There are more than half a million victims of federal
crimes each year. Those accused of perpetrating these crimes are
accorded numerous rights under the law and the Constitution. However,
until recently, crime victims themselves were often relegated
to second-class status during judicial proceedings. They had no
rights to be informed, present, or heard while a court was considering
the case against the accused.
To help balance the scales of justice, I sponsored
legislation with California’s Democratic Senator, Dianne
Feinstein, to give victims a meaningful opportunity to participate
in the administration of criminal justice. The Crime Victims’
Rights Act (CVRA), which became law at the end of 2004, guarantees
crime victims the rights to be informed, present, and heard in
judicial proceedings relevant to their case – the least
the system owes to those it failed to protect.
Consider the case of Nila Lynn of Phoenix. Nila
was murdered at a homeowner’s association meeting on April
19, 2000 by a man unhappy with the way the association had trimmed
the bushes in his yard. She died on the floor in the arms of her
husband, Duane, three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary.
Duane Lynn wanted a sentence of life without parole, rather than
deal with the continuing appeals of a capital case. He was not
allowed to make this recommendation. The killer received the death
sentence.
The CVRA was named after several victims, including
Nila Lynn. Specifically, it grants the victims of federal crimes
the following rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from
the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of
any public proceeding involving the accused, and to notice of
his or her escape or release.
(3) The right to be included in any such public proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding
involving the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused.
(5) The right to confer with the attorney for the government
in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided by
law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for
his or her dignity and privacy.
The new law also requires federal law-enforcement
officials to make their “best efforts to see that crime
victims are notified of, and accorded” these rights. It
grants victims the standing in court to enforce these rights,
including the right to seek enforcement relief in federal appeals
courts, and provides legal assistance grants to establish programs
for the enforcement of crime victims’ rights.
As a result of the new law, victims will no longer
be relegated to observer status in federal cases against their
attackers. Now, they too can be active participants in the pursuit
of justice, as they should be.
I have continued fighting to ensure that crime victims
have access to the rights and protections made available to them
by the CVRA. For instance, following passage of the CVRA, the
criminal rules of procedure, rules that govern criminal prosecutions
at the federal level, failed to adequately address the needs of
crime victims. On February 16, 2007, I wrote to the Judicial Conference
of the United States asking that the criminal rules of procedure
be amended to better account for crime victims’ rights.
As a result, the Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure amended the criminal rules, thereby helping to ensure
that crime victims have access to the substantive rights and protections
in federal court that Congress envisioned with passage of the
CVRA.
I also helped win funding to provide crime victims
with legal assistance to enforce the rights granted them by the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
As Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology,
and Homeland Security, I have sponsored bills designed to
crack down on criminals who evade the law by using new technology.
Identity Theft
Arizonans are increasingly plagued by the threat
of identity theft, which has proliferated in recent years with
the help of new technologies. Caller ID spoofing, a new form of
identity theft, involves the transmission of false or misleading
caller ID information to unsuspecting victims. By making it appear
that they are calling from a legitimate, trusted source, criminals
can easily gain the trust of the person they call. The criminal
can then solicit personal information, such as the victim’s
credit card numbers or a Social Security number, which they may
then use for illicit purposes. To address this problem, I have
sponsored legislation that would make it illegal to generate or
transmit false or misleading caller ID information.
New technology has also made it easier for criminals
to steal the identity of others on a grander scale. Because personal
information is regularly stored electronically by businesses and
government agencies, data breaches are a particular threat. According
to the Congressional Research Service “[d]ata security breaches
occur when fraudulent accounts are created, laptops or computers
are stolen or hacked, passwords are compromised, insiders or employees
steal data, or discs or back-up tapes are misplaced.” To
address the problem, I have cosponsored the Personal Data Protection
Act to establish standards for data breach notification and require
data brokers to maintain a personal data privacy and security
program.
For more information about identity theft, I invite
you to visit the identity theft section
of my website. There you can learn about additional efforts I’ve
undertaken to combat identity theft, helpful hints on how to avoid
becoming a victim, and what steps you should take if your personal
information has been compromised.
Internet Gambling
I also sponsored legislation – which is now
law – to better enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet
gambling. Contrary to some assertions, the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act did not ban online gaming. Under existing laws,
these operations have been illegal for some time, but law-enforcement
agencies have lacked effective enforcement mechanisms. No one
is entitled to circumvent the law just because it is hard to enforce.
Internet gambling's characteristics are unique:
Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can
play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit
card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of
cash – leading to possible addiction and, in turn, to bankruptcy,
crime, and suicide. Professor John Kindt of the University of
Illinois put it best when he called Internet gambling the “crack
cocaine [of gambling]…There are no needle marks. There’s
no alcohol on the breath. You click the mouse and lose your house.”
(“Online Wagering Under Attack in Congress,” Associated
Press, July 10, 2006.)
The Federal Trade Commission has warned that computer-savvy
young people are at particular risk, and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association, concerned about the risk to college students,
urged a legislative remedy. The effect of Internet gambling addiction
on young people is well documented. For example, the one-time
president of the sophomore class at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania
robbed a bank to pay off his Internet gambling debt, and a young
man in Scotland attempted suicide after using 13 of his parents’
credit cards and running up Internet gambling debts in excess
of $300,000. (“The Hold-‘Em Holdup,” N.Y.
Times, June 11, 2006; “Internet Addict Gambled away
£158,000 on his Parents’ Cards,” The Times
(London), June 16, 2006.)
Internet gambling is more than a social problem.
In addition to causing significant harm to gamblers and society,
“Internet gambling businesses provide criminals with an
easy and excellent vehicle for money laundering,” according
to testimony by Deputy Attorney General John Malcolm of the Department
of Justice. The Department of State expressed a similar concern:
“The Internet gambling operations are, in essence, the functional
equivalent of wholly unregulated offshore banks with the bettor
accounts serving as bank accounts for account holders who are,
in the virtual world, virtually anonymous. For these reasons,
Internet gambling operations are vulnerable to be used, not only
for money laundering, but also for criminal activities ranging
from terrorist financing to tax evasion.” (State Department,
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released March
2004, emphasis added.)
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act constrains
Internet gambling by creating strong tools to enforce existing
gambling prohibitions. Specifically, the law requires the Treasury
Department to prohibit gambling payments by financial instruments
such as credit cards, checks, or fund transfers; and it requires
the entities using such payment systems to establish procedures
to block these transactions, thus cutting the flow of payments
to illegal gambling businesses.
This legislation was supported by the National
Football League, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball
Association, Major League Baseball, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, pro-family groups, anti-gambling groups, and 49 state
attorneys general.
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, the Arizona district has the third heaviest criminal caseload
in the nation. This heavy caseload is, in large part, attributable
to illegal immigration and the lawlessness that accompanies it
(e.g., human smuggling and drug trafficking). To help deal with
that large and growing caseload, I cosponsored legislation that
would create 11 new federal judgeships in districts along the
southwest border – five of which would be in the Arizona
district.
I also sponsored an amendment to the Court Security
Improvement Act – a bill that is now law – to add
a federal judgeship to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009.
I also helped author legislation that would have allocated $3
billion for a number of border security initiatives, which included
funding to reimburse state and local governments that investigate
and prosecute violators of our nation’s immigration laws.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I
take great care in examining each nominee’s record to ensure
that he or she demonstrates personal integrity, a commitment to
the rule of law, and a judicial temperament.
Too often, partisan politics rob the American people
of well qualified candidates for the federal bench. This is unfair
to nominees, and the partisanship reflects poorly on the Senate.
In my view, each nominee should be afforded the courtesy of a
vote by the full Senate. I will support those who demonstrate
the qualities the American people expect in our judiciary.
Congress approved a measure I sponsored to reduce
the number of frivolous inmate lawsuits. These suits – for
example, legal actions filed by inmates who did not receive their
favorite type of ice cream, sneakers, peanut butter, or video
games – had become so numerous that they were clogging the
court system. Modeled after a provision in Arizona state law,
the new federal law requires inmates to pay the standard filing
fee when they initiate a suit. Since the law’s enactment,
inmate lawsuits based on prison condition have dropped over 18
percent, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
In my view, prisoners should also make a modest
contribution toward the cost of their health care while in custody.
Legislation I introduced – which is now law – requires
that prisoners make co-payments, just as many law-abiding citizens
must do when they seek a doctor’s care. While no one will
be denied care if he or she cannot afford to pay, the new law
is helping to reduce unnecessary – and costly – visits
to prison infirmaries by inmates looking to avoid work or other
aspects of prison routine. The fees collected are deposited into
a federal fund for distribution to the victims of crime, so each
time prisoners pay to heal themselves, they are paying to heal
a victim.
Illicit Drug Legalization
Drug abuse ruins millions of lives. Even though
we may not be able to eliminate the problem entirely, saving lives
is worth the effort. I disagree with those who argue that, since
people continue to use drugs, we should give up and legalize them.
A variety of terminal illnesses continue to afflict millions of
Americans, but we have not abandoned our efforts to find cures
for those ailments. As a result, advances have been made that
provide many with a prolonged and improved quality of life.
We should not surrender to illicit drug use either.
Giving up would mean abandoning the children, families, addicts,
and communities negatively impacted by drugs. Our efforts to discourage
the prevalence of illegal drugs are not simply a win-or-lose matter.
Even though we may not be able to eliminate the problem entirely,
there is still much good to be done, and I believe that we should
persist in our efforts to save as many lives as possible.
One of the primary rationales for the legalization
of illicit drugs is that most drug-related crime would disappear.
However, under any form of legalization, the black market for
drugs would in all likelihood continue. Legalization advocates
acknowledge that the government, in order to discourage abuse,
would have to place limitations on the availability, potency,
and price of these drugs. These limitations, coupled with the
increased demand that would accompany legalization, would only
further encourage illegal channels of supply. For instance, because
of the amount of illegal drugs sold predominately to youths today,
we know that the black market would be just as strong for children
“under age” in a legalized regime. There is no reason
to believe that under a legalized regime the violence currently
associated with drug trafficking organizations would decrease.
Drug-Related Violence
Drug-related violence ruins the lives of millions
of Americans each year and has negatively affected Arizonans in
a number of ways. For example, according to the National Drug
Intelligence Center’s National Drug Threat Assessment for
2008, law enforcement officials have noted a significant escalation
in the level of drug-related violence along the southern border.
This escalation in violence has been attributed to the drug and
alien smuggling operations of Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
According to the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) Drug Market Analysis, smugglers have become so brazen
in their efforts that “assault statistics indicate that
drug smugglers have noticeably increased their level of violent
assaults against USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] and other federal law
enforcement officers and agents who protect the border.”
These assaults include “ramming USBP vehicles, attempting
to run over agents, and firing upon agents, often with automatic
weapons.” As a result of competition among these organizations,
there has also been an increased frequency of assaults, kidnappings,
and hostage situations.
In response to these unsettling trends, I have supported
a multifaceted, well-funded approach to tackling the drug problem,
including continued investments in drug eradication; interdiction
along our borders; effective anti-drug education programs; increased
availability of effective drug treatment; and tough penalties
for drug dealers and kingpins.
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine remains a persistent problem in
Arizona. Although statistics suggest that some progress is being
made in reducing the domestic production of the drug, methamphetamine
remains readily available throughout the state.
Data from the National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure
System suggest that, between 2003 and September 2006, methamphetamine
laboratory seizures in the Southwest decreased 87 percent, from
1,415 to 173, and it is estimated that only 30 percent of the
methamphetamine available in Arizona is actually produced in the
state. This reduction can, in part, be attributed to passage of
the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act in 2006. The Combat Meth
Act limits the sale of medicines containing the most common methamphetamine
precursor chemicals, thereby making it more difficult for domestic
labs to obtain the necessary elements for methamphetamine production.
The federal government has also provided funding
to state and tribal law enforcement agencies for training, equipment,
and personnel to fight the spread of methamphetamine as well as
for the clean-up of meth labs by the DEA. Funding has also been
provided for the U.S. Customs Service and Border Patrol to seize
illegal drugs. I helped secure $230 million for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area (HIDTA) program this year. That funding will be used to provide
law enforcement agencies with the equipment, technology, and resources
needed to combat drug trafficking and its harmful consequences
in critical regions of the United States.
While reductions in domestic production are an important
first step, those reductions have been offset by increased transportation
and distribution of methamphetamine produced in Mexico. Such smuggling
poses a significant challenge for law enforcement, particularly
in Arizona, which serves as a major distribution hub, staging
area, and transshipment point along the Southwest border. Increased
bilateral law enforcement cooperation and the Mexican government’s
adoption of policies to restrict imports and better regulate the
sale of precursor chemicals are promising trends; but, the ease
with which Mexican drug trafficking organizations transport methamphetamine,
and other drugs, across the border, is just further evidence that
Congress must do more to secure the Southern border.
I am committed to protecting the Second Amendment
rights of all law-abiding citizens. When contemplating the regulation
of firearms, I am always mindful of the individual’s right
to own a gun, which is clearly stated in our Constitution. Efforts
to restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a gun do
not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, nor do they deter criminals
from committing crimes with guns.
