[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13749-S13766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS
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
Amendments.'')
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
stranger.
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
formula.
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''
agencies.
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
Philippines.
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
prison.
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
that.
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
will
[[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
authorization.
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
crimes.
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
information.
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
convicted.''
``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
HIV.
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
prevented.
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
place.
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
offenses.
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
code.
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
appreciated.
I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Rape, Abuse & Incest National
Network,
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
legislation.
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
offenders.
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
solved.
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
it.
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
database.
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
orders.
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
ramifications.
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
Association.
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
penalties.
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
the
[[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
Justice.
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
jurisdiction.
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
program.
Title III. Services, Protection and Justice for Young Victims of
Violence
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
Services.
(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.
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
Children
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
renovations.
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
Justice.
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
$40,000,000.
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
information.
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
abuser.
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
presence.
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
programs.
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
assault.
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.
____________________