S-1892-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
What it does
This bill would make two changes to the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which finances services for crime victims across the country. First, it would clarify that money from federal criminal prosecution "declinations" — cases where the government chooses not to prosecute — must be deposited into the CVF, just like fines and penalties from convictions. Second, it would temporarily (through September 30, 2030) direct a portion of recoveries from False Claims Act lawsuits into the CVF, excluding amounts owed to whistleblower plaintiffs and amounts needed to reimburse the federal government for its own losses.
Who benefits
Crime victims nationwide who rely on CVF-funded services, including survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and other crimes. Victim service organizations (shelters, rape crisis centers, legal aid programs) that receive CVF grants and have faced funding shortfalls as CVF deposits have declined in recent years. State and local governments that administer victim assistance programs funded by CVF formula grants. Tribal governments that receive CVF allocations for victim services.
Who is hurt
The federal government's general treasury would receive less revenue from False Claims Act recoveries during the 2025–2030 window, as a portion would be redirected to the CVF. Defendants in False Claims Act cases would face no direct change, but the redirection could create political pressure to pursue more FCA cases to sustain CVF funding. Taxpayers broadly bear the indirect cost of reduced general fund deposits. Organizations competing for CVF grants may face increased competition if the expanded fund attracts new applicants.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the CVF has experienced severe funding volatility — dropping from a peak of $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2017 to under $1 billion in recent years — because it depends almost entirely on federal criminal fines and penalties, which fluctuate unpredictably. They contend that declination agreements and False Claims Act recoveries represent federal enforcement activity that logically should support victims, and that stabilizing the CVF protects millions of Americans who depend on funded services like domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting False Claims Act recoveries — money recovered on behalf of defrauded federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid — away from the general treasury sets a problematic precedent of earmarking enforcement proceeds for unrelated purposes. They contend that the CVF's funding volatility is better addressed through direct appropriations subject to annual congressional oversight, and that the temporary sunset through 2030 creates a new cliff that may prove just as destabilizing as the current funding structure.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under Article I to direct how federal enforcement recoveries are deposited and spent. The bill modifies an existing statutory framework (the Victims of Crime Act of 1984) within well-established congressional spending and appropriations power.
Checks and balances
Congress gains no new structural power; the bill redirects existing enforcement revenues within the executive branch's financial management. The Department of Justice would implement the deposit rules, and Congress retains oversight through the Judiciary Committees and annual appropriations processes.
Historical precedent
The Crime Victims Fund was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 and has been amended multiple times to adjust deposit sources and spending caps, including the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, which addressed a prior funding shortfall by modifying deposit rules.