ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

< 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.

                          ____________________






Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: