[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14173-S14174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Violence 
Against Women Act, which Congress has finally reauthorized after many 
delays. As my colleagues know, the final bill passed the Senate on 
Friday, it passed the House on Saturday, and it is now headed to the 
President for his signature.
  As domestic violence leaders in my home State of Washington will tell 
you, this reauthorization is long overdue. VAWA has been a critical 
tool for fighting domestic violence, and it should have never been 
allowed to expire. The Republican leadership finally recognized that, 
and now we will strengthen and expand that critical law.
  Today I want to discuss some of the improvements we have passed--
including new tools related to health care, housing, and abuse that 
involves police officers. I also want to share my disappointment that 
the economic protections I have worked to include were removed when 
this bill was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I have tried to advance critical economic protections at every turn, 
and I want to update my colleagues--and advocates in Washington State--
about where those efforts stand. I do want to thank several of my 
colleagues for their hard work on this bill, including Senators Leahy, 
Specter, Biden, Hatch, and Kennedy.
  The original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, created a national 
strategy for dealing with domestic violence. And that strategy has been 
very successful. VAWA brought together victims' advocates, social 
service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the 
immediate challenges of domestic violence. This bill reauthorizes and 
strengthens those core programs.
  This bill also creates new programs that represent important steps 
forward in areas such as health care, housing and officer-involved 
abuse.
  The first new step concerns health care. For the first time, VAWA 
includes a national health care response to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault and stalking. It authorizes new grants to 
train health care providers to recognize and respond to domestic or 
sexual violence. These grants will help establish partnerships between 
victims service providers and health care providers in State hospitals 
and public health departments. It also provides funding for direct 
services for sexual assault victims, including 24-hour emergency and 
support services.
  Second, this law now addresses housing inequities for victims by 
providing new grants to help victims find long-term housing. It also 
protects the confidentiality of victims who are receiving assistance 
from Department of Housing and Urban Development-funded programs. VAWA 
also now includes provisions to protect mail-order brides and expands 
protections for immigrant victims.
  This legislation also addresses the issue of police officer-involved 
domestic violence. I have spoken about this issue on the Senate floor 
before because of a terrifying case in Washington state. In April 2003, 
Tacoma police chief David Brame shot and killed his wife, Crystal 
Judson Brame. Then he took his own life, all while their two young 
children watched. The final tragic act was the last in a long history 
of abusive events.
  In response to this incident, the City of Tacoma, the Tacoma Police 
Department, and others formed a task force to examine officer-involved 
domestic violence. They created a new policy for the Tacoma Police 
Department, and they helped pass a State law which requires that 
departments have policies on officer-involved abuse.
  This VAWA bill gives local communities new resources to deal with 
abuse that involves police officers. It funds the Crystal Judson 
Domestic Violence Protocol Program. It allows law enforcement agencies, 
victim service providers, and Federal, State and local governments to 
use STOP grant funds to create new protocols for handling officer-
involved domestic violence.
  What happened in Tacoma is a tragedy that cannot be weighed. Out of 
that tragedy, Washington State changed its laws, and now the Federal 
Government is giving communities across the country new tools to 
address

[[Page S14174]]

officer-involved abuse. So that new provision--along with the 
healthcare and housing measures--represent new progress in fighting 
domestic violence. But frankly, we have got a lot more work to do. I am 
deeply disappointment that the economic protections I have been 
fighting for since 1998 were not included in this reauthorization--
despite some early progress.
  If we are going to break the cycle of violence, we need to address 
the economic barriers that trap victims in abusive relationships.
  We know that financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing 
domestic violence. Too often, victims don't have the financial strength 
to leave a violent relationship. As a result, they are forced to choose 
between protecting themselves and keeping a roof over their heads. When 
a victim cannot afford to move out, or cannot afford to pay the rent, 
or has lost a job because of abuse, that person is trapped, and 
Congress needs to help free them from that trap.
  In this bill, we had an opportunity to help victims. In the Senate 
version of the bill, I worked to include an unpaid leave provision. It 
was in the Senate version, but it was dropped by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  In my view, that was wrong. It is like leaving someone trapped in a 
burning building. We should have knocked down the barriers and thrown 
open the exit doors, but the Senate failed and that will have a real 
impact on people trapped in abusive relationships.
  The protections I sought were reasonable. It would have allowed 
victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to address 
domestic violence. Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time 
off. They cannot use vacation time to address abuse, and missing work 
puts them in danger of losing their job. My provision would have 
allowed victims to take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a 
doctor, or make a safety plan.
  But unfortunately, there was opposition and complaints about 
jurisdiction, and these protections were stripped from the bill during 
consideration in the Judiciary Committee.
  Once those protections were dropped, I kept fighting. I offered 
another tool to help victims escape abusive relationships. I asked the 
managers of the bill to include a provision on unemployment insurance. 
I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment insurance if they have to 
leave their job or are fired because of abuse.
  We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up the 
resources to leave a violent relationship, but abuse and stalking can 
make it impossible for a victim to keep a job.
  Many of my colleagues may recall the story of Yvette Cade, of 
Maryland. As reported in the Washington Post, Ms. Cade's estranged 
husband showed up at her job at a wireless phone store, threw gasoline 
on her, and lit her on fire. A restraining order against her estranged 
husband had been dropped shortly before the incident, even though she 
had indicated he was still threatening her.
  Ms. Cade was burned over 60 percent of her body and remains in the 
hospital.
  There are many more cases of abusers who deliberately sabotage a 
victim's ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off 
their transportation, and showing up at the workplace and threatening 
other employees. When a victim loses a job because of violence, that 
victim should have access to unemployment compensation benefits.
  Some people might claim that it is too expensive to allow victims to 
access unpaid leave. But I would remind my colleagues that domestic 
violence imposes costs on a workplace too. When violence follows 
victims into the workplace, it doesn't just hurt victims--it hurts 
their employers. It means less productivity and higher insurance costs.
  So anyone who says it is too expensive to provide unpaid leave should 
also remember that domestic violence is expensive to businesses to in 
both lives and dollars. Providing the tools that will allow abused 
women to escape abusive relationships can help offset billions of 
dollars in costs that domestic violence imposes on businesses.
  Unfortunately, my efforts to include unpaid leave provisions were 
rejected as well. But I am not giving up. I have been at this since 
1998 and I know who I am fighting for. I have been to the shelters in 
my State, and I have talked with the victims. I have met with their 
advocates, and I am not giving up on them.
  I am going to keep pushing for my SAFE Act, which stands for the 
Security and Financial Empowerment Act. It contains the protections 
victims need to break the cycle of violence. I thank Senators Leahy, 
Corzine, Dayton and Dodd for signing on as original cosponsors, and 
would invite all of my colleagues to sign on as well.
  I am going to continue to tell their stories because we need to hear 
their voices here in the Senate. It is easy to argue about 
jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean anything to someone who is getting 
beaten up every night. It is easy to argue about the cost of unpaid 
leave--but that doesn't mean anything to someone who needs to get a 
protective order so they can escape a violent relationship.
  This Congress has a lot of work to do to help victims, and I will 
come to this Senate floor as many times as it takes, until we finally 
give victims the help they need and deserve.

                          ____________________