U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–748 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 109–732

CRIME VICTIMS FUND RESCISSION: REAL SAVINGS

OR BUDGET GIMMICK?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 8, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

Hon. Ed Meese, Ronald Reagan Distringuished Fellow in Public Policy, Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation 3

Hon. Paul Corts, Assistant Attorney General for Administration, U.S. Department of Justice ..................................................................................................... 7

Steve Derene, Executive Director of the National Association for VOCA Assistance Administrators ....................................................................................... 14

Marsha Kimble, victim of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Victim Advocate, 

and founder of Families and Survivors United ................................................. 16

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Corts, Hon. Paul: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Derene, Steve: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Kimble, Marsha: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Meese, Hon. Ed: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

APPENDIX 

Three charts submitted for the Record from Senator Coburn ............................. 21

Questions and responses for the Record from Mr. Corts ...................................... 41

(1)

CRIME VICTIMS FUND RESCISSION: REAL 

SAVINGS OR BUDGET GIMMICK? 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Our hearing will come to order. Thank you to 

all of those in attendance. 

President Ronald Reagan, during the first years of his presidency, initiated, with cooperation of Congress, a new Federal program called the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund operates by the novel idea of making criminals pay for the system 

that they create. 

In the spirit of justice through restitution, fines, fees, and forfeitures paid by criminals are used for direct services and compensations to victims. And unlike almost every other government program, the Crime Victims Fund is self-funding, meaning we don’t 

have to ask taxpayers to pay for it. 

At the beginning of each fiscal year, Congress sets a cap on how 

much money can be spent from the fund. During the fiscal year, 

criminal fines, fees, and forfeitures are deposited into the fund. If 

the deposits are more than the congressionally mandated capped 

amount allowed for spending, then the overflow is set aside as 

‘‘rainy day’’ money. 

At the end of the year, when money is distributed to the States 

for victim services and compensation grants, the rainy day money 

from previous windfall years makes up the remainder, up to the 

capped amount. 

Like last year, this year’s budget proposal is treating the rainy 

day money in the Crime Victims Fund as a ‘‘surplus’’ because it remains in the fund throughout the year before being used to make 

up for shortfalls in deposits at the end of the year pursuant to the 

Crime Victims Act. 

OMB is not only proposing to raid the Crime Victims Fund of the 

rainy day money, but also to take out—in advance—what is exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Jan 05, 2007 Jkt 027748 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27748.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2

pected to be deposited all year. The proposal would take this 

money—the rainy day fund, plus an advance on what will be deposited in 2007—call it surplus and dump it into the General Fund of 

the Treasury. 

That means that when it is time to disburse money to the States 

at the end of the year, the fund will be empty. What will happen 

then? Do we really think that the program is simply going to be 

terminated? Not when congressional, law enforcement, and State 

government support for this program is so strong. 

Now, I don’t have any problem with the Administration’s making 

good faith efforts to shrink government, identify programs that are 

inefficient, failing, or duplicative, make the case that these programs should be permanently terminated. I think that is a legitimate debate. 

However, that case is not being made here with this program. 

They are not trying to terminate the program. They are trying to 

take away the money that funds the program. 

When OMB makes its case, I am the first one to support them 

and have done so through the many hearings of this Subcommittee. 

We held a hearing last year about a program on the terminations 

list—the Advance Technology Program at the Department of Commerce—where the case for termination was powerfully made, and 

I was the first one to agree with OMB’s decision. 

In this case, I would not agree with terminating this program. 

It is, after all, the ideal type of program that we want. The people 

who create the problems addressed by the program are the same 

ones who pay for it. But I would still welcome the debate, if OMB 

were willing to make a good faith effort to shrinkgovernment and 

had proposed to terminate the program. 

What is happening instead is OMB’s proposal simply steals the 

money from the program’s operating budget for next year but has 

no plans for how to pay for the program for the next year. Effectively, the argument about the program’s survival gets punted to 

the next fiscal year, when the fund is empty because of the budget 

proposal for this year. 

Some would argue that we are in such a budget crisis this year 

that extreme temporary measures are warranted. It is not as if we 

have suddenly and unexpectedly been stuck with unforeseen expenses, and we have to temporarily violate the authorizing statute 

to access any cash we can. 

Despite Congress’ tendency to call winter an emergency, requiring supplemental LIHEAP funding, or calling a 4-year-old war 

‘‘emergency spending’’—our budget liabilities are well-known and 

have been ripening for decades. That is decades to prepare for 

Medicare and Social Security shortfalls, decades to tighten our 

belts and stave off unnecessary earmarks, decades to fix our $38 

billion-a-year improper payments for which we are having a hearing tomorrow. 

So it is not some temporary crisis that would justify morphing 

a program that pays for itself into another deck on the Titanic of 

growing discretionary spending burden. That debt burden will rob 

our children and grandchildren of their future quality of life when 

we could have had a program that paid for itself if we exercised 

a little bit of restraint and honesty now. 

3

If anyone is serious about finding savings at the Department of 

Justice, I have some suggestions. Since 2000, the Department of 

Justice has spent close to $200 million on meetings and travel and 

has had anywhere between $2.6 million and $260 million in 

unspent money parked at the Department each year. 

There is also the possibility of payment errors. The Department 

claims that it has assessed all of its programs and found no risk 

of any significant payment errors. I find that extremely hard to believe. Unfortunately, an independent auditor found several programs that were never even assessed properly. 

We will be investigating improper payments in greater detail at 

a hearing I will chair tomorrow. The point is, even the most cursory digging yields areas where money is being wasted, and that 

is before engaging in a single policy debate about the merits of programs at the Department. 

I may have read this budget proposal wrong. Maybe the Administration isn’t proposing to raid what it knows is an artificial surplus. 

If so, I hope this hearing will provide some answers to the following questions: 

What does the Administration plan to do with the Crime Victims 

Fund at the end of 2007 when the fund is emptied? Raiding the account and paying for the program using some mechanism other 

than a self-funding system would be violating existing statutes. 

Does the Administration plan on submitting new authorizing language that would allow this and future raids into the Fund? 

Given the failure of this plan in last year’s budget proposal, why 

is the Administration submitting the rescission for a second year 

in a row? Is there a sincere proposal, or is this a budget gimmick 

to create the appearance of savings? And why would the Administration go after a self-funded program that has inherent fiscal discipline instead of tackling conference spending, unobligated funds, 

improper payments, or other management issues? 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Our first 

panel, we are pleased to have with us former Attorney General Ed 

Meese, who is currently the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow 

in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation. 

On our second panel, we will have the Hon. Paul Corts, who is 

serving as the Current Assistant Attorney General for Administration at the Department of Justice. 

On our third panel, we have Steve Derene, Executive Director of 

the National Association for VOCA Assistance Administrators, and 

Marsha Kimble, an Oklahoman and one of the many victims of the 

Oklahoma City bombing and founder of the support and advocacy 

group, ‘‘Families and Survivors United.’’

Thank you all for your time and preparation. Attorney General 

Meese, thank you for being here and please continue with your 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ED MEESE, RONALD REAGAN DISTINGUISHED FELLOW IN PUBLIC POLICY, CHAIRMAN OF 

THE CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. MEESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4

As you mentioned, I am Ed Meese, formerly an attorney general 

during the period from 1985 to 1988 and currently at the Heritage 

Foundation, where I also serve as chairman of its Center for Legal 

and Judicial Studies. 

I am, like the Chairman, a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and budget reduction. However, I am also very much in favor 

of the continuation of the integrity of the Crime Victims Fund. 

For over 30 years, I have been involved in the victims movement, 

in one way or another. In the 1970s, I was in California government and then as Director of the Center for Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management at the University of San Diego. It was during 

that time that we began efforts to recognize crime victims in that 

State. 

During President Reagan’s time in office, he had a victims task 

force and, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, initiated the legislation 

that led to the Victims of Crime Act and the Crime Victims Fund. 

Up until the 1970s and the 1980s, the crime victim, the people 

who suffered the most as a result of criminal activity, were the forgotten parties as far as crime was concerned. We had all kind of 

laws relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction, and ultimately sentencing of criminals, and we had a lot of laws protecting those accused of crime. But the victim was essentially forgotten. And that 

is why the Victims of Crime Act as a Federal act was so important. 

As you pointed out, it had the unique feature of letting the criminals pay for the costs that are involved in the Act and in the Crime 

Victims Fund. This meant that there would be funds available, and 

one of the things that was the result of this legislation was that 

the funds were used for a variety of purposes, all of which had to 

do with crime victims. 

It included funds for the investigation of child abuse crimes. It 

had the creation, of course, of the Office of Victims of Crime in the 

Department of Justice. It involved—and this is one I was particularly interested in—the funding of victim/witness counselors, victim/witness assistants in the U.S. attorneys offices. 

One of the things I was privileged to do during my time in office 

was to make sure that every U.S. attorneys office had at least one 

of these victim/witness assistants in the office to help with the 

crime victim. 

Crime victims often are confused by the system. They often become resentful when they don’t know what is going on in what they 

regard as their case. They are often not able even to find, with continuances and that sort of thing, the time when they are supposed 

to be in court. 

The victim/witness coordinators has changed all of that and 

made it a much better situation. Likewise, in the field divisions of 

the FBI, victim assistance personnel have been a very salutary 

means of assisting at the early stages of investigation when often 

these victims are most frightened, most uncertain of their role. 

So the purposes of the fund, I think no one, to my knowledge, 

has ever argued that the purposes of the fund and the uses to 

which it has been put has not been appropriate and that the funds 

have not been well spent. Congress did two things in order to make 

sure that there were funds on a continuing basis. 

5

They did put caps on the annual allocations of the funds. And 

second, they did provide in very strong language that the Fund 

should be perpetual and that it should be a continuing Fund, that 

it should, indeed, carry over from one fiscal year to the next. 

The language in the various legislative history pertaining to the 

Fund from its start has always provided very clearly that the sums 

deposited in the Fund shall remain in the Fund and be available 

for expenditure without fiscal year limitation. And that in any one 

year that funds would be carried over to the next. 

I think it is clear from the statute and the legislative history, as 

well as the procedures that the fund has followed since its inception, that any attempt to remove monies from the fund and use 

them for unrelated purposes in the general budget would be a perversion of the original concept of the fund and would violate its integrity. 

As a practical matter, all of the funds that are needed are, in 

fact, necessary in order to perpetuate and make sure that adequate 

funds are there. Over the course of the past 7 years, in 3 of those 

years, the monies coming into the fund were not equal to the 

amount that had been provided as caps by the Congress. And 

therefore, the funds from previous years were necessary in order to, 

as you pointed out in your Crime Victims Fund ‘‘rainy day’’ fund 

chart there, fill the bucket full for those years in which the receipts 

did not equal the amount that had been provided or allocated by 

the Congress. 

I think it is clear, as a practical matter, that the assurance that 

those funds will be there on a continuing basis is necessary for the 

programs not only in the Federal Government, but in the States to 

continue. I think it is important as a country, and as a national 

government, that we continue the commitment we have made to 

the victims of crime. I think it is important to preserve the integrity of the fund, particularly since it is not derived from taxpayer 

funds, but from the criminals. 

And I would hate to see this as a precedent of taking a designated fund derived from a specific source and then co-mingling 

that and turning that into a place in which funds are siphoned off 

in order to support the general budget. 

That is essentially, Mr. Chairman, what I believe we did with Social Security, and now we have the mess that we have at the 

present time. I would hate to see the Crime Victims Fund, although much smaller in amount, have the same fate as happened 

in the Social Security fund. 

So, as a result, for these reasons, I urge the Subcommittee and 

the Congress to reject any proposal to siphon off monies from the 

Crime Victims Fund or to allow them to be used for other purposes 

than victim assistance. 

This innovation to make criminals pay for the necessary assistance to crime victims is an important symbol of the fairness of our 

criminal justice system. To tamper with the traditional practice in 

handling these monies would be a serious injury to the concept that 

underlies the Crime Victims Fund as a means of providing the resources necessary for the many services included in the Victims of 

Crime Act. 

6

That is my statement, Mr. Chairman. I have copies of that available for your fellow Members of the Committee, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

I just want to say at the outset, I know it is not the Administration’s position to do away with this program, and that is not what 

we are trying to say here today. What we are trying to say that 

this is a great program that is working, that is self-funded, that 

the taxpayers aren’t having to fund, but, in fact, the criminals are 

funding. 

And the integrity of that program has worked beautifully since 

its inception. It has made tremendous impact in multiple people’s 

lives, and I am the first one to lessen our spending and to hold us 

more accountable. 

We have had about 30 hearings in this Subcommittee since April 

of last year, and it is all based on accountability, transparency, and 

results. This one gets results. There is transparency to it. And so, 

the implication is to find out why this decision by OMB was made 

in terms of taking this money and to answer the questions. 

I want to applaud you for your work on this when you worked 

for President Reagan. Can you give me a little bit of the philosophy 

behind the decision to set this up? And were there any other programs that were set up similarly? 

Mr. MEESE. President Reagan commissioned several task forces 

during the time that he was in office, many of them having to do 

with the Department of Justice. But the crime victims task force 

was one of those. And the task force went around the country looking at the situation and looking to see what might be done, recognizing that most work with victims is done at the local level, as is 

most of the criminal justice process handled at the State and local 

level. 

But it was felt at the time that there was a role for the Federal 

Government, particularly in terms of the victims of crimes that 

were violations of Federal law, as well as to provide a catalyst for 

the States in developing their own victims compensation system. 

And that is really what the Federal formula grants to the States 

actually turn out to do. 

As a result, the philosophy was basically not to let the crime victim be the forgotten person, but to make sure that there were necessary services. They ranged all the way from putting crime victims in touch with insurance agencies, in touch with other people 

who could alleviate the particular loss or the particular physical 

condition or whatever else might have been the consequences of the 

crime that had been committed against them. 

It also had to do with, as I mentioned in my comments, having 

people who could guide them through the process, who could explain to them what was happening, who could, in some cases, make 

them understand what it would appear to a crime victim the interminable delays in justice being effected through the court system, 

and to interpret what it meant for them to come to court and to 

testify. 

Sometimes it involved providing such simple things as child care 

so that a mother who had been a crime victim could appear in a 

7

1The prepared statement of Mr. Corts appears in the Appendix on page 24. 

court room or appear as part of the investigation, give a statement 

to the police. 

So it ran from fairly mundane activity that was very important 

to the crime victim all the way to very major things that were important in terms of assisting prosecutors, assisting the police in 

having victims and witnesses available so that they could testify. 

So it has been a very important thing, and I think that the fund 

has been used in a way and the Office of Victims of Crime has operated in a way that fully carried out President Reagan’s idea of 

what ought to happen and the idea of the Justice Department at 

the time that this was inaugurated. 

Senator COBURN. Is there any thought in your mind, as you look 

at the legislative intent and legislative history, that a surplus in 

this fund is not obligated to go for this fund? 

Mr. MEESE. I think just the opposite, Mr. Chairman. I don’t even 

like to use the word ‘‘surplus,’’ quite frankly, because I use the 

term ‘‘unexpended funds’’ because, actually, it was not intended to 

have a surplus, but rather to have those funds available for future 

use. 

And so, I think as the chart that has just been put up here 

shows, it is very clear in each of the years—2000, 2002, 2005—

when this matter was considered by the Congress, the legislative 

history is very clear that it was intended that these monies would 

remain in the fund so that they would not be siphoned off for some 

other purpose. 

Senator COBURN. You will probably receive a couple of other 

questions from us. If you wouldn’t mind answering those, I would 

appreciate it. I thank you for your testimony and also for your service to our country. 

Mr. MEESE. Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any 

questions the Subcommittee might have. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Our next witness is the Hon. Dr. Paul Corts. 

He was sworn in as Assistant Attorney General for Administration 

on November 18, 2002. 

Prior to entering government service, Dr. Corts had a long and 

distinguished career in higher education. He served as the president of Palm Beach Atlantic University for 111⁄2 years. He also 

served as president of Wingate University in North Carolina. And 

he has held administrative and teaching positions at Oklahoma 

Baptist University and Western Kentucky University. 

Dr. Corts, thank you for appearing before us. Your written testimony will be made a part of the record, and you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. PAUL CORTS,1 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

Mr. CORTS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed rescission of Crime Victims Fund balances and 

the outlook for the fund in the near future. With me today is the 

department’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General/Controller, Lee 

Lofthus. 

8

The Crime Victims Fund is a major funding source for victim 

services across the Nation, and the Department is fully committed 

to that, as you have indicated. We are also deeply committed to 

sound and responsible budgeting. 

To briefly provide a budget context for the Crime Victims Fund 

balance rescission proposal, let me say that the fiscal year 2007 

President’s budget requests $20.8 billion in direct discretionary 

funds for the Department of Justice, including over $1 billion in enhancements that are designed to help us protect Americans from 

terrorism and crime. 

I am pleased that our budget contains these resource enhancements, and yet I am acutely aware that we are a Nation at war, 

and we are facing significant demands on our resources. Accordingly, the Department’s budget also contains offsets. 

By ‘‘offsets,’’ I mean that we are proposing to help cover a portion 

of our fiscal year 2007 budget requirements through funds we can 

save or recoup in other areas. These offsets reduce the demand the 

Department makes on the appropriators, the Treasury, and ultimately the taxpayers for new dollars. 

Where certain programs have accumulated significant balances 

over the years, our offsets include rescissions of such prior year 

balances, including the rescission proposed of $1.255 billion from 

the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund was established 

by the Victims of Crime Act in 1984. This fund provides resources 

for a wide variety of victim services across the Nation. 

Rather than being financed with tax revenues, the fund draws on 

the payments of offenders convicted of Federal crimes. In plain 

terms, receipts deposited from convicted offenders are used to support victim programs authorized by the Victims of Crime Act. 

Now, in recent years, the Congress has proposed and authorized 

a cap in the amount that can be spent from the Crime Victims 

Fund for victims programs. Most recently, the cap has been at $625 

million, and it has been there for several years. 

Balances or deposits in excess of the cap roll over from year to 

year. Significant rollover balances have existed in the fund since 

the year 2000, creating what can be characterized as a perpetual 

float in this account, and it is now in excess of a billion dollars. 

This float is not required to fund the enacted level of victims programs, nor is it money that could be made available, as you have 

indicated, for any other appropriations use. The President’s budget 

proposes, therefore, to rescind these unused funds. 

The perpetual float in the fund results in two consequences. 

First, the excess balances are precluded from being available for 

other programs that could benefit the Nation. Second, the balances 

have been used for temporary budget score-keeping schemes that 

mask true discretionary budget needs. 

Accordingly, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to 

rescind and permanently cancel the excess balance in the Crime 

Victims Fund, returning the funds to the general fund of the Treasury. So, in plain terms, a future $19 billion budget would be presented as a $19 billion budget. Thus, the rationale for rescinding 

the balance of the fund is that it is a more straightforward approach to budgeting. 

9

Assuming the rescission of the fund balance is enacted, crime victim services in fiscal year 2007 and beyond will continue to be 

funded from criminal fines and penalties. We anticipate the receipts can be maintained at a level sufficient to support the currently enacted victim program levels as capped by Congress. 

So, in closing, we are committed to ensuring the solvency of the 

Crime Victims Fund and adequate funding for the victims programs. This proposal does not drain the fund of its victim assistance resources. We are also committed to transparent budgeting 

and wise use of available resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, and we 

would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members might have. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to ask that Lee Lofthus join me here at the table for the question period. 

Senator COBURN. That is fine. She is more than welcome to. 

Mr. CORTS. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. So your testimony says that the excess money 

will be rescinded, and that money will actually be spent on something outside the statutory requirements of the Victims of Crime 

Act? 

Mr. CORTS. If Congress chooses to adopt the President’s budget, 

that would take that money and return it to the General Fund of 

the Treasury. 

Senator COBURN. So, in essence, it will be money that criminals 

have paid for victims of crime that will not be spent on victims of 

crime? 

Mr. CORTS. Yes, sir. It would be collected money that would go 

to the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Senator COBURN. OK. On page 714 of the appendix of the President’s 2007 budget shows that the Administration’s own estimates 

that 2006 and 2007 deposits will fall short of the cap. Where are 

we going to get the money to get the levels up to the cap? 

Mr. CORTS. Well, we start with sufficient money. So we start 

with $625 million, which is the cap. 

Senator COBURN. That is for this year. 

Mr. CORTS. So, in this year, if you start the year with $625 million, which is the amount that you are capped to spend, then everything that you collect this year is in excess of that, and it becomes 

the new cushion or the new rainy day fund because it will be there 

to fund in 2007. 

Senator COBURN. But your own estimates state that you expect 

that to be less than $625 million this year, which would be the cap 

for 2007. So where will the difference be made up? 

Mr. CORTS. Right. And those estimates are estimates that are 

made at the time that the budget was being put together, and they 

stay fluid. And I think our estimates at this time would be that we 

will achieve, based on collections thus far, that we will achieve the 

$625 million. 

Senator COBURN. So what happens if you are wrong? What happens if $400 million, like in what year was it—2003—we had $400 

million come into the fund? What happens if only $400 million 

comes into the fund next year? 

10

Mr. CORTS. Then we would, in essence, have a $400 million rainy 

day fund as we begin 2007. 

Senator COBURN. OK. You would have $400 million fund. So, in 

2008, if you are less, if you are $400 million again? 

Mr. CORTS. Then we——

Senator COBURN. You are out of money? 

Mr. CORTS. Then we would be down to starting the year at an 

even, and Congress would have plenty of time to adjust that in that 

time period. So the point is that you do have a rainy day fund, and 

there is a contingency available. 

Senator COBURN. Is there any proposal in the Administration’s 

rescission that if, in fact, there is a shortfall in 2007–2008 that the 

money comes back to the fund? 

Mr. CORTS. No. Not that I am aware of are there any proposals 

of that. 

Senator COBURN. So if, in fact, we are wrong and the fund ends 

up short 3 years in a row and you end up not being able to fund 

1 year, there is nothing in this proposal that would say that the 

$1.2 billion that you took from the Victims of Crime Act fund will 

be repaid to bring them up to the level of the cap to apply for the 

very services that the fund was set up for in the first place? 

Mr. CORTS. This is a 1-year, one-time, relates to the 2007 current 

budget situation. 

Senator COBURN. Oh, I understand that. But it is also taking 

$1.2 billion of money that is supposed to be directed for the victims 

of crime and saying we are not going to spend it on the victims of 

crime. We are going to use it to run other parts of the Federal Government. 

Mr. CORTS. As I explained, the——

Senator COBURN. I am not trying to give you a hard time personally. I know you are up here defending a budgetary decision you 

didn’t make. OK? 

Mr. CORTS. Right. 

Senator COBURN. And I want the record to make that clear. You 

did not make that. But there is a certainty that there will be no 

money left in the fund at the end of 2008? 

Mr. CORTS. No, there is not that certainty. All of our projections 

are that, again, if you start the year with a $625 million surplus, 

and you are collecting all of that year, we currently estimate we 

will collect at least $625 million. So we believe that we will be 

starting the year with another $625 million rainy day fund when 

you start in 2008. And all of our projections are that we are going 

to be able to maintain that. 

Now, as you say, if we fall a little bit short, we do have that 

amount of cushion. And I want to be sure that is understood because I hear people speaking as though there is no cushion. There 

is a cushion, the $625 million——

Senator COBURN. I understand we are starting with a certain 

amount of money. We are going to spend it out. We are going to 

collect money that year. What I don’t understand is what the Administration’s position is if you are wrong and we end up with a 

shortfall at the end of 2008, and we don’t come up to $625 million. 

What do we do then? 

11

Mr. CORTS. Well, if you look at the historical collections, that 

would be highly unusual that you could drain it in 2 years. There 

isn’t anything historically to show that you would drain it in 2 

years. 

Senator COBURN. OK. But I would tell you for 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, we had less than we had in the year 2000. So we have 

5 years of history of less income than we had in terms of the peak. 

And nobody has given an analysis and there is not one in the 

budget documents to explain the analysis that would give you the 

confidence. As a matter of fact, it’s the opposite. When this was 

submitted, you thought it would come in less. 

And so, I have two comments. First, I don’t believe you can run 

this program without a big cushion because I think statutorily we 

are obligated to make sure these funds are out there for the victims 

of crime. 

Second, what else in DOJ’s budget is now revised in terms of estimates other than this, so that when we look at the rest of DOJ’s 

budget—which is not this Subcommittee’s prerogative—but when 

we look at the rest of it, are there other areas where you have 

changed budget assessments and background on the budget? 

Mr. CORTS. Well, the budget is made a good deal in advance of 

the actual time, and certainly these issues are things that just are 

dynamic, and they are changing. So, yes, we monitor those things. 

There are a number of those that we would be monitoring. 

Senator COBURN. On your budget document that is submitted, 

the balance at the end of the year in 2007 is zero. Your own budget 

documents say that there will be zero in this fund at the end of 

the year of 2007. 

Mr. CORTS. That zero probably would have been better represented as a ‘‘dash.’’ That is an unknown. And unfortunately, a 

zero was used to indicate an unknown instead of a dash, which 

probably would have been the more appropriate way to have identified that. And I am sorry. I apologize for that. 

Senator COBURN. But, in fact, based on the numbers, based on 

what is in it to begin with, what is estimated by your collections, 

what is estimated to be paid out, what is estimated to be taken out, 

you all show a zero balance? 

Mr. CORTS. Again, I apologize for that. It would have been better 

described as a dash. It was intended to represent an unknown because we know we are going to start with $625 million, which is 

the cap, and we know we are going to replenish it. 

Our current estimates are that we will replenish it with at least $625 million. We have got a cap of spending, $625 million. So we 

will actually start—we know this now. We didn’t know it at the 

time that the budget was submitted. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. 

Mr. CORTS. So I issue that as a clarification because I agree with 

you, if I were looking at that and I didn’t know the underlying information, you come to that conclusion. And it is not the right conclusion, and I apologize. It really would have been better to have 

had a note there that indicated this is an unknown number. 

Senator COBURN. Well, could I ask you to do this? Resubmit 

those numbers to this Subcommittee so we can see what the real 

numbers are. Because when you add the adds and subtract the 

12

subtracts, you end up with zero. Whether it is a dash or not, it is 

still nothing there. 

Mr. CORTS. Partly because you started with a zero, and you don’t start with a zero, you actually start with the $625 million. 

Senator COBURN. That is right. And so, if you would please refer 

us a corrected budget sheet on that? 

Mr. CORTS. We will do that. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to 

point out another thing that has us believing that the collections 

will actually go up. 

Not only current indications of what we are collecting so far, but 

we have actually added about 28 positions, I believe, were funded 

to the U.S. attorneys this year, with a little over $2 million for additional assistance with trying to collect these funds. So we are optimistic that we are going to see the collections continue to increase. 

Senator COBURN. Well, first of all, I hope you are. We want that. 

We want this type of program—philosophically, the way to run a 

government program is the people that caused the problem ought 

to be paying for it. And this is an ideal program that I don’t want 

to see go away because it matches compassion with conservative 

fiscal policy. 

And the thing that worries me about this is that we have billions 

of dollars everywhere else in the Administration that is truly 

wasteful, and this is a program that isn’t. And we are taking 

$1.255 billion out of it and saying we are not going to spend it. 

And so, let me ask you one other question. If, in fact, you are 

really good at collecting a whole lot more money and you are back 

up to the $800 million to a billion dollars in collections, 2 years 

from now, are you all going to come and rescind more? 

Mr. CORTS. Well, it is very possible that the rainy day fund or 

the excess will continue to increase, and it will have an opportunity 

to build up again. This increase occurred very largely, as your own 

chart indicates, in the year of 1999 with an unusually large spike 

up in collections. 

Otherwise, if you look at that, it has pretty well evened itself out 

and really what I think was the basis on which the cap number 

was determined. And the cap was used for a very good budgeting 

concept of kind of leveling this out so that victim services could 

have an anticipated amount that they could kind of know would be 

there. 

And that is what we are saying we want to continue. And we 

agree on that. We want very much to continue that, and we believe 

that the budget, the way we have proposed it, does that. 

It simply takes these excess funds that essentially are sitting 

there and, as I said in my testimony, are not available for use and 

are not being used in a time when the country has significant financial needs because of a whole series of crises and circumstances 

that we are confronted today, it is using it. 

Senator COBURN. I preach that song all the time. The question 

I ask is what is actually happening to the money? Where is the 

money? Where is the excess money? 

Mr. CORTS. The money would be in the Treasury. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So the money is in the Treasury. 

Mr. CORTS. But not able to be used. 

13

Senator COBURN. Well, it is reducing the borrowings of the Federal Government. So it is being used. Every trust fund out there, 

every fund out there is being used right now. And it is already 

being calculated. 

So this is really a double gain because they are recognizing assets in the Treasury, and they are also not borrowing additional 

money because they got the assets in the Treasury. And then you 

are getting a rescission off of it. So my first background is that I 

was an accountant, and I can measure numbers. 

Well, listen, my whole point is that there is a statutory problem 

with what you all are doing. I am not sure legally you can rescind 

that money. 

The other question that hadn’t been raised is should this fund be 

increased, the cap? Are we adequately meeting the needs of victims 

today with the cap set at where it is? And I think that is a legitimate question that should be raised. Do you have any comments 

on that? 

Mr. CORTS. I don’t with respect to that. I didn’t come prepared 

to speak to that. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I will have a couple of other questions for 

you and your staff if you would not mind answering. 

I want the record to note that you are defending a decision you 

did not make and that you have done a good job in doing so and 

that you will, in fact, submit a revised budget sheet showing what 

is actually going to happen to this money and your revised projections on what you think the collections are going to be. 

And if you will do that, I would be more than satisfied with that 

proposal. 

Mr. CORTS. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. And I will, for the record, note that I am going 

to work hard to make sure this money is not rescinded or the statutes changed that allows it. 

Mr. CORTS. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. 

Our next witnesses are Steve Derene, Executive Director of the 

National Association for VOCA Assistance Administrators. Since 

2001, Mr. Derene has been representing State agencies that administer State VOCA victim assistance grants by serving at the National Association for VOCA Assistance Administrators. 

Throughout his career, Mr. Derene has served as Director of Research and Information for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, 

director of the Wisconsin Victims/Witness Assistance Program, and 

the Wisconsin VOCA Assistance Administrator. He is the 2005 recipient of the National Crime Victim Services Award. 

Also it gives me great pleasure to present to you Marsha Kimble. 

She became a victim advocate after the murder of her daughter, 

Frankie Merrell, in the Oklahoma City bombing. In October 1995, 

Ms. Kimble founded Families and Survivors United, a support and 

advocacy group, and authored a book of 81 first-person accounts of 

survivors and families of those who lost their lives in the Oklahoma City bombing, entitled ‘‘Forever Changed.’’

I welcome you both. Your complete testimony will be made a part 

of the record, and you are recognized first, Mr. Derene. 

14

1The prepared statement of Mr. Derene appears in the Appendix on page 28. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE DERENE,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR VOCA ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATORS 

Mr. DERENE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you said, I represent the State agencies that administer the 

VOCA formula grants, which really is the largest slice of the Crime 

Victims Fund uses. Those funds go to support some 4,400 community-based and public agencies that provide direct services to victims of crime. About 4 million victims every year receive services 

directly through this program. 

One of the things that I would like to express on behalf of a very 

broad coalition of not only victim advocate organizations, but criminal justice organizations, public officials, is our appreciation for 

holding this hearing and for Congress’s steadfast support. Ever 

since VOCA was enacted in 1984, there has been a real bipartisan, 

almost universal support for VOCA. 

And although it has changed, this really has been the first time 

that, as General Meese said, the integrity of the fund itself, the 

basic concept, the philosophy has really been challenged. And I 

think that is one reason that for the first time there is such a 

broad-based coalition that has formed to save the fund. 

Because VOCA really represents more than the dollars. And I 

know we are here to talk about budgets and funding. But I think 

what happened in 1984 was that the enactment of VOCA, while it 

is an important source of funding, really represented a commitment 

and an understanding that Congress and the Administration has 

universally adopted since then. 

And I think it was that threat to not only the dollars, but to the 

commitment. Victims are not people who ask to be victims. They 

are brought in to cooperate with law enforcement, to provide social 

services. They incur many emotional and financial costs. And this 

was really a statement that the Federal Government made that we 

understand and will do what we can to support victims of crime. 

So I think the reaction that I have seen, and it is unanimous—

I mean it goes from all of the victim advocacy groups, criminal justice agencies, all attorneys general, 56 attorneys general oppose the 

rescission. The U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Grange have 

all rallied around saving the fund. Not because they necessarily get 

dollars, but because they understand the significance. 

So I think that really is at the heart of the issue here. And one 

reason that it is at the heart of the issue, frankly—I was listening 

to the exchange, and I have lived with VOCA and the Crime Victims Fund. I have done studies of it. I am familiar with the numbers, and I got lost. 

I mean, when you were talking about what is there, when I look 

at the chart you have here, and I see zero dollars, and you do the 

calculation. As you said, you are the accountant, I am not. No way 

can you avoid the fact that at the end of 2007, the fund will be 

empty. 

And I will go back to October 12, 1984, when President Reagan 

signed the act into law. That fund was empty. And the Department 

of Justice had to wait a year. They didn’t know how much would 

15

be in the fund. So they had to wait one full year to find out how 

much would be in the fund because that is the only way they knew 

how to allocate the money in the fund. 

And so, ever since then, and I think this is where some of the 

confusion arises, the money collected in one year was obligated the 

following year. And that has been happening ever since. 

And so, when you take out their estimate of $1.255 billion, that 

not only represents the rainy day fund, the sums that have accumulated because Congress delayed the obligations, but the amount 

that will be collected in 2007. And you add those numbers together, 

and you end up with zero. 

So the question becomes not what happens in 2007. What we are 

left wondering is what happens in 2008? Because you start out the 

year, and if you understand the formula, you have to have a known 

sum certain at the beginning of the fiscal year in order to make 

grants. You can’t wait for it to dribble in. You can’t allocate. Five 

percent of zero is zero. 

And so, our problem is we have never heard a response to where 

does the money come in 2008, and the $625 million that I heard 

is not a buffer that will be available at the beginning of 2008—

2008 will be zero, and there will be no money. So that is the disconnect. That is where some of the numbers get jumbled up and 

the years get jumbled up. 

But the reality is, as you well showed here, the amount available 

at the end of 2007 or at the beginning of 2008 will be zero. And 

even if you wait for that money to accumulate, that is an entire 

year that money will not be available to support important services. 

I also heard discussion about this being some kind of a budget 

gimmick, and that to me sounds like an argument between the 

Congress and how they score and the Administration and transparency in those numbers. And that may be correct. It may not be 

correct. I don’t know. 

But what I do know is taking that money out of the Fund and 

putting it into the General Fund of the Treasury penalizes victims 

for that difference of opinion among accountants. And if it weren’t 

for the cap, all that money by law would already have been out 

there, would be used, would be serving victims. And given the nature of victimization, victim services delayed is victim services denied. 

But the field has pretty much gone along with the concept of stabilizing funding over time. We have looked at the fluctuations. It 

is a way of managing it. It is a way of providing some stability. 

And so, the threat, the reason that many people felt threatened 

when this was first proposed was for the very reason that we are 

seeing today, that somebody would come around and say, ‘‘Oh, look 

at all of that money. Let us take it away.’’

And that is what is happening. And that was money that Congress has repeatedly pledged would be used for victim services. 

Senator COBURN. That is what is proposed to be happening. 

Mr. DERENE. That is what proposed to be, yes. But it is that proposal which really not only is scary should it succeed, but it is having profound effect now as it is being proposed. 

16

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kimble appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

I see among the members of my association, they get scared. And 

so, when they try to manage the money for the best ability to provide services, they have been holding back money in fear that this 

will disappear, or they are not giving grants to the extent that they 

would. 

And there was an article I saw this morning—I am from Madison, Wisconsin—in the local paper about the rape crisis center 

there fearful of this very proposal and worried about what they are 

going to do, how much staff they would have to cut should this 

happen. 

So people in the field hear this, and they are trying to anticipate 

what is going to happen. And so, even the threat has profound effects on the ability and the stability of services. 

And if we were to make a suggestion as to how to solve the problems, how to solve this excess that I hear about, excess which Congress has used 50 percent of the time, excess that the Administration says they will need in the next 2 fiscal years—to me, that is 

not being unused. That is using it for the purpose that Congress 

put the money aside for. But if that is an issue, then my answer 

is don’t take it away from victims. Do what the statute says. Give 

it to victims. You don’t need a cap. 

The cap does not appropriate money. The cap delays the ability 

to obligate that money. If there was no cap, as I said, that money 

would be out there. So if this is a problem, if there is some kind 

of accounting issue here, give the money back to victims. That is 

where Congress said it should go. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Ms. Kimble. 

TESTIMONY OF MARSHA KIMBLE,1 VICTIM OF THE OKLAHOMA 

CITY BOMBING, VICTIM ADVOCATE, AND FOUNDER OF FAMILIES AND SURVIVORS UNITED 

Ms. KIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Marsha Kimble. I lost 

my daughter, Frankie Merrell, in the Oklahoma City bombing. 

I would like to share with you today my personal experience associated with the bombing and how VOCA assisted the families of 

Oklahoma City. Finally, I would like to discuss how VOCA funding 

is vital in serving 4.2 million crime victims each year. 

On April 18, 1995, the day before the Oklahoma City bombing, 

I was not familiar with the criminal justice system. I had no comprehension of the consequences of having a daughter murdered or 

a 2-year-old granddaughter crying for her mother who never returned. I did not know the psychological impact that such a crime 

would have on my family or how it still impacts my life almost 11 

years later. 

I did not know about the victim services or where people that 

had been impacted by crime turned for help. That was not my life. 

On April 19, 1995, I was confronted with the fragility of life and 

the realization that everything can change in a split second. 

My daughter, Frankie Merrell, worked for the Federal Employees 

Credit Union, located on the third floor of the Alfred P. Murrah 

Building in downtown Oklahoma City. I was at home, approxiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Jan 05, 2007 Jkt 027748 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27748.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
17

mately 10 miles from where my daughter worked, taking care of 

my granddaughter. 

At 9:02 a.m., there was an explosion that shook my home approximately 10 miles away from where my daughter worked. Little 

did I know, from that moment on, how much my life would change. 

The families were sent to a family assistance center in the First 

Christian Church in downtown Oklahoma City, and I am just going 

to tell you about two experiences that I had. 

I had been over at St. Anthony’s Hospital, and they had posted 

pages upon the wall, listing victims’ names and where they had 

been taken for treatment. I kept searching for my daughter’s name, 

calling all hospitals trying to find her. We were told to go over to 

the First Christian Church, and there would be counselors there 

for us. 

When I walked into the First Christian Church, what I found 

were about eight tables lying end to end. Sitting behind the tables 

were funeral directors with badges on. I wasn’t prepared. This 

wasn’t an airplane disaster. I still had hope. Since that time, there 

have been training programs for funeral directors to teach how to 

treat victims with dignity and respect. 

It took 5 days to be notified about my daughter. The world that 

I knew no longer existed. Our family was broken, and we were in 

deep despair. The feeling of powerless and hopelessness was overwhelming. 

Weeks later, I was made aware of victim services. Families, survivors, and rescue workers were in desperate need of help. The Office for Victims of Crime stepped in and started covering bombingrelated expenses, which included identifying victims, providing us 

with referral information for medical expenses, psychological counseling, and compensation for lost wages incurred due to the bombing. 

Oklahoma victims used $114,679 in State VOCA funds, plus 

$98,948 in State VOCA compensation funds. These funds came 

from fines and fees imposed upon Federal criminal offenders. They 

were not derived from taxpayers dollars. 

The trials for Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were moved to 

Denver, Colorado. For most victims and family members, this 

meant another economic hardship, which most could not afford. 

The Office of Victims of Crime funded initiatives to help us. More 

than $1.7 million VOCA was used to provide victim services and 

support throughout the two Federal trials in Colorado. 

These funds provided us with information about the status of the 

criminal investigation, the prosecution of the criminal case against 

the suspects, and facilitated victim participation in the criminal 

case through trial attendance, and prepared victims to present impact statements during sentencing. Families and survivors were 

also provided a safe haven near the Federal courthouse in Denver, 

and we were offered mental health and spiritual counseling during 

that time. 

$280,000 in VOCA funds enabled some victims’ families and survivors to go to Denver one week during the trial. It was a lottery 

system. Not everyone got to go. It wasn’t perfect, but it was the 

only assistance that we had. 

18

After my personal experience with loss, I was compelled to become a victim advocate. The stigma around victimization has the 

same effect, no matter what class you are in. The trauma faced by 

victims is the same for the served victims and under served. I benefitted from VOCA as well as any other sector of the population. 

In Oklahoma, a large part of VOCA funds went to train judges 

and prosecutors on how to treat victims with dignity and respect. 

These funds are used to fund case managers and victim advocate 

positions in State attorneys offices. When properly trained, these 

personnel are available for victims as they go through the criminal 

justice process. 

No person, regardless of life choices or situation, should experience harmful or limited victim services. Each victim should be provided with the opportunity to access services based on their individual needs. Victims should not be further traumatized by a system that is neither prepared nor open to the needs due to the lack 

of funding. 

There is seldom dialogue regarding the impact crimes have on 

the lives of victims or of surviving family members impacted by 

crime. Too often those who survive are thought of as a separate 

and less critical element of the crime and are left to deal with longlasting impacts without proper assistance. 

We live by laws in this country so that, ideally, no one will ever 

have to know what it is like to be a victim of crime. Crimes such 

as were committed against my family are intolerable in any society 

that calls itself not only free, but civilized. For Congress to consider 

reducing money used to help victims is not an option. This critical 

fund is a life line to many who might not otherwise survive. 

Opinions may be colored by religion, parental values, or popular 

opinion. For me, finding the solution is a process. Not a simple 

learning process, but a searching of one’s soul. It is a journey. 

In closing, I would like to pose a couple of questions. How often 

are you obligated to make decisions associated with issues that you 

have never experienced firsthand? Is it easy to express your views? 

Are there times when the responses to these issues aren’t clear? I 

ask, with this money, whom do we serve? Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you for your testimony. I know that was 

difficult for you. I appreciate you making the trip here and giving 

your testimony. 

I want to correct—Congress is not considering this. This is OMB 

that is considering this. And that is why we are having this hearing is to put a stop to it. 

Most of my questions you both answered in your testimony, so 

it is making it difficult. We have talked about perhaps everything 

else. What about increasing or raising the cap? What is your comments on that, Mr. Derene? 

Mr. DERENE. I think that it is an appropriate step to consider at 

this time. I think the cap has served a purpose. I am perhaps in 

the minority in that because I think as a State administrator, I 

saw that as a way of managing the funding level, as Congress intended, with the caveat that the money stay in the fund for future 

victim services. 

I think the threat of this rescission itself causes us to think is 

that a problem? I think there are significant unmet needs. We 

19

know that there are many unmet needs, additional victim populations, additional types of services. 

And I know that one of the reasons these are formula grants is 

that each State has different dynamics, different needs. And I 

think by allowing the States a greater amount of money, and I 

would suggest a greater amount of time, you can accomplish both 

the congressional intend to stabilize the funding and to allow 

States to meet their own needs. 

I think an increase of the cap as a one-time step up to a billion 

dollars would help meet the needs and would yet leave enough in 

the fund to help buffer some of the fluctuations form year to year. 

Senator COBURN. You are saying raise it up one year? 

Mr. DERENE. I would say one year, and that would enable 

enough money to remain in the fund. It would sort of draw down 

the attractiveness of this rescission. It would also allow the States 

to address the needs that they have in their States and yet would 

be consistent with the Congress’ desire to have a stable level of 

funding. 

Senator COBURN. Ms. Kimble, let us assume that I will win this 

battle, which I intend to. Assuming that the funding remains the 

same, does it matter to you that the source of this money comes 

from criminals? What is the importance of restitution? 

Ms. KIMBLE. I think it is extremely important to victims that 

criminals pay for their acts. I think it is extremely important to 

victims that their funding comes from the fines imposed upon 

them. It is critical. 

Senator COBURN. It is part of the healing process, isn’t it? 

Ms. KIMBLE. It absolutely is. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Well, I want to thank each of you for being here, as well as our 

other witnesses. We heard answers from the Department of Justice 

today. We are going to get the answers back. We will see what the 

revised column looks like, and then we will work with that. And 

we will carry this information to the Budget Committee and also 

the Appropriations Committee and let them look at it, and then we 

will work real hard to make sure that this is maintained. 

You may each receive some additional questions from the Committee, as we want to round out and make sure we have as complete a package as we can. I want to thank you for your testimony, 

and God bless each of you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(21)

A P P E N D I X 


27749.001
22


27749.002
23


27749.003
24


27749.004
25


27749.005
26


27749.006
27


27749.007
28


27749.008
29


27749.009
30


27749.010
31


27749.011
32


27749.012
33


27749.013
34


27749.014
35


27749.015
36


27749.016
37


27749.017
38


27749.018
39


27749.019
40


27749.020
41


27749.021
42

Æ


27749.022