooperation of their abusive spouse. VAWA 1994
also allowed abused spouses placed in removal proceedings to
seek ``cancellation of removal,'' a form of discretionary
relief from removal available to individuals in unlawful
immigration status with strong equities, after three years
rather than the seven ordinarily required. Finally, VAWA 1994
granted similar rights to minor children abused by their
citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, whose
immigration status, like that of the abused spouse, would
otherwise be dependent on the abusive parent. VAWA 2000
addresses residual immigration law obstacles standing in the
path of battered immigrant spouses and children seeking to
free themselves from abusive relationships that either had
not come to the attention of the drafters of VAWA 1994 or
have arisen since as a result of 1996 changes to immigration
law.
Sec. 1501. Short Title.
Names this title the Battered Immigrant Women Protection
Act of 2000.
Sec. 1502. Findings and Purposes
Lays out as the purpose of the title building on VAWA
1994's efforts to enable battered immigrant spouses and
children to free themselves of abusive relationships and
report abuse without fear of immigration law consequences
controlled by their abusive citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouse or parent.
Sec. 1503. Improved Access to Immigration Protections of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for Battered Immigrant
Women.
Allows abused spouses and children who have already
demonstrated to the INS that they have been the victims of
battery or extreme cruelty by their spouse or parent to file
their own petition for a lawful permanent resident visa
without also having to show they will suffer ``extreme
hardship'' if forced to leave the U.S., a showing that is not
required if their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse
or parent files the visa petition on their behalf. Eliminates
U.S. residency as a prerequisite for a spouse or child of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been battered in
the U.S. or whose spouse is a member of the uniformed
services or a U.S. government employee to file for his or her
own visa, since there is no U.S. residency prerequisite for
non-battered spouses' or children's visas. Retains current
law's special requirement that abused spouses and children
filing their own petitions (unlike spouses and children for
whom their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or
parent petitions) demonstrate good moral character, but
modifies it to give the Attorney General authority to find
good moral character despite certain otherwise disqualifying
acts if those acts were connected to the abuse.
Allows a victim of battery or extreme cruelty who believed
himself or herself to be a citizen's or lawful permanent
resident's spouse and went through a marriage ceremony to
file a visa petition as a battered spouse if the marriage was
not valid solely on account of the citizen's or lawful
permanent resident's bigamy. Allows a battered spouse whose
citizen spouse died, whose spouse lost citizenship, whose
spouse lost lawful permanent residency, or from whom the
battered spouse was divorced to file a visa petition as an
abused spouse within two years of the death, loss of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency, or divorce,
provided that the loss of citizenship, status or divorce was
connected to the abuse suffered by the spouse. Allows a
battered spouse to naturalize after three years residency as
other spouses may do, but without requiring the battered
spouse to live in marital union with the abusive spouse
during that period.
Allows abused children or children of abused spouses whose
petitions were filed when they were minors to maintain their
petitions after they attain age 21, as their citizen or
lawful permanent resident parent would be entitled to do on
their behalf had the original petition been filed during the
child's minority, treating the petition as filed on the date
of the filing of the original petition for purposes of
determining its priority date.
Sec. 1504. Improved Access to Cancellation of Removal and
Suspension of Deportation under the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994.
Clarifies that with respect to battered immigrants,
IIRIRA's rule, enacted in 1996, that provides that with
respect to any applicant for cancellation of removal, any
absence that exceeds 90 days, or any series of absences that
exceed 180 days, interrupts continuous physical presence,
does not apply to any absence or portion of an absence
connected to the abuse. Makes this change retroactive to date
of enactment of IIRIRA. Directs Attorney General to parole
children of battered immigrants granted cancellation until
their adjustment of status application has been acted on,
provided the battered immigrant exercises due diligence in
filing such an application.
Sec. 1505. Offering Equal Access to Immigration Protections
of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for All
Qualified Battered Immigrant Self-Petitioners
Grants the Attorney General the authority to waive certain
bars to admissibility or grounds of deportability with
respect to battered spouses and children. New Attorney
General waiver authority granted (1) for crimes of domestic
violence or stalking where the spouse or child was not the
primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship, the
crime did not result in serious bodily injury, and there was
a connection between the crime and the abuse suffered by the
spouse or child; (2) for misrepresentations connected with
seeking an immigration benefit in cases of extreme hardship
to the alien (paralleling the AG's waiver authority for
spouses and children petitioned for by their citizen or
lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in cases of
extreme hardship to the spouse or parent); (3) for crimes of
moral turpitude not constituting aggravated felonies where
the crime was connected to the abuse (similarly paralleling
the AG's waiver authority for spouses and children petitioned
for by their spouse or parents); (4) for health related
grounds of inadmissibility (also paralleling the AG's waiver
authority for spouses and children petitioned for by their
spouse or parent); and
[[Page S10196]]
(5) for unlawful presence after a prior immigration
violation, if there is a connection between the abuse and the
alien's removal, departure, reentry, or attempted reentry.
Clarifies that a battered immigrant's use of public benefits
specifically made available to battered immigrants in PRWORA
does not make the immigrant inadmissible on public charge
ground.
Sec. 1506. Restoring Immigration Protections under the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Establishes mechanism paralleling mechanism available to
spouses and children petitioned for by their spouse or parent
to enable VAWA-qualified battered spouse or child to obtain
status as lawful permanent resident in the United States
rather than having to go abroad to get a visa.
Addresses problem created in 1996 for battered immigrants'
access to cancellation of removal by IIRIRA's new stop-time
rule. That rule was aimed at individuals gaming the system to
gain access to cancellation of removal. To prevent this,
IIRIRA stopped the clock on accruing any time toward
continuous physical presence at the time INS initiates
removal proceedings against an individual. This section
eliminates application of this rule to battered immigrant
spouses and children, who, if they are sophisticated enough
about immigration law and has sufficient freedom of movement
to ``game the system'', presumably would have filed self-
petitions, and more likely do not even know that INS has
initiated proceedings against them because their abusive
spouse or parent has withheld their mail. To implement this
change, allows a battered immigrant spouse or child to file a
motion to reopen removal proceedings within 1 year of the
entry of an order of removal (which deadline may be waived in
the Attorney General's discretion if the Attorney General
finds extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the
alien's child) provided the alien files a complete
application to be classified as VAWA-eligible at the time the
alien files the reopening motion.
Sec. 1507. Remedying Problems with Implementation of the
Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994
Clarifies that negative changes of immigration status of
abuser or divorce after abused spouse and child file petition
under VAWA have no effect on status of abused spouse or
child. Reclassifies abused spouse or child as spouse or child
of citizen if abuser becomes citizen notwithstanding divorce
or termination of parental rights (so as not to create
incentive for abuse victim to delay leaving abusive situation
on account of potential future improved immigration status of
abuser). Clarifies that remarriage has no effect on pending
VAWA immigration petition.
Sec. 1508. Technical Correction to Qualified Alien Definition
for Battered Immigrants
Makes technical change of description of battered aliens
allowed to access certain public benefits so as to use
correct pre-IIRIRA name for equitable relief
from deportation/removal (``suspension of deportation''
rather than ``cancellation of removal'') for pre-IIRIRA
cases.
Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered
Immigrant Spouses and Children
Allows battered spouses and children to access special
immigration benefits available under Cuban Adjustment Act to
other spouses and children of Cubans on the basis of the same
showing of battery or extreme cruelty they would have to make
as VAWA self-petitioners; relatives them of Cuban Adjustment
Act showing that they are residing with their spouse/parent.
Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under
NACARA to battered spouses and children similarly to the way
section 509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998
for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under HRIFA
to battered spouses and children similarly to the way section
509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1512. Access to Services and Legal Representation for
Battered Immigrants
Clarifies that Stop grants, Grants to Encourage Arrest,
Rural VAWA grants, Civil Legal Assistance grants, and Campus
grants can be used to provide assistance to battered
immigrants. Allows local battered women's advocacy
organizations, law enforcement or other eligible Stop grants
applicants to apply for Stop funding to train INS officers
and immigration judges as well as other law enforcement
officers on the special needs of battered immigrants.
Sec. 1513. Protection for Certain Crime Victims Including
Victims of Crimes Against Women
Creates new nonimmigrant visa for victims of certain
serious crimes that tend to target vulnerable foreign
individuals without immigration status if the victim has
suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of
the crime, the victim has information about the crime, and a
law enforcement official or a judge certifies that the victim
has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be
helpful in investigating or prosecuting the crime. The crime
must involve rape, torture, trafficking, incest, sexual
assault, domestic violence, abusive sexual contact,
prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation,
being held hostage, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave
trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint,
false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter,
murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of
justice, perjury, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
above, or other similar conduct in violation of Federal,
State, or local criminal law. Caps visas at 10,000 per fiscal
year. Allows Attorney General to adjust these individuals to
lawful permanent resident status if the alien has been
present for 3 years and the Attorney General determines this
is justified on humanitarian grounds, to promote family
unity, or is otherwise in the public interest.
Mr. HATCH. The sex trafficking conference report also contains
legislation known as ``Aimee's law.'' The purpose of Aimee's law is to
encourage States to keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters
incarcerated for long prison terms. Last year, a similar version of
Aimee's law passed the Senate 81 to 17, and Aimee's law passed the
House of Representatives 412 to 15.
This legislation withholds Federal funds from certain States that
fail to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous
sexual offenses for adequate prison terms. Aimee's law operates as
follows: In cases in which a State convicts a person of murder, rape,
or a dangerous sexual offense, and that person has a prior conviction
for any one of those offenses in a designated State, the designated
State must pay, from Federal law enforcement assistance funds, the
incarceration and prosecution cost of the other State. In such cases,
the Attorney General would transfer the Federal law enforcement funds
from the designated State to the subsequent State.
A State is a designated State and is subject to penalty under Aimee's
law if (1) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State on
persons convicted of the offense for which that person was convicted is
less than the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in
all States; or (2) that person had served less than 85 percent of the
prison term to which he was sentenced for the prior offense. In
determining the latter factor, if the State has an indeterminate
sentencing system, the lower range of the sentence shall be considered
the prison term. For example, if a person is sentenced to 10-to-12
years in prison, then the calculation is whether the person served 85
percent of 10 years.
The purpose of Aimee's law is simple: to increase the term of
imprisonment for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. In this
respect, Aimee's law is similar to the Violent-Offender-and-Truth-in-
Sentencing Program and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Since 1995,
the Truth-in-Sentencing Program has provided approximately $600 million
per year to States for prison construction. In order to receive these
funds, States had to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws that require
violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. As a
result of such sentencing reforms, the average time served by violent
criminals in State prisons increased more than 12 percent since 1993.
Similarly, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the Federal
sentencing guidelines and increased sentences for Federal inmates. I am
proud to have supported both of these initiatives to increase prison
terms for violent and repeat offenders.
Some will say that Aimee's law violates the principles of federalism,
and in many respects, I am sympathetic to these arguments. However, I
would note that Aimee's law does not create any new Federal crimes, nor
does it expand Federal jurisdiction into State and local matters.
Instead, this law uses Federal law enforcement assistance funds to
encourage States to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape,
and dangerous sexual offenses for adequate prison terms.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator
Santorum. He has been a tireless champion of Aimee's law. Without his
leadership, Aimee's law would not have been included in the sex
trafficking conference report. The State of Pennsylvania should be
proud to have such an able and energetic Senator.
My friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, has expressed frustration with certain legislative
items being added to the sex trafficking conference report. I respect
him for voicing his concerns. I too would have preferred to have each
of the measures
[[Page S10197]]
that were included in this sex trafficking conference report considered
on their own. But we have witnessed, during this session of Congress,
dilatory procedural maneuvering of the like I have never witnessed
before in the Senate.
Several bills which have passed both the House and the Senate are
being held up with threats to filibuster the appointment of conferees.
Motions to proceed to legislation are routinely objected to. As
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was not even given the courtesy
of being told that there was a Democratic hold on my interstate alcohol
bill until after I sought to include it in the sex trafficking
conference report. The public even witnessed the spectacle of the
minority joining with the majority to limit debate on, and the
amendments to, the Hatch H-1B bill and then turning around to
repeatedly try to add non-relevant amendments to the bill in clear
violation of the Senate rules.
Just so the record is clear, there has been--and continues to be--an
effort on the part of the minority to tie the Senate up in procedural
knots and then accuse the majority of being unable to govern. That is
their right under the rules. I do not recall engaging in similar
tactics when Republicans were in the minority but I am confident there
are instances where one could accuse of having engaged in similar
dilatory tactics. But, I believe we eventually reached the point where
our fidelity to the institution and our oaths of office transcended the
short-term interests of ballot box legislating.
The Senate has previously passed the interstate alcohol bill and the
Aimee's law legislation by overwhelming votes. Ironically, the one
piece of legislation included in this bill which my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle do not object to having been added is the
Violence Against Women Act. This legislation has not been considered by
the Senate, although I am confident had it been, it would have passed
overwhelmingly.
In short, no one respects the rules of the Senate more than me, In
the end, I hope the minority will rethink its tired and belabored
efforts to prevent the Senate from doing the public's work. Then we can
adjourn and return to our respective states where the intervening
adjournment can be spent with the real people of America--the workers,
the teachers, and students--instead of the pollsters and spin doctors
which seem to be of paramount attention to too many of my colleagues.
Mr. President, today I am pleased by the likely passage tonight of S.
577, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. Originally introduced
on March 10, 1999, this legislation provides a mechanism that will
finally enable states to effectively enforce their laws prohibiting the
illegal interstate shipment of beverage alcohol.
At the outset, I should note that S. 577 has enjoyed overwhelming
support on both sides of the aisle and in both the Senate and the House
of Representatives.
Originally passed by the Senate as an amendment by Senator Byrd to
the Juvenile Justice bill, S. 254, on a lopsided vote of 80-17 on May
18, 1999, a revised version of S. 577 bill passed out of the Judiciary
Committee on a 17-1 vote on March 2, 2000. As of the time of final
passage, there were 23 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate--12
Republicans and 11 Democrats.
In the House, the companion legislation to S. 577, H.R. 2031,
sponsored by my friend from Florida, Representative Joe Scarborough,
passed the House initially by a vote of 310-112 on August 3, 1999. H.R.
2031 was backed by a coalition of 45 cosponsors in the House.
What is included in the conference report is the version of S. 577 as
passed by the Judiciary Committee in March. It is important to note
that the legislation, as revised with some amendments in the Committee
to address both the Wine Institute's and the American Vintners
Association's concerns, even got the support of Senators Feinstein and
Schumer, the two most vocal early opponents of the legislation. We
worked hard with representatives of the wineries on language to further
clarify that this bill does not, even unintentionally, somehow change
the balancing test employed by the Courts in reviewing State liquor
laws. We were able to reach agreement and incorporated those changes in
the bill. The Wine Institute and the Vintners Association both have
written us that they are no longer oppose the legislation.
Let me get to the substance of the legislation, the purpose behind it
and the history of this issue--both legislative and constitutional. I
think it is important to fully understand this history to appreciate
this legislation.
The simple purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism to enable
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal interstate
shipment of alcoholic beverages. Interstate shipments of alcohol
directly to consumers have been increasing exponentially--and, while I
certainly believe that interstate commerce should be encouraged, and
while I do not want small businesses stifled by unnecessary or overly
burdensome and complex regulations, I do not subscribe to the notion
that purveyors of alcohol are free to avoid State laws which are
consistent with the power bestowed upon them by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, that is exactly want is happening, and that is what this
legislation will address.
All States, including the State of Utah, need to be able to address
the sale and shipment of liquor into their State consistent with the
Constitution. As my colleagues know, the Twenty First Amendment ceded
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. States need to protect
their citizens from consumer fraud and have a claim to the tax revenue
generated by the sale of such goods. And of the utmost importance,
States need to ensure that minors are not provided with unfettered
access to alcohol. Unfortunately, indiscriminate direct sales of
alcohol circumvent this State right.
Let me emphasize that there are many companies engaged in the direct
interstate shipment of alcohol who do not violate State laws. In fact,
many of these concerns look beyond their own interests and make
diligent efforts to disseminate information to others to ensure that
State laws are understood and complied with by all within the
interstate industry. This legislation only reaches those that violate
the law.
Now, I would like to say a few words on the history of this issue. As
many of my colleagues know, debate over the control of the distribution
of beverage alcohol has been raging for as long as this country has
existed. Prior to 1933, every time individuals or legislative bodies
engaged in efforts to control the flow and consumption of alcohol,
whether by moral persuasion, legislation or ``Prohibition,'' others
were equally determined to repeal, circumvent or ignore those barriers.
The passage of state empowering federal legislation such as the Webb-
Kenyon Act and the Wilson Act were not sufficient, in and of
themselves, to provide states with the power they needed to control the
distribution of alcohol in the face of commerce clause challenges. It
took the passage of a constitutional amendment--and the re-enactment of
the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1935--to give states the power they needed to
control the importation of alcohol across their borders.
The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified in 1933. That amendment ceded
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. By virtue of that grant of
authority, each State created its own unique regulatory scheme to
control the flow of alcohol. Some set up ``State stores'' to effectuate
control of the shipment into, and dissemination of alcohol within,
their State. Others refrained from direct control of the product, but
set up other systems designed to monitor the shipments and ensure
compliance with its laws. But whatever the type of State system
enacted, the purpose was much the same: to protect its citizens and
ensure that its laws were obeyed.
With passage of the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act,'' the
States will be empowered to fight illegal sales of alcohol--let me
emphasize illegal. This legislation is particularly well-timed in that
it comes on the heels of a powerful opinion uphold state rights under
the 21st Amendment in the case of Bridenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, by
respected jurist Frank Easterbrook and the Seventh Circuit
[[Page S10198]]
Court of Appeals. In an opinion upholding a state's right to regulate
the importation of alcohol and prohibit illegal sales, Judge
Easterbrook cogently articulated the role of the 21st Amendment in the
Constitutional framework:
. . . the twenty-first amendment did not return the
Constitution to its pre-1919 form. Section 2 . . . closes the
loophole left by the dormant commerce clause, . . . No longer
may the dormant commerce clause be read to protect interstate
shipments of liquor from regulation; sec. 2 speaks directly
to these shipments . . . No decision of the Supreme Court
holds or implies that laws limited to the importation of
liquor are problematic under the dormant commerce clause.
Some who would seek to avoid state and federal laws have erroneously
complained that S. 577 will allow states to enforce discriminatory
state laws. These complaints are without merit. In actuality, failure
to pass this bill would have had the effect of discriminating against
in-state distributors by effectively giving out-of-state distributors
de facto immunity from state regulation. Congress and the Constitution
have recognized that States have a legitimate interest in being able to
control the interstate distribution of alcohol on the same terms and
conditions as they are able to control in-state distribution. As Judge
Easterbrook pointed out:
Indeed, all ``importation'' involves shipments from another
state or nation. Every use of sec. 2 could be called
``discriminatory'' in the sense that plaintiffs use that
term, because every statute limiting importation leaves
intrastate commerce unaffected. If that were the sort of
discrimination that lies outside state power, then sec. 2
would be a dead letter. . . . Congress adopted the Webb-
Kenyon Act, and later proposed sec. 2 of the twenty-first
amendment, precisely to remedy this reverse discrimination
and make alcohol from every source equally amenable to state
regulation.
That is exactly what S. 577 accomplishes. It simply ensures that all
businesses, both in-state and out-of-state, are held accountable to the
same valid laws of the state of delivery.
It is important to note that the Webb-Kenyon Act already prohibited
the interstate shipment of alcohol in violation of state law.
Unfortunately, that general prohibition lacked an appropriate
enforcement mechanism, thus thwarting the states' ability to enforce
their laws--those same laws they enacted pursuant to valid
Constitutional authority under the Twenty-First Amendment--in state
court proceedings through jurisdictional roadblocks. The legislation
passed today removes that impediment to state enforcement by simply
providing the Attorney General of a State, who has reasonable cause to
believe that his or her State laws regulating the importation and
transportation of alcohol are being violated, with the ability to file
an action in federal court for an injunction to stop those illegal
shipments.
This bill is balanced to ensure due process and fairness to both the
State bringing the action and the company or individual alleged to have
violated the State's laws. The bill:
1. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no injunctions
may be granted without notice to the defendants or an opportunity to be
heard;
2. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no preliminary
injunction may be issued without proving: (a) irreparable injury, and
(b) a probability of success on the merits;
3. Clarifies that injunctive relief only may be obtained--no damages,
attorneys fees or other costs--may be awarded;
4. Assures that cases brought are truly interstate/federal in
character by clarifying that in-state licensees and other authorized
in-state purveyors, readily amenable to state proceedings, may not be
subjected to federal injunctive actions;
5. Allows actions only against those who have violated or are
currently violating state laws regulating the importation or
transportation of intoxicating;
6. Notes that evidence from an earlier hearing on a request for a
preliminary injunction--but from no other state or federal proceedings,
may be used in subsequent hearings seeking a permanent injunction--
conserving court resources but protecting a defendant's right to
confront the evidence against him;
7. Ensures that S. 577 may not be construed to interfere with or
otherwise modify the Internet Tax Freedom Act;
8. Provides for venue where the violation actually occurs--in the
state into which the alcohol is illegally shipped.
9. Protects innocent interactive computer services (ICS's) and
electronic communications services (ECS's) from the threat of
injunctive actions as a result of the use of those services by others
to illegally sell alcohol;
10. Prohibits injunctive actions involving the advertising or
marketing (but not the sale, transportation or importation) of alcohol
where such advertising or marketing would be lawful in the jurisdiction
from which the advertising originates;
11. Requires that laws sought to be enforced by the states under S.
577 be valid exercises of authority conferred upon the states by the
21st Amendment and the Webb-Kenyon Act.
Madam President, contrary to some of the erroneous claims of some in
the narrow opposition, I want to reemphasize that S. 577 is intended to
assist the states in the enforcement of constitutionally-valid state
liquor laws by providing them with a federal court forum. We are not
stopping Internet or for that matter, any, legal sales of alcohol.
Indeed, there is no objection to this legislation by a host of
companies who sell wine over the Internet, such as Vineyards. The sole
remedy available under the bill is injunctive relief--that is, no
damages, no civil fines, and no criminal penalties may be imposed
solely as a result of this legislation.
We specifically included rules of construction language in subsection
2(e) stating that this legislation ``shall be construed only to extend
the jurisdiction of Federal courts in connection with State law that is
a valid exercise of power invested in the States'' under the Twenty-
First Amendment as that Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S.
Supreme Court ``including interpretations in conjunction with other
provisions of the Constitution.'' This bill is not to be construed as
granting the States any additional power beyond that.
Consequently, the state power vested under the Twenty-First
Amendment, as I have discussed above, is appropriately interpreted with
and against other rights and privileges protected by the Constitution,
as the Supreme Court does in every case. It should also be made clear
that by enacting S. 577, we are not passing on the advisability or
legal validity of the various state laws regulating alcoholic
beverages, which continue to be litigated in the courts, and should
appropriately be a matter for the courts to decide.
colloquy on 21st amendment enforcement act
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have strong misgivings about one part
of the conference report we are about to consider. The provisions
relating to interstate sales of alcoholic beverages, known as the 21st
Amendment Enforcement Act, would dramatically reduce the ability of
small wineries in my state to market their products across the country.
These wineries are small, independent, often family-owned,
operations. They are the ``little guys'' in the winemaking industry.
They need to sell their products directly to consumers around the
country, and the Internet, especially, holds great promise for their
future economic success.
Already, some of them have been hurt by state laws banning interstate
sales of wine. The Matanzas Greek Winery in Sonoma County estimates
that it is turning away around $8,000 a month in direct sales from
consumers who had visited the winery and hoped to place orders from
their homes in other states.
I am very concerned that the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act will make
it even more difficult for these ``little guys'' to compete in the wine
business.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Hatch, whether he would consider the impact of this
legislation on my small wineries. Would the senator be willing, after
the legislation has been on the books for a year or so, the review its
impact on small wineries and to work with me to make such amendments as
are necessary to take care of them?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would be happy to consider this issue
after next year and examine the legislation's impact on small wineries.
I respect my colleagues from California's commitment to their
constituents. I
[[Page S10199]]
must reemphasize, however, that this legislation does nothing to hurt
the so |
Add to del.icio.us