[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Pages S13749-S13766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           2006 THROUGH 2009

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 3402 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, 
the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the 
measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2681) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally 
passing H.R. 3402, as amended--a carefully crafted, bipartisan, 
bicameral compromise to provide for the comprehensive reauthorization 
of both the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and the programs and 
authorities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, DOJ. 
It has been a long time in coming.
  I thank Senator Specter, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and Senators Biden and Kennedy for their hard work and 
steadfast support for crafting this compromise legislation. I want to 
especially recognize Senator Biden for his longstanding commitment to 
finding ways to help end violence against women and children, and his 
leadership in helping bring the Violence Against Women Act to the floor 
and in ensuring that its vital programs continue.
  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member 
Conyers deserve much credit as well for working so closely with us in a 
bipartisan manner to pass legislation in the House of Representatives. 
It is no easy task to take two large legislative measures and combine 
them into a single bipartisan, bicameral agreement. That is exactly 
what we have done, and we have achieved this milestone because we had 
the willingness of everyone involved to negotiate in good faith to see 
VAWA and the Justice Department authorization bill ushered into law 
this year.
  I would like to highlight several of the provisions of this 
bipartisan measure--a bill that combines the Violence Against Women 
Act, S. 1197, as passed by the Senate, and the Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act, for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, 
H.R. 3402, as passed by the House.
  The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act more than a decade 
ago marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic 
violence and sexual assault. I am proud to join Senators Biden, Hatch, 
Specter and others as an original cosponsor of our reauthorization 
effort. The bill that passed the Senate had 58 cosponsors. Enactment of 
this measure will further our goal of ending domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  Earlier in my career as a prosecutor in Vermont, I witnessed the 
devastating effects of domestic violence. Violence and abuse affect 
people of all walks of life, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, 
class or sexuality. Such violence is a crime and it is always wrong, 
whether the abuser is a family member, someone the victim is dating, a 
current or past spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend, an acquaintance, or a 
  The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates there were 691,710 
non-fatal, violent incidents committed against victims by current and 
former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends--also known as intimate 
partners--during 2001. Of those incidents, 85 percent were against 
women. The rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women 
has fallen steadily since 1993, when the rate was 9.8 incidents per 
1,000 people. In 2001, the number fell to 5.0 incidents per 1,000 
people, nearly a 50 percent reduction, but still unacceptably high. 
Tragically, however, the survey found that 1,600 women were killed in 
1976 by a current or former spouse or boyfriend, while in 2000 some

[[Page S13750]]

1,247 women were killed by their intimate partners.
  According to the annual Vermont Crime Report, the number of forcible 
rapes reported in Vermont rose in 2004 to the highest level in seven 
years, while the amount of violent crime remained unchanged and overall 
crime fell by about 5 percent from 2003. Reported incidents of rape 
rose by 58 percent, from 117 in 2003 to 185 in 2004. The average age of 
the victim was 21, and 47 percent of victims were younger than 18 years 
old. In 74 percent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance of 
the victim, and in a quarter of the cases the defendant was a family 
member or intimate partner of the victim. In only 1 percent of the 
cases was the perpetrator a stranger. These figures in my home state 
raise significant concern because violent crime has declined nationwide 
during that same time period. Numbers like these are why reauthorizing 
VAWA is so vital.
  Our Nation has made remarkable progress over the past 25 years in 
recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes. We 
have responded with better laws, social support and coordinated 
community responses. But millions of women, men, children and families 
continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of 
crime, violence and suffering.
  The Violence Against Women Act has provided aid to law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors, helped stem domestic violence and child 
abuse, established training programs for victim advocates and 
counselors, and trained probation and parole officers who work with 
released sex offenders. Now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize 
VAWA and make improvements to vital core programs, tighten criminal 
penalties against domestic abusers, and create new solutions to other 
crucial aspects of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is an 
opportunity to help treat children victims of violence, augment health 
care for rape victims, hold repeat offenders and Internet stalkers 
accountable, and help domestic violence victims keep their jobs.
  Included in this bill are reauthorizations of two programs I 
initially authored that are vital to helping rural communities battle 
domestic violence in a setting in which isolation can make it more 
difficult for both victims and law enforcement. In a small, rural state 
like Vermont, our county and local law enforcement agencies rely 
heavily on cooperative, interagency efforts to combat and solve 
significant problems. That is why I sought to include the Rural 
Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program as 
part of the original VAWA. This program helps make services available 
to rural victims and children by encouraging community involvement in 
developing a coordinated response to combat domestic violence, dating 
violence and child abuse. Adequate resources combined with sustained 
commitment will bring about significant improvements in rural areas to 
the lives of those victimized by domestic and sexual violence.
  The Rural Grants Program section of VAWA 2005 reauthorizes and 
expands the existing education, training and services grant programs 
that address violence against women in rural areas. This provision 
renews the rural VAWA program, extends direct grants to state and local 
governments for services in rural areas and expands areas to include 
community collaboration projects in rural areas and the creation or 
expansion of additional victim services. This provision includes new 
language that expands the program coverage to sexual assault, child 
sexual assault and stalking. It also expands eligibility from rural 
states to rural communities, increasing access to rural sections of 
otherwise highly populated states. This section authorizes $55,000,000 
annually for 2006 through 2010, an increase of $15 million per year.
  The second grant program initiative on which I have focused is the 
Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault or Stalking. This program, 
which became law as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, authorizes grants 
for transitional housing and related services for people fleeing 
domestic violence, sexual assault or stalkers. At a time when the 
availability of affordable housing has sunk to record lows, 
transitional housing for victims is especially needed. Today more than 
50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children fleeing 
domestic violence. We have a clear problem that is in dire need of a 
solution. This program is part of the solution.
  Transitional housing allows women to bridge the gap between leaving 
violence in their homes and becoming self-sufficient. VAWA 2005 amends 
the existing transitional housing program by expanding the current 
direct-assistance grants to include funds for operational, capital and 
renovation costs. Other changes include providing services to victims 
of dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; extending the length 
of time for receipt of benefits to match that used by Housing and Urban 
Development transitional housing programs; and updating the existing 
program to reflect the concerns of the service provision community. The 
provision would increase the authorized funding for this grant program 
from $30,000,000, to $40,000,000.
  The reauthorization of VAWA is an important part of our efforts to 
increase awareness of the problem of violence, to save the lives of 
battered women, rape victims and children who grow up with violence and 
to continue progress against the devastating tragedy of domestic 
violence. I look forward to seeing it signed into law and thus 
strengthen the prevention of violence against women and children and 
its devastating costs and consequences.
  In the 107th Congress, we properly authorized appropriations for the 
entire Department of Justice for the first time since 1979. We had 
extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981, but until 2002 neither 
had Congress passed nor the President signed an authorization bill for 
the Department. In fact, there were a number of years in which Congress 
failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 26-year 
failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the 
Appropriations committees in both chambers to reauthorize and 
appropriate money.
  We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, 
but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House 
Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to create 
and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing 
authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees--the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act,'' Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began 
with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and 
House Judiciary Committees taking more-active new roles in setting the 
priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, 
the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our 
oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in recent years, 
the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important 
than ever before.
  Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner 
and Ranking Member Conyers authored and shepherded through the House of 
Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, H.R. 3402. I 
commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for 
working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of 
Representatives. It is on that comprehensive authorization of the 
Justice Department that the bipartisan, bicameral compromise the Senate 
now considers was built.
  The bill we are considering today not only authorizes appropriations 
for the Justice Department for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but also 
provides permanent enabling authorities to allow the Department to 
efficiently carry out its mission, clarifies and harmonizes existing 
statutory authority, and repeals obsolete statutory authorities. It 
establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms 
intended to better enable the Congress to oversee DOJ operations.
  In addition to the important oversight tools provided in the bill, 
there are many additional sound provisions designed to improve the 
administration of programs within the Justice Department. For example, 
in Section 1111 we eliminate duplication by consolidating

[[Page S13751]]

the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, program and the Byrne 
Formula Grant Program into one program--the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant Program--with the same purposes and simplified 
administration. We authorize funding for this program at $1.095 billion 
in FY 2006, which is $678.5 million--or 62 percent--more than the 
actual amount appropriated, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
  I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG Program, both of 
which have been continuously targeted for elimination by this 
Administration. As a senator from a rural State that relies on these 
grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's 
proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well-
established grant programs. Our legislation makes clear that the same 
authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new, 
consolidated grant program as under the previous ones.
  When we began negotiations with the House on the Justice Department 
authorization portion of this package, I expressed to Congressman 
Sensenbrenner my concerns that a combination of the merger of and 
drastic funding cuts to these programs will cause smaller states to 
lose the assistance on which they rely to prevent and control crime and 
improve the criminal justice system. In rural states, the State 
Administering Agency and state agencies are the local criminal justice 
resources; they are more than just state level actors. Additionally, 
more often than not our rural States are ground zero for the rapidly 
increasing methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution. It is on 
Byrne funding that rural States and small towns rely to stem the 
scourge of methamphetamine.

  Byrne funding is the backbone of counterdrug enforcement and 
prosecution efforts in Vermont. Over the years, Vermont has been able 
to support a broad spectrum of projects within corrections, courts, 
training, forensics, and domestic violence and victim services. Chances 
are none of these initiatives will be possible under the new Byrne 
program formula because of the drop in funding level and funding 
distribution method. Since FY 2004, after which the new formula was 
applied, Byrne funds to Vermont have dropped by more than $1.2 million, 
or 61 percent. Clearly, the Byrne program affords States and 
communities the ability to use funding for a variety of crime-fighting 
activities, but unfortunately not the means.
  I appreciate the willingness of Congressman Sensenbrenner to work 
with me during our negotiations to find a solution to ease the loss of 
Byrne grants by small rural States during these tough fiscal times. The 
agreement we came to provides for reserved funds that allow the 
Attorney General to set aside up to 5 percent of the total amount made 
available for Byrne formula grants for States or local governments to 
combat, address or otherwise respond to precipitous or extraordinary 
increases in crime; or to prevent, compensate for or mitigate 
significant programmatic harm resulting from operation of the new Byrne 
  We increase the authorization for grants to drug courts to $70 
million for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008. In addition, we provide 
for targeted technical assistance and training by the newly created 
Community Capacity Development Office to assist applicants in how to 
successfully pursue grants under the program, and to strengthen 
existing State drug court systems. Under that technical assistance and 
training, the Community Capacity Development Office will consider and 
respond to the unique needs of rural States, rural areas and rural 
communities that wish to implement and enhance drug court systems.
  I am pleased that this compromise package provides an extension 
through 2009 for the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 
Program, an existing matching grant program authorized at $50 million 
to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for 
use by law enforcement officers.
  Our former colleague, Senator Campbell, and I authored the 
Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the 
tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, 
in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were 
killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the 
shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State 
and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of 
the cost. Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and in the closing days of the last 
Congress we again successfully extended the program's authorization 
through 2007 by including it in the State Justice Institute 
Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-372.
  Year after year, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program saves the 
lives of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to 
State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since 
its inception in 1999, this highly successful DOJ program has provided 
law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 
350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, more than 150 municipalities 
have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of 1,400 vests. 
Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay there 
would be close to that number of police officers without vests in 
Vermont today.
  We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests 
out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program 
makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few 
things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and 
they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible 
because of this program. This is the least we should do for the 
officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every 
day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a 
bulletproof vest gets one.
  I am also pleased that we include a $4 million authorization for 
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program. SEARCH is 
the only no-cost service for small- and medium-sized criminal justice 
agencies nationwide to assist them in enhancing and upgrading their 
information systems, building integrated information systems that all 
criminal justice agencies need, and ensuring compatibility between 
local systems and State, regional and national systems.
  I thank my colleagues again for supporting the final passage of this 
compromise package so that all of this bipartisan and bicameral work, 
as well as all the good that this legislation will do, will reach the 
President's desk and become law. And again I particularly want to thank 
Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter and Senators Biden and Kennedy, who 
worked so hard to help construct a good, fair and balanced compromise. 
Likewise, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative 
Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working with us to 
conclude these negotiations so successfully.
  The staffs of these Members must also be recognized for their 
tireless work around the clock to bring so many pieces together into a 
winning package. In particular, the House Judiciary Committee staff has 
been enormously helpful, including Phil Kiko, Katy Crooks, Brian 
Benczkowski, George Fishman, Cindy Blackston, Perry Apelbaum, Sampak 
Garg, Stacey Dansky and Kristin Wells. The Senate Judiciary Committee 
staff has shown outstanding commitment to this legislation. I want to 
thank Mike O'Neill, Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones 
and Hannibal Kemerer with Chairman Specter; Louisa Terrell, Eric Rosen 
and Marcia Lee with Senator Biden; and Janice Kaguyutan and Christine 
Leonard with Senator Kennedy. Last, but by no means least, I want to 
commend members of my own staff--Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Tara Magner, 
Matt Nelson and Jessica Berry--for their unfailing support for these 
provisions, and for their hard work in bringing this compromise package 
to the floor.
  I look forward to both Senate and House passage of this bipartisan, 
bicameral package to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and the 
Department of Justice. Mr. President, this is an important piece of 
legislation that will make a difference in the lives of millions of 
Americans, and it deserves our full support.

[[Page S13752]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud the sponsors of this bill to 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act for their tireless 
leadership in the campaign to end the abuse of women. In particular, I 
thank them for their foresight in incorporating the International 
Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 ``IMBRA'' as one of its 
subtitles. This important piece of legislation, which I introduce with 
Senator Maria Cantwell in the Senate, is intended to address Congress' 
concerns about a significant and growing problem: the high incidence of 
violent abuse of foreign women brought to this country as fiancees or 
spouses by American men whom they meet through for-profit international 
marriage brokers ``IMBs,'' commonly known as ``mail-order bride'' 
  After learning from the Tahirih Justice Center and other front-line 
experts about the terrible circumstances in which many of these women 
find themselves, I convened a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee in July 2004 to call attention to the abuse and exploitation 
of women and their children through this industry. Since it comes as a 
great surprise to many people that such agencies actually exist in the 
modem day, that are legal in this country, and that they are on the 
rise, not the decline, I want to share some further background that 
will explain why it is so important that Congress has acted today to 
compel the industry and its clients to clean up their act.
  First, this is an increasing problem. The IMB industry has exploded 
in recent years, greatly facilitated by the Internet. According to 
statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an 
estimated one-third to one-half of all foreign fiancees admitted to the 
U.S. each year--9,500 to 14,500 women in 2004 alone--and many thousand 
more admitted foreign wives, have met their American husbands through 
IMBs. The number of foreign fiancees admitted to the U.S. more than 
doubled between 1998 and 2002, and continues to climb.
  Second, the industry bears significant responsibility for women's 
vulnerability to abuse, and has done little if anything on its own 
initiative to safeguard them. Over a half-decade ago, the then-
Immigration and Naturalization Service concluded in a report to 
Congress that, ``with the burgeoning number of unregulated 
international matchmaking organizations and clients using their 
services, the potential for abuse in mail-order marriages is 
considerable.'' The INS study further noted that American men who use 
IMBs tend to seek relationships with women whom they feel they can 
control. Moreover, the marketing and business practices of IMBs also 
heighten the risk of abuse by feeding this perception. Agencies often 
advertise the women they recruit as being submissive to male clients, 
who might pay up to several thousand dollars to gain access to those 
women. Other industry practices, from ``satisfaction guarantees'' or 
``shopping cart'' features on agency web sites to so-called ``romance 
tours'' overseas that virtually line up several hundred women recruits 
for inspection by a dozen male clients during a single ``mixer,'' make 
perfectly clear that the woman is the commodity provided for the male 
client's consumption. An inevitable and dangerous sense of ownership by 
the men in their costly investments can develop. Several highly 
publicized murders of women by husbands whom they met through IMBs 
highlight a growing nationwide trend of abuse. A 2003 survey conducted 
by the Tahirih Justice Center found that over 50 percent of programs 
providing legal services to battered immigrant women nationwide had 
served women battered by men whom they had met through IMBs.

  Third, women who are recruited by IMBs are at a tremendous 
informational disadvantage that a brutal predator can exploit. These 
foreign fiancees and spouses often are unable to obtain reliable 
information about the criminal and marital histories of their American 
fiancees and spouses, and are unaware of the legal rights and resources 
available to victims of domestic violence in the U.S. An all-too-common 
result is that women from across the globe are exploited across this 
country, as a brief memorandum from the Tahirih Justice Center 
explains, and which I will have printed in the Congressional Record.
  The information requirements established by this subtitle are 
designed to require disclosure of the kinds of criminal convictions in 
the background of a petitioning American fiance or spouse that indicate 
he could be prone to domestic violence. This will enable a foreign 
woman to make an informed decision about coming to this country for 
marriage to an American man, in advance, with her safety and that of 
her children in mind. The provisions of this subtitle would also 
provide her with information about where she can turn for help, 
including vital safety nets and social services available to domestic 
violence and sexual assault victims, if she experiences abuse at the 
hands of her American fiance or spouse.
  A simple but incredibly powerful premise drives these provisions: 
that this information can help a woman help herself, help her save 
herself or her child from becoming the next victim of a predatory 
abuser. Through this information and other safeguards, this important 
legislation will help prevent those intent on doing women harm from 
perverting and subverting both the institution of marriage and the 
immigration process to find new victims overseas.
  So again, I thank my colleagues for their inclusion of these vital 
protections, and thank them, too, on behalf of the women and children 
whom they have spared today from tragedies tomorrow.
  I ask unaminous consent the memorandum be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Illustrative Cases of Women and Their Children Exploited and Abused 
           Through the International Marriage Broker Industry

       Alabama: Thomas Robert Lane was charged with the murder of 
     his estranged Filipina wife, Teresa Lane. Teresa's body was 
     discovered in a bathtub filled with running water. 
     Authorities found evidence that Lane drowned his wife by 
     pinning her under the water with his foot. A forensic 
     physician determined that Teresa was also subjected to blunt 
     force trauma. During the couple's separation, Lane had been 
     trying to arrange to marry yet another woman from the 
       California: Marilyn Carroll married Steffan Carroll in the 
     Philippines in 1988. One year later, he traveled to Thailand 
     to marry another young woman, Preeya. Before marrying his 
     second wife, Carroll assured her that it was legal in 
     California to have two wives. The bigamous marriage ended 
     when Marilyn called the police to report that Carroll had 
     sexually assaulted her--restraining her with thumbcuffs and 
     other devices during the attack. Carroll was charged with 
     bigamy and false imprisonment.
       Georgia: Shortly after Katerina Sheridan, a young woman 
     from Siberia, married Frank Sheridan, he kept her a virtual 
     prisoner, forbidding her to keep her own set of house keys, 
     and taking away her visa, passport, and birth certificate. 
     Later, he also took away her cell phone and cut all the phone 
     lines in the house. He flew into violent rages, on one 
     occasion beating Katerina and dragging her around the house 
     by her legs. After several such incidents, Katerina told him 
     that she wanted to go back to Russia. In retaliation, 
     Sheridan stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to 
     get her thrown in jail. Later, Katerina managed to make it to 
     a women's shelter, but Sheridan stalked her relentlessly and 
     tried to get her detained and deported. When police went to 
     arrest Frank for aggravated stalking, they discovered he was 
     in Russia looking for a new bride. Months later, when an 
     officer went to arrest Sheridan for another stalking-related 
     crime, he shot the officer. The deputy returned fire and 
     killed Sheridan.
       Hawaii: The mutilated body of a young Filipina woman, Helen 
     Mendoza Krug, was found in a garbage dumpster behind her 
     high-rise apartment building. The murder was committed in 
     front of her 2-year-old son by her husband, Robert Krug, whom 
     she had met through an IMB. Krug was sentenced to life in 
       Kentucky: ``Dina'' corresponded with her husband ``Paul,'' 
     an anesthesiologist, for several months before she agreed to 
     marry him when he visited her and her family in Ethiopia. 
     When she came to the United States, however, Paul took Dina's 
     money and passport, brought her to a motel (the first of 
     five), and kept her drugged and imprisoned for weeks while he 
     subjected her to horrific physical, sexual, and mental abuse. 
     Paul also threatened Dina that she, not Paul, would be 
     arrested and jailed if she reported him to the police. Only 
     when Paul left to attend a conference for a few days did she 
     regain enough consciousness and strength to drag herself to 
     the motel office for help. Paul killed himself before he 
     could be prosecuted. Dina received protection under US 
     trafficking laws.
       Minnesota: Soon after ``Medina,'' a Ukrainian college 
     professor, married ``Thomas,'' a well-respected doctor, 
     Thomas turned controlling and violent. Among other outbursts,

[[Page S13753]]

     he threatened Medina with a knife; kicked her in the chest; 
     and even attempted to push her out of a moving car. Thomas 
     also slept with an ax in his drawer and threatened to have 
     her deported if she ever called the police. Medina left 
     Thomas after he broke her son's finger. Today, Medina 
     continues to live in constant fear of Thomas, who stalks 
     and harasses her. Despite knowing about Medina's abuse, 
     the IMB facilitated a new match between Thomas and another 
     Ukrainian woman who also later fled because of abuse. 
     Medina was Thomas' third wife; he had also abused at least 
     one of his prior wives.
       New Jersey: A 26-year-old Ukrainian engineer named Alla 
     bled to death on the floor of her car after her husband 
     Lester Barney, 58, slashed her throat in front of the 
     couple's 4-year-old son, Daniel. Barney fled with Daniel from 
     the scene, the parking lot of the boy's daycare center, but 
     after an Amber Alert was triggered he turned Daniel over to a 
     friend and was himself taken into custody by police. Alla had 
     been granted a restraining order against Barney a few months 
     before and had been given temporary custody of Daniel.
       New York: Andrew Gole, a former policeman from Long Island, 
     was convicted of murdering Martha Isabel Moncada on a trip 
     back to her home country, Honduras, after she told him she 
     did not want to return with him to the United States. Martha 
     had tried to leave the abusive Gole before, but had feared 
     losing custody of their newborn son to him. Gole strangled 
     and dismembered Martha in their hotel room in front of their 
     baby and Martha's disabled son from her first marriage, then 
     dumped her remains along the roadside. Police arrested Gole 
     as he tried to flee the country after abandoning the older 
     boy at a gas station.
       Pennsylvania: Though she was trained as an accountant, 
     Norman McDonald compelled his Ukrainian wife to take several 
     waitress jobs and rely on him for transportation so he would 
     have long stretches of time alone with her daughter, who was 
     only 3 when the couple married. With his wife securely out of 
     the house, McDonald showed the toddler pornographic videos of 
     what he wanted to do to her and then raped her. Two years 
     after the abuse started, his wife discovered what McDonald 
     was doing and immediately contacted the police. Authorities 
     found more than 10,000 images of child pornography in 
     McDonald's computer and hundreds of video clips that depicted 
     him having sex with his stepdaughter. McDonald's 28-year-old 
     daughter from a previous marriage testified that her father 
     had also abused her as a child.
       Texas: Jack Reeves, a retired U.S. Army officer, was 
     convicted of killing his fourth wife, Emelita Reeves, a 26-
     year-old from the Philippines whom he met through an IMB 
     called ``Cherry Blossoms.'' Emelita had confided to family 
     and friends that Reeves physically and sexually abused her, 
     and told friends she planned to leave him a day before she 
     disappeared. Two of Reeves' previous wives also died under 
     suspicious circumstances (drowning and suicide). During the 
     investigation into Emelita's death, the State re-opened the 
     investigation into Reeves' second wife's death, and obtained 
     a further conviction against him. The State did not have 
     enough evidence to re-open the investigation into the third 
     wife's murder because Reeves had cremated her body. Reeves 
     was also suspected in the mysterious disappearance of a 
     Russian woman with whom he had lived with in 1991.
       Virginia/Maryland: A young Ukrainian medical student named 
     ``Nina'' married ``John,'' a U.S. military officer residing 
     in Virginia whom she met through a Maryland-based IMB with a 
     ``satisfaction guaranteed'' policy. Throughout their one-year 
     marriage, John repeatedly physically and emotionally abused 
     Nina, shaking her violently and insisting that she repeat the 
     commands he gave her. He choked, raped, and beat her on 
     several occasions, ripped a tooth out of her mouth, and 
     threatened her with a knife. When Nina informed the president 
     of the IMB about the abuse, the president said that Nina's 
     experience was normal and that many girls had the same 
     problem. The president said domestic violence is ``just the 
     American culture,'' and abuse is ``very hard to prove.''
       Washington: Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an 
     IMB called ``Asian Encounters'' and left the Philippines to 
     settle with him in Washington state in 1994. Blackwell 
     physically abused Susanna, including one incident in which he 
     choked her the day after their wedding. Susanna reported the 
     abuse to the police and obtained a protection order against 
     him. While awaiting divorce/annulment proceedings in a 
     Seattle courtroom many months later, the pregnant Susanna and 
     two of her friends were shot to death. Blackwell was 
     convicted of murdering all three women.
       Anastasia King, a young woman from Kyrgyzstan, was found 
     strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in 
     Washington state in December 2000. At the age of 18, 
     Anastasia was selected by her husband, Indle King, out of an 
     IMB's catalogue of prospective brides. Two years later, 
     wanting another bride and allegedly unwilling to pay for a 
     divorce, King ordered a tenant in their Washington home to 
     kill Anastasia. Weighing nearly 300 pounds, King pinned 
     Anastasia down while the tenant strangled her with a necktie. 
     Both were convicted of murder. King's previous wife, whom he 
     had also met through an IMB, had a domestic violence 
     protection order issued against him and left him because he 
     was abusive.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Violence Against 
Women Act of 2005, and I commend Senator Biden, Senator Specter, 
Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for their bipartisan leadership on this 
very important legislation. The current authorization for the act 
expired on September 30, and it has taken far too long to build upon 
the successes of existing anti-violence against women programs and 
enhance the safety and security of the victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  We have a responsibility in Congress to do all we can to eradicate 
domestic violence. Our bill gives the safety of women and their 
families the high priority it deserves, and I urge my colleagues in the 
House to support it.
  This bill eases housing problems for battered women. It also includes 
new funds for training health professionals to recognize and respond to 
domestic and sexual violence, and to help public health officials 
recognize the need as well. The research funds provided by the bill are 
vital, because we need the best possible interventions in health care 
settings to prevent future violence.
  Violence against women can occur at any point in a woman's life, 
beginning in childhood and taking place in a wide variety of 
circumstances and settings. It's essential for any bill on such 
violence to include girls and young women as well, and this bill does 
  Another important section of the bill provides greater help to 
immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and 
similar offenses. This section will remove the obstacles in our current 
immigration laws that prevent such victims from safely fleeing the 
violence in their lives, and help dispel the fear that often prevents 
them from reporting their abusers to appropriate authorities.
  Eliminating domestic violence is especially challenging in immigrant 
communities, since victims often face additional cultural, linguistic 
and immigration barriers to their safety. Abusers of immigrant spouses 
or children are liable to use threats of deportation to trap them in 
endless years of violence. Many of us have heard horrific stories of 
violence in cases where the threat of deportation was used against 
spouses or children--``If you leave me, I'll report you to the 
immigration authorities, and you'll never see the children again.'' Or 
the abuser says, ``If you tell the police what I did, I'll have 
immigration deport you.''
  Congress has made significant progress in enacting protections for 
these immigrant victims, but there are still many women and children 
whose lives are in danger. Our legislation does much more to protect 
them, and I commend the sponsors for making domestic violence in 
immigrant communities an important priority.
  The improvements in immigration protections in the bill are designed 
to help prevent the deportation of immigrant victims who qualify for 
immigration relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It will 
consolidate adjudications of such immigration cases in a specially 
trained unit, enhance confidentiality protections for victims, and 
offer protection to vulnerable immigrant victims who had been left out 
of the protections in current law.
  Overall, the bill represents major new progress in protecting women 
from violence, and I look forward to early action by the House in this 
important reauthorization.
  I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed summary of the 
provisions on immigrants be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows.

                              Section 104

  This section provides important improvements to legal services for 
immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and 
other crimes. This provision authorizes organizations receiving funds 
from the Legal Services Corporation to use the funds including Legal 
Services funds to represent any victim of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, trafficking or other crimes listed under the U visa provisions 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Across the country, many 
immigrant victims have nowhere to turn for legal help. This section 

[[Page S13754]]

allow Legal Services Corporation-funded programs to represent victims 
in any type of case, including family law, public benefits, health, 
housing, immigration, restraining orders, and other legal matters, 
regardless of the victim's immigration status.

                              Section 805

  This section assures that self-petitioners under the Act and their 
children are guaranteed all of the Act's aging out protections and any 
benefits they qualify for under the Child Status Protection Act of 
2002, which deals with the lengthy processing backlogs which made 
``aging out'' a significant problem for child beneficiaries who turned 
21 years old.

                              Section 813

  This section deals with cases of immigrant victims of abuse who have 
been ordered removed, or who are subject to expedited removal if they 
leave the U.S. and attempt to reenter the country later. Once they are 
reinstated in removal proceedings, they cannot obtain relief under 
current law, even if they have a pending application for such relief. 
This section makes clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
Attorney General, and the Secretary of State have discretion to consent 
to a victim's reapplication for admission after a previous order of 
removal, deportation, or exclusion.

                              Section 814

  This section gives the Department of Homeland Security statutory 
authority to grant work authorization to approved self-petitioners 
under the Act. This provision will streamline a petitioner's ability to 
receive work authorization, without having to rely solely upon deferred 
action as the mechanism through which petitioners receive work 
  The section also grants work authorization to abused spouses of 
persons admitted under the A, E-3, G, or H non-immigrant visa programs. 
These spouses have legal permission to live in the United States under 
their spouses' visas, but they are not entitled to work authorization 
under current law. The spouses and their children are completely 
dependent on the abuser for their immigration status and financial 
support, and they often have nowhere to turn for help. Financial 
dependence on their abusers is a primary reason why battered women are 
often reluctant to cooperate in domestic violence criminal cases. With 
employment authorization, many abused spouses protected by this section 
will be able to work legally, and can have a source of income 
independent of their abusers.
  Requests for work authorization by these abused spouses will be 
handled under the procedures for petitioners under the Act and the 
specially trained VAWA unit at the Vermont Service Center will 
adjudicate these requests.
  The VAWA unit employs specially-trained adjudicators who handle 
petitions filed by at-risk applicants for relief under the Act, for T 
visas, for U visas, for adjustment of status and employment 
authorizations, as well as protections under the Haitian Refugee 
Immigrant Fairness Act and Sections 202 and 203 of the Nicaraguan 
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The unit also deals with 
waivers for battered spouses, parole for their children granted VAWA 
cancellation, and parole for approved petitioners under the Act.

                              Section 818

  This section extends confidentiality protections to the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of 
State. Under these provisions, immigration enforcement agents and 
government officials may not use information furnished by an abuser, 
crime perpetrator or trafficker to make an adverse determination on the 
admissibility or deportability of an individual. One of the goals of 
this section is to ensure that these government officials do not 
initiate contact with abusers, call abusers as witnesses, or rely on 
information from abusers to apprehend, detain and attempt to remove 
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, or other 
  This section gives the specially trained VAWA unit the discretion to 
refer victims to non-profit non-governmental organizations to obtain a 
range of needed assistance and services. Referrals should be made to 
programs with expertise in providing assistance to immigrant victims of 
violence and can be made only after obtaining written consent from the 
immigrant victim.
  The section also requires the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Justice to provide guidance to officers and employees who 
have access to confidential information under this section in order to 
protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and 
other crimes from harm that could result from inappropriate disclosure 
of confidential information.

                              Section 827

  This section deals with issues under the Real ID Act of 2005 which 
imposes a new national requirement that all applicants for driver's 
licenses or state identification cards must furnish their physical 
residential address in order to obtain a federally valid license or 
identification card. The current requirement jeopardizes victims of 
violence who may be living in confidential shelters for battered women, 
or fleeing their abuser. The section instructs the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to give 
special consideration to these victims by allowing them to use an 
alternate safe address in lieu of their residence. Our goal here is to 
guarantee the continuing protection and necessary mobility for these 
women and their families.

                              Section 831

  This section is intended to deter abusive U.S. citizens from using 
the fiance visa process and to help foreign fiances obtain information 
about their prospective U.S. citizen spouse that can help them protect 
themselves against domestic violence. Citizens filing K visa fiance 
petitions will be required to disclose certain criminal convictions on 
the K visa application for a fiance or spouse.
  In addition, this section requires the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of State to develop an information pamphlet for K visa applicants on 
the legal rights and available resources for immigrant victims of 
domestic violence.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, 
approved by the Senate today contains an important provision that is 
intended to protect women who have already been victimized once by 
sexual assault from being assaulted again by either the deadly AIDS 
virus or the legal system which may deny them potentially life-saving 
  Section 102 of VAWA now encourages States to implement laws that 
provide victims of sexual assault and rape the opportunity to know if 
the person indicted for the assault is infected with HIV. This new 
provision will require the Attorney General to reduce the amount of 
funding provided under Section 102 by 5 percent to a State or local 
government that has not demonstrated that laws are in place to allow a 
victim to request that a defendant, against whom an information or 
indictment is presented for a crime in which by force or threat of 
force the perpetrator compels the victim to engage in sexual activity, 
be tested for HIV disease if the nature of the alleged crime is such 
that the sexual activity would have placed the victim at risk of 
becoming infected with HIV. The defendant must undergo the test not 
later than 48 hours after the date on which the information or 
indictment is presented, and as soon thereafter as is practicable the 
results of the test must be made available to the victim. As medically 
appropriate, the victim may request follow-up testing of the defendant. 
If a State or local government does not currently allow victims of 
sexual assault such protections, assurances must be made to the 
Attorney General that the state legislature will bring their laws into 
compliance before the end of their next session or within 2 years. The 
5 percent penalty will not go into effect until the expiration of the 
two year extension
  The bill will also now allow Federal VAWA funds to be used to pay for 
HIV testing of sexual assault perpetrators and notification and 
counseling programs.
  These provisions are desperately needed to address a real, grievous 
injustice that victims of sexual assault are facing in many states.
  In the summer of 1996, a 7-year-old girl was brutally raped by a 57-
year-old aged man who later told police he was infected with HIV. The 
little girl and

[[Page S13755]]

her 5-year-old brother had been lured to a secluded, abandoned building 
in the East New York section of Brooklyn. The man raped and sodomized 
the girl. Her brother, meanwhile, was beaten, tied up, and forced to 
witness his sister's rape. After the man's arrest, the defendant 
refused to be tested for the AIDS virus by the Brooklyn District 
Attorney's office. His refusal to take the test was permitted under 
State law.

  In the spring of 2002, Ramell Rodgers repeatedly raped ``Jane,'' a 
female New York cab driver at gunpoint. The New York Daily News 
reported at the time that ``Rodgers is in jail awaiting trial, while 
`Jane' spends her days vomiting from drugs she takes to stave off 
sexually transmitted diseases she may have contracted in the attack. 
Officials say DNA evidence links Rodgers to the March 31 assault. 
According to sources close to the case, he has even admitted guilt. But 
he is not required to be tested for diseases until he is formally 
  ``Jane'' is determined to change the law to protect others who have 
been victimized by rape and sexual assault. Disguised in a scarf, wig 
sunglasses, she spoke at a New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers 
press conference:

       As a precaution, I have to take ``four different medicines 
     [to help protect against HIV, chlamydia, herpes and other 
     STDs], and I was told that, unless this guy volunteers for 
     the test, I had to wait until he was convicted.'' She added: 
     ``If you are assaulted, you should have the right to know 
     whether or not this person has infected you with anything.

  One November evening in 2002, Doris Stewart, who was then 64, was 
awakened from her sleep when she heard a knock at her front door. When 
she went to the door, a man forced his way inside, then raped, 
sodomized and robbed her. Stewart's assault was just the beginning of 
her emotional distress. She harbors fears that her assailant may have 
HIV, but she has no way of knowing with certainty because Alabama is 
another of the few States that do not require testing of rape suspects 
for HIV. Stewart, who was advised by rape counselors to wait about 2 
months before being tested, lived with fear of the unknown for months 
because it can take at least 3 to 6 months for HIV to be detected after 
infection. ``Everybody I talk to thinks it's so unfair that there's no 
law in Alabama,'' said Stewart who has attempted to change the state 
law to protect future rape victims.
  There are countless stories of other women and children who have been 
victims of rape and sexual assault who have been denied access to this 
potentially life saving information. In some circumstances, rape 
defendants have even used HIV status information as a plea bargaining 
tool to reduce their sentences.
  As a practicing physician, I believe that its is vitally important 
that those who have been raped do not also become victims of HIV/AIDS, 
and that requires timely medical attention including prompt testing of 
the defendant. Treatment with AIDS drugs in the immediate aftermath, 
usually within 72 hours, of exposure can significantly reduce the 
chance of infection. However, because of the toxicity and long-term 
side effects, these drugs should not be administered for long periods 
without knowing if HIV exposure has occurred.
  Victims can not rely solely on testing themselves because it can take 
weeks, sometimes months, before HIV antibodies can be detected. 
Therefore, testing the assailant is the only timely manner in which to 
determine if someone has been exposed to HIV. Furthermore, rapid tests 
are now available that can diagnose HIV infection within 20 minutes 
with more than 99 percent accuracy.

  The American Medical Association supports this policy because ``early 
knowledge that a defendant is HIV infected would allow the victim to 
gain access to the ever growing arsenal of new HIV treatment options. 
In addition, knowing that the defendant was HIV infected would help the 
victim avoid contact which might put others at risk of infection.''
  While the HIV infection rate among sexual assault victims has not 
been studied, the National Rape Crisis Center estimates the rate is 
higher than the general population because the violent nature of the 
forced sexual contact increases the chances of transmission.
  I was very disappointed that the National Center for Victims of 
Crime, NCVC and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, opposed this 
provision. NCVC claimed that ``mandatory testing of sex offenders may 
not be in the best interest of the victim/survivor.'' The ACLU claimed 
that ``forced HIV testing, even of those convicted of a crime, 
infringes on constitutional rights and can only be justified by a 
compelling governmental interest. No such interest is present in the 
case of a rapist and his victim because the result of a rapist's HIV 
test, even if accurate, will not indicate whether the rape victim has 
been infected.''
  The medical facts are quite obvious why knowledge of HIV exposure is 
vital to victims of sexual assault and it is astonishing that anyone 
would argue otherwise.
  Claims that providing this information to victims would compromise 
``privacy'' are also quite shocking. Exactly whose rights are being 
protected by denying a victim of sexual assault the right to know if 
she has been exposed to the deadly AIDS virus when she was raped? If 
sufficient evidence exists to arrest and jail a rape suspect, the 
victim should have the right to request that the suspect be tested for 
  Finally, the claim that testing of indicted rapists is 
unconstitutional is also unfounded. Numerous court decisions, in fact, 
have concluded otherwise.
  In 1997, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 
constitutionality of two state laws that require sex offenders to 
undergo HIV testing. The ruling followed the case of three boys who 
forcibly sodomized a mentally-retarded 10-year-old girl. At the request 
of the girl's guardian, HIV testing was ordered for each of the 
defendants. The boys' public defender opposed such testing. The court 
ruled that the victim's need to know outweighed the defendants' rights 
to privacy and confidentiality.
  In December 1995, a Florida appeals court upheld the 
constitutionality of a state law allowing judges to order defendants 
charged with rape to submit to HIV testing. Duane Fosman was arrested 
and charged with armed sexual battery. At the request of the accuser, a 
Broward County trial judge ordered Fosman to be tested for HIV 
antibodies. Under the Florida law, a crime victim can ask a judge to 
order HIV testing of a defendant who has been charged with any one of 
12 offenses, including sexual battery. The test results are disclosed 
only to the victim, the defendant and public health authorities. Fosman 
argued that the testing and taking of his blood amounted to an 
unreasonable search that violated the fourth amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution. He also said the action violated Article I, Section 23, 
of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees a person's right to be 
free from Governmental intrusion in his private life. In addition, he 
asserted that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn't give him 
an opportunity to rebut the presumption of probable cause. A three-
judge panel of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, said Fosman's 
situation was analogous to blood and urine testing for drug or alcohol 
use. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor 
Executive's Association ruled it was constitutionally permissible to 
test railroad workers who were involved in serious train crashes. In a 
companion case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the high 
court allowed mandatory drug testing, without probable cause, of 
customs employees. Under the same rationale, the Illinois Supreme Court 
upheld a law which required HIV testing of persons convicted of 
prostitution, and a California appeals court affirmed a law requiring 
HIV testing of defendants charged with biting or transferring blood to 
a police officer. In each of the cases, the ``special needs'' of the 
public outweighed the individual's demand that probable cause be 
established, the Florida court said. ``Even if the petitioner had a 
reasonable expectation of privacy, society's interest in preventing 
members of the public from being exposed to HIV would be a sufficient 
compelling state interest to justify the infringement of that right,'' 
the court said. It found the law to be ``the least intrusive means'' to 
deal with HIV transmission because blood tests are routine and 
disclosure of test results are limited.

[[Page S13756]]

  It is my hope that those States that do not allow victims of sexual 
assault the right to know the HIV status of their attacker will update 
their laws and begin protecting the rights of the victims rather than 
the perpetrators.
  I also thank Chairman Specter and Senator Biden for including this 
important provision.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the Senate's 
passage of H.R. 3402, the Violence Against Women and Department of 
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. My comments are directed at Title 
X of the bill, the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' This provision is 
nearly identical to S. 1606, a bill of the same name that Senator 
Cornyn and I introduced earlier this year. The DNA Fingerprint Act was 
added to the Senate version of VAWA reauthorization, S. 1197, in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on a Kyl/Cornyn amendment that was accepted 
by voice vote. I am pleased to see that this provision has been 
maintained in the final bill.
  The DNA Fingerprint Act will allow State and Federal law enforcement 
to catch rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals whom it 
otherwise would be impossible to identify and arrest. The principal 
provisions of the bill make it easier to include and keep the DNA 
profiles of criminal arrestees in the National DNA Index System, where 
that profile can be compared to crime-scene evidence. By removing 
current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, the Act 
will allow the creation of a comprehensive, robust database that will 
make it possible to catch serial rapists and murderers before they 
commit more crimes.
  The impact that this act will have on preventing rape and other 
violent crimes is not merely speculative. We know from real life 
examples that an all-arrestee database can prevent many future 
offenses. In March of this year, the City of Chicago produced a case 
study of eight serial killers in that city who would have been caught 
after their first offense--rather than after their fourth or tenth--if 
an all-arrestee database had been in place. This study is included in 
the congressional record at the conclusion of my introduction of S. 
1606, at 151 Cong. Rec. S9529-9531 (July 29, 2005).
  The first example that the Chicago study cites involves serial rapist 
and murderer Andre Crawford. In March 1993, Crawford was arrested for 
felony theft. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, the State of Illinois 
would have been able to take a DNA sample from Crawford at that time 
and upload and keep that sample in NDIS, the national DNA database. But 
at that time--and until this bill may be enacted--Federal law makes it 
difficult to upload an arrestee's profiles to NDIS, and bars States 
from keeping that profile in NDIS if the arrestee is not later 
convicted of a criminal offense. As a result, Crawford's DNA profile 
was not collected and it was not added to NDIS. And as a result, when 
Crawford murdered a 37-year-old woman on September 21, 1993, although 
DNA evidence was recovered from the crime scene, Crawford could not be 
identified as the perpetrator. And as a result, Crawford went on to 
commit many more rapes and murders.
  On December 21, 1994, a 24-year-old woman was found murdered in an 
abandoned building on the 800 block of West 50th place in Chicago. DNA 
evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the 
perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's 
profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have 
been identified as the perpetrator of the September 1993 murder, and 
this December 1994 murder could have been prevented.
  On April 3, 1995, a 36-year-old woman was found murdered in an 
abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Carpenter Street in Chicago. 
DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as 
the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and 
Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he 
would have been identified as the perpetrator of the two earlier 
murders that he had committed, and this April 1995 murder could have 
been prevented.
  On July 23, 1997, a 27-year-old woman was found murdered in a closet 
of an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 51st Street in Chicago. 
DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as 
the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and 
Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he 
would have been identified as the perpetrator of the three earlier 
murders that he had committed, and this July 1997 murder could have 
been prevented.
  On December 27, 1997, a 42-year-old woman was raped in Chicago. As 
she walked down the street, a man approached her from behind, put a 
knife to her head, dragged her into an abandoned building on the 5100 
block of South Peoria Street, and beat and raped her. DNA evidence was 
recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If 
the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been 
collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as 
the perpetrator of the four earlier murders that he had committed, and 
this December 1997 rape could have been prevented.
  In June 1998, a 31-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned 
building on the 5000 block of South May Street in Chicago. DNA evidence 
was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the 
perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's 
profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have 
been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders and one 
rape that he had committed, and this June 1998 murder could have been 
  On August 13, 1998, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in an 
abandoned house on the 900 block of West 52nd Street. Her clothes were 
found in the alley. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence 
identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had 
been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 
1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the 
five earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this 
August 1998 murder could have been prevented.
  Also on August 13, 1998, a 32-year-old woman was found murdered in 
the attic of a house on the 5200 block of South Marshfield. Her body 
was decomposed, but DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence 
identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had 
been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 
1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the 
six earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this 
additional murder could have been prevented.
  On December 8, 1998, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered in a 
building on the 1200 block of West 52nd Street. She had rope marks 
around her neck and injuries to her face. DNA evidence was recovered. 
That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA 
Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected 
after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the 
perpetrator of the seven earlier murders and one rape that he had 
committed, and this December 1998 murder could have been prevented.

  On February 2, 1999, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered on the 
1300 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA 
evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint 
Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his 
March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of 
the eight earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this 
February 1999 murder could have been prevented.
  On April 21, 1999, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in the 
upstairs of an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Justine 
Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies 
Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, 
and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, 
he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the nine earlier 
murders and one rape that he had committed, and this April 1999 murder 
could have been prevented.
  And on June 20, 1999, a 41-year-old woman was found murdered in the 
attic of an abandoned building on the 1500 block of West 51st Street. 
DNA evidence was recovered from blood on a

[[Page S13757]]

nearby wall, indicating a struggle. That DNA evidence identifies 
Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, 
and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, 
he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the ten earlier 
murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder 
could have been prevented.
  As the City of Chicago case study concludes:

       In January 2000, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders 
     and 1 Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. If his DNA sample 
     had been taken on March 6, 1993, the subsequent 10 murders 
     and 1 rape would not have happened.

  The City of Chicago study goes on to discuss the cases of 7 other 
serial rapists and murders from that city. Each of these criminals had 
a prior arrest that could have been a basis for a DNA collection but 
had no prior conviction. Collectively, together with Andre Crawford, 
these 8 serial rapists and killers represent 22 murders and 30 rapes 
that could have been prevented had an all-arrestee database been in 
  The DNA Fingerprint Act eliminates current Federal statutory 
restrictions that prevent states from adding and keeping arrestee 
profiles in NDIS. In effect, the Act would make it possible to build a 
comprehensive, robust national all-arrestee DNA database.
  Here is how the DNA Fingerprint Act works. First, the Act eliminates 
current Federal statutory restrictions that prevent an arrestee's 
profile from being included in NDIS at the same time that fingerprints 
are taken and added to the national database. Under current law, as 
soon as someone is arrested, fingerprints can be taken as part of the 
booking procedure and uploaded to the national database. But DNA cannot 
be uploaded until the arrestee is charged in an indictment or 
information, which can take weeks. Allowing local authorities to 
collect and upload DNA at the same time as fingerprints--as part of a 
unified procedure--establishes a clear and straightforward process, 
making it easier and thus more likely that states will move to an all-
arrestee database.
  Second, current law places the burden on the State to remove an 
arrestee DNA sample from NDIS if the arrestee later is acquitted or 
charges are dismissed. The U.S. Justice Department has criticized this 
as an unwieldy requirement to impose on State labs--it effectively 
requires lab administrators to track the progress of individual 
criminal cases. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, an arrestee will be 
required to take the initiative to have his profile removed form NDIS 
if he does not want it compared to future crime-scene evidence. The 
arrestee will be required to file a certified copy of a final court 
order establishing that all indexable charges have been dismissed, have 
resulted in acquittal, or that no charges were filed within the 
applicable time period. This is the same system that some States use if 
an arrestee wants to have an arrest struck from his record. And it is 
more restrictive of law enforcement than the rule for fingerprints--
there is no expungement of fingerprints from the national database, 
even if the arrestee is acquitted or charges are dismissed.
  The bureaucratic burden imposed by the current system discourages 
States from creating and maintaining comprehensive, all-arrestee DNA 
databases. It also effectively precludes the creation of a genuine 
national all-arrestee database; only convicts' DNA profiles can be kept 
in the national database over the long term.
  Some critics have complained that this expungement provisions in the 
DNA Fingerprint Act do not require expungement for State offenses that 
have no statute of limitations--i.e., for offenses for which the 
``applicable time period'' does not expire. Others have complained that 
some States may not make certified court orders available for all of 
the scenarios under which expungement is contemplated under this bill. 
The answer to all of these complaints is that these are questions for 
the States to resolve. If a state chooses to abolish its statute of 
limitations for murder, rape, or other crimes, that is the State's 
decision to make. Certainly a person arrested for a serious crime in a 
State with no statute of limitation for the offense would be more 
significantly burdened the fact that he may be subject to further 
arrest and prosecution at any time than by the fact that his DNA is in 
the national database and may identify him if he commits a crime. 
Similarly, it is up to the States to decide when certified court orders 
should be made available to memorialize particular events. All that the 
DNA Fingerprint Act requires is that if the State does make such an 
order available to an arrestee--for example, for purposes of having an 
arrest struck from his record--then the arrestee could also use that 
order to have his DNA profile removed from NDIS.
  Third, the DNA Fingerprint Act would allow expanded use of Federal 
DNA grants. Current law only allows these grants to be used to build 
databases of convicted felons. The DNA Fingerprint Act permits these 
grants to be used to analyze and database any DNA sample whose 
collection is permitted by State or local law.
  Fourth, the DNA Fingerprint Act allows the Federal Government to take 
and keep DNA samples from Federal arrestees and from non-U.S. persons 
who are detained under Federal authority. (A ``United States person'' 
is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence. See 50 U.S.C. 1801(i).) The act gives the Attorney 
General the authority to issue regulations requiring the collection of 
such DNA profiles--including requiring other Federal agencies to 
collect the profiles. As the National Immigration Law Center noted in 
its October commentary on this section of the Act, ``[u]nder this 
provision, the attorney general could authorize the Dept. of Homeland 
Security and its immigration agencies to collect DNA samples from 
immigrants who are arrested and `non-United States persons' who are 
detained under the authority of the United States.'' And as the NILC's 
commentary also notes, the word ```detained' covers a wide spectrum of 
circumstances. The dictionary definition of `detained' is to keep from 
proceeding or to keep in custody or temporary confinement.''
  Finally, the act tolls the statute of limitations for Federal sex 
offenses. Current law generally tolls the statute of limitations for 
felony cases in which the perpetrator is implicated in the offense 
through DNA testing. The one exception to this tolling is the sexual-
abuse offenses in chapter 109A of title 18. When Congress adopted 
general tolling, it left out chapter 109A, apparently because those 
crimes already are subject to the use of ``John Doe'' indictments to 
charge unidentified perpetrators. The Justice Department has made 
clear, however, that John Doe indictments are ``not an adequate 
substitute for the applicability of [tolling].'' The Department has 
criticized the exception in current law as ``work[ing] against the 
effective prosecution of rapes and other serious sexual assaults under 
chapter 109A,'' noting that it makes ``the statute of limitation rules 
for such offenses more restrictive that those for all other Federal 
offenses in cases involving DNA identification.'' The DNA Fingerprint 
Act corrects this anomaly by allowing tolling for chapter 109A 
  Further evidence of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive, 
robust DNA database is available from the recent experience of the 
United Kingdom. The British have taken the lead in using DNA to solve 
crimes, creating a database that now includes 2,000,000 profiles. Their 
database has now reached the critical mass where it is big enough to 
serve as a highly effective tool for solving crimes. In the U.K., DNA 
from crime scenes produces a match to the DNA database in 40 percent of 
all cases. This amounted to 58,176 cold hits in the United Kingdom 
2001. (See generally ``The Application of DNA Technology in England and 
Wales,'' a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice.) A 
broad DNA database works. The same tool should be made available in the 
United States.
  Some critics of DNA databasing argue that a comprehensive database 
would violate criminal suspects' privacy rights. This is simply untrue. 
The sample of DNA that is kept in NDIS is what is called ``junk DNA''--
it is impossible to determine anything medically sensitive from this 
DNA. For example, this DNA does not allow the tester to determine if 
the donor is susceptible to particular diseases. The

[[Page S13758]]

Justice Department addressed this issue in its statement of views on S. 
1700, a DNA bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress (See Letter 
of William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the Honorable 
Orrin Hatch, April 28, 2004):

       [T]here [are no] legitimate privacy concerns that require 
     the retention or expansion of these [burdensome expungement 
     provisions]. The DNA identification system is already subject 
     to strict privacy rules, which generally limit the use of DNA 
     samples and DNA profiles in the system to law enforcement 
     identification purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)-(c). 
     Moreover, the DNA profiles that are maintained in the 
     national index relate to 13 DNA sites that do not control any 
     traits or characteristics of individuals. Hence, the 
     databased information cannot be used to discern, for example, 
     anything about an individual's genetic illnesses, disorders, 
     or dispositions. Rather, by design, the information the 
     system retains in the databased DNA profiles is the 
     equivalent of a ``genetic fingerprint'' that uniquely 
     identifies an individual, but does not disclose other facts 
     about him.

  In its September 29 Statement of Views on S. 1197, this year's Senate 
VAWA bill, the Justice Department commented favorably on the inclusion 
of the DNA Fingerprint Act in that bill. The Department noted:

       Title X of the bill contains provisions we strongly support 
     that will strengthen the ability of the Nation's justice 
     systems to identify and prosecute sexually violent offenders 
     and other criminals through the use of the DNA technology. 
     These reforms have generally been proposed or endorsed by the 
     Department of Justice in previous communications to Congress. 
     See Letter from Assistant Attorney General William E. 
     Moschella to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch concerning H.R. 
     3214, at 3-7 (April 28, 2004); Letter from Assistant Attorney 
     General William E. Moschella to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 
     concerning S. 1700, at 5-6 (April 28, 2004).
       Section 1002 would remove unjustified restrictions on the 
     DNA profiles that can be included in the National DNA Index 
     System (``NDIS''), including elimination of language that 
     generally excludes from NDIS the DNA profiles of arrestees. 
     Section 1003 is a parallel amendment to allow the use of DNA 
     backlog elimination funding to analyze DNA samples collected 
     under applicable legal authority, not limited (as currently 
     is the case) to DNA samples collected from convicted 
     offenders. Section 1004 would authorize the Attorney General 
     to extend DNA sample collection to Federal arrestees and 
     detainees. A number of States (including California, 
     Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana) already have authorized 
     arrestee DNA sample collection under their laws. Section 1004 
     would create legal authority to extend this beneficial reform 
     to the Federal jurisdiction. Section 1005 would strike 
     language in 18 U.S.C. section 3297 that currently makes that 
     provision's statute of limitations tolling rule for cases 
     involving DNA identification uniquely inapplicable to sexual 
     abuse offenses under chapter 109A of the Federal criminal 
       In one respect, the amendments in section 1002, which are 
     absolutely critical to the future development and 
     effectiveness of the DNA identification system in the United 
     States, fall short of our recommendations. They moderate 
     existing expungement provisions requiring the removal of DNA 
     profiles from NDIS in certain circumstances, but do not 
     completely repeal the expungement provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
     14132(d), as we have recommended. Paragraph (2) of section 
     1002 should be amended so that it simply repeals subsection 
     (d) of 42 U.S.C. 14132. We have previously observed:
       ``States usually do not expunge fingerprint records . . . 
     if the defendant is not convicted, or if the conviction is 
     ultimately overturned, nor are they required to remove 
     fingerprint records in such cases from the national . . . 
     criminal history records systems. There is no reason to have 
     a contrary Federal policy mandating expungement for DNA 
     information. If the person whose DNA it is does not commit 
     other crimes, then the information simply remains in a secure 
     database and there is no adverse effect on his life. But if 
     he commits a murder, rape, or other serious crime, and DNA 
     matching can identify him as the perpetrator, then it is good 
     that the information was retained.''

     Letter from Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella 
     to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch concerning H.R. 3214, supra, 
     at 5; see 150 Cong. Rec. S10914-15 (Oct. 9, 2004) (remarks of 
     Senator Cornyn).
       We note with approval that the Committee has made the 
     salutary reforms of title X that expand the collection and 
     indexing of DNA samples and information generally applicable, 
     and has not confined the application of these reforms to 
     cases involving violent felonies or some other limited class 
     of offenses. The experience with DNA identification over the 
     past fifteen years has provided overwhelming evidence that 
     the efficacy of the DNA identification system in solving 
     serious crimes depends upon casting a broad DNA sample 
     collection net to produce well-populated DNA databases. For 
     example, the DNA profile which solves a rape through database 
     matching very frequently was not collected from the 
     perpetrator based upon his prior conviction for a violent 
     crime, but rather based upon his commission of some property 
     offense that was not intrinsically violent. As a result of 
     this experience, a great majority of the States, as well as 
     the Federal jurisdiction, have adopted authorizations in 
     recent years to collect DNA samples from all convicted 
     felons--and in some cases additional misdemeanant categories 
     as well--without limitation to violent offenses. See, e.g., 
     42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(l). The principle is equally applicable 
     to the collection of DNA samples from non-convicts, such as 
     arrestees. By rejecting any limitation of the proposed 
     reforms to cases involving violent felonies or other limited 
     classes, the Committee has soundly maximized their value in 
     solving rapes, murders, and other serious crimes.

(Letter of William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the 
Honorable Arlen Specter, September 29, 2005.)
  I note with pride that in addition to receiving the strong support of 
the Justice Department, the DNA Fingerprint Act is endorsed by the 
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, Debbie and Rob Smith, and the 
California District Attorneys Association. I include in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks letters from these individuals and 
organizations supporting the DNA Fingerprint Act.
  I would also like to comment on an issue that I chose not to address 
in the DNA Fingerprint Act but that I may need to address in future 
legislation. This matter concerns the efficient use of the limited 
Federal dollars available for offender DNA analysis. Some State crime 
laboratories recently have been required to remove criminal offender 
profiles from the national DNA database system because of Federal 
regulations that require a 100 percent technical review of offender DNA 
samples tested by private DNA laboratories, rather than review of a 
random sampling. Given that private laboratories must meet the same 
accreditation and quality assurance standards as public laboratories in 
order to test samples for CODIS, and given that these quality assurance 
standards include the same reviews of DNA analysis reports which are 
required of public laboratories, I question why the additional 100 
percent review is required.
  Moreover, offender DNA samples are not themselves considered 
evidence. After matched to an unsolved case on CODIS, regulations 
require that the offender sample be reanalyzed to confirm the match and 
then a new sample is collected from the suspect and tested anew to 
reconfirm the match. DNA cases with named suspects tested by accredited 
private laboratories are routinely brought directly to court without 
the duplicated public laboratory review requirement. If these private 
laboratories can be trusted to perform quality analysis for the 
thousands of DNA cases that have resulted in conviction for over 15 
years, then it stands to reason that they could also be trusted with 
database samples which will be reanalyzed twice after a match is made.
  While I understand the concern that potential incorrect results from 
an offender's sample could lead to a missed opportunity to solve a 
crime, I also am concerned about the potential for additional crimes to 
occur while an offender's profile is queued in a laboratory review 
backlog. It has been brought to my attention that there are other 
forensic disciplines, such as drug chemistry, in which laboratories use 
statistically based formulas to achieve a high degree of certainty 
without requiring a 100 percent review of all samples. I also am aware 
that the National Institute of Justice already requires that outsourced 
DNA samples include a requirement for five percent of a given batch to 
be blind samples.
  This duplicated requirement for review of samples tested at private 
laboratories appears to be an inefficient use of federal funds and, 
more importantly, delays justice for victims seeking a name for their 
attacker. Before--and ideally, instead of--my introducing legislation 
to address what appears to be a non-statutory problem, I would suggest 
that the Attorney General and the FBI reevaluate the necessity for this 
regulation. The Justice Department also ought to consider the 
possibility of permitting accredited private laboratories limited but 
direct ability to upload data to the national DNA Index System, similar 
to the permission granted to private laboratories in the United 
Kingdom's DNA database system.
  Finally, I would like to thank those who have made it possible to 
enact the

[[Page S13759]]

DNA Fingerprint Act as part of this year's VAWA reauthorization bill. 
This includes my colleague, Senator Cornyn, with whom I introduced S. 
1606 and who offered the Kyl amendment on my behalf at the Judiciary 
Committee's executive meeting; Chip Roy and Reed O'Connor of Senator 
Cornyn's staff; and Lisa Owings and Brett Tolman of Chairman Specter's 
staff. It is my understanding that absent some aggressive staffing by 
Mr. Tolman at various stages of the legislative process, the effort to 
have the DNA Fingerprint Act enacted into law as part of VAWA this year 
would not have succeeded. His contribution is duly noted and 
  I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the 
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Rape, Abuse & Incest National


                                  Washington, DC, August 24, 2005.
     Senator Jon Kyl,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for introducing the DNA 
     Fingerprint Act of 2005 and for your continuing leadership in 
     the crucial effort to expand the use of DNA to fight crime. 
     RAINN is pleased to offer its support for this important 
       The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) is the 
     nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization. RAINN 
     created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline and 
     also publicizes the hotline's free, confidential services; 
     educates the public about sexual assault; and leads national 
     efforts to improve services to victims and ensure that 
     rapists are brought to justice.
       The Debbie Smith Act provisions of the Justice for All Act, 
     which Congress passed last year due, in large measure, to 
     your leadership, made great progress in expanding the 
     nation's use of DNA evidence to identify criminals. As the 
     DNA evidence from 542,000 backlogged crimes is analyzed, and 
     as states collect more DNA samples from convicted offenders, 
     the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) databases 
     continue to grow. With each record added, the potential to 
     identify the perpetrators of future crimes expands as well.
       The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, as introduced by Senator 
     Cornyn and yourself, will make it easier to include and 
     retain the DNA profiles of criminal arrestees in the National 
     DNA Index System (NDIS). The DNA Fingerprint Act will 
     eliminate the current restrictions that prevent an arrestee's 
     profile from being included in NDIS as soon as he is charged 
     in a pleading. The legislation encourages law enforcement to 
     take DNA from those arrested for violent crimes, and allows 
     these profiles to be uploaded to NDIS.
       By improving the value of NDIS, which can be compared to 
     crime-scene evidence across the country, law enforcement will 
     be able to identify--and apprehend, convict and incarcerate 
     countless serial rapists and murderers before they commit 
     additional crimes.
       Your legislation makes other valuable changes to current 
     law, by expanding the use of CODIS grants to build arrestee 
     databases; giving the Attorney General the authority to 
     develop regulations for collecting DNA profiles from federal 
     arrestees and detainees; and tolling the statute of 
     limitations for Federal sex offenses when DNA evidence is 
     available, which will allow prosecution to proceed once a 
     match is made to a perpetrator.
       The bill is mindful of the fact that police, like everyone, 
     occasionally make mistakes. For those times when an innocent 
     person is mistakenly charged, the bill appropriately provides 
     the exonerated person a means of expunging his DNA profile 
     from the database.
       RAINN believes that the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 makes 
     important changes to current law, and will significantly 
     enhance law enforcement's ability to identify and capture 
     serial violent criminals. By making it easier to catch 
     criminals, while still protecting the rights of the innocent, 
     the DNA Fingerprint Act will make our nation safer. We will 
     urge all members of Congress to support this legislation.
       Once again, thank you for your important, and effective, 
     work fighting violent crime. I would also like to offer a 
     note of praise for your counsel, Joe Matal, whose work on DNA 
     policy has been invaluable.
           Best regards,
                                                  Scott Berkowitz,
     President and Founder.

                                              H-E-A-R-T, Inc.,

                             Williamsburg, VA, September 19, 2005.
     Senator Jon Kyl,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: My husband, Rob and I have truly come to 
     appreciate the work you do on a continuing basis to help 
     victims of crime. Most recently, your introduction of the DNA 
     Fingerprint Act of 2005 is a wonderful addition to these 
     efforts. Our organization, H-E-A-R-T, Inc., stands fully 
     behind this important piece of legislation.
       Your leadership was a major factor in the passage of the 
     Justice for All Act of 2004, which with the provisions of the 
     Debbie Smith Act portion of the bill, provided a boost to our 
     nation's use of DNA evidence to fight crime.
       Your legislation will help to expand the use of CODIS 
     grants, which will help to build the arrestee database. It 
     will improve NDIS which enables law enforcement across this 
     great country to be more efficient in apprehending and 
     convicting the ``right'' person. It will also limit the 
     incidents of wrongful arrest, while enabling those who are 
     exonerated to have their samples expunged from the database.
       As a victim of rape, I salute both you and Senator Cornyn 
     for introducing this legislation. There will also be 
     countless other victims who will one day thank you both if 
     you succeed in passing this very important bill.
       H-E-A-R-T, Inc. will stand behind you and this bill and 
     will encourage others in Congress to join in this fight 
     against crime. Rob and I want to once again thank you 
     personally for your efforts in putting away violent 
           With the highest of regards,
     Debbie Smith.

                                                 October 11, 2005.
     Re Request To Support the Federal DNA Fingerprint Act

     The Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sensenbrenner: The California District 
     Attorneys Association (CDAA) strongly supports the VAWA 
     reauthorization bill. CDAA represents 58 elected district 
     attorneys, eight elected city attorneys, and almost 3,000 
     deputy prosecutors throughout California. The VAWA 
     reauthorization bill contains several provisions that are of 
     critical need to prosecutors and the rest of law enforcement. 
     In particular, the measure contains the ``DNA Fingerprint 
     Act'' which would greatly enhance investigators' ability to 
     identity suspects of violent crimes and prosecutors' ability 
     to hold them fully accountable. Therefore, CDAA respectfully 
     urges you to include this important public safety amendment 
     in your final conference report.
       DNA technology is one of the most powerful criminal justice 
     tools available. This technology is able to positively 
     identify criminal offenders, including murderers and rapists, 
     who may be mere suspects in criminal investigations or who 
     have not yet been linked to a crime due to lack of other 
     evidence. DNA technology should be used to its fullest 
     capability so that prosecutors are able to hold offenders 
     accountable for their crimes and prevent innocent people from 
     becoming victimized.
       The Federal DNA Act will allow states to take advantage of 
     such advances. It will expand the federal DNA database to 
     include information collected from arrestees and convicted 
     felons. The federal database will include both samples 
     collected by federal investigators as well as samples that 
     are uploaded by states like California into the National DNA 
     index a suspect is arrested or convicted. The Act will 
     significantly expand the DNA information that is available to 
     states and to the federal government for the prosecution of 
     state and federal crimes.
       The Federal DNA Act is particularly important to California 
     prosecutors. November 2005 marks the first year anniversary 
     of a CDAA drafted and sponsored DNA initiative, Proposition 
     69, that passed by overwhelming support of voters and changed 
     the landscape of the criminal justice system in California. 
     This measure requires law enforcement officials to collect 
     DNA samples from all convicted felons, from misdemeanor sex 
     offenders, from all murder and violent sex offender arrestees 
     and, beginning in 2009, from all felon arrestees. So far, 
     this has increased the California database to nearly 500,000 
     DNA profiles. This means that more profiles are available to 
     be compared to crime scene evidence, and since a great 
     majority of convicted felons are repeat offenders, 
     particularly sex offenders, this will enable more cases to be 
       California now collects DNA samples from arrestee murder 
     and rape suspects, and in 2009, will collect samples from all 
     felon arrestees. The Federal DNA Act will give other states 
     and the federal government access to the California's 
     arrestee database. Furthermore, it will give California 
     access to DNA profiles analyzed by other states with arrestee 
     databases and to the profiles of arrestees analyzed by the 
     federal government. Without the arrestee provision in the 
     Federal DNA Act, arrestee DNA profiles can only be used by 
     the state which collects them, so that the ability to 
     maximize the benefits of this extraordinary national crime 
     fighting technology will be completely wasted. This is a 
     dangerous proposition considering many of the most violent 
     sex offenders travel from state to state to commit crimes and 
     avoid prosecution. The technology exists to identify and 
     track these criminals and it would be a shame to not utilize 
       In drafting Proposition 69, CDAA included an expungement 
     provision, giving criminal suspects the ability to make a 
     showing to the courts to get their samples removed from the 
     database. Furthermore, CDAA is in the process of creating an 
     easy-to-use form for suspects to fill out and file with the 
     courts to assist those who claim their samples do not belong 
     in the database. This burden appropriately belongs on 
     criminal suspects, who are the only ones aware of the entire 
     breadth of their own criminal history.

[[Page S13760]]

       If Proposition 69 included an expungement process that was 
     automatic rather than triggered by a petition filed by a 
     suspect, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce. Law 
     enforcement officials would have to thoroughly investigate 
     each and every aspect of a suspect's criminal history, which 
     would include the burden to discover whether the suspect had 
     ever committed any qualifying crime in any other state. This 
     would increase the workload tremendously for law enforcement 
     officials who are already struggling to do their jobs with 
     limited resources. On the other hand, a suspect should be 
     aware of his or her complete criminal background without this 
     same burden and should be willing to bring this information 
     forward with any claim that they should be excluded from the 
       If this burden were placed on the prosecution instead, 
     these same dilemmas would exist. Furthermore, without any 
     real justification the prosecution could be accused of 
     delaying the expungement process in order to have the testing 
     completed. If a ``hit'' were to occur during a legislatively 
     mandated expungement process, it would likely cause recusal 
     of the prosecution's office or possible suppression of DNA 
     evidence--which would defeat the usefulness of DNA as a crime 
     fighting tool. Placing the burden on the courts, presents the 
     same sort of challenges. In fact, courts are not even aware 
     of arrestee samples until a criminal case has been filed.
       The Federal DNA Act was drafted with an expungement 
     procedure similar to California's. The Act does not require 
     states to expunge profiles unless suspects are able to make a 
     showing that all charges against them were dismissed or 
     resulted in an acquittal, or that no charges were filed 
     within the applicable time period.
       Lastly, the Federal DNA Act provides states with DNA 
     backlog elimination grants so that states can clear backlogs 
     of DNA samples that await analysis. These resources will help 
     solve crimes that were committed even decades ago by matching 
     DNA evidence left behind at crime scenes, like saliva from 
     cigarette butts or strands of hair, to the database. Cold 
     cases will be closed and those who have escaped justice will 
     finally be prosecuted. Ultimately, this provision will 
     identify and remove dangerous offenders from the streets and 
     make our neighborhoods safer.
       Thank you for your leadership in public safety. Please feel 
     free to contact me anytime regarding this or any other 
     criminal justice matter.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     David LaBahn,
                                    Executive Director, California
                                   District Attorneys Association.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to 
my colleagues for passing for the second time this session, the 
Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Once again the Senate has spoken 
loudly and clearly that domestic violence and sexual assault are 
serious, public crimes that must be addressed. Today's bill is a 
tremendous compromise measure that merges the comprehensive, Senate-
passed Violence Against Women Act, S. 119, with the House of 
Representative's Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act 
bill, H.R. 3402. This merger followed hours of bipartisan, bicameral 
negotiations. Compromises and edits were made, and what emerges is a 
balanced bill that strikes the right balance between rejuvenating core 
programs, making targeted improvements, and responsibly expanding the 
Violence Against Women Act to reach the needs of America's families.
  The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the 
beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by 
domestic violence and sexual assault. While not the single cause, this 
commitment has made our streets and homes safer. Since the Act's 
passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent 
incidents of rape are down by 60 percent and the number of women killed 
by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent. Today, more 
than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. 
And since we passed the Act in 1994, over a million women have found 
justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protection 
  This is a dramatic change from a decade ago. Back then, violence in 
the household was treated as a ``family matter'' rather than a criminal 
justice issue. Because we took action, the criminal justice system is 
much better equipped to handle domestic violence, and it is treated for 
what it is--criminal. The goal of the legislation passed here today is 
to usher the Violence Against Women Act into the 21st century. With 
this bill we attempt to look beyond the immediate crisis and take steps 
to not only punish offenders, but to also help victims get their lives 
back on track, and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault from 
occurring in the first place.
  The bill contains much to commend. To that end, I will ask unanimous 
consent to include at the close of my statement a thorough section-by-
section summary of H.R. 3402, but in the meantime, I would like to 
highlight some of the bill's provisions.
  Title I, the bill's backbone, focuses on the criminal justice system 
and includes provisions to: (1) renew and increase funding to over $400 
million a year for existing, fundamental grant programs for law 
enforcement, lawyers, judges and advocates; (2) stiffen existing 
criminal penalties for repeat federal domestic violence offenders; and 
(3) appropriately update the criminal law on stalking to incorporate 
new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS.
  Notably, our bill reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocates, 
``CASA,'' a nationwide volunteer program to help children in the 
judicial system. Children are doubly impacted by family violence--both 
as observers of, and recipients of abuse. Court Appointed Special 
Advocates fit uniquely into the mix of services for victims of 
violence. Judges overwhelmingly report that children and families are 
better served by the involvement of a CASA volunteer on their cases. I 
hope that my colleagues see fit to fully appropriate this effective 
program, and in the future, raise the program's authorization level.
  The Violence Against Women Act has always included measures to help 
law enforcement and victim service providers reach underserved 
communities. Today's bill goes even further by creating a new, targeted 
culturally and linguistically specific service grant program. This 
provision is intended to ensure that the Act's resources reach racial 
and ethnic communities grappling with family violence and its enormous 
  The Violence Against Women Act crafts a coordinated community 
response that seeks the participation of police, judges, prosecutors, 
and the host of entities who care for the victims. Title II helps 
victim service providers by: (1) creating a new, dedicated grant 
program for sexual assault victims that will strengthen rape crisis 
centers across the country; (2) reinvigorating programs to help older 
and disabled victims of domestic violence; (3) strengthening and 
expanding existing programs for rural victims and victims in 
underserved areas; and (4) removing a current cap on funding for the 
National Domestic Violence Hotline.
  Sexual violence is a crime that affects children and adults across 
our country. Unfortunately, rape has been a crime shrouded in secrecy 
and shame. Sexual assault survivors can experience physical and 
emotional problems for years. Approximately 1,315 rape crisis centers 
across the country help victims of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, 
and incest rebuild their lives by providing a range of vital services 
to survivors. But unfortunately, many rape crisis centers are under 
funded and understaffed. They are constantly in a crisis mode, 
responding to the needs of all victims--male, female as well as 
children--and are incapable of undertaking large-scale prevention 
efforts in their communities.
  In response to this overwhelming need, our bill will provide 
increased resources to serve sexual assault victims. It includes, for 
the first time, a dedicated Federal funding stream for sexual assault 
programs through the proposed Sexual Assault Services Program, SASA. 
SASA will fund direct services to victims, including general 
intervention and advocacy, accompaniment through the medical and 
criminal justice processes, support services, and related assistance.
  Reports indicate that up to ten million children experience domestic 
violence in their homes each year. The age at which a female is at 
greatest risk for rape or sexual assault is 14. Two-thirds of all 
sexual assault victims reported to law enforcement are under 18, and 
national research suggests that 1 in 5 high-school girls is physically 
or sexually abused by a dating partner. Treating children who witness 
domestic violence, dealing effectively with violent teenage 
relationships and teaching prevention strategies to children are keys 
to ending the cycle of violence. This reauthorization takes bold steps 
to address the needs of young

[[Page S13761]]

people by renewing successful programs and creating new programs to: 
(1) promote collaboration between domestic violence experts and child 
welfare agencies; and (2) enhance to $15 million a year grants to 
reduce violence against women on college campuses.
  Critical prevention initiatives are contained in title IV, including 
programs supporting home visitations for families at risk, and 
initiatives that specifically engage men and boys in efforts to end 
domestic and sexual violence. We can no longer be satisfied with 
punishing abusers after the fact and trying to help a woman pull her 
life back together--we must end the violence before it ever starts. We 
must end it, not just mend it.
  Violence against women is a health care issue of enormous proportions 
with one in three women expected to experience such violence at some 
point in their lives. It also has enormous health consequences for 
women and children, leading to serious injuries and disease, including 
substance abuse, chronic, serious pain and sexually transmitted 
infections including HIV/AIDS. We know pregnant women are particularly 
at risk for violence with increased levels of abuse accounting for 
injuries to the mother and developing fetus. In fact, homicide is a 
leading cause of death for pregnant and recently pregnant women.
  Consequently, doctors and nurses, like police officers on the beat, 
are often the first witnesses of the devastating aftermath of abuse. 
Unfortunately, most health care providers are not currently trained on 
how to screen for, identify, document and treat or refer for violence-
related illnesses or injuries. That's why the new health care programs 
in the Act are so essential--they provide an opportunity to intervene 
much earlier in the cycle of violence, before it becomes life 
threatening, and they provide a chance to reach out to children who may 
be growing up in violent homes.
  In some instances, women face the untenable choice of returning to 
their abuser or becoming homeless. Indeed, 44 percent of the nation's 
mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. 
Efforts to ease the housing problems for battered women are contained 
in Title VI, including (1) $20 million grant programs to facilitate 
collaboration between domestic violence organizations and housing 
providers; (2) programs to combat family violence in public and 
assisted housing, including new requirements that domestic violence 
victims may not be evicted or cut off from voucher services because of 
the violence; and (3) enhancements to transitional housing resources.
  In some instances, victims of domestic violence who apply for or 
reside in public and subsidized housing are evicted or turned away 
because of the violence against them. A scream for help, a shot being 
fired, or the sound of police sirens is cited as a ``disruptive sound'' 
justifying eviction. In a recent nationwide survey, local housing and 
domestic violence attorneys across the country reported over 500 
documented cases where victims were evicted because of the domestic 
violence committed against them.
  Sections 606 and 607 of the Act provide important protections in 
public housing and the Section 8 program for victims of domestic 
violence and stalking. These sections prohibit denial of housing 
assistance based on the individual's status as a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, or stalking. With certain exceptions, they 
also prohibit terminating a victim's tenancy or rental assistance 
because of the violence against him or her. When women know they may 
lose their homes if their housing provider learns about the violence, 
they will seek to keep the abuse secret at all costs and thus, will 
often be unable to take the steps necessary to keep themselves and 
their families safe.
  While protecting victims against retaliation, Sections 606 and 607 
permit public housing authorities and private landlords to evict or end 
voucher assistance to perpetrators of domestic violence. It also 
ensures that landlords and housing providers can effectively manage 
their properties and maintain important discretionary authority. The 
Act allows landlords to bifurcate a lease to remove a perpetrator while 
maintaining a victim's tenancy and evict victims who commit other lease 
violations or if the tenancy creates an actual and imminent threat to 
the public safety. Further, the Act clarifies that landlords should not 
be held liable simply for complying with the statute. Sections 606 and 
607 benefited greatly from the input by the national associations 
representing landlords and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, including the National Association of Realtors, the 
National Multi-Housing Council, and the National Leased Housing 

  It may be useful if the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development issues guidance or regulations to assist with the 
implementation of these sections. Certain nonprofit organizations and 
other government agencies that have expertise in domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, or in housing law and 
policy, could provide valuable guidance to HUD in creating such 
guidance and regulations.
  Title VII helps abused women maintain economic security by 
establishing a national resource center to provide information to 
employers and labor organizations so that they may effectively help 
their employees who are victims of domestic violence. I had hoped that 
provisions from Senator Murray's Security and Financial Empowerment 
Act, SAFE, would have remained in the bill. This amendment would 
provide some fundamental economic protections for victims of domestic 
violence and sexual assault. Just as the Family Medical Leave Act 
protects individuals caring for a sick loved one, the SAFE Act would 
allow domestic violence victims to take time off from work to appear in 
court cases and other judicial proceedings without jeopardizing their 
employment at a time they need it the most. It is my hope that the 
Senate will revisit this issue soon.
  Immigrant women often face a difficult time escaping abuse because of 
immigration laws, language barriers, and social isolation. Title VIII 
of today's bill builds on the progress of VAWA 1994 and VAWA 2000 to 
remove obstacles hinder or prevent immigrants from fleeing domestic 
abuse and participating in prosecutions. Further, the bill expands VAWA 
relief to: (1) elder abuse victims who have been abused by adult U.S. 
citizen sons or daughters; and (2) victims of child abuse or incest who 
are less than 25 and would have qualified as child self-petitioners. It 
will allow adopted children who have been abused by an adoptive parent 
to obtain permanent residency without having to reside with the abusive 
parent for 2 years. In an important move to help battered immigrant 
women achieve desperately-needed economic stability, the bill permits 
employment authorization to battered women and abused spouses of 
certain nonimmigrants.
  Title VIII enhances immigration protection for victims of trafficking 
by removing barriers that block some victims from accessing to T and U 
visas. Title VIII also facilitates the reunion of trafficking victims 
with their family members abroad who are in danger of retaliation from 
international traffickers, and will increase access to permanent 
residency for victims of severe forms of trafficking who are 
cooperating in trafficking prosecutions. Finally, title VIII will arm 
foreign fiancees with background information about their U.S. citizen 
fiance, and will educate foreign fiancees about U.S. domestic violence 
laws and resources.
  In an effort to focus more closely on violence against Indian women, 
title IX creates a new tribal Deputy Director in the Office on Violence 
Against Women dedicated to coordinating Federal policy and tribal 
grants. It also authorizes the Office to pool funds available to tribes 
and tribal organizations in various VAWA programs. In addition, Title 
IX authorizes tribal governments to access and upload domestic violence 
and protection order data on criminal databases, as well as create 
tribal sex offender registries, and strengthens available criminal 
  No doubt, today's bill is comprehensive; it speaks to the many 
complexities presented by domestic violence and sexual assault. I am 
indebted to a whole host of groups who worked on this measure and/or 
voiced their support throughout the journey from introduction to 
passage, including the American Bar Association, the National 
Association of Attorneys General, the International Association of 
Forensic Nurses, the American Medical Association, the National 
Sheriffs Association, the National Coalition

[[Page S13762]]

Against Domestic Violence, the National Congress of American Indians, 
the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence 
Prevention Fund, Legal Momentum, the National Alliance to End Sexual 
Violence, the National Center for Victims for Crime, the National 
District Attorneys Association, the National Council on Family and 
Juvenile Court Judges, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, 
and many others. I am grateful for the work each of you does each day 
to make our families safer and healthier.
  The legislation being passed today also demonstrates Congress's 
commitment to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. 
This program has been widely credited for helping to reduce crime rates 
over the past 10 years. It was deemed a ``miraculous success'' by 
Attorney General Ashcroft, and law enforcement experts from top to 
bottom, including Attorney General Gonzalez, police chiefs, and 
sheriffs, have all testified to its effectiveness at combating crime. 
While many politicians have argued this point, the Government 
Accountability Office conclusively established a statistical link 
between COPS hiring grants and crime reductions. We know that the COPS 
program works, and the legislation we are passing today recognizes this 
fact by re-authorizing the COPS program for the next 5 years at $1.05 
billion per year.
  In addition, this legislation also updates the COPS program grant 
making authority by providing more flexibility for local agencies in 
applying for assistance. It still includes many of the hallmarks that 
attributed to its success, such as reducing redtape by allowing local 
agencies to apply directly to the Federal Government for assistance, 
and providing grants on a three-year basis to facilitate long-term 
planning. The major improvement is that agencies will now be able to 
submit one application for its various funding needs, including hiring 
officers, purchase equipment, pay officers' overtime, and other 
programs that will increase the number of officers deployed in 
community oriented policing services. Originally, agencies had to make 
separate grant applications for the various purpose areas of the 
program. In addition, it allows the COPS program to award grants for 
officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland 
security duties. Providing local agencies with this type of flexibility 
is a step forward.
  While re-authorizing the COPS program is important, the next step is 
for the appropriators to fund the program at authorized levels. Back in 
the nineties, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for state and local law 
enforcement each year. We are safer today because of these investments. 
Over the past 5 years, we have adopted a wrong-headed approach of 
cutting funding for our state and local law enforcement partners. And, 
the recently passed Commerce, Justice, Science budget allocated less 
than $800 million for state and local law enforcement assistance, and 
it zeroed out the COPS hiring program. I agree with the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association 
that these cuts leave us more vulnerable to crime and terrorism. In 
this bill, the Congress demonstrated its support for the COPS program, 
but the real test will come when we make funding decisions in the 
future. For the safety and security of the American people, I will be 
fighting for the Congress to fully fund the COPS program at the newly 
authorized levels of $1.05 billion per year.
  I have many partners here in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives who have worked tirelessly on this bill. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers were committed to 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, and spent countless hours 
working on a resolution. Our negotiations were model ones--I wish 
bicameral relations were always so easy.
  Senator Reed and Senator Allard were very helpful on the act's 
housing provisions, and Senator Enzi helped craft some of the victim 
service providers. I appreciate their assistance and help to move this 
bill forward. With respect to the Native American provisions, Senator 
McCain and Senator Dorgan provided instrumental guidance.
  Since 1990, Senator Hatch and I have worked together to end family 
violence in this country, so it is no great surprise that once again he 
worked side-by-side with us to craft today's bill. I am also deeply 
indebted to Senator Kennedy for his unwavering commitment to battered 
immigrant women and his work on the bill's immigration provisions. 
Senator Kennedy's staff, particularly Janice Kaguyutan, have been 
invaluable to this process. I also thank Senator Leahy who has long-
supported the Violence Against Women Act and, in particular, has worked 
on the rural programs and transitional housing provisions. As Ranking 
Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has consistently 
pushed forward reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and 
his staff, chief counsel Bruce Cohen, Tara Magner, and Jessica Berry 
have worked hard for passage. My final appreciation is for my very good 
friend from Pennsylvania for his commitment and leadership on this 
bill. It is a pleasure to work with Chairman Specter, and his staff 
Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones and chief counsel 
Mike O'Neill. From day one, Chairman Specter has been one of this 
bill's biggest champion. Chairman Specter is the reason a bipartisan, 
bicameral compromise measure is being passed today and I thank him.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Section-by-Section Summary of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005

       Sec. 1. Short Title.
       Sec. 2. Table of Contents.
       Sec. 3. Universal Definitions and Grant Conditions. This 
     section aggregates existing and new definitions of terms 
     applicable to the Act. (Previously, relevant definitions were 
     scattered in various Code provisions.) The section also sets 
     forth universal conditions that apply to the Act's new and 
     existing grant program.

Title I Enhancing Judicial and Law Enforcement Tools to Combat Violence 
                             Against Women

       Sec. 101. STOP (Services and Training for Officers and 
     Prosecutors) Grants Improvements. This section reauthorizes 
     the cornerstone of the Act, the STOP program, at $225,000,000 
     annually for 2007 through 2011 (it is currently authorized at 
     $185 million annually). This program provides state formula 
     grants that bring police and prosecutors in close 
     collaboration with victim services providers. Technical 
     amendments increase the focus on appropriate services for 
     underserved communities and ensure victim confidentiality.
       Sec. 102. Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforcement of 
     Protection Order Improvements. This fundamental Department of 
     Justice program is reauthorized at $75,000,000 annually for 
     2007 through 2011 (it is currently authorized at $65 million 
     annually). States and localities use this funding to develop 
     and strengthen programs and policies that encourage police 
     officers to arrest abusers who commit acts of violence or 
     violate protection orders. Amendments will provide technical 
     assistance to improve tracking of cases in a manner that 
     preserves confidentiality and privacy protections for 
     victims. Purposes are amended to encourage victim service 
     programs to collaborate with law enforcement to assist pro-
     arrest and protection order enforcement policies. In 
     addition, this section authorizes family justice centers and 
     extends pro-arrest policies to sexual assault cases.
       Sec. 103. Legal Assistance for Victims Improvement. This 
     section reauthorizes the grant program for legal services for 
     protection orders and related family, criminal, immigration, 
     administrative agency, and housing matters. It allows victims 
     of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual 
     assault to obtain access to trained attorneys and lay 
     advocacy services, particularly pro bono legal services, when 
     they require legal assistance as a consequence of violence. 
     This program has been expanded to provide services to both 
     adult and youth victims. Previously authorized at $40,000,000 
     annually, funding is set at $65,000,000 annually for 2007 
     through 2011, to be administered by the Attorney General. 
     This provision also includes an amendment to ensure that all 
     legal services organizations can assist any victim of 
     domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking without 
     regard to the victim's immigration status. The organizations 
     can use any source of funding they receive to provide legal 
     assistance that is directly related to overcoming the 
     victimization, and preventing or obtaining relief for the 
     crime perpetrated against them that is often critical to 
     promoting victim safety.
       Sec. 104. Ensuring Crime Victim Access to Legal Services. 
     This section eases access to legal services for immigrant 
     victims of violent crimes.
       Sec. 105. The Violence Against Women Act Court Training and 
     Improvements. This section creates a new program to educate 

[[Page S13763]]

     courts and court-related personnel in the areas of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual abuse and stalking. The 
     goal of this education will be to improve internal civil and 
     criminal court functions, responses, practices and 
     procedures, including the development of dedicated domestic 
     violence dockets. This section will also authorize one or 
     more grants to create general educational curricula for state 
     and tribal judiciaries to ensure that all states have access 
     to consistent and appropriate information. This section is 
     authorized at $5,000,000 for each fiscal year 2007 through 
     2011 and it is administered by the Department of Justice.
       Sec. 106. Full Faith and Credit Improvements. Technical 
     amendments are made to the criminal code to clarify that 
     courts should enforce the protection orders issued by civil 
     and criminal courts in other jurisdictions. Orders to be 
     enforced include those issued to both adult and youth 
     victims, including the custody and child support provisions 
     of protection orders. Amendment also requires protection 
     order registries to safeguard the confidentiality and privacy 
     of victims.
       Sec. 107. Privacy Protections For Victims of Domestic 
     Violence, Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Dating Violence. 
     This section creates new and badly-needed protections for 
     victim information collected by federal agencies and included 
     in national databases by prohibiting grantees from disclosing 
     such information. It creates grant programs and specialized 
     funding for federal programs to develop ``best practices'' 
     for ensuring victim confidentiality and safety when law 
     enforcement information (such as protection order issuance) 
     is included in federal and state databases. It also provides 
     technical assistance to aid states and other entities in 
     reviewing their laws to ensure that privacy protections and 
     technology issues are covered, such as electronic stalking, 
     and training for law enforcement on high tech electronic 
     crimes against women. It authorizes $5,000,000 per year for 
     2007 through 2011 to be administered by the Department of 
       Sec. 108. Sex Offender Training. Under this section, the 
     Attorney General will consult with victim advocates and 
     experts in the area of sex offender training. The Attorney 
     General will develop criteria and training programs to assist 
     probation officers, parole officers, and others who work with 
     released sex offenders. This section reauthorizes the program 
     at $3,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 109. National Stalker Database and Domestic Violence 
     Reduction. Under this section, the Attorney General may issue 
     grants to states and units of local governments to improve 
     data entry into local, state, and national crime information 
     databases for cases of stalking and domestic violence. This 
     section reauthorizes the program at $3,000,000 annually for 
     2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 110. Federal Victim Assistants. This section 
     authorizes funding for U.S. Attorney offices to hire 
     counselors to assist victims and witnesses in prosecution of 
     domestic violence and sexual assault cases. This section is 
     reauthorized for $1,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 111. Grants for Law Enforcement Training Programs. 
     This section would authorize a Department of Justice grant 
     program to help train State and local law enforcement to 
     identify and protect trafficking victims, to investigate and 
     prosecute trafficking cases and to develop State and local 
     laws to prohibit acts of trafficking. It proposes $10,000,000 
     in grants annually from 2006 to 2010.
       Sec. 112. Reauthorization of the Court-Appointed Special 
     Advocate Program. This section reauthorizes the widely-used 
     Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA). CASA is a 
     nationwide volunteer program that helps represent children 
     who are in the family and/or juvenile justice system due to 
     neglect or abuse. This provision also allows the program to 
     request the FBI conduct background checks of prospective 
     volunteers. This program is reauthorized at $12,000,000 
     annually for 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 113. Preventing Cyberstalking. To strengthen stalking 
     prosecution tools, this section amends the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) to expand the definition of a 
     telecommunications device to include any device or software 
     that uses the Internet and possible Internet technologies 
     such as voice over internet services. This amendment will 
     allow federal prosecutors more discretion in charging 
     stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet.
       Sec. 114. Updating the Federal Stalking Law. Section 114 
     improves the existing federal stalking law by borrowing state 
     stalking law language to (1) criminalize stalking 
     surveillance (this would include surveillance by new 
     technology devices such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS)); 
     and (2) to expand the accountable harm to include substantial 
     emotional harm to the victim. The provision also enhances 
     minimum penalties if the stalking occurred in violation of an 
     existing protection order.
       Sec. 115. Repeat Offender Provision. This section updates 
     the criminal code to permit doubling the applicable penalty 
     for repeat federal domestic violence offender--a sentencing 
     consequence already permissible for repeat federal sexual 
     assault offenders.
       Sec. 116. Prohibiting Dating Violence. Utilizing the Act's 
     existing definition of dating violence, section 115 amends 
     the federal interstate domestic violence prohibition to 
     include interstate dating violence.
       Sec. 117. Prohibiting Violence in Special Maritime and 
     Territorial Jurisdiction. This section tightens the 
     interstate domestic violence criminal provision to include 
     special maritime and territories within the scope of federal 
       Sec. 118. Updating Protection Order Definition in 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 534(e)(3)(B).
       Sec. 119. Grants for Outreach to Underserved Populations. 
     This grant program authorizes $2 million annually for local, 
     national, and regional information campaigns on services and 
     law enforcement resources available to victims of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

 Title II. Improving Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
                 Violence, Sexual assault and stalking

       Sec. 201. Findings
       Sec. 202. Sexual Assault Services Provision. This section 
     creates a separate and direct funding stream dedicated to 
     sexual assault services. Currently, the Act funds rape 
     prevention programs, but does not provide sufficient 
     resources for direct services dedicated solely to sexual 
     assault victims, primarily rape crisis centers. Under this 
     new program funding will be distributed by the Department of 
     Justice to states and their sexual violence coalitions. The 
     formula grant funds will assist States and Tribes in their 
     efforts to provide services to adult, youth and child sexual 
     assault victims and their family and ho1usehold members, 
     including intervention, advocacy, accompaniment in medical, 
     criminal justice, and social support systems, support 
     services, and related assistance. Funding is also provided 
     for training and technical assistance. This section 
     authorizes $50,000,000 annually for 2006-2010.
       Sec. 203. Amendments to the Rural Domestic Violence and 
     Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Program. This section 
     reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and 
     services grant programs that address violence against women 
     in rural areas. This provision renews the rural VAWA program, 
     extends direct grants to state and local governments for 
     services in rural areas and expands purpose areas to include 
     community collaboration projects in rural areas and the 
     creation or expansion of additional victim services. New 
     language expands the program coverage to sexual assault, 
     child sexual assault and stalking. It also expands 
     eligibility from rural states to rural communities, 
     increasing access to rural sections of otherwise highly 
     populated states. This section authorizes $55,000,000 
     annually for 2007 through 2011 (it is currently authorized at 
     $40 million a year).
       Sec. 204. Education, Training and Enhanced Services to End 
     Violence Against Women with Disabilities. This section 
     reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and 
     services grant programs that address violence against women 
     with disabilities. New purpose areas include construction and 
     personnel costs for shelters to better serve victims with 
     disabilities, the development of collaborative partnerships 
     between victim service organizations and organizations 
     serving individuals with disabilities and the development of 
     model programs that situate advocacy and intervention 
     services for victims within organizations serving individuals 
     with disabilities. The program is authorized at $10,000,000 
     for each fiscal year 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 205. Education, Training and Services to End Violence 
     Against and Abuse of Women Later in Life. This section 
     reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and 
     services grant programs that address violence against elderly 
     women. Grants will be distributed by the Department of 
     Justice to States, local government, nonprofit and 
     nongovernmental organizations for providing training and 
     services for domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
     assault and stalking victims age 60 and older. The program is 
     authorized at $10,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 206. Strengthening the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline. Section 206 eliminates a current funding requirement 
     that any funds appropriated to the Hotline in excess of 
     $3,000,000 be devoted entirely to a non-existent Internet 

   Title III. Services, Protection and Justice for Young Victims of 

       Sec. 301. Findings
       Sec. 302. Rape Prevention and Education. This section 
     reauthorizes the Rape Prevention and Education Program. It 
     appropriates $80,000,000 annually (its current authorization 
     level) for 2007 through 2011. Of the total funds made 
     available under this subsection in each fiscal year, a 
     minimum of $1,500,000 will be allotted to the National Sexual 
     Violence Resource Center.
       Sec. 303. Services, Education, Protection and Justice for 
     Young Victims of Violence. This section establishes a new 
     subtitle that would create four new grant programs designed 
     to address dating violence committed by and against youth.
       (1) The Services to Advocate for and Respond to Teens 
     program authorizes grants to nonprofit, nongovernmental and 
     community based organizations that provide services to teens 
     and young adult victims of domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault or stalking. This section is 
     authorized for $15,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011 and 
     will be administered by the Department of Health and Human 
       (2) The Access to Justice for Teens program is a 
     demonstration grant program to promote collaboration between 
     courts (including tribal courts), domestic violence and

[[Page S13764]]

     sexual assault service providers, youth organizations and 
     service providers, violence prevention programs, and law 
     enforcement agencies. The purposes of the collaborative 
     projects are to identify and respond to domestic violence, 
     dating violence, sexual assault and stalking committed by or 
     against teens; to recognize the need to hold the perpetrators 
     accountable; to establish and implement procedures to protect 
     teens; and to increase cooperation among community 
     organizations. This section is authorized at $5,000,000 
     annually for 2007 through 2011 to be administered by 
     Department of Justice.
       (3) The third program established under Sec. 303 is the 
     Grants for Training and Collaboration on the Intersection 
     between Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment program. It 
     provides grants to child welfare agencies, courts, domestic 
     or dating violence service providers, law enforcement and 
     other related community organizations. Grant recipients are 
     to develop collaborative responses, services and cross-
     training to enhance responses to families where there is both 
     child abuse and neglect and domestic violence or dating 
     violence. This section authorized at $5,000,000 annually 2007 
     through 2011 to be administered by the Department of Justice.
       (4) The final program established under 303 is the 
     Supporting Teens through Education and Protection program to 
     be administered by the Department of Justice to eligible 
     middle and high school schools that work with domestic 
     violence and sexual assault experts to train and counsel 
     school faculty and students.
       Sec. 304. Reauthorization of Grants to Reduce Violence 
     Against Women on Campus. This amends the existing campus 
     program to be administered by the Department of Justice on a 
     three-year grant cycle, provides more money and sets 
     parameters for training of campus law enforcement and campus 
     judicial boards. This section is authorized at $12,000,000 
     for 2007 and $15,000,000 for 2008 through 2011 (it is 
     currently authorized at $10 million).
       Sec. 305. Juvenile Justice. The overwhelming majority of 
     girls entering the juvenile justice system are victims of 
     abuse and violence, and the system must provide adequate 
     services that are tailored to girls' gender-specific needs 
     and to their experiences of abuse. These provisions amend the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to permit 
     grantees to detail gender-specific services.
       Sec. 306. Safe Havens for Children. This section continues 
     and expands a pilot Justice Department grant program aimed at 
     reducing domestic violence and child abuse during parental 
     visitation or the transfer of children for visitation by 
     expanding the availability of supervised visitation centers. 
     It reauthorizes the program for $20,000,000 annually for 2007 
     through 2011.

   Title IV. Strengthening America's Families by Preventing Violence

       Sec. 401. Findings, Purpose and Authorization for three 
     new, child-focused programs. This section creates: (1) Grants 
     to Assist Children and Youth Exposed to Violence that 
     authorizes new, collaborative programs, administered by the 
     Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice 
     in collaboration with the Administration for Children, Youth 
     and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     to provide services for children who have been exposed to 
     domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or 
     stalking for the purpose of mitigating the effects of such 
     violence. Programs authorized under this section include both 
     direct services for children and their non-abusing parent or 
     caretaker, and training/coordination for programs that serve 
     children and youth (such as Head Start, child care, and 
     after-school programs). It is authorized at $20,000,000 
     annually from 2007 through 2011.
       This section also establishes the Development of Curricula 
     and Pilot Programs for Home Visitation Projects. Home 
     visitation services are offered in many states and on some 
     military bases to provide assistance to new parents or 
     families in crisis. Home visitation services, in addition to 
     providing assistance to the parents, look for signs of child 
     abuse or neglect in the home. This provision, administered by 
     the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of 
     Justice in collaboration with the Administration for 
     Children, Youth and Families in the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, creates model training curricula and provides 
     home visitation services to help families to develop strong 
     parenting skills and ensure the safety of all family members. 
     The program is authorized at $7,000 per year for 2006-2010.
       The final new program engages men and youth in preventing 
     domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 
     stalking. It authorizes the development, testing and 
     implementation of programs to help youth and children develop 
     respectful, non-violent relationships. The grant is 
     administered by the Office on Violence Against Women at the 
     Department of Justice in collaboration with the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and eligible entities include 
     community-based youth service organizations and state and 
     local governmental entities. It is authorized at $10,000,000 
     annually for 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 402. Study Conducted by the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention. This provision authorizes $2 million 
     to the Centers for Disease Control to study the best 
     practices for reducing and preventing violence against women 
     and children and an evaluation of programs funded under this 

 Title V. Strengthening the Health Care System's Response To Domestic 
         Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking

       Sec. 501. Findings.
       Sec. 502. Purposes.
       Sec. 503. Training and Education of Health Professionals. 
     This section provides new grants to train health care 
     providers and students in health professional schools on 
     recognizing and appropriately responding to domestic and 
     sexual violence. The provision authorizes $3,000,000 each 
     year from 2007 through 2011 to be administered by the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       Sec. 504. Grants to Foster Public Health Responses to 
     Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and 
     Stalking. Section 504 provides grants for statewide and local 
     collaborations between domestic and sexual violence services 
     providers and health care providers including state hospitals 
     and public health departments. These programs would provide 
     training and education to health care providers and would 
     develop policies and procedures that enhance screening of 
     women for exposure to domestic and sexual violence, and 
     encourage proper identification, documentation and referral 
     for services when appropriate. This section is authorized at 
     $5,000,000 annually from 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 506. Research on Effective Interventions in the Health 
     Care Setting to Address Domestic Violence. Includes funding 
     for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
     Administration for Healthcare Research and Quality to 
     evaluate effective interventions within the health care 
     setting to improve abused women's health and safety and 
     prevent further victimization. This section is authorized at 
     $5,000,000 annually from 2007 through 2011.

   Title VI. Housing Opportunities and Safety for Battered Women and 

       Sec. 601. Amends the Violence Against Women Act to include 
     a title addressing housing needs of victims of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
       Sec. 41401. Findings.
       Sec. 41402. Purposes.
       Sec. 41403. Definitions.
       Sec. 41404. Collaborative Grants to Develop Long-Term 
     Housing for Victims. Modeled after successful affordable 
     housing, community development, and ``housing first'' 
     programs across the nation, this section would provide 
     $10,000,000 for the Department of Health and Human Services 
     in partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development to fund collaborative efforts to: place domestic 
     violence survivors into long-term housing as soon as 
     reasonable and safe; provide services to help individuals or 
     families find long-term housing; provide financial assistance 
     to attain long-term housing (including funds for security 
     deposits, first month's rent, utilities, down payments, 
     short-term rental assistance); provide services to help 
     individuals or families remain housed (including advocacy, 
     transportation, child care, financial assistance, counseling, 
     case management, and other supportive services); and 
     create partnerships to purchase, build, renovate, repair, 
     convert and operate affordable housing units. Funds may 
     not be directly spent on construction, modernization, or 
       Sec. 41405. Grants to Combat Violence Against Women in 
     Public and Assisted Housing. This section establishes grants 
     to assist public and Indian housing authorities, landlords, 
     property management companies and other housing providers and 
     agencies in responding appropriately to domestic and sexual 
     violence. Grants would provide education and training, 
     development of policies and practices, enhancement of 
     collaboration with victim organizations, protection of 
     victims residing in public, Indian and assisted housing, and 
     reduction of evictions and denial of housing to victims for 
     crimes and lease violations committed or directly caused by 
     the perpetrators of violence against them. The program is 
     authorized at $10,000,000 and will be administered by the 
     Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of 
       Sec. 602. Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for 
     Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault 
     or Stalking. Section 602 amends the existing transitional 
     housing program created by the PROTECT Act and administered 
     by the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of 
     Justice. This section expands the current direct-assistance 
     grants to include funds for operational, capital and 
     renovation costs. Other changes include providing services to 
     victims of dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; 
     extending the length of time for receipt of benefits to match 
     that used by HUD transitional housing programs; and updating 
     the existing program to reflect the concerns of victim 
     service providers. The provision would increase the 
     authorized funding for the grant from $30,000,000 to 
       Sec. 603. Public and Indian Housing Authority Plans 
     Reporting Requirement.
       Sec. 604. Housing Strategies.
       Sections 603 and 604 amend the Housing and Urban 
     Development (UUD) Agency reporting requirements imposed on 
     public housing applicants. Pursuant to the amendment, HUD 
     applicants must include any

[[Page S13765]]

     plans to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
     assault and stalking in their application.
       Sec. 605. Amendment to the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act. This provision amends the Homeless Management 
     Information Systems (HMIS) statute in the McKinney-Vento 
     Homelessness Assistance Act to protect the confidentiality of 
     victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault 
     and stalking receiving assistance from HUD-funded victim 
     service programs. It requires that these programs refrain 
     from disclosing personally identifying information to the 
     HMIS. HUD-funded victim service providers may disclose non-
     personally identifying information to the HMIS.
       Sec. 606. Amendments to the Low Income Housing Assistance 
     Voucher Program.
       Sec. 607. Amendments to the Public Housing Program. 
     Sections 606 and 607 amend the Low Income Housing Assistance 
     Voucher program (also known as the Section 8 or Housing 
     Choice Voucher program) and the Public Housing program to 
     state that an individual's status as a victim of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, or stalking is not an appropriate 
     basis for denial of program assistance by a public housing 
     authority. It also states that incidents of domestic 
     violence, dating violence and stalking shall not be good 
     cause for terminating a lease held by the victim. The 
     amendments specify that the authority of an owner or PHA to 
     evict or terminate perpetrators of abuse shall not be 
     limited and gives landlords and PHAs the ability to 
     bifurcate a lease to maintain the victim's tenancy while 
     evicting the perpetrator. Victims must certify their 
     status as victims by presenting appropriate documentation 
     to the PHA or owner, and the language clarifies that 
     victims can be evicted for lease violations or if their 
     tenancy poses a threat to the community.

     Title VII. Providing Economic Security for Victims of Violence

       Sec. 701. Resource Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence 
     in the Workplace. This provision authorizes the Attorney 
     General to award a grant to a private non-profit entity or 
     tribal organization for the establishment and operation of a 
     national resource center to provide information and 
     assistance to employers and labor organizations to aid 
     victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
     assault, and stalking. A million dollars would be 
     appropriated annually for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 
     support these activities.

   Title VIII. Protection of Battered and Trafficked Immigrant Women

       Sec. 801. Treatment of Spouse and Children of Victims. For 
     some trafficking victims, providing assistance in the 
     investigation or prosecution of the trafficking case can 
     endanger or traumatize the victim or her family members. The 
     ability to ensure safety of family members living abroad is 
     crucial to trafficking victims' or crime victims' well being 
     and ability to effectively assist in prosecutions. This 
     section allows T and U visa holders' spouse, children, 
     parents, and unmarried siblings under 18 to join them in the 
     United States.
       Sec. 802. Permitted Presence of Victims of Severe 
     Trafficking. This section permits trafficking victims' 
     unlawful presence in the United States only if the 
     trafficking is at least one central reason for the unlawful 
     presence. The limited exception to the unlawful presence 
     provision is identical to that afforded to non-citizen 
     survivors of domestic abuse.
       Sec. 803. Adjustment of Status for Victims of Trafficking. 
     This section shortens the adjustment time and allows 
     trafficking victims to apply for lawful permanent residency 2 
     years after receiving a T visa.
       Sec. 804. Protection and Assistance for Victims of 
     Trafficking. This section clarifies the roles and 
     responsibilities accorded to the Department of Justice and 
     the Department of Homeland Security in addressing trafficking 
     and supporting victims. Furthermore, this section clarifies 
     that ``assistance'' by trafficking victims includes 
     responding to and cooperating with requests for evidence and 
       Sec. 805. Protecting Victims of Child Abuse and Incest. 
     This section clarifies language to ensure that children of 
     VAWA self-petitioners abused by lawful permanent residents 
     receive the VAWA immigration protection and lawful permanent 
     residency along with their abused parent. It also assures 
     that children eligible for VAWA immigration relief are not 
     excluded from Child Status Protection Act protection. This 
     section enhances protection for incest victims by permitting 
     VAWA self-petitions to be filed until age 25 by individuals 
     who qualified for VAWA relief before they were 21 but did not 
     file a petition before that time if the abuse is at least one 
     central reason for the delayed filing.
       Under current law, adopted foreign-born children must 
     reside with their adoptive parents for two years to gain 
     legal immigration status through their adoptive parents. 
     This section allows adopted children who were battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty by their adoptive parent or 
     the adoptive parent's family member residing in the 
     household to attain legal immigration status without 
     having to reside for two years with the abusive adoptive 
     family member.
       Sec. 811. Definition of VAWA Self-Petitioner. This section 
     creates a term ``VAWA self-petitioner'' which covers all 
     forms of VAWA self-petitions created in VAWA 2000 including 
     VAWA Cuban Adjustment, VAWA HRIFA and VAWA NACARA applicants.
       Sec. 812. Application in Cases of Voluntary Departure. 
     Under current law, people who fail to comply with voluntary 
     departure orders are barred for 10 years from receiving 
     lawful permanent residency through adjustment of status, 
     cancellation of removal (including VAWA cancellation), change 
     of status, and registry. Denying lawful permanent residency 
     to immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and 
     trafficking undermines Congressional intent to provide 
     immigration relief crucial to supporting crime victims 
     cooperating with law enforcement and offering protection for 
     battered immigrant spouses and children. This section exempts 
     victims eligible for VAWA, T or U relief from the harsh 
     consequences of failing to comply with voluntary departure 
     orders as long as the extreme cruelty or battery is at least 
     one of the central reasons for the overstay.
       Sec. 813. Removal Proceedings. This section adds domestic 
     abuse to the list of exceptional circumstances that allow 
     immigrants to file motions to reopen in removal proceedings. 
     VAWA 2000 allowed immigration judges in cancellation of 
     removal and adjustment of status proceedings to waive 
     ineligibility grounds for some VAWA eligible battered 
     petitioners, who acted in self defense, violated their own 
     protection order, or were involved in a crime that didn't 
     result in serious bodily injury or where there was a 
     connection between the crime and their own abuse. This 
     section corrects drafting errors that have made these waivers 
     procedurally unavailable to battered immigrant victims.
       Sec. 814. Eliminating Abusers' Control Over Applications 
     and Limitation on Petitioning for Abusers. The Violence 
     Against Women Act enabled battered Haitian Refugee 
     Immigration Fairness Act and Cuban Adjustment Act applicants 
     to apply for VAWA immigration relief. In order for these 
     applicants to access the relief, they need to file motions to 
     reopen. However, due to a drafting oversight, the deadline 
     for filing motions to reopen had already passed when VAWA 
     2000 became law. This amendment corrects the drafting and 
     allows these battered immigrants to file motions to reopen 
     and thereby access the relief that was created for them in 
     VAWA 2000.
       This section also makes approved VAWA self-petitioners and 
     their spouses eligible for employment authorization. 
     Providing employment authorization earlier in the application 
     process gives battered immigrant self-petitioners the means 
     to sever economic dependence on their abusers, promoting 
     their safety and the safety of their children.
       Section 814 also prohibits a VAWA self-petitioner or a T or 
     U-visa holder from petition for immigrant status for their 
       Sec. 815. Application for VAWA-Related Relief. This 
     amendment clarifies that certain battered spouses and 
     children can access relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment 
     and Central American Relief Act that was specifically created 
     for those groups in VAWA 2000. This amendment ensures relief 
     even in cases where an abusive spouse or parent failed to 
     apply to adjust the survivor's status to lawful permanent 
     residency by the statutory deadline or failed to follow 
     through with applications after filing. Thus, this 
     amendment prevents abusers from controlling their non-
     citizen victims by blocking their ability to successfully 
     access the relief that was intended under VAWA 2000.
       Sec. 816. Self Petitioning Parents. This section expands 
     the scope of VAWA immigration relief to include 
     intergenerational abuse, allowing non-citizen parents who are 
     abused by their adult U.S. citizen son or daughter to seek 
     VAWA relief
       Sec. 817. Enhanced VAWA Confidentiality Non-disclosure 
     Protections. This section amends VAWA's confidentiality 
     protections so that they cover a range of immigrant victims 
     eligible for the various forms of VAWA or crime victim 
     related immigration relief including T visa victims, VAWA 
     Cubans, VAWA HRIFAs, VAWA NACARAs and VAWA suspension 
     applicants. This section also ensures that VAWA 
     confidentiality rules apply to each relevant federal agency 
     including the Department of Homeland Security and the 
     Department of State.
       Sec. 821. Duration of T and U visas. This provision would 
     authorize issuance of T and U visas for a period of not more 
     than 4 years.
       Sec. 822. Technical Correction to References in Application 
     of Special Physical Presence and Good Moral Character Rules. 
     This section corrects two technical drafting errors. First it 
     ensures that the provisions on physical presence and on good 
     moral character apply to all VAWA cancellation applicants. 
     Second it corrects an incorrectly cited section so that the 
     ``good moral character'' bar applies to bigamy, not unlawful 
       Sec. 823. Petitioning Rights of Certain Former Spouses 
     Under Cuban Adjustment. This section would ensure that 
     battered immigrants are still able to adjust under VAWA Cuban 
     adjustment relief even if they are divorced from the abuser. 
     This provision is necessary to prevent abusers from cutting 
     their spouses off from potential immigration status 
     adjustment by divorcing them.
       Sec. 824. Self-Petitioning Rights of HRIFA Applicants. This 
     amendment clarifies that Haitian abused applicants can access 
     relief that was specifically created for them in VAWA 2000. 
     Abusers could control battered immigrants by not adjusting 
     their own status to lawful permanent residency pursuant to 
     the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (``HRIFA''). The 
     abuser may not follow

[[Page S13766]]

     through with the lawful permanent residency application or 
     fail to file an application at all. This technical correction 
     remedies the problem to ensure that all abused spouses and 
     children otherwise eligible for VAWA HRIFA are able to access 
     this relief.
       Sec. 825. Motion to Reopen. This section, a correction to 
     VAWA 2000, gives domestic abuse victims the opportunity to 
     file one motion to reopen to pursue VAWA relief, and exempts 
     them from the special motion to reopen filing deadlines.
       Sec. 826. Protecting Abused Juveniles. This section assures 
     that immigration authorities are not required to contact 
     abusive parents or family members in connection with the 
     abused, neglected, or abandoned juvenile's application for 
     special immigrant juvenile status. This prevents abusive 
     parents from keeping their children from accessing help 
     and support in the United States.
       Sec. 827. Exceptions for the Protection of Domestic 
     Violence and Crime Victims. This section carves out an 
     exception to the current requirements regarding driver's 
     license or identification cards for victims of domestic 
     violence to ensure their safety.
       Sec. 831. Short Title for the International Marriage Broker 
     Regulation Act of 2005.
       Sec. 832. International Marriage Broker Information 
     Requirements. This section provides that a U.S. citizen 
     filing a petition for a K visa for a fiancee from another 
     country must provide information on criminal convictions for 
     specified crimes. These include a list of violent crimes, 
     including assault and battery as well as crimes relating to 
     substance or alcohol abuse. The Department of Homeland 
     Security will provide this criminal history information, 
     along with results of their search for any criminal 
     convictions to the foreign national beneficiary. The 
     Department of State is prohibited from approving a fiancee 
     visa if the petitioner has petitioned for more than 2 K visas 
     in the past, or less than 2 years have passed since the 
     petitioner filed for a K visa and that visa was approved. DHS 
     can waive this bar, but if person has history of violent 
     crimes, the bar cannot be waived unless DHS determined that 
     there are extraordinary circumstances, or the individual's 
     crimes were a result of domestic violence, the individual was 
     not the primary perpetrator of the violence, and the crime 
     did not result in serious bodily injury. DHS is directed to 
     create a database to track repeated K applications and notify 
     petitioner and spouse when second K is applied for in 10-year 
     period. All future K applications will trigger similar 
     notice, with domestic violence pamphlet being sent to K 
     beneficiary. The fact that an individual was provided with 
     this information and the domestic violence pamphlet for 
     immigrants cannot be used to deny their eligibility for 
     relief under VAWA.
       Sec. 833. Domestic Violence Information and Resources for 
     Immigrants and Regulation of International Marriage Brokers. 
     This section directs DOS, DHS and DOJ to create a pamphlet on 
     domestic violence rights and resources for immigrants as well 
     as a summary of that pamphlet for use by Federal officials in 
     the interview process. The pamphlet is to be translated into 
     at least 14 languages and the required list of translations 
     is to review and revised every 2 years based on the language 
     spoken by the greatest concentration of K nonimmigrant visa 
     applicants. The pamphlet is to be mailed to all K applicants 
     with their visa application process instruction packet as 
     well as a copy of the petition submitted by the petitioner. 
     The pamphlet is to be made available to the public at all 
     consular posts, and posted on the DOS, DHS, and consular post 
     websites. The pamphlet will also be provided to any 
     international marriage broker, government agency or non-
     governmental advocacy organization.
       Sec. 834. Sharing of Certain Information. This section 
     provides that there is no bar to the sharing of information 
     between the relevant departments for the purpose of 
     fulfilling the disclosure requirements of the U.S. petition.

                   Title IX. Safety for Indian Women

       Sec. 901 and 902. Findings and Purposes.
       Sec. 903. Consultation Requirement. This section requires 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General to 
     consult with and seek recommendations from tribal governments 
     concerning the administration of tribal VAWA funds and 
       Sec. 904. Analysis and Research of Violence Against Indian 
     Women. This provision requests that the National Institute of 
     Justice conduct a national baseline study to examine violence 
     against Indian women and the effectiveness of Federal, State, 
     local and tribal responses. It also requires the Attorney 
     General to establish a task force to assist in the 
     development and implementation of the study and report to 
     Congress. Members of the study shall include tribal 
     governments and national tribal organizations. The violence 
     study is authorized at $1,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 and 
     2008. In addition, this section requires the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to conduct a study of injuries to 
     Indian women from incidents of domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault and stalking and the costs 
     associated with these injuries. The injury report shall be 
     reported to Congress and is authorized at $500,000 for fiscal 
     years 2007 and 2008.
       Sec. 905. Tracking of Violence Against Indian Women. In 
     cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault 
     and stalking, the provision authorizes tribal law enforcement 
     to access and enter information on to Federal criminal 
     information databases (set out in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 534). 
     Second, it permits tribes to develop and maintain national 
     tribal sex offender registries and tribal protection order 
     registries. To undertake the latter, the provision authorizes 
     $1,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       Sec. 906. Safety for Indian Women Formula Grants. To better 
     administer grants to Indian Country and enhance the responses 
     of Indian tribal governments, this measure authorizes the 
     Office on Violence Against Women to combine all Native 
     American set asides appropriated under this Act and create a 
     single grant source.
       Sec. 907. Deputy Director in the Office on Violence Against 
     Women. To coordinate and guide Federal, State, local and 
     tribal responses to violence against Indian women, this 
     provision establishes a Deputy Director of Tribal Affairs in 
     the Office on Violence Against Women. The Deputy Director is 
     charged with several duties, including, but not limited to, 
     oversight of tribal grant programs and developing federal 
     policies and protocols on matters relating to violence 
     against Indian women. In addition, the Deputy Director is 
     authorized to ensure that some portion of tribal funds 
     distributed through VAWA programs will be devoted to 
     enhancing tribal resources such as legal services or shelters 
     for Indian women victimized by domestic violence or sexual 
       Sec. 908 and 909. Enhanced Criminal Law Resources and 
     Domestic Assault by Habitual Offender. Sections 908 and 909 
     make several changes to existing criminal law. Under current 
     law persons who have been convicted of a qualifying 
     misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal or state 
     law are prohibited from possessing firearms. This amendment 
     would expand that prohibition to those persons convicted of a 
     qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 
     tribal law.
       Under current law, federal courts have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over domestic violence crimes committed in 
     Indian country where the perpetrator is a non-Indian and the 
     victim is an Indian, and concurrent jurisdiction with the 
     tribal courts where the perpetrator is an Indian and the 
     victim is a non-Indian. Under this scheme, federal officers 
     can only arrest for misdemeanors that occur in the presence 
     of the arresting officer. Most domestic violence offenses are 
     misdemeanors not committed in the presence of a federal 
     officer. Accordingly, this amendment will eliminate that 
     requirement and allow a federal arrest if there is reasonable 
     grounds that the offense was committed. Finally, the 
     provision creates a repeat offender provision.

                      Title X. DNA Fingerprinting

       Sec. 1001. Short Title.
       Sec. 1002. Use of Opt-Out Procedure to Remove Samples from 
     National DNA Index. Because this title expands the scope of 
     the national DNA database to include DNA samples from 
     arrestees, this particular section amends the current 
     expungement protocols and directs the FBI to remove samples 
     in the event of an overturned conviction, acquittal, or the 
     charge was dismissed.
       Sec. 1003. Expanded Use of COIS Grants. To reduce the 
     extraordinary backlog of rape kits and other crime scene 
     evidence waiting for DNA testing, the federal government 
     makes available to States a targeted DNA grant program. 
     Specifically, States may seek funding to reduce the backlog 
     in crime scene evidence, to reduce the backlog in DNA samples 
     of offenders convicted of qualifying state offenses, or to 
     enhance the State's DNA laboratory capabilities. This section 
     would expand the grant purpose regarding offender DNA samples 
     to include all samples collected under applicable state law; 
     accordingly, States could use federal funding to test samples 
     collected from arrestees or voluntary elimination samples.
       Sec. 1004. Authorization to Conduct DNA Sample Collection 
     From Persons Arrested or Detained Under Federal Authority. 
     Current law allows federal authorities to collect DNA samples 
     from individuals upon indictment. This provision would expand 
     that authority to permit the Attorney General to collect DNA 
     at arrest or detention of non-United States persons.
       Sec. 1005. Tolling of Statute of Limitations for Sexual 
     Abuse Offenses. This amendment strikes a carve-out 
     authorizing John Doe indictments in sexual assault crimes and 
     makes uniform the federal law that tolls the statute of 
     limitations for all federal crimes where DNA evidence is 
     collected (Sec. 3297).

  The bill (H.R. 3402), as amended, was read the third time and passed.