|
|
|
|
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-called small wineries in competing or marketing their products
in the wine business. I worked hard for over a year with the wine
industry to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended
consequences, and want to reassure my colleague from California that
the version of the legislation that is included in the conference
report incorporates revisions made in the committee to address both the
Wine Institute's and the American Vintners Association's concerns. We
also included 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. I should also not that the Wine
Institute and the Vintners Association, as well as numerous Internet
commerce companies, have written us that they no longer oppose the
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. I hope the distinguished Senator from
California knows that 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--and I should add that I don't think that Senator
Boxer subscribes to that notion either.
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, and only allows the attorney general of a state to go to
Federal court to enforce its laws. It is just a jurisdictional
legislation and does not allow or prohibit any sales or marketing by
any winery, large or small.
Having said that, I do hear the concerns by Senator Boxer and am
willing to consider the impact of this legislation after the law has
been on the books for a year or so, as my colleague has asked. I look
forward to working with her to insure that this legislation does not
harm small wineries which comply with the law.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his interest and concern, and for
his commitment to review the impact of the 21st Amendment Enforcement
Act on small wineries in the future.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
aimee's law
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report, H.R. 3244, which
in addition to seeking to end the trafficking of women and children
into the international sex trade, slavery and force labor also includes
major provisions reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act,
providing justice for victims of terrorism, and Aimee's law.
One of the most disturbing human rights violations of our time is
trafficking of human beings, particularly that of women and children,
for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Every year, the
trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of
thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives
have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental
changes in political geography have fallen prey to traffickers.
According to the Department of State, approximately 1-2 million women
and girls are trafficked annually around the world.
I commend Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Paul Wellstone for their
bipartisan leadership on the International Trafficking of Women and
Children Victim Protection Act. The bill specifically defines
``trafficking'' as the use of deception, coercion, debt bondage, the
threat of force, or the abuse of authority to recruit, transport,
purchase, sell, or harbor a person for the purpose of placing or
holding such person, whether for pay or not, in involuntary servitude
or slavery-like conditions. Using this definition, the legislation
establishes within the Department of State an Interagency Task Force to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking. The Task Force would assist the
Secretary of State in reporting to Congress the efforts of the United
States government to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human
rights abuse. In addition, the bill would amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for a non-immigrant classification for
trafficking victims in order to better assist the victims of this
crime.
Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Joe Biden introduced S. 2787, the
Violence Against Women Act. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize
federal programs which have recently expired for another five years to
prevent violence against women. It seeks to strengthen law enforcement
to reduce these acts of violence, provide services to victims,
strengthen education and training to combat violence against women and
limit the effects of violence on children. I am an original cosponsor
of this important legislation which has been endorsed by the National
Association of Attorneys General, the National Governor's Association,
and the American Medical Society. On September 26, the House of
Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act,
H.R. 1248, by a vote of 415 to 3. I am pleased that this important
legislation is included in the Sex Trafficking conference report which
passed the House of Representatives on October 6 by a 371-1 vote
margin.
The reauthorization legislation also creates new initiatives
including transitional housing for victims of violence, a pilot program
aimed at protecting children during visits with parents accused of
domestic violence, and protections for elderly, disabled, and immigrant
women. The bill also would provide grants to reduce violent crimes
against women on campus and extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund. It authorizes over $3 billion over five years for the grant
programs. As a Member of the House of Representatives in the 103rd
Congress, I supported H.R. 1133, the original Violence Against Women
Act, offered by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado. Since FY1995,
VAWA has been a major source of funding for programs to reduce rape,
stalking, and domestic violence. I am also very pleased that my own
legislation to strengthen incentives for violent criminals, including
rapists and child molesters, to remain in prison and hold states
accountable is included in the conference report.
Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a college senior
Aimee Willard who was from Brookhaven, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia.
Arthur Bomar, a convicted murderer was early paroled from a Nevada
prison. Even after he had assaulted a woman in prison, Nevada released
him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where he found Aimee. He
kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered Aimee. He was prosecuted a
second time for murder for this heinous crime in Delaware County, PA.
Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for
victims' rights and serves as an inspiration to me and countless
others.
This important legislation would use federal crime fighting funds to
create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth-
in-sentencing laws by holding states financially accountable for the
tragic consequences of an early release which results in a violent
crime being perpetrated on the citizens of another state. Specifically,
Aimee's law will redirect enough federal crime fighting dollars from a
state that has released early a murderer, rapist, or child molester to
pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs incurred by a state which
has had to reconvict this released felon for a similar heinous crime.
More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are
committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a
sentence for one of those very same crimes. Convicted murderers,
rapists, and child molesters who are released from prisons and cross
state lines are responsible for sexual assaults on more than 1,200
people annually, including 935 children.
[[Page S10200]]
Recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category
of violent crime. Despite this, the average time served for rape is
only five and one half years, and the average time served for sexual
assault is under four years. Also troubling is the fact that thirteen
percent of convicted rapists receive no jail time at all. We have more
than 130,000 convicted sex offenders right now living in our
communities because of the leniency of these systems. The average time
served for homicide is just eight years. Under Aimee's law, federal
crime fighting funds are used to create an incentive for states to
adopt stricter sentencing and truth-in-sentencing laws.
This legislation is endorsed by Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, Marc
Klass, Fred Goldman, and numerous organizations such the National
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, and the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America. 39 victims' rights organizations also
support Aimee's law including Justice For All, the National Association
of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. These
groups consider Aimee's law one of their highest priority bills. It
sends a message that if a state has very lenient sentencing it impacts
other states and crime victims in those states as well.
I first offered Aimee's law as an amendment to the juvenile justice
bill on May 19, 1999, which passed the Senate by a 81-17 vote margin.
Congressman Matt Salmon also offered the legislation as an amendment in
the House of Representatives on June 16, 1999, which passed by a 412-15
vote. Due to a lack of progress on the conference report it became
necessary to move the legislation separately. On May 11, I joined
Aimee's mother Gail at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on
Crime, to urge the House to approve legislation separately to keep
sexual predators behind bars. The House of Representatives subsequently
passed the legislation again by a unanimous voice vote.
Aimee's law is an appropriate way to protect the citizens of one
state from inappropriate early releases of another state. One of the
forty plus national organizations supporting Aimee's law, the National
Fraternal Order of Police, said the following.
One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is
seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another
heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies averted if we
have the will to keep these predators locked up. Aimee's Law
addresses this issue smartly, with Federalizing crimes and
without infringing on the State and local responsibilities of
local law enforcement by providing accountability and
responsibility to States who release their murders, rapists,
and child molesters to prey again on the innocent.
We have made several modest changes to address implementation
concerns by the states in the effort to achieve the best protection
possible for our citizens. These include (1) Definitions: utilizing the
definitions for murder and rape of part I of the Uniform Crime Reports
of the FBI and for dangerous sexual offenses utilizing the definitions
of chapter 109A of title 18- to provide for uniform comparisons across
the states; (2) Sentencing Comparisons: Eliminating the additional 10
percent requirement and utilizing a national average for sentencing
only as a benchmark; (3) Study: Also building into the process a study
evaluating the implementation and effect of Aimee's Law in 2006; (4)
Source of Funds: Provides states the flexibility to choose the source
of federal law enforcement assistance funds (except for crime victim
assistance funds); (5) Implementation: Delays the implementation of
Aimee's Law to January 1, 2002 to allow states the opportunity to make
any modifications that they would choose to do; and (6) Indeterminate
Sentencing States: Safe harbor for states with sentencing ranges allows
for the use of the lower number in the calculation (e.g. if sentencing
guideline is 10-15 years, 10 years will be utilized.)
We are sending a clear message with Aimee's law. We want tougher
sentences and we want truth in sentencing. A child molester who
receives four years in prison, when you consider the recidivism rate,
is an abomination. Murders, rapists, and child molesters do not deserve
early release; our citizens deserve to be protected. In this
legislation we are protecting one state's citizens from the complacency
of another state, and appropriate role for the federal government. I
want to thank my colleagues for their support and urge the passage of
this legislation.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Gail
Willard be printed in the Record, along with the list of endorsements.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Testimony of Gail Willard Before the Crime Subcommittee
It has been one thousand four hundred twenty one days since
Aimee's murder. This nightmare began on June 20, 1996. At
4:45 AM, I was awakened by a phone call--something every
parent dreads and hopes will never happen to them. I was told
that the police had found my car on the ramp of a major
highway. The car engine was running; the driver's side door
was open; the headlights were on; the radio was playing
loudly; and there was blood in front of and next to the car.
Who was the driver? Where was the driver? That night, my
beautiful twenty-two year old daughter, Aimee, had my car.
She had gone to a reunion with high school friends, and now
she was missing. Late that afternoon Aimee's body was found
in a trash-strewn lot in the ``badlands'' of North
Philadelphia. She had been raped and beaten to death.
Aimee was a wonder, a delight, a brilliant light in my
life. With dancing blue eyes and a bright, beautiful smile,
she drew everyone who knew her into the web of her life. She
would light up a room just by walking into it. She could run
like the wind, and she enjoyed the game--every game. She had
friends and talents and dreams for a spectacular future, so
it seemed only natural and right to believe that she would
live well into old age. Never one to complain when things
didn't go her way, Aimee always worked and played to the best
of her ability, happy with her successes, taking her failure
in stride. Aimee lived and loved well. She never harmed
anyone; in fact, Aimee rarely ever spoke ill of anyone. She
was almost too good to be true. On June 20, 1996, at age
twenty-two years and twelve days. Aimee was robbed of her
life, and our family was robbed of the joy and love and
innocent simplicity that were Aimee's special gift to us. We
will never be the same. There is an ache deep within each one
of us--and ache that cries out, ``Why God? Why?''
``Just Do It'' was Aimee's motto. She never worried about
what she could not do well; she put her energy into doing
what she could do well. In athletics, Aimee took her God-
given talents and worked them to perfection. For college
Aimee accepted a scholarship to play soccer for George Mason
University in Fairfax, Virginia. In her sophomore year, she
joined the lacrosse team. A two sport Division 1 athlete,
Aimee was on her way to becoming a legend at George Mason
University. In the spring of 1996, the spring before she was
murdered, Aimee led her lacrosse conference, scoring fifty
goals with twenty-nine assists. In fact, 1995-96 was a banner
year for Aimee. She was named to the Colonial Athletic
Association All-Conference Team in both soccer and lacrosse,
and to the All-American team for the Southeast region in
lacrosse.
Aimee's athletic success is only part of her glory. Her
friends describe her as a quiet presence, a fun-loving kid, a
good listener, a loyal friend. They used words like shy,
modest, kind, strong, focused, intense, caring, sharing
and loving when they speak about Aimee. They tell of
Aimee's magic with people. So that you will understand the
impact her murder had on them, I want to share an excerpt
from a letter one of her friends wrote to me.
``For the past few weeks my heart has been breaking for all
of us in our devastating loss, but more recently I think my
heart has been hurting a bit more for those who will never
get the chance to know the woman who played two Division 1
sports, making the all-conference teams in both, and All-
American in one. They will never meet the girl who was always
being named `Athlete of the Week' and had no idea that she
was half the time. These people will never get the chance to
argue with her over things like Nike vs. Adidas, Bubblicious
vs. Bubble Yum, Coke vs. Cherry Coke, or whether certain
professional athletes were over-rated. I am one of the
fortunate ones. I have volumes of Aimee's memories. I know
the beauty of those big blue eyes under a low brim of a Nike
hat. I know the carefree serenity that gave birth to the
goofy laugh. I witnessed her grace with grit, her passion
with patience, her pride without arrogance, her speed without
exhaustion, and her sweat that was enough to start an ocean.
If I was given the opportunity to trade in all my present
pain in exchange for never being able to say, `Aimee was my
teammate; Aimee was my friend,' I'd stick with the pain. The
memory of her is so wonderful.''
It is impossible to adequately describe the impact of
Aimee's murder on the countless people who knew her and loved
her. We are all trying to survive the pain and emptiness of
this great loss. How often I turn to tell Aimee something
silly or dumb when I'm watching one of our favorite
television shows, or a basketball or football game, but she
isn't there. I'm out shopping and I say, ``Aimee would look
great in that outfit. I'll buy if for her.'' But Aimee will
never wear a
[[Page S10201]]
new outfit again. I will never have the joy of holding Aimee
in my arms again, or of seeing her sparkling blue eyes,
freckled nose and bright smile. I will never know the
children Aimee dreamed of having, or the children Aimee
dreamed of coaching.
I do have wonderful memories of Aimee. Her life was wrapped
in my love, and mine was wrapped in her love. Because of evil
incarnate in Arthur Bomar, I now also have horrible
nightmares of the fear, the absolute terror, Aimee must have
known, and of the dreadful pain she was forced to endure. I
who had been with Aimee in every facet of her life, every
event big and small, was not there to protect her from the
fear and the pain. I never had the chance to say good-bye.
This despicable individual had condemned me, my other two
children, the rest of our family and all of Aimee's friends
who live with an ache deep in our hearts. The void can never
be filled. The pain of the loss of Aimee is forever.
Aimee's life was ended on June 20, 1996, a night of total
madness. She was kidnaped from her own car, raped, and then
beaten to death--beaten so badly around the head and face
that she was identified by the Nike swoosh tattoo on her
ankle--beaten so badly that she had an empty heart when she
was found. Every pint of blood had spilled from her body. The
person who did this to Aimee is a convicted felon who was on
parole.
Arthur Bomar was released from Nevada's prison system after
serving only twelve years of a life sentence for murdering a
man. While he was awaiting trial for the murder charge, he
shot a woman. While he was in prison serving time for both
these crimes, he assaulted a woman who was visiting him
there. Despite all these violent crimes, and sentences
even beyond the life sentence, Nevada released him after
only twelve years. Did they think he was reformed? All
they had to do was read his record to know that he wasn't.
A reformed, contrite prisoner sentenced to life doesn't
beat up a woman visitor. But he was released by Nevada,
and he came to Pennsylvania and murdered my Aimee.
On October 1, 1998, Arthur Bomar was convicted of first
degree murder, kidnaping, rape and abuse of a corpse. After
the jury announced their decision for the death penalty, this
reformed felon from Nevada raised his hand with his middle
finger extended and shouted, ``F - - - you, Mrs. Willard, her
brother and her sister.''
This kidnapper, rapist and murderer should never have been
on the street in June of 1996. And Aimee Willard should be
teaching and coaching, living and loving, spreading her joy
among us. But she isn't. Her legacy will live on, however, in
scholarship funds, aid to those in need, and a beautiful
memorial garden on that lot in the ``badlands'' of North
Philadelphia. Her legacy will live on because of Aimee's Law,
the ``No Second Chances'' law proposed by Matt Salmon from
Arizona and co-sponsored by Curt Weldon from Pennsylvania and
many other Congressmen and Senators.
Our entire justice system, as I see it, cries out for
reform. Our system lacks real truth in sentencing. Life in
prison does not mean life. Murderers are returned to the
streets to murder again. Willful murderers do not deserve a
second chance. If ``Aimee's Law'' is passed in 2000, the
States will have strong incentive to reform their parole
systems and to keep predators in prison actually for life. If
not, they will risk a reduction of federal funds if their
paroled murderers cross state lines and commit another
violent crime.
I am asking you, the members of the Sub-Committee on Crime,
to support the passage of ``Aimee's Law'' if you want to stop
the nightmare or convicted murderers continuing to murder. If
this law is passed, our streets will be a little safer, some
families will be spared the heartache we have suffered, and
Aimee Willard's name, not the name of her killer, will be
remembered forever. Please remember that Aimee has no second
chance at life.
Thank you.
____
Aimee's law
Protects Americans from convicted murders, rapists, and
child molesters by requiring states to pay the costs of
prosecution and incarceration for a previously convicted
criminal who travels to another state and commits a similar
violent crime. The payment would come from federal law
enforcement assistance funds chosen by the state. The
legislation is designed to keep violent criminals with high
recidivism rates in prison for most of their sentences
consistent with the principles of truth in sentencing. The
federal government needs to be involved to protect the
citizens of one state from inappropriate early releases of
another state such as occurred with Aimee Willard from the
Philadelphia area, a college senior, who was kidnapped and
brutally raped and murdered by a man who was released early
from prison in Nevada. Passed the Senate last year 81-17;
passed the House of Representative 412-15.
partial list of endorsements
The National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC.
Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Falls Church,
Virginia.
KlaasKids Foundation, Sausalito, California.
Childhelp USA, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Kids Safe, Granada Hills, California.
Concerned Women for America, Washington, PC.
California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA),
Sacramento, California.
National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), Falls Church,
Virginia.
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, Sacramento, California.
Mothers Outraged at Molesters Organization (M.O.M.s),
Independence, Missouri.
Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Virginia.
Garland, Texas Police Department, Garland, Texas.
Action Americans--Murder Must End Now (A.A.M.M.E.N.),
Marietta, Georgia.
Arizona Professional Police Officers, Association, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Phoenix, Arizona.
Association of Highway Patrolmen of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
California Protective Parents Association, Sacramento,
California.
Christy Ann Fornoff Foundation, Mesa, Arizona.
Citizens and Victims for Justice Reform, Louisville,
Kentucky.
Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), Missouri.
International Children's Rights Resource Center,
Washington.
Justice for All, New York, New York.
Justice for Murder Victims, San Francisco, California.
Kids In Danger of Sexploitation (K.I.D.S.), Orlando,
Florida.
McDowell County Sheriff's Department, Marion, North
Carolina.
Memory of Victims Everywhere (M.O.V.E.), San Juan
Capistrano, California.
National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, Portland,
Oregon.
New Mexico Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Parents Legal Exchange Alliance, San Francisco, California.
Parents of Murdered Children, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Parole Watch, New York, New York.
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Phoenix, Arizona.
Protect Our Children, Cocoa, Florida.
Security On Campus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Speak Out for Stephanie (S.O.S.), Overland Park, Kansas.
Survivor Connections, Inc., Cranston, Rhode Island.
Survivors and Victims Empowered (S.A.V.E.), Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Victims of Crime and Leniency (V.O.C.A.L.), Montgomery,
Alabama.
The Women's Coalition, Pasadena, California.
Endorsements From Individuals: (*interstate cases)
Ms. Gail Willard (PA; mother of Aimee Willard, a college
student raped and murdered by a released killer*)
Ms. Mary Vincent (WA; survivor of rape/attempted murder in
CA; her attacker, released from prison, later killed a mother
of three in Florida*)
Mr. Fred Goldman (CA; father of Ron Goldman, who was killed
in CA along with Nicole Simpson)
Mr. Marc Klass (CA; father of Polly, who was molested and
murdered in Nevada by a released sex offender)
Ms. Dianne Bauer (AK; daughter of Dr. Lester Bauer, who was
murdered in Nevada by a released murderer*)
Ms. Jeremy Brown (NY; survivor of rape; her attacker had
served time for murder*)
Ms. Trina Easterling (LA; mother of Lorin, an 11 year-old
girl abducted, raped, and murdered, allegedly by Ralph
Stogner, who had served time for raping a pregnant woman*)
Mr. Louis Gonzalez (NJ; brother of Ippolito ``Lee''
Gonzalez, a policeman murdered by a released killer*)
Ms. Dianne Marzan (TX; mother of daughters molested by an
HIV-positive, released sex offender*)
The Pruckmayr family (PA; parents of Bettina, brutally
stabbed 38 times in our nation's Capital by a paroled
murderer)
Ms. Beckie Walker (TX; wife of TX Police Officer Gerald
Walker, who was murdered by a released double-killer*)
Mr. Ray Wilson (CO; father of Brooklyn Ricks, who was raped
and murdered by a released rapist*)
Mr. SANTORUM. In conclusion, Madam President, I thank Senator
Brownback for his great work and perseverance in bringing this crime-
fighting package to the Senate to pass it and turn it into law quickly.
Aimee's law was debated and considered here in the Senate during this
session of Congress. It passed 81-17. It has passed the House with over
400 votes. It is a provision that has very broad support. It is one of
the No. 1 legislative provisions that the victims rights organizations
in America would like to see done.
This is a piece of legislation that targets three types of
offenders--murderers, rapists, and sex offenders, child molesters in
particular. What this does is focus on those three because, obviously,
they are three of the most heinous crimes on the books, but they are
also crimes that have the highest incidence of repeat offenders,
particularly the sexual crimes.
Aimee's law is given that name for Aimee Willard. She was a college
student outside of Philadelphia who was
[[Page S10202]]
raped and murdered by Arthur Bomar. Arthur Bomar was released from a
Nevada prison after serving only a small fraction of his sentence for a
similar crime. He was released, and within a few months he found his
way to Philadelphia, where Aimee was out one evening. She was attacked,
raped, and murdered. It was a case that sent shockwaves through
southeastern Pennsylvania and the whole Delaware Valley. Aimee's
mother, Gail, has been on a crusade since then to do something to make
sure convicted rapists and murderers and other sex offenders serve
their full sentences.
If you look at the sentences that are meted out for these crimes, it
is somewhat chilling to realize that if you look at the sentences that
are served for murder, for example, the average sentence for murder is
8 years. The average sentence for rape is 5\1/2\ years. This is the
actual time they serve, and the actual time served for a sex or child
molestation offense is 4 years.
We believe that you have a high incidence of recidivism in these
crimes, and people need to serve longer sentences so they are not a
threat to our communities. In fact, more than 14,000 murders, rapes,
and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who
had been released after serving a sentence on one of those very same
crimes. So 14,000 of these crimes are committed by people who have
committed these crimes in the past, who were let go to commit a crime
again.
What we believe and what we have suggested is, frankly, very modest.
It is modest in the sense that it is, I argue, even for those 81
Senators who voted for this legislation the last time around--and some
expressed concern that this was going to be too tough on the States--
not as tough as it was before. We have changed it in ways that have
made it a little less onerous on States to have to keep up with these
provisions. We tightened the definitions more. We created flexibility
for the States for them to choose which funds they would use.
This is basically what this proposal does. It says if you release
someone from prison who has not served 85 percent of their sentence, or
has served a sentence below the national average for the crimes that we
enumerate, and that person goes out and commits a crime in another
State, then the State in which the person has committed the second
crime--the released felon commits a second crime--then it has a right
to go to the original State who let this person out early and seek
compensation for all the costs associated with the prosecution,
conviction, and incarceration of that criminal.
That hardly seems like the overbearing Federal Government dictating
to States how to run their criminal justice system. These are Federal
funds. States can choose which Federal funds they can allocate for this
purpose. But what it says is we need to get tougher in having tougher
sentences and making sure that those sentences, when given, are served.
I don't believe that is too much to ask for this Congress, and I very
strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and recognize that
if this measure is not supported this bill will be dead and will have
to start over again in the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to
recognize the leadership of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator
Santorum, in this provision. This is something he fought for to put in
this overall package, to keep in this overall package, and it was
something when we started down this road, frankly, I was saying I want
a little, clean, simple bill to deal with sex trafficking. And several
Members on the House side, and Senator Santorum on this side, fought to
put this in.
The more I studied this, the consistency of the flow was there with
this. This is dealing with trying to protect people who have been
subject to domestic crimes, domestic violence, to protect people who
have been subject to trafficking and protect people who have been
subject to, frankly, early release and high recidivism offenders in
other States, such as what happened, unfortunately, in his State in the
case of Aimee Willard.
I applaud my colleague's work. I note one other thing. Other
colleagues look at this and raise questions about does this really fit
within the overall package, and one can make their decision one way or
the other. But the point is, if this is pulled out, the bill has to go
back to the House. We don't have time, so it effectively kills the
bill. The House has already voted 371-1 for this package. It is a
package and if this gets pulled out, it has to go back to the House.
The House is going out on Friday for a funeral of one of its Members.
Tomorrow, it has its calendar set up. It kills the bill, so everything
else gets killed as well, regardless of what the arguments are. I plead
with colleagues and say let's look at this and go ahead and support the
entire package and not support the motion to strike the Aimee's law
provision.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, off whose time is the quorum call
charged?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that,
under the previous order, all quorum calls are being charged today to
both sides equally.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I note for the record, as we put it in, it was charged
against all sides equally because there are four people who have
separate allotted time. It should be allocated equally to all of those.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's understanding is correct. It
will be so allocated.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note that we are planning on a vote
at 4:30. Senator Thompson has the time reserved from 3:30 to 4:30. I
note for my colleagues that if anybody wishes to speak on this
particular bill, Senator Thompson has an entire hour reserved. Under
the unanimous consent order, we immediately go to both votes--the vote
on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for Senator Thompson, and
immediately we will go to a vote on final passage of the conference
report.
If anybody seeks to speak on this bill, they should do so at the
present time because otherwise it will be allocated to Senator
Thompson.
I will use a couple of minutes of my time at this point. I note that
within the bill there is the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that
has been spoken of by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Mack, which seeks
justice for victims of terrorism that is taking place. That is in the
bill. I think it is an important part of the legislation. I hope we
will have some discussion taking place on that as well.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time, if
any, is under the control of the Senator from Delaware?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 48 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask the ranking member whether or not he is willing to
yield additional time if I need it?
Mr. LEAHY. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what a difference a year makes. Last year,
I came to the floor and indicated I thought in light of the resistance
taking place regarding the Violence Against Women Act and its
reauthorization and the Violence Against Women II Act, it would be a
tough fight to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act.
Thanks to
[[Page S10203]]
the help and support of a number of folks in and out of this Senate--
from attorneys general in the various States, to police, to victims
advocates, doctors, nurses, Governors, women's groups--I am proud to
say we finally arrived at a point where the Violence Against Women Act
2000 is on the verge of passing the Senate as part of the sex
trafficking conference report.
I thank particularly my good friend from Minnesota. Since he has
arrived in the Senate, he has been the single strongest supporter I
have had. Along with his wife, who is incredible, she has been the
single most significant outside advocate for the Violence Against Women
Act in everything that surrounds and involves it.
I dealt him a bit of advice. When I went to a conference on a bill he
was working very mightily for, along with our friend and Republican
colleague, the sex trafficking bill, which is a very important bill in
and of itself--by itself it is important--if we were doing nothing else
but passing that legislation that he and Senator Brownback have worked
so hard on, it would be a worthy day, a worthy endeavor for the Senate
and the U.S. Government.
I realize people watching this on C-SPAN get confused when we use the
``Senate speak.'' We talk of conferences and conference reports and
various types of legislation. The bottom line is, I was part of that
agreement where we sat down with House Members and Senate Members to
talk about the sex trafficking legislation. I didn't surprise him--I
told him ahead of time, but I am sure I created some concern--by
attempting to add the Violence Against Women Act to that legislation.
We ultimately did.
It is the first time in the 28 years I have been in the Senate that I
have gone to a conference and added a major piece of legislation in
that conference, knowing that it might very well jeopardize the passage
of the legislation we were discussing. And it is worthy legislation. I
am a cosponsor. I can think of nothing--obviously, you would expect me
to say that, being the author of this legislation--I can think of
nothing of more consequence to the women of America and the children of
America than our continuing the fight--and I am sure my friend from
Minnesota agrees with me--regarding violence against women.
I thank Senator Hatch for working so hard with me to pass this
legislation. This legislation was not a very popular idea on the other
side of the aisle 8 years ago when we wrote this, and 6 years ago when
we got close to passing it, and 5 years ago when we passed it. Senator
Hatch stood up and led the way on the Republican side. And I thank my
Republican colleagues, about 25 of whom--maybe more now--cosponsored
it. I attribute that to Senator Hatch's leadership, and I thank him for
that.
This legislation is very important. I will try as briefly as I can to
state why it is important.
First of all, it reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,
referred to as landmark legislation. I believe it is landmark
legislation. It is the beginning of the end of the attitude in America
that a woman is the possession of a man, that a woman is, in fact,
subject to a man's control even if that requires ``physical force.''
This clearly states, and we stated it for the first time on record in
1994, that no man has a right under any circumstance other than self-
defense to raise his hand to or to use any physical force against a
woman for any reason at all other than self-defense.
One might think: Big deal; we all knew that. No, we didn't all know
that. It has begun to shape societal attitudes. What has happened is
that we have seen a decline of 21 percent in the violent acts committed
by significant others against their spouses and/or girlfriends and/or
mate. That is a big deal. What happens if we don't pass this today? The
Violence Against Women Act goes out of existence. It is no longer
authorized. So this is a big deal, a big, big deal.
No. 2, I promised when I wrote this legislation in 1994 that, after
seeing it in operation, I would not be wedded to its continuation if it
wasn't working, and that I would propose, along with others, things
that would enhance the legislation. That is, places where there were
deficiencies we would change the law and places where the law in place
was useless or counterproductive, we would eliminate that provision of
the law. We have kept that promise.
This legislation does a number of things. It makes improvements in
what we call full faith and credit of enforcement orders. Simply
stated, that means if a woman in the State of Maryland goes to court
and says, ``This man is harassing me,'' or ``He has beaten me,'' or
``He has hurt me,'' and the court says that man must stay away from
that woman and cannot get within a quarter mile--or whatever the
restriction is--and if he does, he will go to jail, that is a
protection order, a stay away order.
What happens in many cases when that woman crosses the line into the
State of Delaware or into the State of Pennsylvania or into the
District of Columbia and that man follows her, the court in that
district does not enforce the stay away order from the other State for
a number of reasons: One, they don't have computers that they can
access and find out whether there is such an order; two, they are blase
about it; or three, they will not give full faith and credit to it.
This creates a development and enhancement of data collection and
sharing system to promote tracking and enforcement of these orders. Big
deal.
Second, transition housing. This is a change. We have found that we
have provided housing for thousands and thousands and thousands of
women who have gotten themselves into a dilemma where they are
victimized but have no place to go. So we, all of us in the Congress,
have provided moneys for building credible and decent and clean
shelters, homes for women where they can bring their children.
I might note parenthetically the majority of children who are
homeless, on the street, are there because their mothers are the victim
of abuse and have no place to go. So they end up on the street. We are
rectifying that.
We found out there is a problem. There is a problem because there are
more people trying to get into this emergency housing and there is no
place for some of these women to go between the emergency housing--and
they can't go back to their homes--and having decent housing. So we
provide for a transition, some money for transition housing. In the
interest of time, I will not go into detail about it.
Third, we change what we call incorporating dating violence into the
purposes that this act covers, where there is a pro-arrest policy,
where there are child abuse enforcement grants, et cetera. The way the
law was written the first time, an unintended consequence of what I did
when I wrote the law is, a woman ended up having to have an extended
relationship with the man who was victimizing her in order to qualify
for these services. That is an oversimplification, but that is the
essence. If a woman was a victim of date rape, the first or second time
she went out with a man of whom she was a victim, she did not qualify
under the law for those purposes. Now that person would qualify.
We also provide legal assistance for victims of domestic violence and
sexual harassment. We set aside some of the money in the Violence
Against Women Act, hopefully through the trust fund which, hopefully,
the Presiding Officer will insist on being part of this. We provide for
women getting help through that system. We provide for safe havens for
children, pilot programs.
As my friend from Minnesota knows, most of the time when a woman gets
shot or killed in a domestic exchange, it is when she is literally
dropping off a child at the end of the weekend. That is when the
violence occurs. So we provide the ability for the child to be dropped
off in a safe place, under supervised care--the father leaves, and then
the mother comes and picks the child up and regains custody--because we
find simple, little things make big, giant differences in safety for
women. This also provides pilot programs relating to visitation and
exchange.
We put in protective orders for the protection of disabled women from
domestic violence. Also, the role of the court in combating violence
against women engages State courts in fighting violence by setting
aside funds in one of the grant programs.
And we provided a domestic violence task force. We also provide
standards, practices, and training for sexual forensic examinations
which we have
[[Page S10204]]
been doing in my State, and other States have done, but nationwide they
are not being done. So much loss of potential evidence is found when
the woman comes back into court because they did not collect the
necessary evidence at the time the abuse took place.
Also, maybe the single most important provision we add to the
Violence Against Women Act is the battered immigrant women provision.
This strengthens and refines the protections for battered immigrant
women in the original act and eliminates the unintended consequence of
subsequent charges in immigration law to ensure that abused women
living in the United States with immigrant victims are brought to
justice and the battered immigrants also escape abuse without being
subject to other penalties.
There is much more to say.
We have worked hard together over the past year to produce a strong,
bipartisan bill that has gained the overwhelming support of the
Senate--with a total of 74 cosponsors. All of my Democratic colleagues
are cosponsors, along with 28 of my Republican friends.
Passage of this bill today would not have been possible without the
effort and commitment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my
friend Orrin Hatch, who has dedicated years to addressing the scourge
of violence against women.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank our committee's ranking
member, Senator Leahy, for his constant support of my efforts to bring
this bill to a vote, and my friends in the House, Representatives John
Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Connie
Morella, for their leadership on this important legislation.
The need for this law is as clear today as it was more than a decade
ago when I first focused on the problem of domestic violence and sexual
assault.
Consider this: In my state of Delaware, I regret to report that more
than 30 women and children have been killed in domestic violence-
related homicides in the past three years.
No area or income-bracket has escaped this violence. To stop domestic
violence beatings from escalating into violent deaths, more than one
thousand police officers throughout Delaware--in large cities and
small, rural towns alike--have received specialized training to deal
with such cases.
Every State in this country now has similar police training, and the
Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding.
To ensure these officers collect evidence that will stand up in
court, they are being armed with state-of-the-art instant cameras and
video cameras.
The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding for
these cameras--nationwide.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline handles 13,000 calls from
victims per month and has fielded over half a million calls since its
inception. The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary
funding.
We are also working hard to create an army of attorneys nationwide
who have volunteered to provide free legal services to victims--from
filing a protection order, to divorce and custody matters. But many,
many more women need legal assistance. The Violence Against Women Act
of 2000, which is before us today, authorizes and provides the
necessary funding to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and
sexual assault obtain legal assistance at little to no cost.
Don't take my word for the need for this legislation. You have heard
from folks in your states. Listen to their stories and the programs
they've put into place over the past five years since we passed the
Violence Against Women Act in 1994--with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
Unless we act now--and renew our commitment to stopping violence
against women and children--our efforts and successes over the past
five years will come to a screeching halt. The Violence Against Women
Act expired September 30.
If the funding dries up--make no mistake--the number of domestic
violence cases and the number of women killed by their husbands or
boyfriends who profess to ``love'' them--will increase.
Domestic violence has been on a steady decline in recent years. U.S.
Department of Justice statistics show a 21 percent drop since 1993.
Why?
From Alabama to Alaska--New Hampshire to New Mexico--Michigan to
Maine--California to Kentucky--Delaware to Utah--police, prosecutors,
judges, victims' advocates, hospitals, corporations, and attorneys are
providing a seamless network of ``coordinated response teams'' to
provide victims and their children the services they need to escape the
violence--and stay alive.
In National City, California, family violence response team
counselors go directly to the scenes of domestic violence cases with
police.
Violence Against Women Act funds have facilitated changes from
simple, common sense reforms--such as standardized police reporting
forms to document the abuse . . . to more innovative programs, such as
the Tri-State Domestic Violence Project involving North Dakota,
Montana, and Wyoming. This project includes getting the word out to
everyone from clergy to hairdressers to teachers--anyone who is likely
to come into contact with a domestic violence victims--so that they can
direct victims to needed housing, legal, and medical services. And the
services and protections are offered across State lines.
Such coordinated projects have different names in different States--
in Oregon, they have domestic violence intervention teams.
In Vermont they have ``PAVE.'' The Project Against Violent
Encounters.
Washington State has developed ``Project SAFER''--which links
attorneys with victims at battered women shelters to ``Stop Abuse and
Fear by Exercising Rights.''
In Washington, D.C. they formed Women Empowered Against Violence--
known as WEAVE--which provides a total package for victims, from legal
assistance to counseling to case management through the courts.
Utah has developed the ``CAUSE'' project, or the Coalition of
Advocates for Utah Survivors' Empowerment. It is a statewide, nonprofit
organization that has created a system of community support for sexual
assault survivors.
In Kansas, they've funded a program called ``Circuit Riders,'' who
are advocates and attorneys who travel to rural parts of the State to
fill the gaps in service.
Different names for these programs but the same funding source and
inspiration--the Violence Against Women Act.
Experience with the act has also shown us that we need to strengthen
enforcement of protection from abuse orders across state lines.
Candidly, a protection from abuse order is just one part of the
solution. A piece of paper will not stop a determined abuser with a
fist, knife, or gun.
But look at what states like New York and Georgia are doing to make
it easier--and less intimidating--for women to file for a protection
from abuse order.
They have implemented a completely confidential system for a victim
to file for a protection from abuse order without ever having to walk
into a courtroom.
It is all on-line over the internet. After the victim answers a
series of questions and describes the abuse, the information is deleted
once transmitted to the court--with no information stored
electronically.
This project is part of specialized domestic violence courts
established in many states--where one judge handles the entire case--
from protection orders, to divorce, custody, and probation issues.
The Center for Court Innovation is working with the New York courts
to develop customized computer technology that will link the courts,
police, probation officers, and social service agencies--so that
everyone is on the same page, and knows exactly what's happening with a
domestic violence case.
We need to take this technology nationwide. And the Violence Against
Women Act of 2000 before us today will provide funding to states for
such technology. and not all our solutions are high-tech.
To help victims enforce protection orders, states and cities across
this country have teamed up with the cellular phone industry to arm
victims with cell phones.
In my state of Delaware, I spearheaded a drive to collect two
thousand
[[Page S10205]]
used cell phones, so that every person with a protection from abuse
order can get a cell phone programmed to automatically dial 9-1-1 if
the abuser shows up at her house, place of work, at the school yard
when she picks up her child, the bus stop or the grocery store.
Commonsense solutions--all sparked by the Violence Against Women Act
this body passed overwhelmingly in 1994.
Again, listen to the voices of victims we have helped.
Phyllis Lee from Tennessee says she is alive today thanks to the
battered women shelter in Dayton. Without it, she is certain her
abusive husband would have killed her with his violent beatings. After
enduring 17 years of torturous abuse, including severe beatings to her
head and body, rape, and the withholding of needed medical care,
Phyllis finally escaped.
After a particularly severe beating, she hid in the woods for 20
hours, paralyzed with fear that her husband would find her. She crawled
to a nearby farmhouse and asked for help.
With the help of the woman who lived there, she contacted Battered
Women, Inc.--an organization that assists victims of domestic violence.
This program, which includes a hotline, counselors, and a shelter, is
heavily funded by the Violence Against Women Act. It provided a way out
for Phyllis and her children, whose lives were in grave danger.
Battered Women, Inc. also helped Phyllis get her GED and she is now
working as an advocate for other battered women. She says that without
this program, she never would have known that the option to live
without abuse existed.
States with large Indian reservations--such as California and
Nevada--have formed Inter-Tribal Councils so that Native American women
no longer have to suffer in silence at the hands of their violent
abusers. One victim in California writes:
If it were not for the Inter-Tribal Council's efforts, I
would be dead, homeless or living in my car, with my children
hungry.
In California, the Inter-Tribal Council has reached out to Native
American communities to establish the ``Stop and Take Responsibility''
program.
First, and foremost, this program is about education--educating
Native American men that hitting your spouse is a serious crime, and
educating mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters--that no man has a
right to lay a hand on them.
This past May, the shooting of Barry Grunnow, an English teacher in
Lake Worth, Florida--by a seventh grade honor roll student named
Nathaniel Brazil--shocked the nation.
Recently, Lake Worth police released reports showing a history of
domestic violence in the Brazil home.
As the Palm Beach Post wrote recently in an editorial--
While violence in the home can hardly be directly blamed
for the tragic shooting . . . this case does demonstrate the
way in which domestic violence affects society at large, how
violence in the home increased the likelihood for violence in
the surrounding community. It is about time that we push for
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in
Congress to combat domestic violence and its horrible
consequences.
And if any of you doubt the link between children growing up in a
home watching their mother get the living hell beat out of her--and
that child growing up to be violent as well, consider this recent case
two months ago in San Diego.
A prosecutor was in her office, interviewing a mother who was
pressing charges against her husband after suffering years of abuse. As
the questioning stretched on, the woman's 8-year-old son grew restless.
Just as little kids do--the boy tugged at his mother's sleeve,
saying, ``Let's go. I'm hungry . . . can we leave yet.''
He became even more agitated and said: ``Come on, Mom, I want to
go.''
Finally, the 8-year-old boy shouted: ``I'm talking to you?'' Then, he
curled up his fist and punched her.
Now, where did he learn that?
That prosecutor not only had a victim in her office. She had a future
domestic violence abuser.
But states are not giving up on these kids. For example, in Pasco
County, Florida the Sheriff's Office has developed a special program
just to focus on the children in homes with domestic violence.
It's called KIDS, which stands for Kids in Domestic Situations. The
sheriff hired four new detectives, a supervisor, and a clerk. They
review every domestic violence call to see if a child lives in the
home. They are specially trained to interview that child and get him or
her the needed counseling--to break the cycle of violence.
Unfortunately, the abuse does not stop for women once they are
divorced--particularly when the father uses the children to continue
the harassment. All too often, Kids caught in the crossfire of a
divorce and custody battle need safe havens.
One woman in Colorado had to confront her former husband and abuser
at her son's soccer games--to exchange custody for the weekend. She had
to endure continued mental and emotional abuse, putting herself in
physical harms-way. Finally a visitation center opened. Now she drops
off her son into the hands of trained staff in a secure environment.
In Hawaii, Violence Against Women Act funding has allowed officials
to open three new visitation centers in the island's most rural
counties.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 adds new funding for safe
havens for children to provide supervised visitation and safe
visitation exchange in situations involving domestic violence, child
abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
Of course, there are also the battered women's shelters. Over the
past five years, every State in this country has received funding to
open new and expand existing shelters. Two thousand shelters in this
country now benefit from this funding.
In my State of Delaware we have increased the number of shelters from
two to five, including one solely for Hispanic women.
For as much as we've done, so much more is needed. Our bipartisan
Biden-Hatch bill increases funding for tens of thousands of more
shelter beds. It also establishes transitional housing services to help
victims move from shelters back into the community.
And let's not forget the plight of battered immigrant women, caught
between their desperate desire to flee their abusers and their
desperate desire to remain in the United States. A young Mexican woman
who married her husband at the age of 16 and moved to the United States
suffered years of physical abuse and rape--she was literally locked in
her own home like a prisoner. Her husband threatened deportation if she
ever told police or left the house. When she finally escaped to the
Houston Area Women's Center in Texas, she was near death.
That shelter gave her a safe place to live, and provided her the
legal services she needed to become a citizens and get a divorce.
Our bipartisan bill expands upon the protections for battered
immigrant women.
Thanks to nurses and emergency room doctors across this country--we
have made great strides in helping victims who show up at the emergency
room, claiming they ran into a door or fell down the stairs.
The Kentucky General Assembly has made it mandatory for health
professionals in emergency rooms to receive three hours of domestic
violence training.
The National Hospital Accreditation Board is encouraging all
hospitals to follow Kentucky's lead.
The SANE program, sexual assault nurse examiners, are truly angels to
victims. They are specially trained to work with police to collect
needed evidence in a way that is sensitive and comforting to victims.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 facilitates these efforts by
ensuring that STOP grants can be used for training on how to conduct
rape exams and how to collect, preserve, and analyze the evidence for
trial.
Finally, I am very pleased to report, this legislation expands grants
under the Violence Against Women Act to states, local governments,
tribal governments, and universities to cover violence that arises in
dating relationships. Hopefully, this important change will help
prevent tragedies like the death of Cassie Diehl, a 17-year-old high
school senior from Idaho, killed by a boyfriend who left her for dead
after the truck he was driving plunged 400 feet of a mountain road.
What is especially tragic about this story is the great lengths to
which Cassie's parents went, before her death,
[[Page S10206]]
to seek help from local law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors
in putting an end to the boyfriend's constant abuse of their child,
even seeking a protection order from a judge. All of these efforts
failed because Cassie was a teenager involved in an abusive dating
relationship. Law enforcement officials believed that because Cassie
was a 17-year-old high school student living at home she could not be
abused by a boyfriend, that she was not entitled to protection under
the law.
The legislation we will vote on today will help avoid future horror
stories like Cassie's by providing training for law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to better identify and respond to violence
that arises in dating relationships and by expanding victim services
programs to reach these frequently young victims.
Thanks in part to the landmark law we passed in 1994, violence
against women is no longer regarded as a private misfortune, but is
recognized as the serious crime and public disgrace that it is. We have
made great strides to putting an end to the days when victims are
victimized twice--first by their abuser, then by the emergency response
and criminal justice systems. We are making headway.
I have given you plenty of examples, but there are hundreds more.
In addition to the battered women's shelters, the STOP grants, the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, and other grant programs I have
mentioned, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000
reauthorizes for five years the Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic
Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, campus grants, the rape
prevention and education grant program, and three victims of child
abuse programs, including the court-appointed special advocate program
(CASA).
So, let us act now to pass the Biden-Hatch bill.
There is one thing missing, I must point out, from this legislation.
Unfortunately, the conference report does not extend the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund that would guarantee the funding for another five
years--so that these innovative, effective projects can continue.
I believe that extending the trust fund is critical. Remember, none
of this costs a single dime in new taxes. It's all paid for by reducing
the federal government by some 300,000 employees. The paycheck that was
going to a bureaucrat is now going into the trust fund. So I will
continue to work to extend the trust fund to ensure that these programs
actually receive the funding we have authorized.
Let me just close by saying that it has been a tough fight over the
past 22 months to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus
on the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But we have
finally done it.
I greatly appreciate the support, daily phone calls, letters, and e-
mails of so many groups--who are the real reason we have been able to
get this done this year. The National Association of Attorneys General,
every law enforcement organization, all the many women's groups, the
National and 50 individual State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence,
the American Medical Association, the National Governors Association,
nurses, the list goes on and on--more than 150 groups total.
If you'll allow me one more point of personal privilege, this act--
the Violence Against Women Act--is my single greatest legislative
accomplishment in my nearly 28 years in the United States Senate.
Why? Because just from the few examples provided above--it's having a
real impact in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
You see it and hear the stories when you're back home.
So let us today pass the bipartisan Biden-Hatch Violence Against
Women Act now, and renew our national commitment to end domestic
violence.
Mr. President, I am happy now to yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. May I have 30 seconds of the time I yielded to the
Senator?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. I will speak more on this in another venue, but I think it
is safe to say VAWA would not be voted on today had it not been for the
persistence of the Senator from Delaware. That persistence is something
the public has not seen as much as those of us who have been in private
meetings with him, where his muscle really counted. We would not have
this vote today, and I suspect it will be an overwhelmingly supportive
vote--that vote would not have been today were it not for the total and
complete persistence of the Senator from Delaware, just as the vote on
sex trafficking is to the credit of the Senators from Kansas and
Minnesota.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that. The
beginning of my comments was a polite way of apologizing for my being
so persistent. I have been here 28 years. I have never threatened a
filibuster. I have never threatened to hold up legislation. I have
never once stopped the business on the floor--not that that is not
every Senator's right. I have never done that. I care so much about
this legislation that I was prepared to do whatever it would take. I
apologize for being so pushy about it. But there is nothing I have done
in 28 years that I feel more strongly about than this. I apologize to
my friends for my being so persistent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I know my colleague, Senator Brownback, wants to speak
as well. Let me thank Senator Biden for his great leadership as well.
We are very proud we were able to work this out and do trafficking and
the reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act together. Let me
thank him for safe visas. He was kind enough to mention my wife Sheila.
That was really an initiative on which she has been working. I was so
pleased to see that in this bill.
Let me also say to my colleague, as much as I appreciate the work of
the Senator from Tennessee, I want to make the point that this is not
about the rule 28 scope of conference. I think the Chair will rule
against my colleague from Tennessee. I think the Chair will rule
against him with justification.
Most importantly, I want colleagues to know the majority of you voted
for Aimee's law. I voted against it. But if the Senator from Tennessee
should succeed--I know this is not his intention--that is the end of
this conference report, that is the end of this legislation on
trafficking, that is the end of reauthorization of VAWA, and it would
be a tragic, terrible mistake.
I hope colleagues will continue to support it. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note the hour of 3:30 approaches.
Senator Thompson has a lot of time.
If we are able to pass this legislation today, we still have a hurdle
left to go. This is a major victory for women and children subject to
violence here and abroad. This is a major piece of legislation for us
to be able to pass through this body. It is late in the session. We are
already past the time scheduled for adjournment. To be able to get this
legislation passed at this time is a significant accomplishment. The
Senator from Delaware pushed aggressively and hard on VAWA, as a number
of people did on other items.
This is a good day, a great day for the Senate to stand up and do
some of the best work we can to protect those who are the least
protected in our society, to speak out for those who are the least
protected here and around the world.
This is a great day for this country, and it is a great day for this
body.
I am pleased we are wrapping up this portion of the debate. I think
we have had a good discussion. We will have the vote on the appealing
of the point of order by the Chair. I plead with my colleagues, with
all due respect to my colleague from Tennessee, to vote against my
colleague from Tennessee so we can proceed to pass this important
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I have 20 seconds, with the
indulgence of my colleague from Tennessee, I thank Senator Brownback
again. I also thank a whole lot of people, a whole lot of human rights
organizations, women's organizations, grassroots organizations,
religious organizations, who have been there for the bill,
organizations of others who have really worked hard for reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank you for your grassroots work.
I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Tennessee is recognized to make a point of order against the conference
report. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
conferees included matters not in the jurisdiction of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I am referring specifically to Aimee's law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point of order is not well
taken.
[[Page S10207]]
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 1 hour of debate. The
Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the manner in which this has
been handled and the opportunity this affords me to make the statement
I am going to make today.
This is an objection to the conference report. There are many good
things in this conference report. Unfortunately, Aimee's law is a part
of it. I prefer to have the consideration of that independently,
separate and apart from the conference report, but that is not to be.
Historically, of course, Aimee's law did pass as a part of a much
larger bill, the juvenile justice bill, some time ago but was never
signed into law. When I voiced my objection to it at that point, it was
put into this conference report. I cannot let it go without raising my
objection to something that I think has to do with an important
principle.
It is very unfortunate, when we have tragic circumstances that happen
in this country, such as young people being killed, all the violence
and abuse that goes on in this country, we take that and use the
emotionalism from it to make bad law.
I do not think anybody within the sound of my voice can accuse me of
being soft on crime. I ran in 1994 on that issue. I ran again in 1996
on that issue. My position is clear. But my position is also clear that
we are continuing the trend toward the centralization of decisionmaking
in this country. In other words, if we do not like what a State is
doing with regard to its criminal laws, we tend to find a way around
it.
I do not like the idea that some States let prisoners out sooner than
they should, but if we really do not like that and we really do not
have any concerns about taking over the criminal jurisdiction in this
country, things that have been under the purview of States for 200
years, why don't we just pass a Federal law using the commerce clause
and state that it affects interstate commerce?
Perhaps the Supreme Court will allow it; maybe they will not. Why
don't we just pass a Federal law on murder? Why don't we just have a
Federal law that says anyone convicted of murder has to serve so much
time and just get on with it? Even the people pushing things such as
Aimee's law apparently recognize there is a principle that causes us
problems, and that is, we are set up with a Federal system.
Every kid learns in school that we have a system of checks and
balances, one branch against another, also Federal versus State and
local law. It is a diffusion of power. It is time honored. It is in the
Constitution. It is in the 10th amendment. Some things the States do
and some things the Federal Government does.
If we do not believe in that anymore, if we are going to say every
time there is some tragic circumstance, such as the drive-by shootings
in 1992--we federalized the crime of drive-by shootings. In 1997, there
was not one Federal prosecution for drive-by shootings, but yet it was
in the headlines, and we could not help ourselves because we wanted to
express our outrage at this crime that was being taken care of at the
State level.
No one has ever accused these States with high-profile crimes of not
jumping in and taking care of the situation, sometimes imposing the
death penalty. You cannot do much more than that. Yet we feel the
necessity to pass Federal laws that will ultimately create a Federal
police force to do things we have left to the purview of the States for
200 years. That is a serious matter.
Nobody wants to vote against something called Aimee's law as a result
of a tragedy of some young woman getting killed, for goodness' sake.
Unfortunately, it happens all across this country all the time. But we
have greater responsibilities when we take the oath of the office we
hold. We are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Is the relationship
between the State and Federal Government the one we studied in school,
the one the courts tell us is still in effect, and, more fundamentally,
do we need States anymore? States do not behave the way we want them to
sometimes. States do not do what the Federal Government wants them to
do. States do different things.
People in Tennessee might not look at something exactly the same way
people in New York might look at it. People in New York might not look
at something the same way people in California do. We have certain
basic things on which we agree in our Federal Constitution, but the
Founding Fathers gave us leeway to experiment.
Nobody I know of inside Washington, DC, has the answers to all these
problems. We all have the same motivation: No one wants crime, no one
wants these terrible tragedies, but we certainly do not have a monopoly
on what to do about it. That is why we have States to experiment, to do
different things.
Too often, under the glare of the headlines, we want one solution; we
want one answer; we want one Federal answer with our name on the
legislation so we ``did something'' about some tragic murder that
happened in one of the States, which is prosecuted by the State and the
person has long been sent to the penitentiary or death row.
We need to concentrate on the fact that we do not seem to think we
need the States anymore. We had this fundamental disagreement at the
founding of our country between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hamilton wanted
a strong Federal Government, we all remember from our schooldays.
Jefferson said: No, that is too much centralization of power; remember
what happened to us earlier in our history. We need to diffuse that
power, and the States need certain rights, so we need to balance that
out.
One of my House colleagues said: The problem with Congress is we are
Jeffersonians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and Hamiltonians on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. We give lipservice to the
proposition of limited Government, decentralization, giving more power
back to the States, getting things out of Washington. We all run on
that platform, and as soon as we get here, we can't wait to pass some
sweeping Federal law that, in many cases, supersedes State law and the
different ways States have chosen to handle a different problem.
We preempt State law. We pass Federal laws all the time. The
Constitution allows us, under the supremacy clause, to do that. We will
not even say when we are preempting. The courts have to decide that. We
pass laws all the time, and the courts have to take a look at them
later on to decide to what extent we are preempting State laws, and so
we strike down those State laws.
We continue to criminalize State law. Five percent of the criminal
prosecutions in this country are Federal. Yet last year there were over
1,000 pieces of legislation introduced in this Congress having to do
with criminal law. It clogs the courts. Justice Rehnquist on a regular
basis comes over here and pleads with us to stop this: You are not
doing anything for law enforcement--he tells us--by trying to
criminalize everything at the Federal level that is already covered at
the State level; you are clogging the courts.
The Judicial Conference reports to us from time to time: You are
clogging the courts with all this stuff that should not be in Federal
court; the States are already taking care of that. Nobody is claiming
they are not. So for the same offense, we have this array of State laws
and this array of criminal laws, and the prosecutor can use that
against a defendant however he might choose. It is not something that
will enhance our system of justice but something that only enhances our
own stature when we believe we are able to say we passed some tough
criminal law. We are doing more to harm criminal justice by doing this
than we are doing to help it.
My favorite last year was the legislation that was considered in
Congress to prohibit videos of animal abuse using stiletto heels. That
is not a joke. Unfortunately, we have bills such as that introduced in
Congress all the time.
We, from time to time, try to get around the commerce clause. We want
to federalize things, such as guns in schools. Every State in the Union
has a tough law they deal with in their own way as to what to do about
a terrible problem--guns in schools. We get no
[[Page S10208]]
headlines out of that, so we had a Federal law to which the Supreme
Court said: No, that does not affect interstate commerce. Then we just
try to basically directly force States to enforce Federal laws and
regulations that we make--background checks for guns, when judges
should retire, Federal regulations. Finally, the Supreme Court said:
No, we cannot do that. The 10th amendment prohibits us from doing that.
So we have a steady array of our attempting to figure out ways in and
around the Constitution in order to impose our will because ``we know
best.''
The latest, of course, now is the use of the spending clause. The
courts have said, basically, if Congress sends the money, they have the
right to attach strings. States blithely go along many times--not all
the time, but many times. Oftentimes they accept that free Federal
money and learn that they are getting 7 percent of their money for
their problem and 75 percent of the regulations and redtape, the
requirements that go along with it.
So this is the context in which we find ourselves when we consider
Aimee's law. This is all just a little bit of history we have been
dealing with to which not many people pay much attention. But it has to
do with our basic constitutional structure. It has to do with the
fundamental question in this country and, I think, our fundamental job;
that is, What should the Federal Government do, or what should
Government do, and at what level should Government do it? What is more
fundamental than that? What is more important than that, as we hastily
pass out and introduce these thousands of bills up here? If they sound
good, do it--all the while eroding a basic constitutional principle
that we all claim we believe in.
So this Aimee's law came about because of another tragic set of
circumstances. We have seen them: The dragging death in Texas, the
drive-by shooting case in 1992, the situation that produced Aimee's
law. There is always something in the headlines of a tragic nature in
criminal law.
Under Aimee's law, if Tennessee, for example, tries somebody--let's
say for murder or rape--and convicts them, and that person serves their
sentence under State law, under Tennessee law, and then they are
released, and that person goes to Kentucky and commits another similar
criminal offense, here is where the Federal Government comes into play.
The Attorney General does this calculation and says, basically, that
unless Tennessee's law under which this guy was convicted provides for
the average term of imprisonment of all the States--you look at all the
States and say: What is the average term of imprisonment for murder?--
if Tennessee has a little less than the average of all the other
States, and he goes to Kentucky and kills somebody else, then Tennessee
has to pay Kentucky to apprehend the guy, to try the guy, and to
incarcerate him for however long Kentucky wants to incarcerate him.
That is basically what Aimee's law is. So this is moving the ball a
little bit farther down the road for those who want Washington to
decide all the criminal laws in this country.
Here we have a standard not that Congress has set. A lot of times we
will say: We want everybody on the highways to be driving under the old
.08 rule because we believe that ought to be the intoxication limit. We
are going to withhold funds if you don't. It is a Federal standard. You
can argue with it or you can agree with it.
But that is not what we have here. This is not a standard that
Congress has had hearings on and has determined that Tennessee has to
live up to. It is a standard that is based upon a calculation of what
the average is among all the other States.
What if Tennessee looks at it a little differently? They ought to
have the right to have a little more stringent laws or a little more
lenient laws. They have the people of Tennessee to answer to. They have
their own legislature. They have their own Governor. These are things
that Tennessee has been deciding for 200 years. If they do not do what
the average of other States do, when it is totally within their
prerogative, should they be penalized?
There are several problems with this law. Some of them are
constitutional because it has ex post facto concerns. I do not know,
for example, in reading this law, whether it intends to apply to people
who have already been sentenced or whether it applies to people who
will be sentenced after this law comes into effect.
I wish one or any of the sponsors of this bill would come to the
floor and tell us whether or not the intent of this law is to have this
law apply to people who have already been sentenced maybe 5 years ago,
maybe 10 years ago. If so, then what can a State do about that to avoid
being penalized the way I just described?
Secondly, if a person is still serving time, and the State knows it
is going to be penalized if he is released under the State law because
other States might have a little more stringent law, what is going to
happen next time that person comes up to the parole board? Are they
going to be looking at it objectively?
Or, better still, the question is, to the sponsors of this
legislation: What about people who have already been convicted and
already served their time and have been out of jail now for 15, 20
years, and they go to Kentucky and kill somebody else? Does this apply
to them? If that is the case, there are thousands and thousands and
thousands of people in every State who have been convicted of crimes
and are now out of jail and going to other States. Are we going to go
back and calculate what the average law provided for incarceration for
all of those people? I think it is silent.
If the intent is, in fact, to catch all of those people and, if they
do something else, have this law apply, it has ex post facto
ramifications with regard to the State. You are not doing anything to
the individual, but you are forcing the State to either lose money or
to try to extend the time these people stay in jail.
Can you imagine the litigation you are going to have with regard to
these parole board hearings, when a person apparently looks as though
he is eligible for parole, but the parole board has discretion, and
they know if they release this person, he is going to be one of these
people caught under the law? Can you imagine the litigation that is
going to come about as a result?
If, on the other hand, it is not meant to be ex post facto, if, in
fact, this law only applies to those who are convicted of crimes after
the effective date of this law, then this law is going to be a nullity
for the most part, I imagine, for many years, if people serve out terms
in prison for horrendous crimes.
I would like to know, seriously, what the intention of the law is
because it is not clear from the legislation itself. As Fred Ansell has
said:
If it applies retroactively, then the law could apply
retroactively in different ways. It could mean that the law
applies only if an offender is released from a State after
2002 after having served a less than average sentence, and
then commits a crime. Or it could even mean that a person
commits a crime as early as January 1, 2002, who was released
from prison many years ago.
If the State is liable for what an already-released
offender does in the future, and it accepts the Federal funds
with these conditions, then the State has agreed to accept an
unlimited future liability. It will be liable for the crimes
that thousands of offenders might commit, as measured by the
costs of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration. This
is not losing 5 percent of transportation funds for not
enacting a 21-year-old drinking age, as was upheld in South
Dakota v. Dole. This is where Federal ``pressure turns into
compulsion.'' Moreover, the funds are not attached to a new
program. The conditions are attached to funds that States
have already satisfied conditions to receive now and are
being used for law enforcement purposes now. Prisons under
construction now might have to be abandoned if the States can
no longer receive Federal funds for prisons unless they
lengthen their sentences. Drug task forces, police
assistance, prosecutorial assistance, all of which are
currently functional, would be jeopardized, causing possible
loss of life and limb to the citizenry, if States did not
adopt Washington's sentencing policy in order to be sure to
continue receiving the money. That is coercion, not
inducement.
If the measure is retroactive only with respect to people
who are released after 2002 for earlier committed crimes, the
compulsion is not as great, but is still very strong, as the
State still faces unlimited liability for any prisoners for
future crimes committed over many years. To avoid that, a
State seeking to retain Federal funding might essentially, in
the Supreme Court's words, be ``induced . . . to engage in
activities which would themselves be unconstitutional,'' such
as lengthening the sentences of those who would otherwise be
released, violating the ex post facto clause.
[[Page S10209]]
This wouldn't be a direct lengthening, but it would certainly have a
potential effect with regard to, for example, parole board activities.
So not only do you have an ex post facto problem, you have a spending
loss problem. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can withhold
money, unless the States engage in the behavior that Congress wants
them to as they receive the money. They don't have to take the money,
but if they do, they have to take the strings attached to it. The
Supreme Court has basically upheld that. The Supreme Court also said
the conditions that the Federal Government places on the use of the
money must be unambiguous. The States must know what they have to do in
order to get this money.
I submit that under the present case, Aimee's law, the States could
not tell what they have to do in order to get this money because they
are always dealing with a moving target. If you remember what I said a
while ago, the name of the game is for the States to keep ratcheting up
their incarceration time so they are within the national average. If
they fall below that for their own good purposes, whatever the reasons
and circumstances--they want to devote more money to prevention, or
they want to devote more to rehabilitation instead of prisons, whatever
their decisions might be--if they fall a little below, they are going
to lose their money. If they want to keep their money, how high are
they supposed to raise their incarceration rates? Because by the time
they change their law and raise their incarceration rates for these
various offenses, other States, presumably, could be doing the same
thing. You are always going toward a moving target. Each State is
trying to outstrip each other, and each State, if it wants to keep its
money and not have to pay for 40 or 50 years for somebody in another
State--their incarceration expense--the safe thing for it to do is
ratchet up the time. The safest thing for it to do would be to give
life sentences without parole.
For some people, I think that is a good idea anyway. But is that
something we ought to be forcing States to do with regard to any and
all prisoners who come before them who are charged with this particular
list of crimes? It is a list that this Congress has decided is the
protected list--not anything else, just this protected list. If the
States don't comply, then they lose their Federal money. So the States
can't tell what they are supposed to do in order to keep their money.
It is a very ambiguous, bad piece of legislation.
There are policy reasons in addition to what I have described and in
addition to the constitutional problems. It pits one State against
another. We are supposed to be doing things to unify this country--I
thought. The Supreme Court and this Congress spends a lot of time and
attention on implementing the commerce clause, designed to make sure
there is the free flow of goods and people and information one State to
another.
The Supreme Court strikes down laws that States might want which
might say another State can't come in, or where they are trying to
impose their will on another State outside their boundary. The commerce
clause promotes a free flow of commerce, but under this particular law
you are pitting one State against another, calculating to see if they
can get some money from another State because they have a different
criminal law than this other State had, and the Attorney General of the
Federal Government is the referee and she keeps the books on all of
that. That is a terrible idea.
Another policy reason is that Aimee's law defeats the very purpose
that it is trying to carry out. Much of the money that will be
withheld, if a State doesn't comply with this Federal mandate, will go
for prisons. One of the reasons, presumably, why some States have to
turn people out before we would like is because of a lack of prison
space. They are getting this Federal money in order to help them with
more prisons.
This is a very circular kind of situation the Federal Government is
creating. We are cutting them off from money to do the very thing that
is the reason we are cutting them off because they didn't do it in the
first place. It makes no sense whatsoever. There is no additional
inducement--is the next policy reason--under Aimee's law for the
States--other than to keep their Federal money--for the States to
comply with this Federal rule.
We are concerned about people getting out of jail and committing
other crimes. We are all concerned about that. But seven out of eight
crimes that are committed by people who have gotten out of jail happen
in the States in which they were confined. So the State of Tennessee
has every reason in the world to want to have laws that are reasonable
for the protection of its own citizens and to keep people confined for
a reasonable period of time for these crimes for the protection of
their own citizens. Do they need any inducement because one out of
eight might go somewhere else and commit a crime and that State might
come back on them?
You have a situation here of particular crimes. Murder, as defined
under Federal law, could mean anything from vehicular homicide on up.
So, presumably, someone could be convicted of vehicular homicide in
Tennessee and go to California and be convicted of first-degree murder;
they are both murder under the meaning of this law. California could
get Tennessee's Federal money to incarcerate this guy for the next
however many years for murder when he was only convicted of vehicular
homicide in Tennessee.
This has not been thought through.
The Federal Government simply should not be setting the standards for
State crimes. They ought to set the standards for Federal crimes.
States ought to have the flexibility to choose with their limited
resources.
We tax the citizens of the States at a rate unprecedented since World
War II. We put mandates on States with which we have been struggling,
and we are trying to back off that a little bit. We have all of these
regulations we put on the States. They have limited resources most
years. They are doing a little better these days. They ought to have
the right to decide for themselves--the people who elect their
officials--how they use those resources.
If they want to spend more money for education, if they want to spend
more money for health care, if in the criminal area they want to spend
more money for prevention, if they want to spend more for
rehabilitation, those are different things that different States are
doing all across the country. We can see who has been successful and
who has not been successful.
That is the reason we have States. That is the reason our Founding
Fathers set up States. If we don't allow them to do that, what is the
use of having them? Why do we have them? Why don't we just go ahead and
pass a Federal law for everything and abrogate the States, if we don't
need that kind of diversity and if we don't need that kind of
experimentation?
The Federal Government would have States keep people--let's say the
elderly--and have to make the tradeoff of using limited resources to
keep people in jail who are, say, elderly and long past the time when
you would think they would be dangerous to people, but keep them there
on the off chance that they might get out and commit a crime in another
State, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense.
This is simply an indirect attempt by the Federal Government--by us,
by the Congress--to get States in a bidding war as to who can pass the
most stringent laws in all of these areas. That is OK in and of itself.
But it shouldn't be done because we are threatening them to do it. We
think we have the answers to these problems, and we don't.
I served on the Judiciary Committee a while back, and I was chairman
of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee for a while. For anybody who deals
in criminal law, the first thing they have to come away with, if they
are being fair about it, is a sense of great humility.
There is so much we do not know about what causes crime--why young
people commit crimes, what the best solution is, and so forth. My own
view is that we should spend a lot more time, money, and research, and
we should spend a lot more time, money, and effort in finding out what
is going on in these various communities around the country with the
various approaches communities and States have had and the various
kinds of problems. It is very complex and very controversial. But that
doesn't stop us. Last time I checked, we had 132 programs on juvenile
crime alone at the
[[Page S10210]]
Federal level without a clue as to whether or not any of them are
working or doing any good. My guess is that some of them are probably
counterproductive.
A lot of people want to pass, as a part of a bill, to have youthful
offenders sentenced as adults. In some cases, if States want to do
that, that is fine with me. But we were going to impose a requirement
that all States sentence youthful offenders as adults within certain
categories until we found out that the way it plays out in some cases
is they would get less time as an adult than they would in a juvenile
facility.
There is just an awful lot we don't know.
Why should we be forcing States to adhere to some kind of a national
standard as to how long a person ought to serve for a list of crimes?
If we really believe we ought to do that, why don't we just go ahead
and do it directly?
We have seen the benefit of a system our Founding Fathers established
over and over and over again. This is not just textbook stuff. It has
to do with power, and the use of power, and who is going to use power,
and how concentrated you want it. It has to do with innovation. It has
to do with experimentation. It has to do with good competition among
the States. We have seen welfare reform, education choice, competitive
tax policies, and public-private partnerships all thrive at the State
level. Good things are happening.
This law is another step away from all of that, another step toward
Federal centralization and the monopolizing of criminal policy in this
country. I could not let this go and could not let this pass without
making that abundantly clear once again.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thompson for his consistency
and for the remarks he just made. I don't know that it will sway the
vote, but it is certainly worth contemplating what he just said.
____________________
[Congressional Record: October 11, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S10164-S10188]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr11oc00-63]
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the conference
report accompanying H.R. 3244.
The clerk will report the conference report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate on the bill, H.R.
3244, an act to combat trafficking of persons, especially
into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in
the United States and countries around the world through
prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against
traffickers, and through protection and assistance to victims
of trafficking, having met, have agreed that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and
agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to
the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part
of both Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
October 5, 2000.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe under the uniform unanimous
consent agreement that we have, time has been allocated to several
different Members of the Senate to speak on this conference report; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, let me start this debate and discussion
with the story of Irina. Irina's story appeared in the New York Times
not that long ago, and it is similar to the story of a number of women
with whom I have met and who have been caught in this situation of sex
trafficking--young ladies I met with in Nepal, and several testified in
committee. I think Irina's story tells in graphic detail why this is a
problem and why the Senate needs to act.
Irina always assumed that her beauty would somehow rescue
her from the poverty and hopelessness of village life. A few
months ago, after answering a vague ad in a small Ukrainian
newspaper, she slipped off a tour boat when it put in at
Haifa, hoping to make a bundle dancing naked on the tops of
tables.
She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine.
Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything
seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a
brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.
``I own you,'' she recalled his saying. ``You are my
property and you will work until you earn your way out. Don't
try to leave. You have no papers and you don't speak Hebrew.
You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and
bring you back.''
That was her master. The article goes on.
It happens every single day. Not just in Israel, which has
deported nearly 1,500 Russian and Ukrainian women like Irina
in the past three years. But throughout the world, where
selling naive and desperate young women into sexual bondage
has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in
the robust global economy.
. . . Many end up like Irina. Stunned and outraged by the
sudden order to prostitute herself, she simply refused. She
was beaten and raped before she succumbed. Finally she got a
break. The brothel was raided and she was brought here [to
another place], the only women's prison in Israel. Now, like
hundreds of Ukrainian and Russian women with no documents or
obvious forgeries, she is waiting to be sent home.
This is a quote from Irina:
``I don't think the man who ruined my life will even be
fined,'' she said softly, slow tears filling her enormous
green eyes. ``You can call me a fool for coming here. That's
my crime. I am stupid. A stupid girl from a little village.
But can people really buy and sell women and get away with
it? Sometimes I sit here and ask myself if that really
happened to me, if it can really happen at all.''
Then, waving her arm toward a muddy prison yard, where
Russian is spoken more commonly than Hebrew, she whispered
one last thought: ``I am not the only one, you know. They
have ruined us all.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text
of this article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Traffickers' New Cargo: Naive Slavic Women
(By Michael Specter)
Ramle, Israel.--Irina always assumed that her beauty would
somehow rescue her from the poverty and hopelessness of
village life. A few months ago, after answering a vague ad in
a small Ukrainian newspaper, she slipped off a tour boat when
it put in at Haifa, hoping to make a bundle dancing naked on
the tops of tables.
She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine.
Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything
seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a
brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.
``I own you,'' she recalled his saying. ``You are my
property and you will work until you earn your way out. Don't
try to leave. You have no papers and you don't speak Hebrew.
You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and
bring you back.''
It happens every single day. Not just in Israel, which has
deported nearly 1,500 Russian and Ukrainian women like Irina
in the past three years. But throughout the world, where
selling naive and desperate young women into sexual bondage
has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in
the robust global economy.
The international bazaar for women is hardly new, of
course. Asians have been its basic commodity for decades. But
economic hopelessness in the Slavic world has opened what
experts call the most lucrative market of all to criminal
gangs that have flourished since the fall of Communism: white
women with little to sustain them but their dreams. Pimps,
law enforcement officials and relief groups all agree that
Ukrainian and Russian women are now the most valuable in the
trade.
Because their immigration is often illegal--and because
some percentage of the women choose to work as prostitutes--
statistics are difficult to assess. But the United Nations
estimates that four million people throughout the world are
trafficked each year--forced through lies and coercion to
work against their will in many types of servitude. The
International Organization for Migration has said that as
many as 500,000 women are annually trafficked into Western
Europe alone.
Many end up like Irina. Stunned and outraged by the sudden
order to prostitute herself, she simply refused. She was
beaten and raped before she succumbed. Finally she got a
break. The brothel was raided and she was brought here to
Neve Tirtsa in Ramle, the only women's prison in Israel. Now,
like hundreds of Ukrainian and Russian women with no
documents or obvious forgeries, she is waiting to be sent
home.
``I don't think the man who ruined my life will even be
fined,'' she said softly, slow tears filling her enormous
green eyes. ``You can call me a fool for coming here. That's
my crime. I am stupid. A stupid girl from a little village.
But can people really buy and sell women and get away with
it? Sometimes I sit here and ask myself if that really
happened to me, if it can really happen at all.''
Then, waving her arm toward the muddy prison yard, where
Russian is spoken more commonly than Hebrew, she whispered
one last thought: ``I'm not the only one, you know. They have
ruined us all.''
traffic patterns: russia and ukraine supply the flesh
Centered in Moscow and the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, the
networks trafficking women run east to Japan and Thailand,
where thousands of young Slavic women now work against their
will as prostitutes, and west to the Adriatic Coast and
beyond. The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs
based in Moscow. Even when they do not specifically move the
women overseas, they provide security, logistical support,
liaison with brothel owners in many countries and, usually,
false documents.
Women often start their hellish journey by choice. Seeking
a better life, they are lured by local advertisements for
good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never
imagine at home.
In Ukraine alone, the number of women who leave is
staggering. As many as 400,000 women under 30 have gone in
the past decade, according to their country's Interior
Ministry. The Thai Embassy in Moscow, which processes visa
applications from Russia and Ukraine, says it receives nearly
1,000 visa applications a day, most of these from women.
Israel is a fairly typical destination. Prostitution is not
illegal here, although brothels are, and with 250,000 foreign
male workers--most of whom are single or here without their
wives--the demand is great. Police officials estimate that
there are 25,000 paid sexual transactions every day. Brothels
are ubiquitous.
None of the women seem to realize the risks they run until
it is too late. Once they cross the border their passports
will be confiscated, their freedoms curtailed and what little
money they have taken from them at once.
``You want to tell these kids that if something seems too
good to be true it usually is,'' said Lyudmilla Biryuk, a
Ukrainian psychologist who has counseled women who have
escaped or been released from bondage. ``But you can't
imagine what fear and real ignorance can do to a person.''
The women are smuggled by car, bus, boat and plane. Handed
off in the dead of night, many are told they will pick
oranges, work
[[Page S10165]]
as dancers or as waitresses. Others have decided to try their
luck at prostitution, usually for what they assume will be a
few lucrative months. They have no idea of the violence that
awaits them.
The efficient, economically brutal routine--whether here in
Israel, or in one of a dozen other countries--rarely varies.
Women are held in apartments, bars and makeshift brothels;
there they service, by their own count, as many as 15 clients
a day. Often they sleep in shifts, four to a bed. The best
that most hope for is to be deported after the police finally
catch up with their captors.
Few ever testify. Those who do risk death. Last year in
Istanbul, Turkey, according to Ukrainian police
investigators, two women were thrown to their deaths from a
balcony while six of their Russian friends watched.
In Serbia, also last year, said a young Ukrainian woman who
escaped in October, a woman who refused to work as a
prostitute was beheaded in public.
In Milan a week before Christmas, the police broke up a
ring that was holding auctions in which women abducted from
the countries of the former Soviet Union were put on blocks,
partially naked, and sold at an average price of just under
$1,000.
``This is happening wherever you look now,'' said Michael
Platzer, the Vienna-based head of operations for the United
Nations' Center for International Crime Prevention. ``The
mafia is not stupid. There is less law enforcement since the
Soviet Union fell apart and more freedom of movement. The
earnings are incredible. The overhead is low--you don't have
to buy cars and guns. Drugs you sell once and they are gone.
Women can earn money for a long time.''
``Also,'' he added, ``the laws help the gangsters.
Prostitution is semilegal in many places and that makes
enforcement tricky. In most cases punishment is very light.''
In some countries, Israel among them, there is not even a
specific law against the sale of human beings.
Mr. Platzer said that although certainly ``tens of
thousands'' of women were sold into prostitution each year,
he was uncomfortable with statistics since nobody involved
has any reason to tell the truth.
``But if you want to use numbers,'' he said, ``think about
this. Two hundred million people are victims of contemporary
forms of slavery. Most aren't prostitutes, of course, but
children in sweatshops, domestic workers, migrants. During
four centuries, 12 million people were believed to be
involved in the slave trade between Africa and the New World.
The 200 million--and many of course are women who are
trafficked for sex--is a current figure. It's happening now.
Today.''
distress calls: far-flung victims provide few clues
The distress call came from Donetsk, the bleak center of
coal production in southern Ukraine. A woman was screaming on
the telephone line. Her sister and a friend were prisoners in
a bar somewhere near Rome. They spoke no Italian and had no
way out, but had managed, briefly, to get hold of a man's
cell phone.
``Do you have any idea where they are, exactly?'' asked
Olga Shved, who runs La Strada in Kiev, Ukraine's new center
dedicated to fighting the trafficking of women in Eastern
Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The woman's answer was no. Ms. Shved began searching for
files and telephone numbers of the local consul, the police,
anybody who could help.
``Do they know how far from Rome they are?'' she asked, her
voice tightening with each word. ``What about the name of the
street or bar? Anything will help,'' she said, jotting notes
furiously as she spoke. ``We can get the police on this, but
we need something. If they call back, tell them to give us a
clue. The street number. The number of a bus that runs past.
One thing is all we need.''
Ms. Shved hung up and called officials at Ukraine's
Interior Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. Her conversations
were short, direct and obviously a routine part of her job.
That is because Ukraine--and to a lesser degree its Slavic
neighbors Russia and Belarus--has replaced Thailand and the
Philippines as the epicenter of the global business in
trafficking women. The Ukrainian problem has been worsened by
a ravaged economy, an atrophied system of law enforcement,
and criminal gangs that grow more brazen each year. Young
European women are in demand, and Ukraine, a country of 51
million people, has a seemingly endless supply. It is not
that hard to see why.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine reports accurate unemployment
statistics. But even partial numbers present a clear story of
chaos and economic dislocation. Federal employment statistics
in Ukraine indicate that more than two-thirds of the
unemployed are women. The Government also keeps another
statistic: employed but not working. Those are people who
technically have jobs, and can use company amenities like
day-care centers and hospitals. But they do not work or get
paid. Three-quarters are women. And of those who have lost
their jobs since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, more
than 80 percent are women.
The average salary in Ukraine today is slightly less than
$30 a month, but it is half that in the small towns that
criminal gangs favor for recruiting women to work abroad. On
average, there are 30 applicants for every job in most
Ukrainian cities. There is no real hope; but there is
freedom.
In that climate, looking for work in foreign countries has
increasingly become a matter of survival.
``It's no secret that the highest prices now go for the
white women,'' said Marco Buffo, executive director of On the
Road, an anti-trafficking organization in northern Italy.
``They are the novelty item now. It used to be Nigerians and
Asians at the top of the market. Now it's the Ukrainians.''
Economics is not the only factor causing women to flee
their homelands. There is also social reality. For the first
time, young women in Ukraine and Russia have the right, the
ability and the willpower to walk away from their parents and
their hometowns. Village life is disintegrating throughout
much of the former Soviet world, and youngsters are grabbing
any chance they can find to save themselves.
``After the wall fell down, the Ukrainian people tried to
live in the new circumstances,'' said Ms. Shved. ``It was
very hard, and it gets no easier. Girls now have few and
opportunities yet great freedom. They see `Pretty Woman,' or
a thousand movies and ads with the same point, that somebody
who is rich can save them. The glory and ease of wealth is
almost the basic point of the Western advertising that we
see. Here the towns are dying. What jobs there are go to men.
So they leave.''
First, however, they answer ads from employment agencies
promising to find them work in a foreign country. Here again,
Russian crime gangs play a central role. They often recruit
people through seemingly innocuous ``mail order bride''
meetings. Even when they do not, few such organizations can
operate without paying off one gang or another. Sometimes
want ads are almost honest, suggesting that the women earn up
to $1,000 a month as ``escorts'' abroad. Often they are vague
or blatantly untrue.
recruiting methods: ads make offers too good to be true
One typical ad used by traffickers in Kiev last year read:
``Girls: Must be single and very pretty. Young and tall. We
invite you for work as models, secretaries, dancers,
choreographers, gymnasts. Housing is supplied. Foreign posts
available. Must apply in person.''
One young woman who did, and made it back alive, described
a harrowing journey. ``I met these guys and they asked if I
would work at a strip bar,'' she said. ``Why not, I thought.
They said we would have to leave at once. We went by car to
the Slovak Republic where they grabbed my passport. I think
they got me new papers there, but threatened me if I spoke
out. We made it to Vienna, then to Turkey. I was kept in a
bar and I was told I owed $5,000 for my travel. I worked for
three days, and on the fourth I was arrested.''
Lately, the ads have started to disappear from the main
cities--where the realities of such offers are known now.
These days the appeals are made in the provinces, where their
success is undiminished.
Most of the thousands of Ukrainian women who go abroad each
year are illegal immigrants who do not work in the sex
business. Often they apply for a legal visa--to dance, or
work in a bar--and then stay after it expires.
Many go to Turkey and Germany, where Russian crime groups
are particularly powerful. Israeli leaders say that Russian
women--they tend to refer to all women from the former Soviet
Union as Russian--disappear off tour boats every day.
Officials in Italy estimate that at least 30,000 Ukrainian
women are employed illegally there now.
Most are domestic workers, but a growing number are
prostitutes, some of them having been promised work as
domestics only to find out their jobs were a lie. Part of the
problem became clear in a two-year study recently concluded
by the Washington-based nonprofit group Global Survival
Network: police officials in many countries just don't care.
The network, after undercover interviews with gangsters,
pimps and corrupt officials, found that local police forces--
often those best able to prevent trafficking--are least
interested in helping.
Gillian Caldwell of Global Survival Network has been deeply
involved in the study. ``In Tokyo,'' she said, ``a
sympathetic senator arranged a meeting for us with senior
police officials to discuss the growing prevalence of
trafficking from Russia into Japan. The police insisted it
wasn't a problem, and they didn't even want the concrete
information we could have provided. That didn't surprise
local relief agencies, who cited instances in which police
had actually sold trafficked women back to the criminal
networks which had enslaved them.''
official reactions: best-placed to help, but least inclined
Complacency among police agencies is not uncommon.
``Women's groups want to blow this all out of proportion,''
said Gennadi V. Lepenko, chief of Kiev's branch of Interpol,
the international police agency. ``Perhaps this was a problem
a few years ago. But it's under control now.''
That is not the view at Ukraine's Parliament--which is
trying to pass new laws to protect young women--or at the
Interior Ministry.
``We have a very serious problem here and we are simply not
equipped to solve it by ourselves,'' said Mikhail Lebed,
chief of criminal investigations for the Ukrainian Interior
Ministry. ``It is a human tragedy, but
[[Page S10166]]
also, frankly, a national crisis. Gangsters make more from
these women in a week than we have in our law enforcement
budget for the whole year. To be honest, unless we get some
help we are not going to stop it.''
But solutions will not be simple. Criminal gangs risk
little by ferrying women out of the country; indeed, many of
the women go voluntarily. Laws are vague, cooperation between
countries rare and punishment of traffickers almost
nonexistent. Without work or much hope of a future at home,
an eager teenager will find it hard to believe that the
promise of a job in Italy, Turkey or Israel is almost certain
to be worthless.
``I answered an ad to be a waitress,'' said Tamara, 19, a
Ukrainian prostitute in a massage parlor near Tel Aviv's old
Central Bus Station, a Russian-language ghetto for the
cheapest brothels. ``I'm not sure I would go back now if I
could. What would I do there, stand on a bread line or work
in a factory for no wages?''
Tamara, like all other such women interviewed for this
article, asked that her full name not be published. She has
classic Slavic features, with long blond hair and deep green
eyes. She turned several potential customers away so she
could speak at length with a reporter. She was willing to
talk as along as her boss was out. She said she was not
watched closely while she remained within the garish confines
of the ``health club.''
``I didn't plan to do this,'' she said, looking sourly at
the rich red walls and leopard prints around her. ``They took
my passport, so I don't have much choice. But they do give me
money. And believe me, it's better than anything I could ever
get at home.''
* * * * *
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Irina's story is told all too often and
is reenacted all too often around the world today. Our Government
estimates that between 600,000 and 2 million women are trafficked each
year beyond international borders. They are trafficked for the purpose
of sexual prostitution by organized crime units and groups that are
aggressively out making money off the trafficking of human flesh. It is
wrong. This bill seeks to deal with that wrong and that tragedy that
has occurred and is occurring around the world today.
This is significant human rights legislation that this body is going
to pass. I hope, predict, and pray that it will pass today. It is
significant human rights legislation for those poor young victims who
are trafficked and who are caught sometimes with the view that, ``I am
just stupid, I got caught in this,'' but who live this horrible,
hellish life they have been put into and trafficked into and can't find
their way out.
The conference report is entitled ``The Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000.'' As I mentioned previously, it passed
the House of Representatives on Friday, October 6, by a vote of 371-1.
The Senate will vote on this conference report today, with the lead
underlying bill being the Brownback-Wellstone anti-trafficking
legislation. Senator Wellstone and I have been working for the last
year on this legislation, which is a companion to the Smith-Gejdenson
bill in the House known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000.
I want to thank and recognize my staff, Sharon Payt and Karen
Knutson, two people who have worked tirelessly and endlessly to deal
with this particular issue.
Our anti-trafficking bill is the first complete legislation to
address the growing practice of international ``trafficking''
worldwide. This is one of the largest manifestations of modern-day
slavery internationally. Notably, this legislation is the most
significant human rights bill of the 106th Congress, if passed today,
as hoped for. This is also the largest anti-slavery bill that the
United States has adopted since 1865 and the demise of slavery at the
end of the Civil War. Therefore, I greatly anticipate this vote today
in the Senate on this legislation.
Senator Wellstone's and my trafficking bill, which passed in the
Senate on July 27 of this year, was conferenced to reconcile the
differences with the House bill, and the conference report was filed on
October 5, Thursday, of last week. The final conference package
contains four additional pieces of legislation which are substantially
appropriate to our bill. Most significant among those bill amendments
is the Violence Against Women Act, known as VAWA, which provides relief
and assistance to those who suffer domestic violence in America. Thus,
the additional four bills included in this conference report include
the Violence Against Women Act. This is a reauthorization of the
initial bill which was passed in 1994 as part of the Omnibus Crime
Control Act; this legislation renews several grant programs to assist
law enforcement officers, social service providers, and others dealing
with sexual crime and domestic violence.
Also in this package is Aimee's law, which provides for interstate
compensation for the costs of incarceration of early-release sex
offenders who commit another sex crime in a second State. It is based
on the circumstances of what happened in a Pennsylvania case where a
murderer was released early out of a Nevada prison, went to
Pennsylvania, and kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered a young
girl there who was in the very flower of life and coming forth. This
law is built upon that terrible crime that took place in Pennsylvania.
Also in this package is the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act, which
allows for State attorneys general to enforce their State alcohol
control laws in Federal court, including laws prohibiting sales to
minors, which strengthens the grant of authority to States under the
21st amendment to the Constitution; and the Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act, which authorizes the payment of foreign seized assets to
American victims of international terrorism.
The last step to adopting this legislative package in Congress rests
with the Senate today.
Before I continue describing this urgently needed legislation, I
would like to take a few moments to thank some key people who have
brought us to this point today. Some of them are in the Galleries as I
speak. They are people of heart, courage, and intelligence whose
advocacy made a way for this bill--whose dedication pried open the
doors and let the light shine into this darkness. Among them is Senator
Wellstone who started this work long before I came on board. He and his
wife, most notably, 3 years ago started advocating on this particular
issue. I know he stands firmly and strongly today as one of the
principal advocates to set this aside, and he brought this forward and
seeks to go forward from here to help those who are victims of these
crimes.
I also thank Congressmen Chris Smith and Sam Gejdenson. I would also
like to thank Gary Haugen of the International Justice Mission and Dr.
Laura Lederter of the Protect Project at Johns Hopkins University. Dr.
Laura Lederter of the Protect Project at Johns Hopkins University is
the foremost authority in the country on tracking from where and to
where these victims are trafficked.
I have up here one of the maps she introduced of women who have been
trafficked out of Russia and Ukraine with the fall of the Soviet Union.
With the increased travel out of there to freedom, we have seen a huge
amount of trafficking also taking place. These are the routes out of
Russia and Ukraine and where they go--to Canada, to the United States,
to Mexico, to Europe, to Africa and Asia, to Australia and New Zealand.
This is the work of her project.
I also want to thank Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, and
Gloria Steinem, whom I am not noted to thank, is part of this
coalition; Chuck Colson, Jessica Neuworth, William Bennett, the
National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention,
among others I'm sure I'm forgetting. I would also like to thank the
staff for both the Senate and House, including Joseph Rees, David
Abramowitz, Charlotte Oldham-Moore, Jill Hickson, Mark Lagon, and my
staff Karen Knutson and Sharon Payt. Thank you all. We are here today
at final passage because of all your efforts.
This legislation is our best opportunity to challenge the largest
manifestation of slavery worldwide, known as ``trafficking.'' This
practice of trafficking involves the coercive transportation of persons
into slavery-like conditions, primarily involving forced prostitution,
among other forms of slavery-like conditions.
Trafficking is the new slavery of the world. These victims are
routinely forced against their will into the sex trade, transported
across international borders, and left defenseless in a foreign
country. This bill also addresses the insidious practice known as
``debt bondage,'' wherein a person can be enslaved to the money lender
for an entire lifetime because of a $50 debt
[[Page S10167]]
taken by the family for an emergency. This is a common practice in
countries throughout the South Asian region.
People of conscience have fought against the different manifestations
of slavery for centuries. This anti-slavery legislation is in the
tradition of William Wilberforce and Amy Carmichael of England, who
were ardent abolitionists against different forms of slavery. Amy
Carmichael was a British missionary to India at the turn of last
century, in the early 1900's. Upon arrival, she was mortified to
discover the routine practice of forced temple prostitution. This was
and continues to be a practice wherein young girls, from age six
onward, are dedicated to the local temple, and are then forced into
prostitution against their will to generate income. Upon this morbid
discovery, Amy Carmichael began to physically steal the young girls
away from this incredibly degrading form of slavery, hiding the girls
to escape the inevitable backlash of violence. Eventually, the
government outlawed this practice of forced temple prostitution, as a
result of her efforts. However, it bears noting that this terrible
practice continues today, in a lesser degree, in rural villages
throughout South Asia, including India.
This bill challenges the myriad forms of slavery including sex
trafficking, temple prostitution, and debt bondage, among other forms.
This new phenomenon of sex trafficking is growing exponentially. Some
report that it is, at least, $7 billion per year illicit trade,
exceeded only by the international drug and arms trade. Its victims are
enslaved into a devastating brutality against their will, with no hope
for release or justice, while its perpetrators build criminal empires
on this suffering with impunity. Our legislation will begin to
challenge these injustices.
This is the new slavery of the world, Dr. Kevin Bales of the
University of Surrey in England recently testified for us before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He astutely observed that the new
slavery has a peculiar quality which does not look like the old forms
associated with lifetime bondage as a chattel slave, but it is slavery
nonetheless.
Sex trafficking is among the most common forms of the new slavery and
typically entails shorter periods of bondage, usually asking for 5 to 6
years, or whenever something like AIDS or tuberculosis is contracted,
after which the victim is thrown out on the street, broken, without
community or resources, left to die. I have met with people caught in
that condition.
Women and children are routinely forced against their will. Sex
traffickers favor girls aging in the range of 10 to 13.
I have a number of other things I could say, but my time is limited.
I know a number of people want to speak on this bill. I ask to reserve
the remainder of my time. I will turn the floor over to Senator
Wellstone.
I ask unanimous consent on any quorum calls that might be called
during the discussion of this conference report, that time be allotted
and assessed against all allocated time to speak under the bill,
including myself and Senator Wellstone, along with Senator Biden,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, who have all been allocated time. I
ask the quorum calls be equally divided between those who have time
under the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I finally note to others who seek to speak on this
bill, I invite Members to come to the floor to make comments. At the
conclusion of our presentation, a vote will occur on this conference
report.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his very gracious
remarks. It has been an honor to work with him on this legislation. I
think a very strong friendship has come out of this effort. There are
some times when we can work and reach out and have the most interesting
and I hope important coalition. Working with Senator Brownback, Sharon
Payt, and Karen Knutson has been the best legislative work. At the end
of the day, I believe today we will pass this legislation. Members can
feel they have done something really good. They can make a positive
difference. I thank Senator Brownback for his great leadership and his
great work for each step along the way. In all the negotiations, all
the work that has been done, the Senator has been there. I thank the
Senator.
I want to talk about Charlotte Oldham-Moore and Jill Hickson, who
have worked with me and our staff, who have done a great job. There are
other people who will be on the floor who put this together--especially
the Violence Against Women Act--Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, Senator
Hatch, and others, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith have been
phenomenal. I thank them for their yeoman work on the House side. I
also thank Frank Loy and Harold Koh at the State Department for their
work.
The trafficking of human beings for forced prostitution and sweatshop
labor is a rapidly growing human rights abuse. It is one of the
greatest aspects of the globalization of the world economy. The Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is the first piece
of legislation to address the widespread practice of the trafficking of
men, women, and children into sweatshop labor and sexual bondage.
My wife Sheila urged me to do something about this problem several
years ago. Consequently, she and I spent time with women trafficked
from the Ukraine to work in brothels in Western Europe and the United
States. They told us after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the
ascendancy of the mob, trafficking in women and girls became a booming
industry that destroyed the lives of the youngest and most vulnerable
in their home countries.
We began work on the bill then, and 3 years later, after
extraordinary bipartisan effort, tremendous leadership from Senators
Brownback and Leahy, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith, and others, it
passed the House with a vote of 371-1. Now it is poised to pass the
Senate.
Our Government estimates that 2 million people are trafficked each
year. Of those, 700,000 women and children, primarily young girls, are
trafficked from poor countries to rich countries and sold into slavery,
raped, locked up, physically and psychologically abused, with food and
health care withheld. Of those, as many as 50,000 immigrants are
brought into the United States each year, and they wind up trapped in
brothels, sweatshops, and other types of forced labor, abused and too
fearful to seek help.
Traffickers exploit the unequal status of women and girls, including
harmful stereotypes of women as property and sexual objects to be
bought and sold. Traffickers have also taken advantage of the demand in
our country and others for cheap, unprotected labor. For the
traffickers, the sale of human beings is a highly profitable, low-risk
enterprise as these women are viewed as expendable and reusable
commodities.
Overall, profit in the trade can be staggering. It is estimated that
the size of this business is $7 billion annually, only surpassed by
that of the illegal arms trade. Trafficking has become a major source
of new income for criminal rings. It is coldly observed that drugs are
sold once while a woman or a child can be sold 10 or 20 times a day.
In the United States, Thai traffickers who incarcerated Thai women
and men in sweatshops in El Monte, CA, are estimated to have made $8
million in 6 years. Further, Thai traffickers who enslaved Thai women
in a New York brothel made about $1.5 million over 1 year and 3 months.
Last year, Albanian women were kidnapped from Kosovo refugee camps
and trafficked to work in brothels in Turkey and Europe. Closer to
home, organized crime has trafficked Russian and Ukranian women into
sexually exploitive work in dozens of cities in the United States of
America. Just next door, law enforcement authorities suspected mafia
involvement in the gruesome murder of a Russian woman trafficked to
Maryland.
All of these cases reflect a new condition: Women whose lives have
been disrupted by civil wars or fundamental changes in political
geography, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union or the
violence in the Balkans, have fallen prey to traffickers.
Seeking financial security, many innocent persons are lured by
traffickers'
[[Page S10168]]
false promises of a better life and lucrative jobs abroad. Seeking this
better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in
foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. However,
when they arrive, these victims are often stripped of their passports,
held against their will, some in slave-like conditions, in the year
2000.
Rape, intimidation, and violence are commonly employed by traffickers
to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through
physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel
owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation
that imposes a constant threat of arrest and deportation, as well as
violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves to whom the women must
pay off ever-growing debts. That is the way this works.
Many brothel owners actually prefer foreign women, women who are far
from help and from home, who do not speak the language, precisely
because of the ease of controlling them. Most of these women never
imagined they would enter such a hellish world, having traveled abroad
to find better jobs or to see the world.
Many in their naivete believe nothing bad can happen to them in the
rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland or Germany or the
United States. Others are less naive, but they are desperate for money
and opportunity. But they are no less hurt by the trafficker's brutal
grip.
Trafficking rings are often run by criminals operating through
nominally reputable agencies. In some cases overseas, police and
immigration officials of other nations participate and benefit from the
trafficking. Lack of awareness or complacency among government
officials such as border control and consular offices contributes to
the problem. Furthermore, traffickers are rarely punished, as official
policies often inhibit victims from testifying against their
traffickers, making trafficking a highly profitable, low-risk business
venture for some.
Trafficking abuses are occurring not just in far-off lands but here
at home in America as well. The INS has discovered 250 brothels in 26
different cities which involve trafficking victims. This is from a CIA
report. This is the whole problem of no punishment--being able to do
this with virtual impunity.
In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian and Ukrainian women who
answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks and waitresses, and were
forced to provide sexual services and live in a massage parlor in
Bethesda, MD, the Russian-American massage parlor owner was fined. He
entered a plea bargain and charges were dropped with the restriction
that he would not operate a business again in Montgomery County. The
women, who had not been paid any salary and were charged $150 for their
housing, were deported or left the United States voluntarily. There was
no charge at all.
Teenage Mexican girls were held in slavery in Florida and the
Carolinas, and they were forced to submit to prostitution.
Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in nightclubs in the
Midwest. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the
traffickers picked the women up upon their arrival at the airport,
seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels and
beat them. This is in our country. The women were told that if they
refused to work in sexually exploitive conditions, the Russian Mafia
would kill their families. Furthermore, over a 3-year period, hundreds
of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech
newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring.
Trafficking in persons for labor is an enormous problem as well. The
INS has also worked on cases involving South Asian children smuggled
into the United States to work in slavery-like conditions. In one case,
about 100 Indian children, some of them as young as 9 or 10, were
brought into New York and shuffled around the country to work in
construction and restaurants--ages 9 and 10, in the United States;
today, in the United States--2000.
Some of the children appear to have been sold by their parents to the
traffickers. In Woodbine, MD, a pastor bought Estonian children, ages
14 to 17, promising them they would attend Calvery Chapel Christian
Academy, but then forcing them to clean roach-invested apartments and
to do construction. The children worked 15 hours a day. The children
were threatened and punishments included denial of food and being
forced to stand in one spot for prolonged periods.
The bitter irony is that quite often victims are punished more
harshly than the traffickers because of their illegal immigration
status, their serving as prostitutes, or their lack of documents, which
the traffickers have confiscated in order to control the victims.
A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were
light and did not reflect the multitude of human rights abuses
perpetrated against these women.
In a Los Angeles case, traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped
her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her
movements, and burned her with cigarettes. Nevertheless, the lead
defendants received 4 years and the other defendants received 2 and 3
years. That is what they received.
In a tragic case involving over 70 Thai laborers who had been held
against their will, systematically abused, and made to work 20-hour
shifts in a sweatshop, the seven defendants received sentences ranging
from 4 to 7 years with one defendant receiving 7 months.
In another case where Asian women were kept physically confined for
years with metal bars on the windows, guards, and an electronic
monitoring system, and were forced to submit to sex with as many as 400
customers to repay their smuggling debt, the traffickers received 4
years and 9 years--in the United States of America, in the year 2000.
I thank Senator Brownback for his work. It is important.
A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were
light and they did not reflect the multitude of the human rights abuses
perpetrated against these women. The statutory minimum for sale into
involuntary servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing
in small quantities of certain drugs is life.
Let me repeat that. The statutory minimum for sale into involuntary
servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing in small
quantities of certain drugs is life.
Few State and Federal laws are aimed directly at people who deliver
or control women for the purpose of involuntary servitude or slavery in
sweatshops or brothels. Consequently, prosecutors are forced to
assemble cases using a hodgepodge of laws, such as document fraud and
interstate commerce, and accept penalties that they believe are too
light for the offense. Up until this legislation, there was no way for
the prosecutors to go after these traffickers.
The Victims of Violence and Trafficking Protection Act of 2000
establishes, for the first time, a bright line between the victim and
the perpetrator. It punishes the perpetrator and provides a
comprehensive approach to solving the root problems that create
millions of trafficking victims each year.
This legislation aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provide
protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and
strengthen prosecution and punishment for those who are responsible for
the trafficking. It is designed to help Federal law enforcement
officials expand antitrafficking efforts here and abroad, to expand
domestic antitrafficking and victim assistance efforts, and to assist
nongovernment organizations, governments and others worldwide, who are
providing critical assistance to victims of trafficking. It addresses
the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by
promoting public antitrafficking awareness campaigns and initiatives in
other countries to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit
lending programs and skills training, for those who are most
susceptible to trafficking, and have an outreach so women and girls as
young as 10 and 11 know what they might be getting into.
It also increases protections and services for trafficking victims by
establishing programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of
victims into their communities and ensure that such programs address
both the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims.
[[Page S10169]]
Imagine what it would be like to be age 12 or 13, a young girl, to go
through this. We have, in Minnesota, the Center for the Treatment of
Torture Victims. It is a holy place. I have had an opportunity to meet
with staff and meet with many men and women who have been helped by
this center. These girls, these women, have gone through the same
living hell.
This legislation also increases protections and services for
trafficking victims by providing community support. Furthermore, the
bill seeks to stop the practice--and this is so important. I am sitting
next to Senator Kennedy who has done so much with the immigration work.
This bill seeks to stop the practice of immediately deporting the
victims back to potentially dangerous situations by providing them with
some interim immigration relief. Victims of ``severe forms of
trafficking,'' defined as people who were held against their will--
``for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion
for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt
bondage or slavery''--would be eligible for a special visa letting them
stay in the country at least through the duration of their captors'
prosecution, and perhaps permanently.*****-*****- -Name: -Payroll No. -
Folios: -Date: -Subformat:
Right now, if you are a Ukrainian girl or woman in a massage parlor
in Bethesda, and you step forward to get some help, you are deported.
The trafficker is hardly prosecuted. The victim is automatically
deported. This provides temporary visa protection.
I will give an example. In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian
and Ukrainian women who had answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks,
and waitresses but were forced to provide sexual services and live in a
massage parlor in Bethesda, MD, 2 miles from here, the Russian American
massage parlor owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain and charges
were dropped with the restriction that he would not operate his
business again in Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid
any salary, were forced into prostitution, and were charged for their
housing, were deported.
This legislation toughens current Federal trafficking penalties,
criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing
punishment commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. The bill
establishes specific laws against trafficking. Violators can be
sentenced to prison for 20 years to life, depending on the severity of
the crime. Yes, if you are trafficking a young girl and forcing her
into prostitution, you can face a life sentence. They can also be
forced to make full restitution to their victims, paying them the
salary that would have been due for their months or years of
involuntary service.
This bill requires expanded reporting on trafficking, including a
separate list of countries which are not meeting minimum standards for
the elimination of trafficking.
It requires the President to suspend ``nonhumanitarian and nontrade''
assistance to only the worst violators on the list of countries which
do not meet these minimum standards and who actively condone this human
rights abuse. This is a major piece of human rights legislation. This
is a major human rights bill.
These are the rare governments which are openly complicit in
trafficking people across their borders. It allows the Congress to
monitor closely the progress of countries in their fight against
trafficking, and it gives the administration flexibility to couple its
diplomatic efforts to combat trafficking with targeted enforcement
action. Finally, the bill provides three generous waivers.
By passing the Victims of Violence and Trafficking Act today, this
Chamber will take a historic step toward the elimination of trafficking
in persons.
Thanks to the partnership of Jewish and Evangelical groups, women and
human rights organizations, and others, we will take a historic and
effective step against organized crime rings and corrupt public
officials who each year traffic more than 2 million people into
desperate, broken lives of bondage and servitude.
Something important is in the air when such a broad coalition of
people, including Bill Bennett, Gloria Steinem, Rabbi David
Sapperstein, Ann Jordan, and Chuck Colson work together for the passage
of this legislation. I am thankful for their support, I am thankful for
the support of the administration, and I am thankful for your support
today in seeking to end this horrible, widespread, and growing human
rights abuse.
By way of conclusion, I say to my colleagues, starting with Senator
Brownback, I believe with passage of this legislation--I believe it
will pass today and the President will sign it--we are lighting a
candle. We are lighting a candle for these women and girls and sometime
men forced into forced labor. I also think because of the work of so
many in the House and the Senate, this can be a piece of legislation
that other governments in other parts of the world can pass as well.
This is the beginning of an international effort to go after this
trafficking, to go after this major, god-awful human rights abuse, this
horrible exploitation of women, sometimes men, and of girls.
I am very proud of this legislation. I thank my colleague from
Kansas. I thank other colleagues as well.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator has 36 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The
other part of this legislation that is so significant, and I know
colleagues are here to speak about it, is the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act. I want to reserve time to speak about that
very important piece of legislation. For me, to see both of these bills
pass and to see it happen today is one of the best days I can have in
the Senate. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will
withhold for a moment, is my understanding correct that the Senator
from Vermont has 3 hours?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I do not
intend to use all that time. At some point, I am going to yield back a
considerable amount of time. I know there are Senators on both sides of
the aisle who have commitments tonight, some connected with the debates
of the two parties' Presidential nominees. It is my hope we will be
voting fairly early this afternoon--a vote on the Thompson point of
order and final passage.
I yield such time as the Senator from Massachusetts needs, and I ask
unanimous consent that I then be able to yield to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the absolutely
splendid presentation by my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone. I
agree with him on so many issues. His statement today was one of his
very best. We can certainly understand the extraordinary work he has
done, along with Senator Brownback and others, to make sure this
legislation is considered. All of us will forever be grateful to him
for his leadership in this extremely important area. I certainly am. I
thank him for an absolutely splendid presentation.
Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally about to pass
the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The current
authorization for the Act expired on September 30, and it has taken far
too long to bring this important extension to the Senate floor.
A woman is beaten every 15 seconds as a result of domestic violence.
Every year, one-third of the women who are murdered are killed by their
husbands or partners, and approximately one million women are stalked.
Conservative estimates indicate that 60 percent of disabled women, up
to 25 percent of pregnant women, and 1 out of 25 elderly people have
suffered domestic violence.
This isn't a problem that only affects adults. Each year, 3.3 million
children are exposed to domestic violence. In homes where abuse of
women occurs, children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused as
well. Whether they witness the violence or are actually assaulted by
the abuser, many children learn shocking behavior from adults. 12
percent of high school dating couples
[[Page S10170]]
have suffered abuse in their relationships, and often these teenagers
are themselves victims of abuse at home.
Eighteen year-old Tanyaliz Torres and her mother were stabbed to
death by her father in Springfield, Massachusetts. Fifty-eight-year-old
Mabel Greineder of Wellesley, Massachusetts was stabbed and bludgeoned
to death by her husband. From October 1999 through September 2000, 24
Massachusetts women and children were killed as a result of domestic
violence. It is a national epidemic that touches every community in the
country.
The Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994 to address this
problem and provide greater safety and peace of mind for millions of
women and their families. The act creates a partnership between the
public sector and the private sector at every level--Federal, State,
and local. Its goal is to establish a safety net of new programs and
policies, including community-based services for victims, a National
Domestic Violence Hotline, needed technological assistance, and larger
numbers of well-trained law enforcement officers and prosecutors.
The national Hotline gives women across the country immediate access
to the help they need. Since its initiation in 1996, it has received
over 500,000 calls. When a Spanish-speaking woman in Arizona needed
shelter for herself and her three children, the Hotline called a
shelter in Phoenix, found a Spanish-speaking counselor, and gave the
caller the counselor's name and directions to the shelter. In the
countless cases, the Hotline is an invaluable resource, and we must do
all we can to support it.
In Massachusetts, $20 million under the Violence Against Women Act
has been awarded to advocacy organizations, law enforcement personnel,
and State and local governments. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
received funding to develop and strengthen tribal justice strategies to
remedy violent crimes against Indian women and to develop and
strengthen services for victims.
The act also supports HarborCOV--Harbor Communities Overcoming
Violence--a Massachusetts program serving Chelsea and Greater Boston.
In addition to its core services, HarborCOV has an economic development
component which helps survivors move from welfare to work. Employment
training and employment referrals are also provided to help domestic
violence victims find jobs.
The reauthorization will ensure that support for these programs and
others will continue. It also includes important new measures, such as
transitional housing assistance and a $175 million authorization for
shelters, which will be significant additional tools in the battle
against domestic violence.
One of the most important provisions in the bill is the Battered
Immigrant Protection Act. This provision helps battered immigrants by
restoring access to a variety of legal protections undermined by the
1996 immigration laws. The Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994
included provisions that allowed battered immigrants to apply for legal
status without the cooperation of their abusers, and enabled victims to
seek protective orders and cooperate with law enforcement officials to
prosecute crimes of domestic violence.
Unfortunately, the subsequent changes in immigration laws have
reduced access to those protections. Thousands of battered immigrants
are again being forced to remain in abusive relationships, out of fear
of being deported or losing their children. The pending bill removes
obstacles currently hindering the ability of battered immigrants to
escape domestic violence safely and prosecute their abusers.
It restores and expands vital legal protections like 245(i) relief.
This provision will assist battered immigrants, like Donna, who have
been in legal limbo since the passage of the 1996 immigration laws.
Donna, a national of Ethiopia, fled to the U.S. in 1992 after her
father, a member of a prominent political party, was murdered. In 1994,
Donna met Saul, a lawful permanent resident and native of Ethiopia.
They married and moved to Saul's home in Massachusetts. Two years
later, Saul began drinking heavily and gradually became physically and
verbally abusive. The abuse escalated and Donna was forced to flee from
their home. She moved in with close family friends who helped her seek
counseling. She also filed a petition for permanent residence under the
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act.
Unfortunately, with the elimination of 245(i), the only way for Donna
to obtain her green card is to return to Ethiopia, the country where
her father was murdered. The possibility of returning there terrifies
her. This legislation will enable her to obtain her green card here,
where she has the support and protection of family and access to the
domestic violence counseling she needs.
Under this act, battered immigrants will also have up to one year
from the entry of an order of removal to file motions to reopen prior
deportation orders. The Attorney General may waive the one year
deadline on the basis of extraordinary circumstances or hardship to the
battered immigrant's child.
This Act will also expand remedies for battered immigrants living
abroad with spouses and parents serving in the United States military
or other federal positions. Current law only allows battered immigrants
residing in the United States to request this relief. This bill will
make it easier for these immigrants and their children to escape
abusive relationships and obtain the help they deserve.
The legislation also grants the Attorney General the discretion to
waive certain bars to immigration relief for qualified applicants. For
example, battered immigrant women acting in self-defense are often
convicted of domestic violence crimes. Under the 1996 immigration law,
they became deportable and are denied relief under the Violence Against
Women Act. The Attorney General will be able to use the waiver
authority to help battered immigrants who otherwise qualify for relief.
Also, recently divorced battered immigrants will be able to file
self-petitions. Current law allows only battered immigrant women
currently married to their abusive spouses to qualify for relief. As a
result, many abusers have successfully rushed to the court house to
obtain divorces, in order to deny relief to their immigrant spouse.
This provision will prevent this unfair result and ensure that victims
are not wrongly deprived of the legal protection they need.
These and other important measures will do a great deal to protect
battered immigrants and their children from domestic violence and free
them from the fear that often prevents them from prosecuting these
crimes. Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 to help
all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their citizenship. It
is long past time to restore and expand these protections.
I am also pleased that the legislation includes authorization for
increased funds for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Consistent
with last year's funding, the bill authorizes $2 million a year for the
hotline and ensures that the Hotline will be an effective source of
assistance, providing vital services to women, children, and their
families.
A second, equally important part of the bill we are considering today
is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which condemns and combats
the trafficking of persons into forced prostitution or forced labor, a
practice that is tantamount to modern day slavery.
Enactment of this legislation will strengthen laws that punish
traffickers and ensure protection for their victims--most of whom are
women and children.
One of the most important of these provisions expands assistance and
protection to victims of severe forms of trafficking, ensuring that
they receive appropriate shelter and care, and are able to remain in
the United States to assist in the prosecution of traffickers. Relief
from deportation is also critical for victims who could face
retribution or other hardship if removed from the United States.
Sara, a native of Sri Lanka, was promised a lucrative job as a
housekeeper. Upon arrival in the U.S., Sara was virtually imprisoned in
her employer's Massachusetts home, and subjected to physical and sexual
assault. She bore three children as a result of rape. After 5 years of
living in captivity and isolation, she was finally
[[Page S10171]]
able to escape. This legislation will provide persons like Sara with
the protection and rights they need to assist in the prosecution of
these despicable crimes.
Finally, this legislation also includes an important provision to
provide compensatory damages to Frank Reed and other American citizens
who were victims of Iranian terrorism.
In 1986, Frank Reed, of Malden, MA, was kidnapped in Lebanon. At the
time, he was a private citizen and president of the Lebanese
International School. During his 44-month captivity, he was
blindfolded, chained, tortured, and held in solitary confinement for 2
years. His captors periodically fed him arsenic, from which his health
still suffers.
In 1990, he was released to Syrian Army intelligence officers in
Beirut, who took him to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus. I met him when he
returned to the United States after his tragic and traumatic ordeal.
A U.S. judge ordered the Iranian Government to provide Frank Reed and
his wife with $26 million in compensatory damages, but the Government
has refused to comply.
Under the legislation we are approving today, the U.S. Government
will provide the funding. The amount will be recovered in turn by the
U.S. Government from the Iranian Government through a Foreign Military
Sales Account that holds $400 million.
Frank Reed suffered immensely at the hands of his brutal captors, and
so did his family, and he deserves this compensation.
I strongly support the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and the Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act. This legislation will ensure that we are doing much more
to protect women from violence and abuse, and it deserves to be enacted
as soon as possible.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Mr. President, I want to also address the Senate for just a few
moments on another matter of importance to families all across this
country which is central to their concerns, and that is, what has
happened to this Senate's commitment to passing and reauthorizing the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That legislation is the
backbone of Federal participation in helping local communities
strengthen academic achievement and accomplishment. We are now going
into the final days of this Congress and we still have not reauthorized
that central piece of legislation even though we have had strong
commitment by the majority party that this was a priority and that we
were going to have consideration of this legislation.
We heard a great deal during the recent debates of our two candidates
for President and our two candidates for Vice President about
education. But our American families are wondering, whatever happened
to the Senate of the United States on this issue? The fact is, we are
basically AWOL, we are A-W-O-L on this issue. It is the first time in
35 years that we have failed to reauthorize this legislation.
I understand, as we remain here for these final days, that we will
have a conference report for agriculture, that we will have a series of
appropriations conference reports, but there is no reason in the world
we can't go back and complete this legislation in the time that we are
in here waiting for the various appropriations bills.
We continue to challenge the Republican leadership to bring this
back. There is still unfinished business in education and in the area
of minimum wage. There is unfinished business on the Patients' Bill of
Rights and on the prescription drug issue.
I want to reemphasize exactly where we are on the issue of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These are statements that have
been made by the Republican leader, Senator Lott's promise on
education, going back to January 6, 1999. He said:
Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . .
For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. That is important.
Remarks to U.S. Conference of Mayors, January 29, 1999:
But Education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's
not going to be just words. . . .
Press conference, June 1999:
Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in
the Congress this year. . . .
Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in February of 2000:
We're going to work very hard on education. I have
emphasized that every year I've been Majority Leader. . . .
And Republicans are committed to doing that.
A speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, February
3, 2000:
We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this
Congress.
On the Senate floor, May 1, 2000:
This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it
seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's
talk education.
Press stakeout, May 2, 2000:
Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture
vote on that?
Senator Lott: No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . .
But education is number one in the minds of the American
people all across this country and every State, including my
own State. For us to have a good, healthy, and even a
protracted debate and amendments on education, I think is the
way to go.
We agree with that statement. We still have some time, while we are
waiting for the appropriators to conclude their work, where we ought to
be bringing this back and having a full debate. We are prepared to do
that. We think it can be done.
Senate floor, July 10, 2000:
I, too, would very much like to see us complete the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . I feel very
strongly about getting it done. . . . We can work day and
night for the next 3 weeks.
Senate floor, July 25, 2000:
We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this
legislation this year and get it completed.
That was on July 25, and we are still waiting.
The fact is, we are failing to meet this central challenge. Our
Presidential candidates are talking about the issue of education, but
they are talking about it in a vacuum because the Senate of the United
States is failing to take up this particular issue which makes such a
difference to families, and that is strengthening academic achievement
and accomplishment. The fact is that we are in a new world of
technology and it is demanding. We have to refocus and re-prioritize
the whole issue of education to make sure that it addresses the needs
of today's economy and society. This is going to be central in terms of
our national debate and discussion. That is what this debate is all
about.
What is going to be our involvement in terms of helping families? The
fact is that we are absent in this debate because we are refusing to
conclude action.
This is what is happening in America. More students are now taking
the SATs. 83 percent of four-year colleges use SAT scores as a factor
in admission. Increasing numbers of students are recognizing that a
college education is the key to success in America. Families understand
the importance of taking those tests; children understand it. We want
to make sure we are helping those families who have children taking the
SATs and those who would like their children to take the SATs.
As depicted on this chart, this is what has happened. From 1995, 42
percent of the children were taking SATs, and it is up to 44 percent in
2000.
More students are also taking advanced math and science classes
because they understand that in a highly technological world, with new
kinds of demands in terms of technology, they are going to have to do
more in terms of math and science courses. We see increases in the
number of students taking advanced classes in pre-calculus, calculus,
and physics. Young people are doing their share. The real question is
whether we in the Congress are going to do ours. The answer comes back
that, no, we are not. Look at what has been happening with the SAT math
scores. They are higher now than in the last 30 years, and they are
continuously moving up. The indicators are all positive. You would not
know that listening to Governor Bush last week. We know we are facing
challenges across the country, but look at the SAT math scores; they
are the highest in 30 years. More kids are taking the SAT, and still
the scores are moving up. I think we ought to understand what is
happening out there. Some progress is being made.
[[Page S10172]]
Now, this doesn't mean that progress is being made in all of the
States. That is very important, indeed. Looking at the State SAT
averages and progress made since 1997, some States have done much
better than others. I am glad my own State of Massachusetts has moved
up some 8 points, from an average total SAT score of 1,016 in 1997 to
1,024 in 2000. We have had major educational reforms. We have done many
things in our State in terms of smaller class sizes, better trained
teachers, and afterschool programs. We are not doing all the things we
need to be doing, but we have done a lot. We have also taken advantage
of Net Day to try, in a voluntary way, to get good computers in
classrooms with well-trained teachers.
We also have found out in this discussion and debate that not all the
States--including the State of Texas--have made progress. It is
interesting that actually the State of Texas has declined some 2 points
in their average total SAT score since 1997. They dropped from an
average score of 995 in 1997 to 993 in 2000. They are also below the
national SAT total score average. The national average has gone up 3
points from 1997 to 2000, but the State of Texas has gone down 2
points. That is a 5-point spread. So I think when we listen to these
debates about what ought to be done, we ought to try to take with a
grain of salt what has been happening in Texas over the period of these
last 3 years.
In addition, looking back at the trend over the last 10 years, as I
understand it, in SAT verbal scores since 1990, Texas has been 10
points below the national average. By 2000, the gap had grown to 12
points. In math, Texas has been 12 points below the national average.
By 2000, the gap has grown to 14 points.
I think we want to have leadership at the national level that is
going to bring continued improvement. We know we have challenges. We
know we have challenges in urban areas and we have challenges in rural
areas. But we also know some of the things that work. The STARS
Program, as we have seen in Tennessee, has been very important in terms
of enhancing children's academic achievement and accomplishment.
We know what has happened when we focus on getting better teachers in
schools, such as in the State of Connecticut. Much of the progress
there has been under Republican as well as Democratic Governors. We
want to try to find out what has worked in these States and then have
an opportunity to try to give general national application to it. But
we are effectively being closed out by the Republican leadership from
having this debate. That is what families ought to understand across
this country.
We are basically being told we can't have a debate here in the Senate
on the issue of education. We had 6 days when the measure was before
the Senate, and 2 days were for debate only. We had eight votes and one
was a voice vote. So that meant seven rollcalls and three of them were
virtually unanimous. So we really didn't have much debate and
discussion. We had 16 days of debate on the bankruptcy legislation and
55 different amendments on it. So it is a matter of prioritizing.
I dare say we are failing to meet the responsibilities to families
across this country who want to have investment in the kinds of
educational programs that are going to work and who understand their
children are living in a new age of technological challenges. They want
to see their children move ahead academically. We have seen that
children are prepared to do that. We have seen them taking more
difficult courses. They are taking the challenges of SATs. They are
prepared to move ahead.
Some of the States are moving ahead boldly, such as North Carolina,
in terms of their efforts. But we have to ask ourselves: Where in the
world are the Congress and Senate in terms of helping and assisting
families in this area? The fact of the matter is that we are AWOL. We
have failed to do our homework. If we were students with this behavior,
we would be in the principal's office for several hours in discipline.
We are going to continue to talk about this. I see that we now are
going to have a continuing resolution that will go into next week. We
may go even further. There is no reason in the world we can't use these
interludes to take on one of the really important issues for families;
that is, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent
agreement that I can now yield to the distinguished Senator from
California. I ask the Senator from California how much time she would
like.
Mrs. BOXER. Between 10 and 15 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
California.
So many have worked so hard on this. The distinguished Senators from
Massachusetts and Minnesota have spoken already, but especially
Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray, and Feinstein have
worked so hard.
I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.
I ask the Chair how much time is remaining for the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 hours 35 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my friend
from Vermont for all his hard work. I thank my friend, Senator
Wellstone. I thank Senator Brownback. I thank Senator Biden and Senator
Hatch.
We have a very important bill before us. I think the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act sort of stands on its own. I would love to have
seen that come on its own because it is a landmark piece of
legislation. I felt the same way about the Violence Against Women Act.
That is a landmark piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I think we
have issues and pieces of legislation that shouldn't be in here. But
that is the way it goes. How you would ever get to the point where you
would put an issue that deals with sales of wine on the Internet is
beyond me. I don't think people really get what we do here when we take
these issues and blend them together. But let's call it the way it is.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Violence Against Women
Act are so important that Members are willing to say, even if they
didn't agree with all the appendages, they are willing to go along with
them. I am going to make some comments about each piece that is in this
legislation.
The Violence Against Women Act is very near and dear to my heart
because in 1990 I was over in the House, where I served very proudly
for about 10 years, and Senator Biden came to me and said: Would you be
willing to offer the Violence Against Women Act in the House? He had
authored it in the Senate. I was extremely pleased to agree.
The whole issue of domestic violence in our country up until that
time was never discussed. It was swept under the rug. Even though we
knew it was brutalizing women and children, we didn't have the courage
to act. In those early years, it was very hard to get attention paid to
violence against women.
I was able in the House to get through just a couple of pieces of
that legislation. But it wasn't until I came to the Senate with Senator
Biden that we really orchestrated tremendous support for the bill. In
1994, we got it through as part of the Crime Act. It has proven itself.
In this particular reauthorization, we will provide $3.3 billion in
funding over the next 5 years to protect victims of domestic abuse and
violence. We have made tremendous progress. We have seen a reduction of
about 21 percent in domestic violence. But still to this day, we have a
national crisis that shatters the lives of millions of women across the
country and tears at the very fabric of our society.
Reauthorizing these programs sends a much needed message to those who
even think about lifting a hand to a spouse or think about lifting a
hand to an innocent child that we will not stand silently by and that
we in fact will protect those victims of domestic violence.
We know that nationwide nearly one in every three adult women
experiences at least one physical assault by an intimate partner. We
know for a fact that domestic violence is the leading cause
[[Page S10173]]
of injury to women age 15 to 44, with nearly one-third of women who are
murdered being murdered by a husband or a boyfriend.
Although domestic violence affects both men and women, the
overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims happen to be women.
That is why a majority of the services authorized under the Violence
Against Women Act focus on the unique circumstances of women in abusive
relationships.
Again, we have made progress. Since 1994, when the bill passed and
President Clinton signed it into law, there has been a 21-percent
decrease in intimate partner violence and we have increased battered
women's shelters by 60 percent.
I remember in those years when we were battling for this bill, we
originally pointed out that there were more shelters for animals than
there were for battered women. I am proud to say today we have seen an
increase in the number of shelters so we can in fact address the
critical needs of victimized women and their children, many of whom
have absolutely no place to go and therefore sometimes they are forced
to stay in these abusive relationships. Where are they going to go?
They will go out on the street if they don't have a loving family to go
home to. It is a tragic situation indeed.
The bill ensures that we will be funding a continued increase in
these shelters. But we also want to stop the violence before it gets to
that. We have STOP grants that provide moneys for rape prevention, and
education grants, and a 24-hour national domestic violence hotline
which is so important. Women in these circumstances need to have a
reassuring voice. They believe sometimes that no one cares about them;
they are all alone. If they can dial that hotline and get professional
help, it makes all the difference in the world.
This bill will strengthen law enforcement efforts to reduce domestic
violence by requiring the enforcement of other States' protection
orders as a condition of funding for some of the grants. In other
words, if you have a batterer who tries to escape prosecution by going
across State lines, we address this issue.
This is very important. I want to talk about the children. We talk
about battered women, but we know--this is an incredible fact as we
look at the causes of violence in society, and we are right to look
everywhere in the society--we need to understand if a young boy sees
his father beat his mother, that child is twice as likely to abuse his
own wife than the son of a nonviolent parent. If a child, particularly
a young boy, sees a father beat a mother, he is twice as likely to
abuse his own spouse.
We know 10 million children every year are exposed to domestic
violence. More alarming even than that is the fact that 50 percent to
70 percent of those men who abuse their female partners also abuse
their children. It becomes a way of life and a way of communicating for
which we should have zero tolerance. These abused children are at high
risk for violent, delinquent behavior. The National Institute for
Justice reports that being abused as a child increases a child's
likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 53 percent. We know even when
they are young they are more apt to be arrested and get in trouble. We
know when they are adult and they marry they are more likely to abuse a
spouse.
When we talk about the Violence Against Women Act, we are not talking
only about women. We are also talking about the children. If there is
anything we can do in this hallowed hall of the Senate, it is to
protect children. We have the Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program;
we have victims of child abuse programs funded; we have rural domestic
violence and child abuse enforcement grants. This package also includes
training for judges and court personnel. We also, for the first time,
look at battered immigrants, which is a very important issue, because
we sometimes have people coming here who don't understand their rights.
They need to understand their rights, that their bodies don't belong to
anyone else, and they have a right to cry out if they are abused.
There are many other programs reauthorized by the Violence Against
Women Act, such as those to combat sexual assault and rape,
transitional housing, and civil, legal assistance. Again, a lot of
these folks don't understand their legal rights. We provide grants to
counsel them. We include protection for older and disabled women.
It is hard to even imagine an older woman in our society or a
disabled person being victimized. Is there no rule that would say to
every human being that there has to be respect? Unfortunately, in some
cases, these rules don't penetrate. So we have to get tough and make
sure that we prevent this. However, if it happens, we will crack down.
Again, I thank Senator Joe Biden for his work. It is very important.
Also, a judgeship that is being held up is the nomination of Bonnie
Campbell to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. One might
ask what it has to do with the Violence Against Women Act. The fact is,
Bonnie Campbell has been the first and only Director of the Violence
Against Women Office in the Department of Justice, and her nomination
is being held up because of partisan politics in the Senate. Here is a
woman who paved the way for the Violence Against Women Act, ensuring it
was successful, and she is a perfect person to be a judge. She was the
attorney general in Iowa for many years. Her achievements and
qualifications are obvious. If we really care about the Violence
Against Women Act, and I believe we do, then I believe we will have an
overwhelming vote, hopefully a unanimous vote. Then we ought to look at
one of the people who has made this act such a success. What a
wonderful tribute it would be to the women of America to make Bonnie
Campbell a judge.
I join with Senator Harkin on this because I know he has been quite
distressed that such an excellent nominee has had a hearing, but her
nomination has not come out of committee. We know of no one who is
opposed to Bonnie Campbell. I think it would be a fitting tribute to
the women of America to bring her nomination quickly to the floor.
I appreciate the work of Senator Wellstone and Senator Brownback on
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We know that some of these
victims have been subjected to the most horrific lives, including rape,
sexual abuse, torture, starvation, and imprisonment. The selling of
naive and desperate women into sexual bondage has become one of the
fastest growing criminal enterprises in the global economy. It is hard
to understand how this could happen. But when people are in a strange
land and are frightened, they look to others to protect them when they
really want to hurt and harm them. This legislation authorizes $94
million over 2 years to stop this abhorrent practice.
At the beginning of my remarks, I talked about sometimes attaching
bills to other bills that make no sense. I am sad to say this has the
alcoholic beverage sales attached to it. I am very sorry for the small
wineries in my State. I tried to protect them. I will have some kind of
a colloquy with Senator Hatch on this. Half of our 900 wineries in
California are run by families. They don't have big, elaborate
distributors; they don't have a big distribution. Because of this they
will need to sell their product on the Internet. I have nothing against
the way wine is distributed, but the new technologies will make it
possible for our many wine sellers to sell directly to consumers
without the need to go through a middleman or middle person. I think it
is sad that we have attached this because these very small family-owned
wineries may well suffer.
I am going to be working with my colleagues. I know Senator Leahy is
quite sympathetic to this. We want to make sure there are no negative
impacts from this legislation. We think there will be. But we are going
to follow this very closely.
The excuse given is, we will stop kids from buying on the Internet.
That is a legitimate point. But we recommended a solution dealing
directly with preventing underage drinking, and it was not accepted. In
my heart of hearts, I believe this is a special interest piece of
legislation to protect the distributors. It doesn't do anything to
protect young people from buying liquor. I think it is a sad day for
our small wineries that are trying hard to survive in California.
[[Page S10174]]
In conclusion, I again thank Senator Leahy for this time. It is a
wonderful day. We finally got this Violence Against Women Act
reauthorized. We are going to put an end, hopefully, to the sex
trafficking. It is a good day for the Senate.
I only hope we will heed the words of Senator Kennedy now and get on
with education, get on with prescription drugs, and get on with the
real Patients' Bill of Rights. Let's do our work. We can do our work.
The American people want us to do it. The way the procedure is going
now, we have no chance to offer amendments on education or health care.
It is a shame.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from
California on Bonnie Campbell. As the one who has brought life into the
Violence Against Women Act, it is remarkable that she cannot even get a
vote in this Chamber on her judicial nomination.
I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have
agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee
ought to get a vote, up or down, within 60 days. I urge in the time
remaining in this session that he, as the head of his party, as their
Presidential nominee, call the Republican leader of the Senate and say
that all of these women, all of these minorities, in fact, all of the
people who have been sitting here for well over 60 days waiting for a
vote on their nomination, let them have a vote. Vote for them or vote
against them. Bonnie Campbell deserves a vote. My guess is the reason
she has not been brought for a vote is they know at least 80 of the 100
Senators would vote for her. It would be impossible to justify a vote
against her because of her extraordinary qualifications.
Again, if Governor Bush is serious when he says have a vote within 60
days, pick up the phone, call the Senate majority leader, reach him at
the switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask him to bring her to a vote. It
is a very easy thing to do.
I agree with the Senator on the Internet alcohol bill. That was
included over my objection. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous to e-
commerce. Adding Internet sales on alcohol demeans the issue of
violence against women and sex trafficking that this bill is all about.
It is demeaning to what is a good bill.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for his comments on all fronts.
Regarding his last comment, he is so right. When I first learned there
was a move to attach this bill to the Violence Against Women Act, I was
absolutely stunned. People have to watch what we do here. They
understand, unfortunately, that the special interests still have a lot
of influence. This is one case where they had too much influence. As my
friend knows, we tried to work this so we could address the issue of
juveniles buying liquor from the Internet, which everyone agrees is a
terrible thing. This hurts our small wineries--let's call it the way it
is--in favor of the big distributors.
But on the Bonnie Campbell point, I particularly want to say to my
friend how much I have appreciated his leadership on these judicial
nominations. I say today we would not have had even the meager number
that we have had without his leadership and his pointing out, over and
over again, that women and minorities are getting second-class
treatment here.
I ask my friend if he would recount, briefly, the study he had quoted
many times, showing that women and minorities take about 3 months
longer, on average, to get through; just his comments on how it always
seems we are here fighting for women or a minority. It does not seem as
if we have to fight that hard for the white male.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, the study was done by the non-
partisan Citizens for Independent Courts. In fact, the former
Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards, co-chaired that
study. They found, without taking sides and without taking political
stands, that women and minorities took longer to be confirmed by the
Senate. Unfortunately, a lot of those women and minorities are not even
getting a vote.
Again I say if Governor Bush means it, pick up the phone and call
202-224-3121; ask the Senate switchboard to connect him to the
Republican leader and say: You know, I have made it a tenet of my
campaign that the Senate should vote on a nomination within 60 days.
You can bring every one of these people to the floor for a vote, up or
down, today. Let's do so. Who knows. We will find out how the Senate
feels about them. Are they for them or are they against them? Right
now, instead of voting yes or no, we vote ``maybe,'' by having one or
two Senators in the dark of night put holds on these people.
I see the distinguished Senator from Washington State, who has been
one of the great leaders on the issue of violence against women, on sex
trafficking, and on these other issues. I ask her, how much time does
the Senator from Washington require?
Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. We yield 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
comments. I am looking forward, hopefully, to him chairing the
Judiciary Committee next year; so that women such as Bonnie Campbell
are not held up for months on end and we actually have a chance to put
good, qualified women and minorities into judiciary positions in this
country.
I also thank the Senator from Vermont for his tremendous work on the
Violence Against Women Act, bringing us to a point today where we are
finally going to have a vote on this bill, despite the fact there are
other parts of this bill that I do not believe should be attached to
it. I appreciate his efforts because this is an extremely important
bill.
I have come to the floor to express my strong support for
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and to endorse the pending
conference report. In communities across America, the Violence Against
Women Act has been an overwhelming success. It has empowered women and
children to escape violent relationships, and it has helped to put
abusers behind bars. On every account, the Violence Against Women Act
deserves to be reauthorized. I urge my colleagues to support this vital
legislation.
It is unfortunate that reauthorization was allowed to lapse this past
month, but I am pleased the Republican leadership has finally agreed
that reauthorization must be a priority. I wish we had reached the
conclusion earlier in this session.
This subject deserves a much more open and extended debate than has
been allowed, but I want to take full advantage of the opportunity
before us, the chance to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence
Against Women Act. VAWA has been nothing short of historic.
Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a private family
matter. That perception made it very difficult for women to get help
and for communities to confront domestic violence. But all of that
changed in 1994. I am very proud to have worked to pass the Violence
Against Women Act because, for the first time, our Nation recognized
domestic violence for what it is--a violent crime and a public health
threat.
Through the Violence Against Women Act, we created a national
strategy for dealing with violence against women. Today, looking back,
it is very clear just how revolutionary the act was. For the first
time, it established a community-wide response, bringing together cops
and prosecutors, shelters and advocates and others on the front lines
of domestic violence. It authorized programs to give financial and
technical support to police departments to focus on domestic violence
and to encourage arrests. It recognized and supported the essential
role of the courts in ensuring justice. It provided funding for
battered women's shelters and for programs that address the public
health impact of domestic violence.
VAWA authorized funding for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, for Rape Prevention and Education, and it helped establish
a national toll-free hotline for victims of domestic violence. Today,
1-800-799-SAFE offers battered women immediate help. In fact, every
month, that hotline receives more than 13,000 calls. Back in 1994, some
people wondered whether this unprecedented national strategy would
work. Today, 6 years
[[Page S10175]]
later, the facts are in and it is clear that the Violence Against Women
Act has been a success. Arrests and convictions are up. We have more
than doubled funding for battered women's shelters. Since 1994, we have
appropriated close to $2 billion for VAWA-related programs.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of my highest
priorities has always been increasing funding for the Violence Against
Women Act programs. In communities throughout my State and others, the
need is overwhelming, and funding makes a dramatic difference. Working
with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have seen funding for shelters
climb from $10 million to more than $100 million. I know Senator
Specter has been a strong advocate for the Violence Against Women Act
programs. I am pleased that VAWA has always been a bipartisan issue in
appropriations.
While we have much to be proud of today, we cannot forget that abuse
is still too common. In Washington State, my home State, the toll-free
domestic violence hotline received more than 37,000 calls between July
1998 and July 1999. We cannot forget that there are still too few
resources for women in need. In my State during that same period,
23,806 women and children were turned away from shelters--turned away
as they sought help because the resources were not there.
We cannot forget that not all communities offer a full range of
services, and not all police departments are equipped to handle a life-
threatening domestic violence call.
The truth is, while the Violence Against Women Act was a historic
first step, it was just that, a first step. The time has come for us to
build on the foundation created by that act. VAWA offered an immediate
response to the threat of violence. Now it is time to address the long-
term issues. It is time to confront the long-range economic barriers
that trap women and children in violent relationships.
I have worked with Senators Wellstone and Schumer to write and
introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This legislation
tears down economic barriers and breaks the cycle of violence. Our bill
deals with employment discrimination, insurance discrimination, housing
assistance, legal help, and child care. It addresses the punitive
elements of the welfare system that can penalize women who are fleeing
dangerous situations. It provides additional help to shelters and
providers to meet the overwhelming needs of battered women and
children.
I had hoped we would have been able to reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act in a timely manner and move to addressing those
economic issues that I have outlined. Unfortunately, we cannot have
that debate today or in this session of Congress. But let me assure my
colleagues we will be back in the 107th Congress to fight to put these
powerful tools in the hands of victims and their advocates.
Before I conclude, I want to say a special word of thanks to the many
people who have helped us reach this point today.
I thank, again, Senator Leahy and Senator Biden for their leadership.
They worked very hard to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor today.
I also thank all of the advocates who fought so hard to ensure the
success of the Violence Against Women Act and who have been aggressive
in urging this Congress to act. Without their support in our
communities, VAWA would never have been a success.
I thank the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence for
its dedicated work.
I thank all of the advocates, police officers, and community leaders
with whom I have worked since 1994 to implement VAWA and to strengthen
this important act.
I thank the many shelters and organizations that have opened their
facilities to me during this session of Congress, including the Tacoma-
Pierce County YWCA, Kitsap Special Assault Victims Investigative
Services in Bremerton, the Bellingham YWCA, the Vancouver YWCA Domestic
Violence Day Care Shelter, the Spokane Domestic Violence Consortium,
the Spokane Women's Drop-In Center, and the people at Vashon Island
Domestic Violence Outreach Services.
As I have visited with them, I have seen firsthand the services they
offer and the challenges they face. I have spoken personally with women
who have had their lives changed because of the services offered, and I
have been impressed by the progress they are making day in and day out.
Those experiences have strengthened my determination to support their
work in the Senate.
In closing, it is clear the Violence Against Women Act has been a
remarkable success. We cannot delay authorization any longer, and I
urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. I look forward to working
with those in the Senate and those in my State to help build on the
progress of the Violence Against Women Act in the next session of
Congress.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the Senator
from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 55 minutes 35
seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Out of the 3 hours? We have not been in session 3 hours,
Mr. President. The Senator from Vermont had a total of 3 hours. We went
into session less than 3 hours ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will indulge, we will
recalculate.
Mr. LEAHY. I thought there might be more. You have to watch out for
that fuzzy math.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 hour 55 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. That sounds a little closer to it. I am going to be
reserving time for my own speech, but I have been withholding giving a
speech because other Members on our side want to speak. I see the
distinguished Senator from Maryland. I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Maryland, my good friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope today the Senate will pass
legislation to improve the lives of women in America and around the
world and protect them from predators.
Make no mistake, when people commit crimes, they never commit crimes
against people who are bigger, stronger, or have more power than they.
They always go after the weak, the vulnerable. One can be weak either
in physical strength or weak because one does not have the same size
weapon.
Today we have two pieces of legislation pending: One, the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and the other will
break new ground to protect women and children who are bought and sold
around the world as if they were commodities. They are victims of
predatory behavior.
By passing this legislation, we are going to protect them. Women in
their own homes are often victims of violence. Mr. President, 900,000
women last year were battered in their own homes.
The Violence Against Women Act says we will not tolerate violence,
whether it is in the home, in the neighborhood, or on a street corner.
I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Brownback who have been working on
this legislation, along with Senator Joe Biden. We appreciate the
support and leadership of the good men here.
We want to be sure that through this legislation, we are going to not
only prevent violence but help women rebuild their lives. The Violence
Against Women Act works through domestic violence programs at the State
level, works with law enforcement, and works in treatment programs for
those who were the abusers. I hope we pass this legislation.
The second part is legislation that will also be a hallmark. It is
the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Girls as young as 10
years old are kidnapped from their villages and taken to brothels or
sweatshops where they are imprisoned, forced to work as prostitutes,
beaten, threatened, and even drugged into submissiveness. They prey
upon women in the poorest regions of the world.
In addition, in central and southern Europe, with the collapse of the
old economy, women from very poor villages are lured by fraudulent scam
[[Page S10176]]
predators into thinking they are going to work in the West and are
going to work in the hospitality industry. You bet it's hospitality. It
is called turning them into whores.
I say to my colleagues, that is not what the free world and free
economy should be about. We want to make the trafficking in women and
children as criminal as the trafficking in illegal drugs. Guess what.
Often the same scum who traffic in women are also the ones who traffic
in drugs and traffic in illegal weapons of mass destruction.
I support and applaud the efforts of the Senator from Kansas who has
taken the leadership in this area. He has visited Asia and has seen the
recruitment and despicable circumstances under which young girls and
children are forced to work. From briefings here, we know this is going
on in the Balkans, out of Ukraine, and out of Poland. Many are brought
into this country under false pretenses with phony visas. We have to
stop the trafficking of women around the world.
This is very good legislation.
It will improve the lives of women in America and around the world.
By passing the Violence Against Women Act, we are helping the victims
of domestic violence to rebuild their lives. By passing the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, we are protecting women and children who are
bought and sold, and forced into slavery.
Again every year, more than 900,000 women are victims of violence in
their own homes. Every second, 20 women are battered. The Violence
Against Women Act says we will not let violence threaten women,
families, or communities.
Violence against women is not just a threat to the health and safety
of women. It is a threat to the health and safety of families and our
communities.
No woman in this country should live in fear. No woman should fear
walking home at night. No woman should fear leaving a campus library.
No woman should fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt her or her
children.
We will not tolerate it--not in Maryland, where 41 women were killed
by domestic violence last year; not anywhere in America, where 4 women
a day are killed by domestic violence.
The Violence Against Women Act supports programs that help women to
rebuild their lives. It strengthens law enforcement's response to
domestic violence. It gives legal assistance to victims of domestic
violence, and it creates safe havens for women and children who are
victims of domestic violence.
The Violence Against Women Act will protect thousands of woman
throughout the country. Today we are also taking steps to protect women
throughout the world--by passing the Sex Trafficking Victims Act.
The truly repugnant practice of trafficking in human beings affects
between one and two million women and girls each year. As I have
stated, girls as young as ten years old are kidnaped from their
villages. Or unsuspecting families allow their daughters to leave--with
promises of good jobs and better lives. These women are taken to
brothels or sweatshops--where they are imprisoned. They are forced to
work as prostitutes. They are beaten, they are threatened--and many are
killed. Even if a woman escapes, she is often so afraid of retaliation
that she will not testify against her abductors.
Organized, international criminals are responsible for the increase
in trafficking. They prey on young women in the poorest regions of the
world. They take advantage of the most vulnerable--who live in
developing countries with poor economic and uneven law enforcement.
Most countries have no way of dealing with this sophisticated form of
international crime. Many countries where trafficking is most prevalent
lack the laws and law enforcement authority to handle the problem. To
often, when local authorities catch traffickers, the women get the
brunt of the punishment for prostitution--while traffickers face minor
penalties.
That is why this legislation is so important. It focuses on
prevention, protection, and support for victims, and prosecution of
traffickers. It recognizes that trafficking is a global problem that
requires an international solution.
To prevent trafficking this legislation raises the awareness of the
problem in villages and countries. It educates potential victims by
promoting anti-trafficking awareness campaigns and by authorizing
educational and training assistance to international organizations and
foreign governments. It also requires the Secretary of State to report
on the severe forms of trafficking in persons in the annual country
reports.
To strengthen prosecution, this legislation provides local
authorities with the tools to crack down on traffickers.
To support the victims of trafficking, this legislation directs funds
for international organizations that help these women to rebuild their
lives. They are given a safe haven where they can recover. They are
provided with education, training, and microloans.
This legislation also recognizes that trafficking is not just a
foreign problem. Approximately 50,000 women are brought to the United
States each year where they are forced into prostitution or other
servitude. This bill toughens current Federal trafficking penalties by
doubling the current maximum penalties for traffickers to 20 years
imprisonment with the possibility of life imprisonment. It also changes
immigration law to help victims of trafficking. This will stop the
practice of deporting victims back to potentially dangerous situations.
We want this century to be one of democracy and human rights. We will
not achieve this unless everyone, including the worlds' poorest women,
is able to control their own lives. This means education, economic
development, family planning and civic institutions that protect the
rights of women. The legislation we are passing today will take us
closer to achieving these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in
strongly supporting the Violence Against Women Act and the Sex
Trafficking Victims Act.
In conclusion, 4 years ago, I was a victim of violence. I was coming
home from dinner with a wonderful professor who was an economic adviser
to me and was here for a conference. I got her to her hotel. As I
stepped out of my car, zam, I was mugged. I lost my handbag. I had a
severe injury to my hand. I tried to fight him off, but he was over 6
feet, and I am under 5 feet. Fortunately, I escaped with my life. All I
had was a broken memory and shattered security in my own neighborhood.
Thanks to the success of the Baltimore Police Department and the
pressing of charges and the willingness not to plea bargain, that man
is doing time while I hope I am out here doing good. I want to be sure
the streets of America are safe. I have an entire Baltimore community
on my side, including the informants. Not every woman has that. Let's
try to get them the resources they need to be safe in their homes and
communities. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recall very well the incident of which
the Senator from Maryland speaks. I am pleased this is a case where the
perpetrator was arrested and prosecuted.
One of the things I learned in my years as a prosecutor is that too
often nobody wanted to pursue those cases. All that meant, of course,
was that somebody else would be a victim. In this case, it was the
Senator from Maryland. But from my experience, had the person not been
apprehended, not been convicted, then someday it would be somebody
else. So I commend the people of Baltimore who rallied to her. At least
out of that sorry thing there was adequate prosecution. But we have so
much violence against women that we never see.
I recall so many times police officers seeing a badly battered woman,
and where we would bring prosecution, but as I talked to her, I would
find this had happened several times before in a domestic situation and
that they had gone to law enforcement, and others, and had been turned
back where nothing had been followed up on. We had a very aggressive
program in my office where we would follow up on it. I have to think
there are a number of deaths, though, that have occurred and do occur
in places where it is not followed up on.
This is something you do not see in the sunny ads and the perfect
homes and domestic situations that we see on our television. The fact
is, there are a lot of places in this country where
[[Page S10177]]
there is enormous violence against women.
I would add to the comments of my colleague, it goes across every
economic strata, it goes across all social strata. This is not one
thing that is just in poor neighborhoods or just in one ethnic group or
another. This goes across the economic strata. It goes across good
neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, large families and small families.
But, unfortunately, many times it never comes to the attention of law
enforcement. Regrettably, sometimes when it does, it is not followed up
on. This act, itself, will help focus the attention of law enforcement
on this.
Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey had asked to speak, and I
know the Senator from Louisiana wishes to speak.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could say before my colleague from
Maryland leaves the floor, I thank her for her leadership on this
Violence Against Women Act and for her statements on the sex
trafficking bill. I look forward to working with her on both issues as
we move forward. Hopefully, this will be cleared through the Senate and
signed into law and we can take more actions and steps down the road to
see that people are cared for in these terrible situations. I do
appreciate her comments and her support. I thank the Senator.
I apologize for the interruption.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Kansas does not have to make any
apologies with all the work he has done on this. I appreciate him being
here.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join with the others in thanking our
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his leadership in this area
and, of course, Senator Biden and other Senators who have spoken this
morning on this important subject.
I want to follow up with what Senator Leahy just said by sharing with
him, and with all here, an unfortunate story that appeared recently in
a newspaper out of Maryland where a 44-year-old man was convicted of
raping an 18-year-old girl who was unconscious from drinking.
Unfortunately, this judge is one of many judges, or at least too
many--the number is too high--who are ignorant and uninformed. He said
on the record in this particular case: ``Finding an unconscious woman
is a dream come true to a lot of men.''
Finding an unconscious woman is a dream come true to a lot of men.
I will submit this judge's name for the Record and will be writing
him a personal letter, asking him, if he did make this statement which
was reported, that he resign his seat immediately.
That is part of the problem we have in this Nation. The Senator from
Vermont, as a former prosecutor, understands this well, that this
problem is pervasive. It is a real shame in America--this country of
freedom and order and democracy--that we still have a severe and
serious problem of domestic violence.
Sometimes our Nation takes that extra step and goes that extra mile
to stop violence on the street and to continue to support our police
officers. Yet when it comes to stopping violence in our own homes, our
Government falls short in terms of funding, in terms of research, in
terms of education.
That is the hope that this act brings. It is to help move judges such
as this off the bench; so when he is up for reelection, there is some
education in the community that would force his either resignation or
moving him off the bench through the election cycle.
There are prosecutors around the Nation, some of whom are more
enlightened than others. But I will tell you of two in my State who are
doing an outstanding job on this subject: DA Paul Connick from
Jefferson Parish and DA Walter Reed from St. Tammany Parish.
We have many excellent DAs. But in the last few years, many of these
DAs--99 percent of whom, I would imagine, in the Nation are male and
who perhaps do not come to the subject from a very personal point of
view--have been really educated because of the good work that has been
done in this Congress and with groups all around this Nation.
These two particular DAs have instituted a very progressive policy
which is basically a no-drop policy, which means that if a battered
woman comes in to file a charge, the DA takes it upon himself, and
basically the State and the county and the parish, even if she begins
to back down because her self-esteem is not as strong as it should be,
or she is understandably frightened, or she has been threatened if she
does not drop the charges, to simply tell the abuser, when he comes in
for his interview: I am sorry, we refuse to drop the charges. This is
against you and me, buddy, basically, and we are going to see this to
the end, where you can get the punishment coming to you.
They are really being very aggressive. I hope if other district
attorneys or other staffers or folks and other elected officials are
tuning in today, they will encourage district attorneys all over this
Nation to take up the no-drop policy, because getting abusers
convicted, getting them punished, and then getting them the right
treatment for this is the only way we are going to stop this terrible
tragedy from occurring.
There are so many things I could say about this subject, but I do
think our leaders realize it is about education; it is about district
attorneys; it is about judges, it is about the court system; it is not
just about shelters and counseling and aid, which is so important. This
is the first step, giving women a safe place to go, giving children a
safe place to go. Our justice system must work for them. That is why
this bill is so important.
My colleague from New Jersey is waiting to speak on the same subject.
I thank Senator Lautenberg for his great leadership in this area. But
let me just for the record read some recent headlines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, let me read some recent headlines from our national
newspapers because the Senator was making an earlier point that I agree
with, that this isn't just in poor neighborhoods; this isn't just in
neighborhoods of people who have recently come to this Nation; this
isn't about people who have not had a good education; this affects
everyone in all walks of life.
``Popular Romance Novelist Shot and Killed by Estranged Husband,'' an
AP story from June 1999.
``Tommy Lee goes to jail for Wife Abuse,'' from USA Today, in May
1998.
``Colorado Rockies Pitcher Arrested on Suspicion of Punching Pregnant
Wife in Face,'' from the Washington Post, August 1999.
``Number of Women Dying from Domestic Violence Holding Steady Despite
Drastic Drop in Overall Homicide Rates,'' San Francisco, February 1998.
Mr. President, we have to do a better job. We have to continue on
this track. Violence has no place in our society--on our streets, on
our playgrounds, or in back alleys. But it most certainly has no place
in our homes where children grow up. If a home can't be safe, if a home
can't provide peace for a child or a woman, as a person, where can they
find peace, Mr. President? That is what this bill is about.
I think it is appropriate that the Violence Against Women Act will be
passed with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It says that we
understand that violence against women is a world wide problem.
In passing the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 we seized the
opportunity to be a world leader--to take the stand that in the
greatest democracy in the world it is unacceptable that such violence
occurs.
We have spent $16 billion on programs on education, assistance and
prosecution. We must continue.
Every 5 minutes a woman is raped. Every day four women die as a
result of domestic violence.
More women are injured by domestic violence than by automobile
accidents and cancer deaths combined.
We have made progress but there is more to be done.
Here are some of the other statistics from that Tulane study:
More than eight of ten knew someone who had been murdered;
More than half had witnessed a shooting;
43% said they had seen a dead body in their neighborhood; and
37% of them were themselves victims of physical violence.
[[Page S10178]]
If we think that violence is something that only affects other
countries we must think again. If we think that a bill like the
violence against women's act only affects women we are wrong.
Studies show that a child's exposure to the father abusing the mother
is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one
generation to the next.
A significant number of young males in the juvenile justice system
were from homes where violence was the order of the day.
Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in
medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care,
sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity.
Last week I told you about a woman from my State, Jacqulene Gersfeld,
who was gunned down by her husband outside a courthouse just moments
after she filed for divorce.
The VAWA reauthorization includes a provision to expand the
investigation and prosecution of crimes of violence against women.
The need for this is great 85% of all reported rapes end up with no
conviction. Almost 90% result in no jail time.
In Baltimore, MD, a 44 year old man was convicted of raping an 18
year old girl who was unconscious from drinking. The judge in the case
said the following on the record: ``Finding an unconscious woman is a
dream come true for a lot of men.'' And so he sentenced him only to
probation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
senior Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator
Leahy, for helping us get an addition to this legislation that we think
is critically important. I also extend my thanks to Senator Brownback
of Kansas for his assistance in enabling us to get our particular
section of this bill into place.
Mr. President, a light comes as a result of the fact that we have our
female colleagues with us in this Senate. How hard they work to get
things done on both sides of the aisle. What a difference it has made
in the way we operate. Many of us were here before there was a
reasonable presence of women--and it is not yet ``reasonable''; I will
strike that word. But that will change in time. We are getting there.
They have helped to bring to the consciousness of all America the kinds
of abuses that are perpetrated against women and young children who are
female--disgusting practices that shock us all; trafficking in young
women, forcing them into virtual slavery and being sexually exploited,
and losing their identity in the process. It is a humiliation few can
imagine. I commend the authors of this bill. Also, I commend them for
including the section on violence against women.
Mr. President, 3 years ago, when we were hard at work trying to
reduce gun violence in our society, I offered a piece of legislation to
prohibit those who had even as little as a misdemeanor charge proven
against them from getting guns. It was a tough battle, and we were on
the losing side a couple of times, with the old song about it which is
``the camel's nose under the tent, and you will be controlling guns,''
and so forth, instead of thinking about how many lives we would save.
We know that about 150 times a year a woman has a gun pointed at her
head--and I guess the reverse is also true occasionally--and is told,
``I will blow your head off'' in front of children. What kind of wounds
does that leave even if the trigger isn't pulled? It is a terrible
memory for all of those who are either victims or witnesses.
With the help of President Clinton, we were finally able to get a
piece of legislation in a budget bill that had to be done--it is almost
4 years now, and it had to be done and it passed and was signed into
law--to prevent spousal and children abusers from getting permits to
own a gun. The result is that almost 35,000 gun permits have been
denied to these people--35,000 potential opportunities for a man to put
a gun against a woman's head and threaten to take her life. So I
support this bill with these two sections. I have added a section--
myself and Senator Mack of Florida--that talks about helping those who
have been victims of terrorism, whether on our shores or away from
America. American citizens are deserving of protection. I am pleased
the Senate is going to pass this package of worthy legislation.
The underlying Trafficking Victims Protection Act addresses a very
serious human rights issue in Europe and elsewhere, where people are
trafficking particularly for sexual exploitation. Finally, we are
taking action to combat trafficking and to help these victims. I am
pleased that this conference report will also reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act and expand coverage to include new programs for
immigrant women, elderly women, and women in the military service.
Throughout my career, I have worked to help prevent domestic
violence. I strongly supported the original Violence Against Women Act,
which Congress passed in 1994. I am so pleased that we are going to
take care of those aberrations of behavior that leave women and
families devastated. But we are getting onto another subject, as well,
which I think is critical, and that is to provide justice for victims
of terrorism as part of the trafficking victims protection conference
report.
Mr. President, we all talk about our objections and abhorrence of
terrorist attacks against American citizens, whether abroad or at home,
and I had an experience that was almost in front of my eyes which
shocked me and caused me to think about how we might prevent terrorism
against our citizens at any time, at any place.
One of those victims was a young woman named Alisa Flatow. She was a
junior at Brandeis University and she was studying in Israel for a
time. In 1995, on April 9, she boarded a bus that took her from a place
called Ashkelon to another destination. She never arrived. Shortly
after noon, when the bus was in the Gaza Strip, a suicide bomber drove
a van loaded with explosives into the bus. Seven passengers were
killed. Alisa Flatow was among those injured. An Israeli Defense Forces
helicopter rushed her to a hospital in a community nearby. It was the
same day I arrived in Israel from a trip in the Middle East. When I
arrived there, our U.S. Ambassador informed me of the terrible tragedy
that had occurred and that one of them was a constituent from New
Jersey and that she had been severely injured in that attack. I
immediately reached her home in West Orange, NJ, an area very familiar
to me because I lived near that neighborhood.
I spoke to her mother, Rosalyn, and was informed that Alisa's father,
Steve, was already on his way to Israel. By the time he arrived, the
emergency surgery had failed to save his daughter's life. She died on
April 10. She was 20 years old.
For any of those who have children, they know that 20 years of age is
almost the beginning of life.
I have three daughters and a son. Those were marvelous years as they
approached the end of their college terms and prepared for life beyond.
But that didn't prevent a faction of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad
from claiming responsibility and being proud of what they did with that
suicide bombing. What good was it going to do their cause to have one
mission of terrorists to frighten people and prevent them from
conducting their lives as they would like to without any specific gain
to be had?
There was a sponsor who paid something to somebody to have these
young people assassinated. It was Iran. That is one of the reasons that
country is still on the State Department's list of terrorist countries.
I want to tell you, Mr. President, that I am befuddled by some of the
policy decisions we make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask if I can have 5 more minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 more minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank Senator Leahy.
There is no stronger advocate for the protection and safety of our
citizens than President Clinton. But I don't understand why we take a
country such as Iran and start to deal with them in trade of
insignificant items. Would you believe--I am almost embarrassed to
[[Page S10179]]
say it--that caviar, pistachio, Persian rugs are vital items for the
well-being of our society? It is outrageous.
But there are differences in point of view. I am not a professional
diplomat. Maybe I fail to understand the longer term value of something
that looks trivial to me as I express myself.
For the past five years, I have been proud to stand with Steve Flatow
in his effort to achieve some measure of justice for the killing of his
daughter. He and I both want to hold Iran accountable.
But Alisa Flatow was not Iran's only victim. Matt Eisenfeld of
Connecticut and Sarah Duker of New Jersey, a young American couple in
Israel, also were killed in 1996 when a suicide bomb from an Iran-
sponsored group ripped through a bus they had boarded.
One cannot comprehend what these missions are supposed to accomplish.
I don't want to bring the situation in Israel and the Middle East up
to a full-scale debate at this moment. But there can be nothing gained
by assaults against people or their property.
I made a speech yesterday in which I pleaded with Mr. Arafat to stop
the hatred of his people; to stop the inflammation; to stop the
propaganda that induces this kind of hatred and action; to stop ugly
cartoons about people who inhabit Israel, the Jewish community; and to
stop the anti-Semitic diatribes that still occur in Palestine. Stop it;
stop it.
Well-known journalist Terry Anderson and others were held hostage in
Lebanon in the late 1980s by captors funded by Iran.
They and their families also deserve justice, as do the families of
those killed when the Cuban government in 1996 deliberately shot down
two planes used by Brothers to the Rescue.
Mr. President, The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 gave American victims of
state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue the responsible state.
The law carved out a deliberately narrow exception to the sovereign
immunity protections our laws afford other countries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Vermont if I
may have 5 more minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield an extra 5 minutes to the Senator
from New Jersey, especially because of the tremendous work he has done
along with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, on this subject. I think
they have had to overcome so many obstacles and so many mysterious
holds on their legislation. I, of course, yield 5 more minutes to the
Senator.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont not only for his
graciousness in extending to me additional time but for the help and
guidance that he gave as we tried to put this piece of legislation into
law.
Our goal then, and our goal now, is to allow American victims to
receive some measure of justice in U.S. courts and to make state
sponsors of terrorism pay for the death and devastation they have
wrought.
Victims of terrorism have put the 1996 law to good use. The Flatow
family won a U.S. court judgment against Iran in 1998. Other victims of
terrorism won similar cases.
The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act helps the victims collect
compensatory damages they've won fair and square in our nation's
courts.
Foreign countries that sponsor terrorism should have to pay for the
awful toll that terrorist attacks take on families like the Flatows.
And we hope that making terrorist states pay that price will deter them
from sponsoring terrorism in the future.
Let me close, by thanking the many cosponsors and Senators who have
helped advance this legislation. I particularly would like to thank
Senator Mack, who has been with me every step of the way, and Gary
Shiffman on his staff.
I also want to thank Frederic Baron of my staff who worked so hard on
this bill.
I think this bill is a good example of bipartisan cooperation for a
worthy cause--helping provide justice for American victims of terrorism
abroad.
I am sure this legislation will pass overwhelmingly, but I want this
message to go out across this globe: that if you sponsor terrorism
against American citizens, you will pay a price. We ought to be
unrelenting in that. I was proud of our country when we moved against
Afghanistan to pay for the perpetrators of dastardly acts against
American citizens and their interests.
We can never step aside and argue whether or not it is appropriate.
We have to find out by testing the waters, by making sure that the
legislation is there. If there is a challenge, so be it. But we have to
indicate we will not stand by and let this happen without repercussions
to those who sponsor terrorism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey and
the Senator from Florida for their excellent work. I want to take a
moment to engage in a colloquy with Senator Brownback to clarify a
phrase in division A of the bill. In order to be eligible for the visa
provided, the traffic victim would be required to prove she would face
``extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm.''
This is a new standard under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Can
the Senator explain why this new standard was created?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to respond to the Senator from Minnesota.
This was raised in conference committee under thorough discussion
about this new standard of ``extreme hardship involving unusual and
severe harm.'' There was a fear on the part of some conferees that some
judicial interpretations over the term ``extreme hardship'' might be
too expansive; specifically, the conferees objected to an
interpretation that the applicant could prove ``extreme hardship'' by
showing he or she would miss American baseball after being deported
from the United States. So this language should be interpreted as a
higher standard than some of these expansive interpretations of
``extreme hardship.''
At the same time, however, this language should not exclude bona fide
victims who would suffer genuine and serious harm if they were
deported. There is no requirement that the harm be physical harm. I
repeat, there is no requirement that the harm be physical harm or that
it be caused by the trafficking itself. The harm or the hardship does
not have to be caused by the trafficking itself. The purpose of
inserting the phrase ``unusual and severe'' is to require a showing
that something more than the inconvenience and dislocation that any
alien would suffer upon removal might occur.
I wish to make it clear in future interpretations of this act, while
this is higher than extreme hardship, it doesn't require physical harm;
it doesn't require the harm be associated with the trafficking, to be
able to allow an American to qualify under this new definition within
the act.
I thank my colleague from Minnesota for allowing me the opportunity
to clarify this particular issue.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his clarification.
We have been talking about the trafficking legislation. Before a
final vote, I want to get back to that legislation. I think it is such
an important human rights effort.
I will talk about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act and make a couple of points. Again, to have a vote on legislation
that goes after this egregious practice of trafficking of women and
girls for the purposes of forced prostitution and forced labor is
important to our country and to the world. Then to have reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act also makes this a doubly important
bill. I am so pleased to be on the conference committee and to be able
to be a part of helping to make this happen.
I thank Senator Biden, I thank Senator Hatch, and I thank Senator
Leahy and others, for including in this bill authorization for what we
call safe havens or safety visitation centers. Let me explain by way of
example from Minnesota. I need to honor these children, and I need to
honor their mother. Anyone from Minnesota will remember the case of
Alex and Brandon, seen in this picture; two beautiful boys. It was
these two boys and what happened to them that made me understand the
importance of safety visitation centers more than anything else that
could ever have happened.
[[Page S10180]]
On July 3, 1996, Brandon, who was 5, and Alex, who was 4, were
murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother,
Angela, was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During
the marriage, she was physically and emotionally abused. Angela had an
order of protection against Kurt Frank, but during the custody hearing
she requested her husband not be allowed to see the children in
unsupervised settings. The request he see the children only in
supervised settings was rejected by the judge. Kirk Frank was able to
see his sons with no supervision. When he did, and God knows why, he
killed them. We have a center now, that the community supports, which
is a safety visitation center.
The point is this: There are two different examples. Say a woman has
been battered. And please remember, every 13 seconds a woman is
battered in the country. Say she has had the courage to get away, to
end this marriage. There is a separation going on and a divorce; you
are still not necessarily going to say the father can't see the child,
but if the father comes to the home to pick up the child, he steps
inside the home and then battering can start again. There is no
protection. If you can do it at the safe havens, supervision centers,
you can protect the woman and you can protect the children.
Or it might be the case where you are worried about the threat of a
father to the children, but you cannot say a father can't see the
child; with a supervised visitation center the father can see the
children there.
This is really important. We are working very hard right now with
Senator Hollings to get some funding. I am pleased this is a part of
this legislation.
I say to colleagues, this was the work of Jill Morningstar on my
staff, who, with my wife Sheila, made a lot of progress. It is so
important to reauthorize. The hotline is important; the training for
police is important; the support for law enforcement is important; the
support for battered women shelters is so important for the people who
are there in the trenches. All of this matters. The focus on rural
communities and support in rural communities is important, as well. It
has made a difference, a big difference.
In my State of Minnesota, this year already 33 women have been
murdered. Each case is an example of ``domestic violence.'' Last year,
in the whole year, it was only 28. The year is only half over and we
have already had 33 women who have been murdered. Clearly, we are going
to have to do a lot more. To reauthorize this bill today is a huge
victory.
Mr. President, I think it should whet our appetite to do much, much
more. I am absolutely committed to making sure we do more to provide
some support for children who witness this violence in their homes.
These kids run into difficulty in school. These kids, quite often, run
into trouble. These children are falling between the cracks and there
is no real support for them.
There is another piece of legislation--and I hope to get it in the
bill--I am very excited about Day One in Minnesota where we want to
make sure all of the shelters are electronically wired so with one call
to the hotline, a woman will know where she and her children can
go. Rather than calling, being told there is no space, and then not
knowing where to go, it should only take one call. That is very
important.
Then, there is a whole set of initiatives that would enable women to
be more independent, to get more support to be more independent--
whether it be affordable housing, whether it be family and medical
applied to women in this situation, whether it be more job training--
you name it. This will enable women to be put in a position where they
are not unable or unwilling to leave a very dangerous situation for
themselves and their children.
I say to colleagues, I am so pleased we are going to pass this
conference report with an overwhelming vote. I am pleased to be a part
of helping to work out this agreement. But I also think clearly, more
than anything else, this ought to make us more determined to do much
more. Again, about every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home
today in our country.
I will take a little more time to talk about the trafficking bill,
since both these bills are linked together, to again make the point for
all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, it is critically
important to vote for this conference report, to keep this conference
report intact.
I will keep thanking Senator Brownback. It has been great to work
with him. I thank him for his fine work.
We are talking about 50,000 women, girls, trafficked to our country.
We are talking about 2 million worldwide. We are talking about women,
sometimes girls as young as 10 or 11, coming from countries where there
is economic disintegration. They are trying to figure out a way they
could go somewhere and they are told they could become waitresses. They
are told there is a job.
When they arrive, their visas are taken away from them; they are
beaten; they don't know the language; they don't know their rights; and
they are forced into prostitution. We had a massage parlor 2 miles from
here in Bethesda which was staffed mainly by Russian-Ukraine women.
That is one example. This is one of the grimmest aspects of the new
global economy. It is, in many ways, more profitable than drugs because
these women and girls are recyclable. It is that God-awful. In the year
2000, this legislation is the first of its kind in this country. It is
a model for many other governments around the world.
We put a focus on three ``P's'': No. 1, prevention, getting the
outreach work done to other nations so these young girls and women will
know what they are getting into and have some understanding what these
traffickers are about. No. 2, protection, so when a girl steps forward,
then she is not the one who pays the price. Right now there is no
temporary visa protection so if you were to try to get out of this you
are the one who is deported. In the meantime, these traffickers go
without any punishment, which is something I want to get to in a
moment. So you want to provide that protection. You also want to
provide services for these young women to be able to rebuild their
lives after they have been through this torture. It is torture. And
finally, No. 3, prosecution. Right now our law enforcement community
tells us they want to go after them but they do not have the laws. What
we are saying is, if you are involved in this trafficking, you are
going to face stiff sentences. If you are involved in the trafficking
of a girl under the age of 14, you can face a life sentence. So there
is a very strong part of the provision dealing with punishment.
We also have a listing of countries where this is happening, with a
special focus on governments that are complicit in it. The President
can take action against those governments, but there are also security
waivers and other waivers. It is a balanced piece of legislation. I am
proud of it. I think it will make a difference.
I think it is terribly important. I read some of these examples
before. Let me give a couple of examples right now of what is happening
in the year 2000.
In Los Angeles, where traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped
her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her
movements, and burned her with cigarettes, the lead defendant received
4 years and the other defendants received 2 to 3 years for this
offense.
In another case where Asian women were kept physically confined for
years, with metal bars on the windows, guards and an electronic
monitoring system, and were forced to submit to sex with as many as 400
customers to repay their smuggling debt, the traffickers received
between 4 and 9 years. This is the year 2000 we are talking about.
Then I gave the example of a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian
and Ukrainian women who would answer ads to be au pairs, sales clerks,
and waitresses but were forced to provide sexual services and live in a
massage parlor in Bethesda, MD. The Russian-American massage parlor
owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain, the charges were dropped,
with the restriction he would not operate a business again in
Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid any salary and were
charged $150 for their housing, were deported or left the country.
This is what we are dealing with right now. There was a case
involving
[[Page S10181]]
70 deaf Mexicans that my colleagues may remember, who were held under
lock and key, forced to peddle trinkets, who were beaten and in some
cases tortured. The leader received 14 years and the other traffickers
from 1 to 8 years.
We intend to take this more seriously. Let me give one other example.
The United States v. Hou, several Mexican nationals, all illegally in
the United States, were required to live in one of the chicken sheds at
an egg ranch. The shed was open to the elements. The defendants, man
and wife, did not give the men any shelter, but encouraged them to
build a small room out of cardboard and styrofoam egg cartons.
The men lived less than 15 feet from the chickens they tended. The
men had to spread powerful pesticides in and around the chicken sheds,
and the chemicals and various fuel oils were stored immediately next to
their cardboard room. Faulty wiring in the rickety building resulted in
a fire. One of the workers was killed as he tried to escape the shed
and another suffered horrible burns. Despite the atrocious conditions,
there was no evidence that the men had been kept in the defendants'
service through threats of force or violence; the men stayed in the
shed because Ms. Hou preyed upon their lack of English-speaking ability
and lack of immigration status, deliberately misleading the victims and
convincing them there was nowhere else to go.
Because the labor of the workers was maintained through a scheme of
nonviolent and psychological coercion, the case did not fall under the
involuntary servitude statutes--which could have resulted in life
sentences given the death of one of the victims. Our legislation
changes that. That is why this legislation is so important. No longer
in the United States of America are we going to turn our gaze away from
this kind of exploitation, to this kind of murder of innocent people.
This is a real commitment by the Senate and the Congress to defend
human rights. This is a good piece of legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to speak on a couple of other
provisions in this bill to clarify those for Members. We will be voting
on it later today. If others of my colleagues desire to speak on this
bill, I urge them to come to the floor and speak now or forever hold
their peace on this particular piece of legislation.
The item I wish to speak on now is Aimee's law. This is a part of
this overall conference report that has passed the House, as I
mentioned, by 371-1. Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a
college senior, Aimee Willard, who was from Brookhaven, PA, near
Philadelphia. Arthur Bomar is a convicted murderer who was earlier
paroled from a Nevada prison. Even after he had assaulted a woman in
prison, Nevada released him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where
he found Aimee. He kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered Aimee. He
was prosecuted a second time for murder for this terrible crime in
Delaware County, PA.
Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for
victims' rights and serves as an inspiration on this particular piece
of legislation.
This important legislation would use Federal crime-fighting funds to
create an incentive for States to adopt stricter sentencing laws by
holding States financially accountable for the tragic consequences of
an early release which results in a violent crime being perpetrated on
the citizens of another State. Specifically, Aimee's law will redirect
Federal crime-fighting dollars from a State which has released early a
murderer, rapist, child molester, to pay the prosecutorial and
incarceration costs incurred by a State which has had to reconvict this
released felon for a similar type of crime.
More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are
committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a
sentence for one of these very same crimes.
Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters who are released
from prisons and cross State lines are responsible for sexual assaults
on more than 1,200 people annually, including 935 children, including
Aimee Willard.
The reason I point this out is because Aimee's law previously passed
this body by a vote of 81-17. As I mentioned, it redirects Federal
crime funds from a State that has released early a murderer, rapist, or
child molester, to pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs
incurred by a State which has had to reconvict this felon for a similar
crime.
The formula for early release is if the criminal served less than 85
percent of his original sentence, and if a State kept a criminal in
prison less time than the national average for a sentence of the same
crime.
To counter concerns raised by the National Governors' Association,
this does not federalize any crimes. I emphasize that, it does not
federalize any crimes. It simply upholds State standards regarding
murder, rape, and child molestation.
Sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime,
thus, requiring more stringent standards in amount of the sentence
served.
This only affects Federal crime funds which are transferred from
State 1 to State 2 where a crime has been committed of a similar type
by the criminal who was released early from State 1.
The reason I go through this at some length is because some of my
colleagues have a concern about this. I understand there will be a
point of order raised against this as being part of the overall
package. There will be a vote on that point of order.
If people want to get this bill dealing with sex trafficking, the
Violence Against Women Act, the international terrorism aspect of this
bill, the Internet alcohol enforcement of this bill through, they need
to vote against those who seek to strip this particular provision out
of the bill because if they strip this provision out, the bill has to
go back to the House for it to be voted on, and it will have to be
voted on again in the Senate.
We do not have the time to do it. It will kill the bill. If people
vote to strip this provision out of this particular bill and send it
back to the House, and it has to come back here, it will kill the bill.
We do not have time to do that.
While some raise federalism arguments, most of our colleagues have
already voted in favor of Aimee's law; 81 have voted in favor of it
already. There are some arguable federalism principles involved. I
think most of those have been worked out with the National Governors'
Association. There is a strong advocacy group that has worked to get
these standards where, if a person has been convicted in one State,
they should serve their time rather than being released to commit a
similar crime in another State. That is the direction of this.
I plead with my colleagues: Do not remove this provision. Do not
support the point of order because, if you do, it is going to kill
everything. It will kill the sex trafficking bill. It will kill the
Violence Against Women Act. Do not do it. Most people have already
supported this particular provision, Aimee's law.
I wish to say a couple of things on other issues before we break for
the policy luncheons. I particularly appreciate my colleagues, Senator
Lautenberg and Senator Mack, for their provisions on the Justice for
Victims of Terrorism Act. I understand Senator Hatch will speak later
about the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act on VAWA. We have had an
excellent discussion this morning on the importance of this legislation
protecting women who are subject to domestic violence. This is
reauthorization of important language and important legislation and
strengthening of it as well. That is an important feature.
I appreciate Senate majority leader Trent Lott bringing this issue to
the floor. It is a good package of protection for both domestic and
international women and children subject to violence. That is the theme
that runs through this set of acts. It is protection for women,
protection for children, protection domestically, and protection
internationally.
I am very pleased with this legislation. It is a key piece of
legislation to pass during this session of Congress to provide that
level of protection. I am glad it has been done on a bipartisan basis.
Mostly my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have spoken this
morning supporting this legislation. Support is similarly strong on our
side
[[Page S10182]]
of the aisle. It is good to have that support back and forth.
Rather than using up the rest of my time, I simply say to my
colleagues who want to speak, please come to the floor. I anticipate we
will be voting on this legislation by the middle of the afternoon. We
will be recessing for policy luncheons from 12:30 p.m. until I believe
2:15 p.m., which is the normal recess time.
This will be a good time for people to comment on this important
legislation. I plead with them: Do not strike this particular
provision, Aimee's law, because it will sink the entire bill. It is a
good bill. It is good legislation. It previously passed both Houses
overwhelmingly. Let's get it done.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico time off my time. I yield to him for another purpose, and once
he speaks, I am sure the Chair will understand the reason. I yield to
the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy in
yielding me some time. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak as in morning business for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reiterate something the Senator from
Kansas and the Republican floor leader on this bill have said, and that
is that we hope, because of the request of a number of Senators on both
sides of the aisle, to get these votes on both the Thompson point of
order and final passage sometime midafternoon today. As one who holds
the largest bulk of the individual time, I alert my colleagues that
after the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, I will yield back the remaining part of that time which
will move up somewhat the time of the vote.
The reason, incidentally, I have reserved the bulk of my time is to
protect a number of Senators who wished to speak. I think virtually all
of them have spoken. At least one of the Senators who would have wished
to speak, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has just
undergone surgery for an accident to her leg and is not going to be
here, although, of course, any statement by her will be printed in the
Record. But the others have spoken.
Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate is finally taking up this
conference report. Unlike the conference on the Hatch-Leahy juvenile
justice bill that passed the Senate in May 1999 with a bipartisan
majority of 73 votes, and so many other matters that are still left
undone by this Congress, we have an opportunity through this conference
report to come to conclusion on three items that I have supported and
tried to pass for many months. Unfortunately, there are two additional,
extraneous items that were added over my opposition and that should not
have been added to this conference report at all. I will speak on each
of these matters.
At the outset, I want to acknowledge the important work of
Representative Conyers in the House, who has been a stalwart and
consistent supporter of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. Without
his cooperation and support and the hard work of his staff, we would
not be standing here today. I also want to pay tribute to the efforts
of Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray and Feinstein.
Their efforts throughout this Congress, including in the last several
days, have made the difference in our ability to move forward to begin
this debate today.
With Senators Kennedy, Biden, Specter, Smith and so many others, I
have been urging the Republican leadership to take up and pass the
Violence Against Women Act of 2000 for some time. I had to urge action
by the Judiciary Committee for several weeks before we were finally
able to have it added to the agenda on June 15, 2000. It was reported
unanimously the same month. Over the last several months since this
legislation was reported, I have worked and prodded and pushed along
with our Democratic Leader Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator
Durbin, Senator Robb, Senator Bingaman and others on both sides of the
aisle to try to get this matter taken up and passed without further
delay.
The President of the United States wrote the Majority Leader back on
September 27, 2000 urging passage. The First Lady and the Vice
President had previously called for passage back in June at the time of
the Judiciary Committee markup. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000
is a matter upon which we need to act.
I addressed this matter twice on the Senate floor in late September
when an effort was being made by some on the Republican side of the
aisle to try to use VAWA as a vehicle to force consideration of a
flawed bankruptcy bill or to override Oregon state law. I said that
playing political games with this important legislation was the wrong
thing to do and that VAWA should not be used as leverage to enact less
worthy provisions. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the
Senate has been adamant in its refusal to take up and consider VAWA as
a stand alone matter, even after the House passed its bill by a 415 to
3 vote. While we have been successful in preventing VAWA from being
used as a vehicle for some measures, thanks in part to the President
pro tempore Senator Thurmond and Senator Brownback honoring commitments
they made to me in order to go to conference, we have not been wholly
successful and two additional and unfortunate riders are included over
my objection in this conference report.
Due to their dilatory tactics, VAWA was allowed by the Republican
leadership to lapse on Saturday, September 30, despite the fact that it
has served the women of this country well and the measure had passed
the House by a vote of 415 to 3. Such inaction by the current Senate
majority is not limited to reauthorization of VAWA. Congressional
leaders have continued to drag their feet on enacting comprehensive
juvenile crime prevention and enforcement legislation and reasonable
gun safety measures, which have been stalled in conference for over a
year. Judicial vacancies around the country and most acutely in our
federal courts of appeals remain vacant month after month, year after
year, while qualified women and men cannot get a hearing or a vote.
Legislation to extend the Campbell-Leahy program to help provide
bulletproof vests for local law enforcement officers was the victim of
a secret hold in the Republican Senate cloakroom. Important
intellectual property legislation is stalled without explanation by a
similar anonymous hold on the other side of the aisle. And hate crime
legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, has
been dropped in conference in spite of the votes in both the Senate and
House approving it.
I am pleased that we will finally be able to reestablish the Violence
Against Women Act, a law that makes such a profound difference in the
lives of women and families who fall victim to domestic violence. I
would not normally support efforts to add extraneous items in a
conference report. In this case, in light of the unwillingness of the
Senate Republican leadership to allow the Senate to act on the Violence
Against Women Act of 2000 and the lapse of its authorization, I joined
with Senator Biden and Senator Hatch to add it to the sex trafficking
conference report we now consider.
I agreed with Senator Biden's assessment that in light of its
importance and the resistance we have seen from the Senate Republican
leadership to proceed to the VAWA bill for a straight up or down vote,
this was the only way we would ever be able to get it considered by the
Senate this year. I commend Senator Biden for making clear at the
second and last meeting of the conferees on September 28th that he
intended to insist on the conference reauthorizing the Violence Against
Women Act. Indeed, I had raised it at our initial meeting of conferees
as the one thing we should consider adding to this bill, if anything
extraneous was to be considered.
Unfortunately, when we voted on adding VAWA to the conference report,
[[Page S10183]]
only three Senate conferees voted to support it--Senators Biden, Hatch
and me--and the other four Senate conferees all voted against. I am
glad that over the ensuing days, the other four Senate conferees and
the House conferees, whose votes initially seemed to doom this effort,
have reversed position and joined with us to add VAWA into this
conference report. I am glad that others agree with us that while we
need to address the tragic plight of women who are brought to the
United States, we need to pass reauthorization of VAWA to help battered
women in this country, as well.
Although a conferee, I did not sign the conference report that we
consider today. It may come as a surprise to some who have served in
this body and remember how conferences are supposed to proceed, that I
was not given an opportunity to consider the final report or to sign
before it was filed. Indeed, after a second short meeting of conferees,
the final meeting, which had been promised so that we could finalize
our action, never occurred. Side deals were struck and broken and
revised and implemented without resuming the conference. Legislating
around here has come to resemble the television program ``Survivor''
more than the process intended by the Constitution or our Senate rules.
We have all become increasingly accustomed to shortcuts in the
legislative process, but we are now getting to the point that once
sufficient numbers of signatures are obtained on a conference report,
once an alliance has formed, conferees from the minority may not even
be accorded an opportunity to view the final package let alone asked
for their views. In this matter, after I had worked to ensure that VAWA
was included in the conference report, I was treated like a member of
the ill-fated Pagong tribe.
Had I been consulted we might have avoided the extended debate and
point of order that Senator Thompson is bringing today. I was able to
intervene just before the filing of the conference report when I
obtained a draft that showed the elimination of the small state minimum
funding level in certain grant programs. These eliminations would have
been such a disaster for Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah, Alaska
and so many small and rural states that I had raise a strong objection
and the small state minimum of $600,000 for shelters was restored by a
last-minute handwritten change to the final conference report.
Unfortunately, while this conference report contains provisions that
enjoy broad bipartisan support and will make a positive contribution to
the well-being of many people, the Republican majority could not resist
loading this conference report with other legislative proposals that
are so problematic they could not have passed as stand-alone measures
in this or any other Congress.
Let me begin by reviewing the positive parts of this conference
report. These are the reasons that, last Friday, our colleagues in the
House passed the Conference Report on Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act 371 to 1.
The trafficking of people for the illicit sex trade or slave labor is
plainly abhorrent. This conference report partially addresses that
problem by providing additional authority to law enforcement and
offering visas to victims of severe trafficking, among other measures.
Those who have experienced the horror of trafficking and are willing to
assist law enforcement in prosecuting trafficking should receive the
option of staying in the United States. The law enforcement and
immigration measures in this report are the result of compromises
reached between both Houses and both sides. In some cases, especially
in the immigration area, these provisions are not as generous as I and
many other members of this conference would prefer.
This bill will also insist that information about severe forms of
trafficking in persons be provided in the annual State Department
Country Report for each foreign country, an important step forward in
our attempts to raise consciousness about this issue. It also provides
for the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force to monitor and
combat trafficking, with annual and interim reports on countries whose
governments do not comply with the minimum standards. The bill calls
upon the President to establish initiatives to enhance economic
opportunity for potential trafficking victims, such as microcredit
lending programs, training, and education.
As someone who has been a strong supporter of human rights, both in
the United States and abroad, I am pleased to be associated with this
attempt to reduce trafficking and protect its victims. I hope that the
Senate can also turn its attention to human rights issues that affect
immigrants who arrive in the United States willingly. In particular, I
request that the Senate consider S. 1940, the Refugee Protection Act, a
bill I have introduced with Senator Brownback that would restrict the
use of expedited removal to times of immigration emergencies. Under
expedited removal, those who flee persecution in their home countries
face automatic removal from our country if they are traveling without
documents, or even with documents that are facially valid but that an
INS officer suspects are invalid. The limited protections that were
built into this process when it was adopted in 1996 have proven
insufficient, and we are receiving continuing reports of people in real
danger being forced to leave the United States without even a hearing.
This is simply inappropriate, and does an injustice to our nation's
reputation as a haven for the oppressed.
As I already noted, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act, or VAWA II, was also added to this report with strong bipartisan
support. This is a particularly appropriate bill to add to this
conference report. As the conference report states, ``[t]raffickers
primarily target women and girls, who are disproportionately affected
by poverty, the lack of access to education, chronic unemployment,
discrimination, and the lack of economic opportunity in countries of
origin.'' VAWA II contains a number of important programs to protect
women and children in this country, and would complement the goals of
this legislation.
I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence early in my
career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. In those
days, long before the passage of the VAWA, Vermont lacked the support
programs and services to assist victims of domestic violence. Today,
because of the effort and dedication of people in Vermont and across
the country who work on these problems every day, an increasing number
of women and children are receiving help through domestic violence
programs and shelters around the nation.
Six years ago, VAWA passed Congress as part of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act. That Act combined tough law
enforcement strategies with safeguards and services for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to say that Vermont
was the first State in the country to apply for and receive funding
under VAWA. Since VAWA was enacted, Vermont has received almost $14
million in VAWA funds. Since the passage of VAWA in 1994, I have been
privileged to work with groups such as the Vermont Network Against
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Vermont Center for Crime
Victim Services and countless advocates who work to stop to violence
against women and who provide assistance to victims.
This funding has enabled Vermont to develop specialized prosecution
units and child advocacy centers throughout the state. Lori Hayes,
Executive Director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and
Marty Levin of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual
Abuse have been especially instrumental in coordinating VAWA grants in
Vermont. Their hard work has brought grant funding to Vermont for
encouraging the development and establishment of arrest policies for
combating rural domestic violence and child abuse. These grants have
made a real difference in the lives of those who suffer from violence
and abuse. Reauthorization of these vital programs in VAWA II will
continue to build on these successes.
VAWA II continues to move us toward reducing violence against women
by strengthening law enforcement through the extension of STOP grants,
which encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal
justice system's response to violence against women. With support from
STOP grants, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, victim advocates and
[[Page S10184]]
service providers work together to ensure victim safety and offender
accountability.
The benefits of STOP grants are evident throughout Vermont. With STOP
grants the Windham County Domestic Violence Unit, the Rutland County
Women's Network and Shelter and others like them have enhanced victim
advocacy services, improved safety for women and children, and ensured
that perpetrators are held accountable. The Northwest Unit for Special
Investigations in St. Albans, Vermont, established a multi-disciplinary
approach to the investigation of adult sexual assault and domestic
violence cases with the help of STOP funds. By linking victims with
advocacy programs at the time of the initial report, the Unit finds
that more victims get needed services and support and thus find it
easier to participate in the investigation and subsequent prosecution.
The State's Attorney's Office, which has designated a prosecutor to
participate in the Unit, has implemented a new protocol for the
prosecution of domestic violence cases. The protocol and multi-
disciplinary approach are credited with an 80 percent conviction rate
in domestic violence and sexual assault cases.
Passing VAWA II will continue grants that strengthen pro-arrest
policies and enforcement of protection orders. In a rural state like
Vermont, law enforcement agencies greatly benefit from cooperative,
inter-agency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. Last
year, approximately $850,000 of this funding supported Vermont efforts
to encourage arrest policies.
Vermont will also benefit from the extension of Rural Domestic
Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants under VAWA II.
These grants are designed to make victim services more accessible to
women and children living in rural areas. I worked hard to see these
provisions included in the original VAWA in 1994, and I am proud that
its success has merited an increased authorization for funding in VAWA
II. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants
have been utilized by the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, the Vermont Attorney General's Office, and the Vermont
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to increase community
awareness, develop cooperative relationships between state child
protection agencies and domestic violence programs, expand existing
multi disciplinary task forces to include allied professional groups,
and create local multi-use supervised visitation centers.
VAWA II also reauthorizes the National Stalker and Domestic Violence
Reduction Grant. This important grant program assists in the
improvement of local, state and national crime databases for tracking
stalking and domestic violence. As we work to prevent violence against
women, we must not forget those who have already fallen victim to it.
VAWA II recognizes that combating violence against women extends beyond
providing assistance to victims, it includes preventing women from
becoming victims at all.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has assisted over
180,000 callers, will continue its crucial operation through the
reauthorization of VAWA. Much like the state hotline that the Vermont
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault helped establish
in Vermont, the National Hotline reaches victims who may feel they have
nowhere to turn.
I am especially pleased to see that VAWA II will authorize a new
grant program for civil legal assistance. In the past, funding for
legal services for victims of domestic violence was dependent on a set-
aside in the STOP grant appropriation. This separate grant
authorization will allow victims of violence, stalking and sexual
assault, who would otherwise be unable to afford professional legal
representation, to obtain access to trained attorneys and advocacy
services. In my State, Vermont Legal Aid, the Vermont Network to End
Domestic Violence and the South Royalton Legal Clinic of Vermont Law
School are currently involved in a collaborative project to expand
civil legal assistance services to domestic violence victims across the
state. These three organizations are partnering to create Intensive
Service Teams that will provide coordinated civil legal assistance and
victim advocacy in Rutland County and the Northeast Kingdom. Grants
such as this one that support training, technical assistance and
support for cooperative efforts between victim advocacy groups and
legal assistance providers will continue to prosper under VAWA II.
I remain concerned, however, over a highly objectionable provision
that prohibits any expenditure of the civil legal assistant grant funds
to support litigation with respect to abortion. Currently, the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC) operates under two abortion-related
restriction provisions: The 1974 LSC statute bans the use of federally
appropriated Corporation funds for legal assistance for any abortion-
related proceeding or litigation. Additionally, an appropriations rider
to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill restricts LSC funds
from use by any person or entity that participates in abortion-related
litigation.
The language in VAWA II bill reaches further, in the sense that it
would ban more organizations than just LSC from spending funds on
abortion-related litigation. Under the Senate language, grants can be
made to private, nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and
publicly funded organizations such as law schools. These grantees are
certainly worthy and appropriate to provide these services generally;
the objection is solely that they should not be gagged from providing
abortion related legal assistance. I am concerned about the precedent
this provision would set in expanding the restriction on abortion-
related litigation to other programs and organizations. I think this
kind of language should give us pause as we consider the effect it
would have on victims who, in the face of domestic violence, sexual
assault in family relationships, incest or rape, must run a gauntlet of
congressionally imposed barriers in order simply to obtain full and
complete information about their comprehensive health-care options.
The original VAWA authorized funding for programs that provide
shelter to battered women and children. I am pleased to see that VAWA
II expands this funding so that facilities such as the Women Helping
Battered Women Shelter in Burlington, Vermont, and the Rutland County
Women's Shelter in Rutland, Vermont will continue to serve victims in
their most vulnerable time of need. As I have noted, at one point I
obtained a draft conference report that had dropped the $600,000 small
state minimum funding these grants. I am relieved that my objection was
heard and the minimum restored.
As glad as I am that we are finally reauthorizing VAWA, this is not
the version of VAWA that I cosponsored and supported in the Judiciary
Committee and urged the Senate to enact. In fact, this is not the VAWA
II bill that was negotiated among staff at a bipartisan, bicameral
meeting earlier in this process. The version of VAWA II in this
conference report was negotiated behind closed doors in the last
minutes before the conference report was filed. Unfortunately, this
approach saw additional provisions added and struck that have
diminished the final product. One provision of particular concern to me
is that on transitional housing.
The previous Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act of
2000, S. 2787, had over 70 co-sponsors. I am one of them. That version
included better provisions on transitional housing assistance. It would
have been a significant improvement over the original VAWA. This new
grant program for short-term housing assistance and support services
for homeless families who have fled from domestic violence environments
was a priority for me and Vermont, where availability of affordable
housing is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this authorization was
reduced to one year without my consent. Those involved in the
discussions attribute the change to ``jurisdictional concerns'' of the
Health, Labor and Pensions Committee. I look forward to working with
Senators Jeffords, Gregg and Kennedy next year during reauthorization
of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to extend the
authorization of this important program. We should all be concerned
with providing victims of domestic violence with a safe place to
recover from their traumatic experiences. In addition, I would like to
see more support
[[Page S10185]]
for groups that address the need for funding for under-served
populations.
There are positive things to come out of the revised version of VAWA
II. I am pleased that we were able to cover ``dating violence'' in most
of the provisions and grant programs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
report indicates that more than four in every 10 incidents of domestic
violence involves non-married persons, and further, that the highest
rate of domestic violence occurs among young people aged 16-24. It is
crucial that we authorize prosecution of their offenders. We cannot
ignore this increasingly at risk segment of the population. The House-
passed version of VAWA II had contained such provisions and I support
them as they have been incorporated into the conference report.
In 1994, we designed VAWA to prevent abusive husbands from using
control over their wives' immigration status to control them. Over the
ensuing six years we have discovered additional areas that need to be
addressed to protect immigrant women from abuse, and have attempted to
do so in this legislation. VAWA II will ensure that the immigration
status of battered women will not be affected by changes in the status
of their abusers. It will also make it easier for abused women and
their children to become lawful permanent residents and obtain
cancellation of removal. With this legislation, battered immigrant
women should not have to choose to stay with their abusers in order to
stay in the United States.
I am pleased that we have taken these additional steps to protect
immigrant women facing domestic abuse in the United States. I would
also like to point out the difficult situation of immigrant women who
face domestic violence if they are returned to their home country.
Numerous cases have arisen recently in which women who fear being
killed by abusive spouses in their native lands were denied claims for
asylum, despite the fact that the police in those countries do not
enforce what limited laws apply to domestic violence. There are
additional cases in which women who fear for their lives due to
ingrained social practices--such as ``honor killings'' in Jordan, in
which families have female relatives killed for ``dishonoring'' them--
have lost asylum claims. The Attorney General is currently reviewing
the Board of Immigration Appeals decision Matter of R-A-, which is the
precedent on which these later decisions have been based. I have
written, along with Senator Landrieu and many other of my colleagues,
urging the Attorney General to reverse this decision and protect women
who face persecution. I renew that request today, and hope that the
passage of this legislation will prompt action on this issue as well.
The conference report includes a provision that would require
dissemination of sex registry information to colleges and universities.
Currently, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
applies strict restrictions on the dissemination of information in
``education records,'' but these restrictions are specifically defined
to exclude ``records maintained by a law enforcement unit'' of the
school and were created for a law enforcement purpose. Thus, to the
extent that campus police get information about registered sex
offenders under State law, they are able to use it as they wish.
Apparently not satisfied to leave this issue to the States, the
conference report would mandate that States provide sex registry
information concerning students to colleges and universities where the
students are registered.
I see no need to impose a federal disclosure requirement when the
States are now free to regulate as they see fit the dissemination of
sex registry information to schools and campus police, who may use it
to protect the safety of those on campus. No one is opposed to taking
adequate safety measures regarding sex offenders on campus. My concern
has to do with unnecessary federal mandates when the States are
perfectly capable of addressing the issue.
VAWA II includes a provision to enhance protections for older women
from domestic violence and sexual assault. Last year I introduced the
Seniors Safety Act, S. 751, which would enhance penalties for crimes
against seniors. This provision in VAWA II is an important complement
to that legislation and I am pleased this provision has been able to
generate wide support.
VAWA II would also help young victims of crime through funding for
the establishment of safe and supervised visitation centers for
children in order to reduce the opportunity for domestic violence.
Grants will also be extended to continue funding agencies serving
homeless youth who have been or who are at risk of abuse and to
continue funding for victims of child abuse, including money for
advocates, training for judicial personnel and televised testimony.
Many of the most successful services for victims start at the local
level, such as Vermont's model hotline on domestic violence and sexual
assault. VAWA II recognizes these local successes and continues grant
funding of community demonstration projects for the intervention and
prevention of domestic violence.
The original VAWA was an important and comprehensive Federal effort
to combat violence against women and to assist the victims of such
violence. Passage of VAWA II gives us the opportunity to continue
funding these successful programs, to improve victim services, and to
strengthen these laws so that violence against women is eliminated. I
am pleased that we were able to find a way to get this considered and
passed. I deeply regret that we have not been able to do so in stand-
alone legislation or before VAWA expired last month.
The conference report also includes the Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act. I commend Senators Lautenberg and Mack for working with
the Administration on this consensus legislation which addresses
serious policy concerns raised by prior versions of the bill. This
measure has been cleared for action and passage by unanimous consent
for some time by all Democratic Senators. In my view, it should have
been passed in its own right a long time ago.
The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act addresses an issue that
should deeply concern all of us: the enforcement of court-ordered
judgments that compensate the victims of state-sponsored terrorism.
This legislation has the strong support of American families who have
lost loved ones due to the callous indifference to life of
international terrorist organizations and their client states, and it
deserves our support as well.
One such family is the family of Alisa Flatow, an American student
killed in Gaza in a 1995 bus bombing. The Flatow family obtained a $247
million judgment in Federal court against the Iranian-sponsored Islamic
Jihad, which proudly claimed responsibility for the bombing that took
her life. But the family has been unable to enforce this judgment
because Iranian assets in the United States remain frozen.
The conference report that the Senate passes today will provide an
avenue for the Flatow family and others in their position to recover
some of the damages due them under American law. It will permit these
plaintiffs to attach certain foreign assets to satisfy the compensatory
damages portion of their judgments against foreign states for personal
injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing,
aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support
or resources for such an act. It will also permit these plaintiffs to
recover post-judgment interest and, in the case of claims against Cuba,
certain amounts that have been awarded as sanctions by judicial order.
I am also pleased that this measure also includes a Leahy-Feinstein
amendment dealing with support for victims of international terrorism.
This amendment will enable the Office for Victims of Crime to provide
more immediate and effective assistance to Americans who are victims of
terrorism abroad--Americans like those killed or injured in the embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the Pan Am 103 bombing over
Lockerbie, Scotland. These victims deserve help, but according to OVC,
existing programs are failing to meet their needs. Working with OVC, we
have crafted legislation to correct this problem.
The Leahy-Feinstein part of this measure will permit the Office for
Victims of Crime to serve these victims better by expanding the types
of assistance for which the VOCA emergency
[[Page S10186]]
reserve fund may be used, and the range of organizations to which
assistance may be provided. These changes will not require new or
appropriated funds: They simply allow OVC greater flexibility in using
existing reserve funds to assist victims of terrorism abroad, including
the victims of the Lockerbie and embassy bombings.
This provision will also authorize OVC to raise the cap on the VOCA
emergency reserve fund from $50 million to $100 million, so that the
fund is large enough to cover the extraordinary costs that would be
incurred if a terrorist act caused massive casualties, and to replenish
the reserve fund with unobligated funds from its other grant programs.
At the same time, the provision will simplify the presently-
authorized system of using VOCA funds to provide victim compensation to
American victims of terrorism abroad, by permitting OVC to establish
and operate an international crime victim compensation program. This
program will, in addition, cover foreign nationals who are employees of
any American government institution targeted for terrorist attack. The
source of funding is the VOCA emergency reserve fund, which we
authorized in an amendment I offered to the 1996 Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act.
Finally, the provision clarifies that deposits into the Crime Victims
Fund remain available for intended uses under VOCA when not expended
immediately. This should quell concerns raised regarding the effect of
spending caps included in appropriations bills last year and this. I
understand the appropriations' actions to have deferred spending but
not to have removed deposits from the Fund. This provision makes that
explicit.
I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her support and assistance on
this initiative. Senator Feinstein cares deeply about the rights of
victims, and I am pleased that we could work together on some
practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime victims' laws.
We would have liked to do more. In particular, we would have liked to
allow OVC to deliver timely and critically needed emergency assistance
to all victims of terrorism and mass violence occurring outside the
United States and targeted at the United States or United States
nationals.
Unfortunately, to achieve bipartisan consensus on this provision, we
were compelled to restrict OVC's authority, so that it may provide
emergency assistance only to United States nationals and employees. It
seems more than a little bizarre to me that the richest country in the
world would reserve emergency aid for victims of terrorism who can
produce a passport or W-2. I will continue to work with OVC and
victims' organization to remedy this anomaly.
I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during
the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that
we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing
exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must
note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and
many opportunities for progress have been squandered. I look forward to
continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups,
prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most
effectively assist victims and provide them the greater voice and
rights that they deserve.
This is the third good part of the package that comes before the
Senate today. The sex trafficking bill, VAWA II and the Justice for
Victims of Terrorism legislation could each have passed in its own
right. The are being bundled together because the Republican leadership
refused to proceed to consideration of VAWA II or the victims
legislation and this session is drawing to a close. We are already
passed the sine die adjournment date that had been set by the Majority
Leader. We are already into the second or third or fourth continuing
resolution needed to keep the government operating while Congress
completes appropriations bills that should have been enacted in July
and September.
While the conference report contains many provisions which I support,
it also has been used as a vehicle for some pet Republican legislative
projects that I do not endorse. I refer specifically to ``Aimee's law''
and the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act.''
The conference report contains a legislative proposal called
``Aimee's law,'' which, though well intended, will not serve this
country well. We all shudder when a violent offender is incarcerated
for an insufficient length of time only to be released and claim
another victim. Let us be clear: everyone agrees that serious violent
offenders should serve appropriate and sufficient incarceration. Yet,
Aimee's law is not the way to pursue this goal. Neither Aimee's law or
Congress can accurately assess with one hundred percent accuracy which
offender will be a recidivist and which offender will not. This
proposal has myriad practical implementation problems that will make
this law a headache to administer for the States and the Department of
Justice, without living up to its promise of stopping future tragedies.
Ironically, Aimee's law will adversely affect the States' ability to
fight crime. By taking law enforcement funds away from the states, the
legislation will in effect reduce the states' capacity to fight crime.
The Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections has advised that
``Pennsylvania, along with many other states, plans for the use of
federal law enforcement money years in advance. Excessive penalties
have a high potential to interfere with states' abilities to keep
violent offenders--including those who have committed Aimee's law
crimes--incarcerated for longer periods of time.''
Specifically, this proposal would allow a state to apply to the
Attorney General for reimbursement of the costs for investigation,
prosecution and incarceration of prisoners who were previously
convicted in another state for murder, rape or a dangerous sexual
offense. The source of the reimbursement funds will be from Federal law
enforcement assistance funds that would otherwise be paid out to the
state that convicted the individual of the prior offense and released
that offender.
Last year, this proposal was adopted as an amendment to S. 254, the
Juvenile Justice bill. Even then I expressed grave reservations with
the language and complications contained in the legislation.
Specifically, I noted that the proposal was ``extremely complicated and
can create a great deal of problems with some States'' and offered ``to
work more on the language to see if there are areas of unnecessary
complication that could be removed.'' (Record, May 19, 2000, p. S5526).
Unfortunately, the juvenile justice conference, in which the language
of this proposal could have been refined, has failed to meet for over a
year. Apparently, the Republican leadership intends to end the Congress
without ever completing work on the juvenile crime bill.
By any stretch of the imagination, the costs of Aimee's law outweigh
its promised benefits:
First, Aimee's law penalizes states' law enforcement not for their
own actions, but for the actions taken by judicial and corrections
officers resulting in the release of a defendant who has not served the
incarceration period required under Aimee's law. Indeed, defendants who
escape from jail without serving their full term and commit subsequent
crimes could subject the state in which they committed their initial
crimes to decreased federal funds otherwise used to help law
enforcement.
Second, Aimee's law requires the annual collection, maintenance and
reporting of criminal history for violent offenders and covers not just
those offenders currently in the system but any such offender no matter
how long ago that offender was convicted, served time and was released.
This provision alone demands an enormous investment of time and money,
neither of which the legislation provides, to build the criminal
history database necessary to implement the new law. As the Department
of Justice has pointed out, ``[s]ince no time limit is imposed between
the prior and subsequent convictions, the system would require
electronic criminal records that do not now exist and would be very
expensive to accumulate.'' This ``would require the establishment of a
major national data center to collect and match state records'' and
constitutes an ``unfunded mandate.''
During a colloquy in the House on October 6th, Congressman Conyers
[[Page S10187]]
asked a House sponsor of Aimee's law whether it was the drafters'
intent that Aimee's law shall apply prospectively, that is only to
offenders whose first sentence for a covered offense occurs on or after
the effective date of this law, January 1, 2002, and the sponsor
responded affirmatively. Yet, the law remains murky on this point since
the effective date may be construed to apply only to the time when
states may make applications for reimbursement, not to when the
offenses occurred. We have two years before the effective date to
clarify this point, and others, in this problematic law.
Third, while Aimee's law would exempt certain States from application
of the law, those exemptions are predicated, in part, upon ``the
average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States.''
The Pennsylvania Director of Corrections has pointed out that ``[t]here
is no record of what the national `average. . .' is for crimes covered
in this language. Further, if such an average existed, it would
continually fluctuate, guaranteeing that there would always be some
states out of compliance.''
Fourth, Aimee's law adopts offense definitions that are unclear and
fail to conform to the offense definitions found in the federal
criminal code or to the standard legal terms used in state codes making
it difficult to enforce Aimee's law across state lines.
The National Governors' Association has repeatedly registered its
disapproval of Aimee's law as ``onerous, impractical and unworkable.''
Consequently, States may simply agree among themselves not to file the
applications with the Attorney General required to obtain
reimbursement. Indeed, such an application might trigger a retaliatory
review of the applicant's own record of released defendants and result
in reduction of important federal funds. As a consequence, states may
view invocation of Aimee's law reimbursement provisions as a risky
proposition.
In short, Aimee's law is an empty promise that may make good fodder
for 60-second campaign spots but will do nothing to continue the
progress we have made over the last eight years to reduce the violent
crime rate or to truly help crime victims.
Senator Hatch has insisted that the ``Twenty-First Amendment
Enforcement Act'' be included in the conference report, despite the
fact that the conference met September 28th, and expressly rejected
inclusion of this proposal in the conference report. It was rejected by
the Senate conferees and the House conferees went so far as to adopt
the position that no extraneous legislation would be added to the sex
trafficking provisions. Nevertheless, the conference report contains
Senator Hatch's bill, which amounts to a double whammy--it is
unnecessary and dangerous to e-commerce. The purported goal of this
legislation is to enforce state liquor laws. The approach of this
legislation sets a dangerous precedent by erecting barriers to
interstate and electronic commerce.
Specifically, the bill would permit the enforcement of state liquor
laws in Federal court. This expansion of the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts is not warranted. State attorneys general are already
enforcing their state liquor laws in state courts--whether the alcohol
was brought over the Internet or over the counter at the corner store.
The Internet has not changed the enforcement of state liquor laws.
This year, for instance, the Utah Attorney General successfully
enforced that state's liquor laws against an out-of-state direct sales
shipper of alcoholic beverages. That case resulted in fines of more
than $25,000 and guilty pleads by an out-of-state direct shipper to
state law counts of unlawfully importing alcohol and selling it to a
minor.
Indeed, the Utah Attorney General, Jan Graham, declared: ``This case
represents a significant win for Utah. No longer can retailers claim
that we have no authority over illegal transactions that occur outside
of the state. If you're shipping to a Utah resident, we can and will
prosecute you.''
This legislation is using the Internet as an excuse to impose a
Federal fix for a problem that is already being solved at the state
level. Whatever happened to Federalism? In fact, the National
Conference of State Legislatures opposes this legislation, calling the
bill ``an overreaction to a situation which can be reconciled among the
states and not in a federal court.''
Skeptics rightly are concerned that some may be using the Internet as
an excuse to protect the decades-old distribution system for wine and
other alcoholic beverages. Although the Internet has not changed state
liquor law enforcement, it has opened up the wine and beer market to
new consumer choices and competition.
With the power of electronic commerce, adult consumers now have the
freedom to choose from a rich assortment of different wine and beer
products--from small wineries to nationwide brewers in America or any
other country in the world.
We should be embracing this free market and open competition.
Competition in the free market is the American way. But instead some
wine and beer wholesalers want to use this legislation as a
protectionist ploy to keep their present distribution system, which
effectively locks out small wineries and micro-breweries from ever
getting their products on a store shelf. Mothers Against Drunk Driving
and the National Conference of State Legislatures have noted that this
Federal legislation is nothing more than an attempt to use the Federal
courts in a disagreement between wholesalers and small independent
wineries and breweries.
On August 12, 1999, The Wall Street Journal wrote about this
legislation: ``This is a bad bill, with dangerous consequences not only
for alcohol but for the future of e-commerce and other cross-state
transactions.'' I whole-heartedly agree.
The Department of Justice has warned Congress in relation to
legislation affecting the Internet that: ``[A]ny prohibitions that are
designed to prohibit criminal activity on the Internet must be
carefully drafted to accomplish the legislation's objectives without
stifling the growth of the Internet or chilling its use.'' This bill
fails that test. It is not carefully crafted. In fact, it is not even
needed. It also could chill the use of the Internet as a means of
promoting interstate commerce.
I will vote in support of this conference report because the
provisions on sex trafficking, VAWA and justice for victims are
proposals I endorse. I do so with profound regret with the process and
that the majority insisted on including Aimee's law and the internet
alcohol bill that are not well considered. They are the price that we
pay for making progress here today. I will work to see if we can limit
their damage.
In closing, I wish to thank the conferees and their staffs who showed
courtesy to me and mine. In particular, I thank Karen Knutsen of
Senator Brownback's staff and Mark Lagon and Brian McKee of the staff
of the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank Nancy Zirkin of the
American Association of University Women and Pat Reuss of the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund for their efforts on behalf of VAWA II. This
has been a difficult matter at a difficult time that is being concluded
as best we can under these circumstances in order to enact the sex
trafficking legislation, VAWA II and the victims bill for all the good
they can mean.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from Kansas be recognized to make a unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes
occurring relative to the Thompson appeal as provided in the consent
agreement this body agreed to on October 6, 2000, occur at 4:30 p.m.
today, with adoption of the conference report to occur immediately
following that vote as provided in the consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10188]]
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of Members, in
light of this agreement, the next two votes will occur at approximately
4:30 p.m. with the Thompson appeal vote occurring at 4:30 and the
conference report vote occurring immediately thereafter.
____________________
 Share this page | Bookmark this page | Linked  Attorneys
 Stumble It! |  Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this!
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |