VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the legislation we are going to be voting on later today, including an amendment that I have, and it has to do with the Crime Victims Fund. And I just want to explain and remind my colleagues just how important the Crime Victims Fund is.

This is a very, very major funding source for people who do some of the most important work in America. I know. I have met these folks. I have toured their facilities all across Pennsylvania. I am referring to the advocates for victims of crimes. And these advocates, my goodness, the heinous and horrendous crimes that they guide people's recovery from--I am at a loss for words to describe what these folks do often for children, often for very vulnerable people who are victims of these heinous crimes.

Well, thank God there are people who dedicate their lives, professionals who dedicate their lives to helping people with their recovery, to helping people who are victims to cope with what can be horrific reliving of the experience when they have to recount it to law enforcement or go through physical exams and on and on. It is very, very difficult work, and it is very, very important to help completely innocent victims get through what is undoubtedly the worst experience in their lifetime.

So the Crime Victims Fund provides resources for the people who help the victims of crime and for victims themselves. It is important to point out that the fund is funded entirely by the proceeds from criminal penalties. There is no taxpayer money in this fund. There never has been. It is entirely from criminal penalties.

And there is a statute that created this account in the Federal Government that requires the money that goes into it, these criminal penalties, to go to the victims and their advocates. But it doesn't say when the money has to go, and so that gave rise to a serious problem that developed.

For years, it turns out that money that was put into this fund--money from criminal penalties that went into the fund--didn't go to victims, didn't go to the advocates for victims. It was intentionally withheld because we had these crazy budget rules that created an incentive to withhold it.

The way the budget rule worked is, if there was money in the fund that did not go to the victims of crime and their advocates, as it is supposed to, under the budget rules, you could pretend that that was a savings, and it would therefore allow you to spend more money in other areas. It was effectively a way to circumvent spending caps, and that is how it was used.

Year in and year out, money was systematically withheld from victims of

crime and their advocates, and it was a big problem. I will give you a sense of scale. In 2014, for instance, only $745 million was obligated, despite a balance of $9 billion. There was over $8 billion in funding that was supposed to go to crime victims and their advocates intentionally withheld. In 2013, only $730 million was obligated out of a little over an $8 billion balance. There was over $7 billion intentionally withheld.

From 2001 to 2014, the value of the funds--the money going in-- increased by almost 600 percent. Funding for victims of crime and their advocates increased by 39 percent.

This was wrong. It was an abuse. It was based on an arcane and ridiculous budget rule, and it had a very, very deleterious effect. So when I discovered this, I began fighting this aggressively. It was brought to my attention by the people who serve victims of crime.

These groups came to me and asked me to help them in the struggle for them to get the resources they needed to meet the unmet needs of victims of crime all over my State and, I am sure, all over the country.

For instance, in 2015, the National Children's Alliance sent me a letter, and they said:

The [Crime Victims Fund] caps have been set too low;

deposits--

Meaning the criminal penalties going into the fund--

have skyrocketed while disbursements have remained almost

flat. . . . We look forward to further working with you to

make all of the statutory changes needed to update the VOCA

Crime Victims Fund and in turn better meet the needs of all

victims and survivors of crime.

In 2016, the Court Appointed Special Advocates wrote:

Since 2000, when Congress began capping disbursement from

the Crime Victims Fund to prevent fluctuations in deposits,

funding has not kept pace with the needs of victims,

including the growing population of child victims in America.

In 2015, I got a letter from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and they said:

The most frustrating thing for someone who has done policy

work is that there is money available for these unmet needs.

That is all true. There was money available. It was because money was deposited into the fund. It was just being systematically withheld from the victims of crime and their advocates.

But I got the message, and I think these folks were exactly right. So in response to these groups, I began working closely with appropriators on both sides of the aisle to address this problem and worked extensively with Senator Shelby and his staff. The fact is, since about 2015, appropriators, the folks who control the effective allocation of this, have voluntarily obligated appropriate levels of disbursements since 2015, and the chart illustrates this very clearly.

Everything to the left of the green line is prior to 2015. You can see these very, very low levels--less than $1 billion every year-- despite huge amounts of money being poured in; and then afterwards, starting in 2015, large, large increases in disbursements from the fund. Very, very important.

This has changed the circumstances for advocates of crime. They have grown enormously. I know this. In Pennsylvania, they have been able to hire more counselors. They have been able to open more facilities to treat and to help these victims of crime.

This is tremendous progress, but there is no guarantee that it is going to continue. So I have sought to make this simple principle: The idea that the money flowing into the fund should also flow out of the fund to the victims. I have tried to make this a permanent arrangement.

Now, let me be very clear. I am not trying to change budget rules. I am not trying to reopen some general budget. This is one egregious example of a category of budget flaws, and I am not trying to change it. I would love to change that. I should qualify that. I am trying to change it in other venues, but not here, not today. Today, all I am trying to do is something very, very narrow and very specific, and that is to make sure that victims of crimes and their advocates get the money they are supposed to get. It is really and truly as simple as that.

I have introduced legislation to do just this, repeatedly--you know, legislation that would simply require that we appropriate the appropriate dollar amounts each year. It was reported favorably out of the Senate Budget Committee in 2015. It was unanimously adopted in the congressional Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.

So there is broad bipartisan support for this idea. But we have never been able to get it across the finish line. Again, I am not trying to change all the budget rules, just this one fund. I just want to make sure that crime victims get the money that the statute says they are supposed to get.

The Senator from Illinois, I believe, is the Senator who has introduced legislation that would create a new category of resources for the Crime Victims Fund, and that is specifically to add deferred and nondeferred prosecution agreement payments to the Crime Victims Fund. So it wouldn't be just criminal judgments. It would also be these prosecution agreements.

I fully support that money going into the Crime Victims Fund. It is a new, important source of revenue that can help to serve these victims of crime. There are no tax dollars involved. I support this goal. I support this legislation. I just want to make sure that we don't go back to these days, that weren't so terribly long ago, when money going into the fund stayed in the fund because it served people's purposes.

And that is a problem I have with the underlying legislation in its current form. That legislation has no requirement whatsoever that any increase in funding will actually be matched by an increase in outflows for victims and their advocates.

You see, making the fund bigger doesn't by itself guarantee that there will be any more money for victims of crime or their advocates. Ensuring that money goes into the fund is just not enough. We saw this. We need to ensure that more money is actually leaving the fund and going to victims, not remaining unspent so as to offset some other category of spending, who knows what.

I was appreciative back in 2018 for the endorsement from the National Organization for Victim Assistance, who wrote:

A permanent solution is needed. . . . There is no mechanism

to stop Congress from diverting money from victims in the

future, should it choose to do so.

Well, my amendment solves this problem. It is very simple. It would just require a reasonable minimum level for victims and advocates based on the amounts that have been deposited into the Crime Victims Fund from both of the sources.

As I say, Congress has been adhering to this voluntarily since 2016. What my amendment would do is it would simply create a point of order. If legislation came to the floor that violated this principle and that went back to these days of withholding--intentionally withholding-- money that should be going to victims of crime, then that legislation would be subject to a point of order. Now, 60 Senators could override that point of order, but at least it would create the presumption and an incentive for appropriation legislation to actually provide the funding to victims and their advocates that it is supposed to.

I should also be clear. The policy only creates a spending floor. It would be at the discretion of the appropriators first and Congress as a whole later to decide if they wanted to disburse more money than what the floor contemplates, but the floor would at least prevent the worst of these abuses.

So you can imagine my surprise when some of the folks who are big advocates for putting more money into the fund are adamantly opposed to my language that would actually require that money to also come out of the fund and go to the intended beneficiaries.

You have to ask yourself, Why would someone oppose such a requirement? It is hard not to think that maybe one of the reasons that some people are adamant that they not be required to actually disburse this money is maybe they are thinking about going back to what used to happen routinely around here.

Remember, if the money is withheld from victims, if we go back to when the money didn't make it out the door to victims, why, that amount that is withheld can be spent on other things, and that is a powerful incentive for a

lot of folks around here. You can see how it was done.

Now, I have heard people say, some of my opponents say: Don't worry. We have no intention of diverting any of this money. Just trust us, they say.

If they have no intention of diverting the money, then why are they so adamant that they not be required to disburse it to its intended beneficiaries?

Well, we don't really have to speculate anymore because the President of the United States, President Biden, has been very clear about his intentions. In his budget, he has explicitly called for withholding this money from victims. It is right here in black and white. You don't have to be creative here. You don't have to be conspiratorial. The President has declared to the world in a published budget that he wants to withhold the money from crime victims. In fact, he laid it out there. It is in table S-8 of his budget.

I think this is a well-founded concern that we might go back to that practice. And in any case, if nobody wants to go back to that practice, then why wouldn't they agree to a requirement that this money actually be disbursed?

Now, over the course of debating this, much has been made of a letter that has been signed by some victims' organizations. Let's look at this for what it is. Organizations that depend overwhelmingly on congressional appropriations are asked to sign a letter by the very people who control whether or not they get funding, and the letter is advocating against codifying the stable increased funding that would benefit those folks.

I think we know what is going on there. I want to thank the many groups that are supporting this amendment: the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, the R Street Institute, Taxpayer Protection Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, and others.

But, folks, this isn't complicated and it isn't about overhauling budget rules and it isn't about anything that is terribly complicated or arcane. It is about ensuring that crime victims and their advocates get the money they are supposed to get.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support this amendment and make sure that the neediest and some of the most vulnerable among us-- victims of crime--receive the increased funding they deserve.

Mr. President, my understanding is that I would have 1 minute to close out debate on this; is that correct?

Could I claim that minute now?

Thank you very much.

Listen, it is very clear that we have very broad agreements on a provision in this legislation that will dramatically increase the money that goes into the fund. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle object to is a requirement that the money actually go out of the fund to the victims and their advocates.

And we know that, systemically, money was withheld from this fund for years, and we know that President Biden has stipulated in his current budget that it must happen again.

I am simply saying, if we all agree that this nontaxpayer money coming from criminal penalties and nondeferred agreements, if it is supposed to go into this account, the Crime Victims Fund, which I support, it should actually have to go to the victims of crime and their advocates.

If my amendment passes, this bill could be passed by the House later that same day or the next day. It could be on the President's desk before the end of the week, easily. If it were to pass and be signed into law, then we would be assured that appropriation bills would be brought to the floor with the proper allocation done. So I urge the support of my amendment, and then the adoption of the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I rise to bring attention to new revelations about President Biden's nominee to head the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning's involvement in a tree-spiking incident in Idaho, and to share why I oppose her confirmation.

I would have welcomed having a nominee with such strong ties to Montana to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and, until recently, I believed, as did most Montanans, based on her testimony before the Montana State Legislature, back in 2013, that her role in the tree-spiking crime was minimal, her actions were helpful, and she helped bring criminals to justice.

Unfortunately, new information has revealed that this simply was not the case. In fact, rather than bringing criminals to justice, Ms. Stone-Manning assisted in helping them evade justice for years--for years.

I am going to lay this out because I think it is important that the facts are shared before this body. First, it reveals that she withheld the truth from investigators for several years. Second, it reveals that she harshly criticized Federal law enforcement at the very same time she was refusing to tell them the truth. And, third, it reveals that she has not taken responsibility or expressed remorse for not speaking the truth much, much sooner.

I know many of my colleagues are probably just tuning into Ms. Stone- Manning's involvement in a tree-spiking crime committed in 1989 while she was a member of an ecoterrorist group called Earth First!

The picture that she and her advocates have painted about her involvement in this crime is that she was the innocent hero who helped put bad people in jail. Well, in recent weeks, we have learned there is a lot more to this story. It is very alarming. It is very disturbing on many levels.

Ms. Stone-Manning stated to the Montana State Legislature that a rather frightening man approached her with a letter while she was on campus. Come to find out, that man wasn't a stranger. It was her roommate and someone whom she described to the court during the 1993 trial as someone who was in her main circle of friends.

Ms. Stone-Manning stated that she simply mailed the anonymous letter--that she simply mailed it. But in reality, and as we have since found out and as we have explored court records in Idaho, this information had not come out, except in the last 45 days.

The investigation later revealed that this letter had not only been collaboratively composed, but after waiting for a few days, it was typed by Ms. Stone-Manning on a rented typewriter, which, according to her very own testimony, was because she wanted to avoid having it on her own computer and avoid having any fingerprints that could be traced back to her.

The words that Ms. Stone-Manning typed and mailed are explicit. It is not what you type and send to protect people. They are what you say to frighten people.

I am going to read this letter--it is not very long--that Ms. Stone- Manning typed on a rented typewriter and personally mailed. It says:

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being sent to notify you that the Post

Office Sale--

If I can add, the Post Office Sale was a timber sale. They labeled it the ``Post Office Sale.''--

in Idaho has been spiked heavily.

The reasoning for this action is that this piece of land is

very special to the earth. It is home to the Elk, Deer,

Mountain Lions, Birds, and especially the Trees.

The project required that eleven of us spend nine days in

God awful weather conditions spiking trees. We unloaded a

total of five hundred pounds of spikes measuring 8 to 10

inches in length. The sales were marked so that no workers

will be injured and so that you assholes know that they are

spiked. The majority of trees were spiked within the first

ten feet, but many, many others were spiked as high as a

hundred and fifty feet.

I would be more than willing to pay you a dollar for the

sale, but you would have to find me first and that could be

your WORST nightmare.

Sincerely, George Hayduke

P.S. You bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people

could get hurt.

The text of that letter was never made public until very recently, just in the last 45 days. Montanans never had the opportunity to read what Ms. Stone-Manning typed on the rented typewriter and sent until just a few weeks ago.

The letter is chilling and it makes you think that, if Ms. Stone- Manning was really concerned about the tree spiking, she could have gone to the authorities immediately in 1989, when this occurred.

We also now know she had firsthand knowledge about the perpetrators. She knew who did it. She knew all of the details about the crime. She knew who spiked the trees.

By the way, why do you spike trees? Why do you put these great big spikes in the trees? That is because, if a logger comes in with a saw and their blade hits it, they could be severely injured. If one of these logs comes through a sawmill, the sawmill operator can be severely injured, as has actually happened. We have had some severely injured individuals because of the tree spiking. This was the ecoterrorism going on several years ago.

But she withheld this information from law enforcement in 1989, even after she was subpoenaed by a grand jury for her hair, her handwriting, and fingerprint samples. She didn't report it to law enforcement in 1990, not in 1991, not in 1992. In fact, she condemned the FBI for investigating her in the first place, despite the fact that she knew all the details of the crime. In fact, she claimed being investigated by the FBI was ``degrading'' and that the ``government does do bad things.'' She compared her treatment to how the Government of Panama would treat someone.

Ms. Stone-Manning said all of these things and played the victim, despite knowing all the details and players of the crime, despite having had the opportunity for 4 years to put bad people behind bars. What Ms. Stone-Manning did was actively obstruct an investigation.

At no time, by the way, did Ms. Stone-Manning ever come forward from her own volition. Now, she only came forward after there was a break in the investigation. This is now in 1993, after another suspect identified her involvement and after her attorney struck an immunity deal, not before she was caught.

In fact, one of the men she had the opportunity to put behind bars during the time she remained silent went on to commit an act of--this man that she remained silent on went on to commit an act of domestic violence. Her cooperation with law enforcement could have prevented this.

None of her actions show any kind of remorse. They didn't then and they still don't now. Ms. Stone-Manning has not expressed regret for her false and disparaging characterization of Federal investigators.

This deception and misrepresentation of her involvement, coupled with her clear violation of Senate Ethics rules while she served as a U.S. Senate staffer, leave the public with no reason to trust her judgment, her leadership capabilities, or her ability to remain pragmatic when making decisions on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management.

Ms. Stone-Manning has lost her credibility, and to move forward with her nomination would cause more controversy and distrust for the leadership at the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Senate, and the Biden administration.

You see, there are 10,000 employees at the Bureau of Land Management who report to the Director and they need to have that trust, as well.

President Obama's former Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Bob Abbey, has concluded that Stone-Manning's ``questionable past'' brings what he said ``needless controversy'' to the Agency. Obama's very own Director of the Bureau of Land Management said that her involvement in the tree-spiking crime should disqualify Stone-Manning and the Biden administration needs a new nominee.

I agree with Mr. Abbey because, in Montana and the West and all America, we need a Director of the Bureau of Land Management who can garner public trust, bring folks together, and lead with integrity.

Throughout the confirmation process, I have given Ms. Stone-Manning a fair shake, an opportunity to answer questions about important policies that impact our Montana way of life. However, over the course of the last few weeks, this new information has come to light and has led me to now actively and publicly oppose her nomination.

The controversy surrounding this nomination is not and should not be about party-line politics. Montanans care about trusting those in public service, about integrity. The public trust surrounding Ms. Stone-Manning has been wrecked. Her ability to be the Director that the Bureau of Land Management needs has been compromised beyond repair.

As this nomination draws more attention and some continue to contend that her actions were commendable, I hope all my colleagues will give full consideration to the facts laid out here today. I urge my colleagues, especially those who represent western States, to join me opposing this nomination. I would urge the Biden administration to pull Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination. Nominate someone to lead the Agency who can garner the public trust and one who can lead the Agency without the significant controversy

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose Democrats' latest multitrillion-dollar spending spree.

It has only been 4 months since the Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion spending bill, and it was done through Congress on a party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted for the bill. The Democrats put the whole thing on a credit card. The bill is going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids, and they are going to have to pay for it with interest.

To me, that bill was completely unnecessary. It was a big payoff to the people who run the Democratic Party--$86 billion for union bosses, hundreds of billions for bankrupt blue States, and free vacation time for DC bureaucrats. There was a big expansion of Medicaid. There was an even bigger expansion of ObamaCare. Millions of dollars went for so- called climate justice.

The bill flooded the country with cash, and it did so without adding goods or services to the country. So what happens? Well, prices go up. It is no wonder that prices have gone up since Joe Biden took office.

Experts from both parties warned that the so-called stimulus bill would actually cause inflation, and that includes President Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers. Critics also included former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. I want to make sure I get the quote right. He said: ``I don't know any economist that was recommending something the size of what [we passed].'' Didn't know a single economist who recommended it.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said we don't need any stimulus funding. Well, that didn't stop the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office said our economy would be back to normal, they said, this summer without a dime of additional spending.

Democrats, of course, ignored the experts. They got their hands on America's credit card, and they just couldn't resist using it.

One measure of inflation is now the highest it has been in nearly 30 years.

Filling up a pickup truck in my home State of Wyoming--and I was there again this past weekend--is now about $25 more expensive than it was the day Joe Biden was inaugurated. For 3 months in a row, prices have gone up faster than wages. In effect, the American people, because of the inflation exceeding wages and growth, have taken a pay cut.

Two things I hear about every weekend in Wyoming: one, the cost of things, and then I hear from small businesses trying to hire people, trying to get people back to work.

We know, nationally, nearly half of all the unemployed people have been making more money by staying at home than they would have by going to work. That is because Washington Democrats continue to pay them unemployment bonuses on top of the unemployment earnings that they make in their own State. States have unemployment programs to compensate people who are out of work, but Washington Democrats said: Not enough. We are going to pay everybody a big bonus on top of that.

At the end of June, a poll estimated that 1.8 million people were staying home from work because they were making more money not working than they would make by working. These people aren't lazy. They are logical. They see what the incentives are. Democrats are printing money, and people are not going to work because they are getting paid to stay home. No wonder that we have inflation combined with a record number in this country of unfilled jobs.

Both inflation and worker shortages were created by this Democratic spending bill. It seems the Democrats still haven't learned basic economics, and now the Democrats are getting ready to make the same mistake all over again. This time, it is even on a bigger scale. The Democrats are spending taxpayer dollars like it is Monopoly money.

Democrats are getting ready to cram another bill through Congress on another party-line vote, ignoring all the warning signs. Even the Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, admitted last week--she said ``several more months of rapid inflation''; ``several more months of rapid inflation.''

Democrats see the inflation and say: Don't worry about it. We will just send you another government check. Democrats seem to want the entire country getting a government check.

The latest spending spree massively expands ObamaCare, just like the last one. This new spending spree would lower the age of Medicare even though life expectancy has gone up since Medicare was created.

This reckless spending spree would also give amnesty to millions and millions of illegal immigrants. The amnesty includes nothing to strengthen our borders. That is where the work needs to be done. It just creates more incentives to come here illegally. No wonder we are seeing the highest numbers of illegal aliens in 20 years, right now. Many illegal immigrants have admitted they came here because Democrats promised to give them government benefits: free healthcare, plus the assurance that they could stay in this country.

The spending spree is larded up with giveaways to the Democrats' favorite groups: union bosses, trial lawyers, leftwing professors. It includes taxpayer funding for full-time professional climate activists.

So this morning, this very morning, Representative Ocasio-Cortez of New York and 80 other Members and Democrats sent a letter to Senator Schumer demanding funding of these activists. Senator Schumer went straight to the floor, and he said he would include it.

Now, these full-time climate activists would get a government paycheck, free healthcare, free childcare, free college tuition, free housing--part of the Democrats' goal of replacing middle-class jobs with government checks.

The majority leader came to the floor and talked about hiring hundreds of thousands of climate activists--a climate corps. Think about all the activists against the Keystone Pipeline, against drilling in the Arctic. They would now be paid by the Federal Government.

This bill that we are going to be considering, the budget that the Democratic Party is bringing forth, also includes supersizing the Internal Revenue Service. In total, the bill is the single most expensive spending bill in the history of this Nation. It costs almost as much as America's entire role in World War II. It might not be infrastructure, but it is a bullet train to socialism.

This new spending bill raises taxes. Yet it gives carve-outs to rich people in blue States and owners of electric vehicles.

Let me be very clear. Not one Republican is going to vote for this budget bill--not one in the House, not one in the Senate--not for this loaded, reckless spending spree with all the taxes included. That is why all it takes is one Democrat in the Senate or a handful in the House to stop this freight train to socialism.

This means all eyes will now be on the Democratic caucus. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi want absolutely every one of them to walk the plank. One Democrat could stop this sprint to socialism, stop this massive amnesty, stop these crippling tax increases. If none do, every single Democrat will be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

The consequences mean more inflation, with higher costs of gas, goods, groceries, more worker shortages, and more debt for our Nation. Democrats did enough damage with their last spending blowout. The new spending spree is twice as big, and the timing is even worse.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today because, in a practical place like the State of Indiana, believe it or not, we actually balance our budget every year. We have commonsense things in place that if you are going to receive some benefits of some sort, maybe you do something where we can help to get you to where you do not need the benefits.

In this case, this is again something that was not broken and is now being fixed in a way that takes enterprising States like the State of Indiana, like Texas, like Arizona, places that wanted the ability in administering their share of Medicaid, to have ways to try to get folks into a position where they could get back on their feet, seek work, and do things that would make sense for trying to maybe earn their way into that benefit somewhat.

Do we believe Washington has all the answers? I think that is what you believe when you get rid of something that was working in many places.

I am in the camp that, as much as I know the Federal Government has to weigh in and do things, but if the argument is that we have been knocking it out of the park here, that we have been getting things done that really work, if it wasn't done in the context that of every dollar we spend here, we borrow 23 cents--and in the time I have been here, 2 and a half years, have been probably the loudest voice on trying to fix healthcare.

Part of that issue is in my own party, where I think we are apologists for a broken healthcare industry. The other side of the aisle wants to just spend money to try to fix it without fixing the underlying issues that drive so many of the problems in this country, where we deal with them in a sustainable way in our State governments, in our local governments. If we take away that flexibility, then we are defaulting to a system that has not been solving the problems.

Today, we are here specifically talking about the Medicaid Program. The way it works currently, the Federal Government pays for half the benefits, and the States pay for half the benefits. The Social Security Act authorizes a framework of flexibility so enterprising, innovative States can maybe do something to bring down the cost of these programs and wean us off the need for them primarily in the long run.

Since President Biden has taken office, several State waivers that were previously approved under the Trump administration have been revoked. It has happened in Texas. It has happened in Arkansas. It has happened in Arizona. And now they are coming after a place like Indiana that has a system that works so well that we are even in the process of giving some revenues back to our citizens this coming year, where revenues were so far above forecast, we are still taking care of issues at the State level and doing what we ought to be considering: returning resources to the taxpayer.

This isn't even that. This is trying to retain the flexibility where it has been working. It is called the Gateway to Work Program, and it is not like it is overbearing. It just requires 20 hours per month of work, job searching, school, or community service. It was designed in a way that engages the individual needing the benefit and that can improve their quality of life over the long run.

It has had a long history. The pilot was first approved by CMS in 2007. It has been renewed as recently as 2018. Yet the Biden administration, right now, by taking these actions--these flexibilities would have been in place until 2025. It is stopping prematurely what I believe is essential if we are going to ever live within our means here, finding better ways to do it and more sustainable ways to pay for it. We should have that flexibility.

With this in mind, I will introduce the Let States Set Medicaid Requirements Act. This legislation will empower States to have the flexibility that they have had that has been making progress. It will encourage behaviors that will improve healthcare outcomes. It has precedence in other Federal programs when it comes to earning unemployment benefits or food assistance. This bill is commonsense policy that I think needs to be put into place so that flexibility cannot arbitrarily be taken away.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. Further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, my friend from Oregon, we have had a discussion not only on this particular issue. I respect his point of view. And I think we both agree, though, that when it comes to healthcare, it is something that is breaking the bank in this country.

When it is 20 percent of our GDP, and it is 10 to 12 percent in most other developed countries, it has got to be a problem with the underlying industry and the way government has gone about trying to address it.

I am one in my own business, 13 years ago, who declared that no one should go broke because they get sick or have a bad accident, and then took the tools that were out there with a system that didn't give you many to work with, have found a way to make it sustainable, to put skin in the game for my own employees, to get them to get better care for themselves, and to do things that weren't the same things we have been doing, which have not improved the situation.

Medicaid is paid for half by States, half by the Federal Government. I think it does entitle States to have more flexibility on account of it. But what I would ask my colleagues on my side of the aisle is to look at holding the industry more accountable by being competitive, transparent, engaging the healthcare consumer, and that the other side of the aisle doesn't just push through for spending more Federal dollars, where the proof is in the pudding. Neither approach has been working.

It is a tapeworm on the economy. Warren Buffett has got it correct. We need to put our heads together.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just about a month ago, I was on the floor. Senator Durbin from Illinois was here. We were on the floor at that time to ask for unanimous consent to pass legislation to fix a technical issue with the VOCA deposit.

As my colleagues will remember, VOCA is designed to help sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act, or that is the legislation that we had introduced at that time. Just to refresh memories, I would like to reiterate why this fix to the victims fund is so essential.

Effectively, what we are talking about here is stability; sustainability; and, really, certainty.

I had an opportunity in late June to host a roundtable with members from the victim services groups from around the State. We were focused on the impact of the VOCA deposit issue specific to Alaska and what it meant for those who provide the services for victims, whether these are the child advocacy centers, whether these are the domestic violence shelters and the centers, abused women networks. But I was really blown away by the testimony from so many in these organizations. They were facing a 36-percent cut to the VOCA funds in just this past fiscal year.

When you think about what the impact of cuts at 36 percent means to any organization, it is, obviously, very, very limiting. But for some of these organizations, we are talking about a quarter of their budget. A quarter of their annual budget could be lost just like that.

What they shared with me was that this was everything for them. This was the difference of being able to answer the phone from somebody who has been abused; is in an awful, tragic situation; doesn't know where to go, and they phone that number and there is nobody to take that call, nobody to respond, nobody to save those lives.

It is a matter of not just having the individual there to answer the phone, but, again, when we think about the types of services that are provided by these victim services organizations, they are there for, truly, the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable moment in their lives.

I was able to hear from those who were gathered at this roundtable, to hear firsthand on the increases in victimization that we have seen in my home State of Alaska during this past year, as we have seen this impact from COVID. But the impacts of this increase on our providers have really been astounding.

Alaska CARES, for example, saw a 173-percent increase in children hospitalized in the pediatric ICU for serious physical abuse and fatal neglect.

Think about that. They had a 173-percent increase in these kids who are being hospitalized, and they have said they were seeing significant brain trauma, significant brain injury. I heard about unprecedented increases that we are seeing in child torture, which our child advocacy centers are witnessing firsthand. Really, when you think about that, it has to just haunt you to the core.

The Alaska chapter of Volunteers of America, which receives VOCA funds to provide at-risk youth and children with vital mental health services, shared a story. They introduced me to Alice.

Alice is a teen who experienced numerous traumatic events in her young life, including child sexual assault and neglect. By receiving services through VOCA, she is pulling her life together. She is learning coping skills, learning to make those positive choices.

So when we think about the role that these victim services play, these providers who, again, are there for truly the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable times that they may face, it should make us want to do everything we can to ensure that they have the resources available for them.

The longer Congress delays this inevitable fix, the larger cuts victim services in Alaska and in every State in our Nation are going to face. I think

we all recognize this has been a difficult time, but for those who are trying to serve victims through a global pandemic, it has really been so much harder. It has been 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted. They are burned out. And now they are faced with massive cuts.

Now, my colleague from Pennsylvania has some legitimate budget concerns that he hopes to address through an amendment we will take up later today. His concerns with changes in mandatory spending are valid, and I respect that, but this VOCA fix legislation is not the mechanism to address these concerns. I fear that if his amendment should pass, it will delay and perhaps derail this much needed fix.

Again, we are hearing from victims. We are hearing from survivors. We are hearing from victim service organizations. They are asking us--they are asking us--they are begging us for a fix now to the VOCA deposit. I am not hearing too many of them ask for CHIMP reform. The use of CHIMPs is controversial. Our legislation, which would fix the VOCA deposit, is not.

We cannot fail the many who dedicate their lives to serving victims and survivors. There was an Alaska organization at the VOCA roundtable who said it very neatly. She said: It is a representation of our values as a society how we help those who are most vulnerable.

We have the ability today to do what is right, so I would urge my colleagues to vote aye on the VOCA Fix Act.

With that, I yield the floor.