[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 69 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2705-H2711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              REAUTHORIZING THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rokita). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take 
this 1 hour.
  We want to spend this hour discussing a piece of legislation that is 
extraordinarily important to every woman and every man who lives within 
the United States. It's the Violence Against Women Act, which is up for 
renewal, and we'll be discussing that. But before I go into that, we've 
just heard an hour of discussion on an extremely important matter, 
which is the issue of national defense.
  I do sit on the House Armed Services Committee, and I spent about 16 
hours last week working to move that bill out of committee. Every 
single person on that committee and every single person in this House 
and in the Senate cares deeply about this Nation's security and 
providing the necessary support for the men and women who are currently 
in the military and those who have served in the past. There's no doubt 
about that.
  There is, however, a very important debate underway about how we 
provide those services, given the ability of this Nation to find the 
money to pay for it. You heard a most remarkable debate this last 
hour--or a discussion this last hour, not a debate--but a discussion 
that basically, on the one hand, said, we've got this terrible deficit 
problem, and we have to deal with it; and on the other hand, we have to 
spend more and more money on the military.
  Now recognizing that the war in Afghanistan is drawing down and 
hopefully will very soon be over, we are moving away from carrying on 
two major wars to a period in which we will not be having men and women 
overseas in these wars. That allows this Nation to draw down the 
military in an appropriate and very careful manner. Unfortunately, the 
bill that moved out of the House Armed Services Committee didn't do 
that. In fact, it moved away from the current law, which is one that 
was voted on by all of our Republican colleagues, which was the Budget 
Control Act that actually said the military had to be brought down. And 
the discussion you heard here about the President not having a plan, it 
simply isn't true. The President has put forth a balanced solution to 
the deficit within the confines of the Budget Control Act, a balance 
that has been rejected by the Republicans, a balance that calls for 
revenues, ending unnecessary tax breaks--for example, for the oil 
industry. Why should they receive $5 billion a year of our tax money on 
top of the tens of billions of dollars in profits that they are making 
in the sale of overpriced gasoline and diesel to the American public?
  So the President says, take away those unnecessary subsidies and 
bring those back into dealing with the necessary things that we must do 
in this Nation. He also said that men and women who earn over $1 
million a year in adjusted gross income ought to be paying their fair 
share.
  There was discussion a moment ago about the budget reconciliation 
bill that passed this House. Understand that the budget reconciliation 
bill, as proposed by the Republicans, would increase the national 
deficit by $4 trillion. How does it do it? By giving an extraordinary 
new tax break to those at the very top. Those who earn more than $1 
million a year would see their taxes reduced. So at $1 million a year 
in earnings, they would receive an additional tax reduction of 
$394,000. That's neither fair, that's neither balanced, and that 
clearly leads to an additional $4 trillion.
  Back to the defense. We need a wise Defense appropriations bill out 
of this House. Unfortunately, though, what did pass was not wise, and 
it actually increased the number of men and women in Afghanistan. These 
are our Armed Forces. Under that bill, there would be an increase of 
20,000 new soldiers into Afghanistan. That's not where we want to go.
  Having said enough about that, I just thought we ought to put a 
little balance on the previous hour of discussion. So let us get on to 
what we really wanted to talk about tonight, which is, how do we 
protect women in America?
  In 1994, a previous Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, 
and that act provided a level of protection to every woman in America 
to be protected from domestic violence. I have with me tonight one of 
the key architects of that piece of legislation. She is now a Member of 
Congress. She is from the great State of Maryland. Her name is Donna 
Edwards. Back in the nineties, she was the founding director and

[[Page H2706]]

the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic 
Violence.
  The National Network to End Domestic Violence was an organization 
that Representative Edwards put together composed of State 
organizations that were dealing with domestic violence, many different 
kinds of organizations throughout the United States. Representative 
Edwards put that together. And she's here tonight to lead the 
discussion on how we can renew the Violence Against Women Act in a way 
that expands the protection to all women in the United States, all 
women. And central to this discussion will be that issue of all women 
within the United States.

  But before I turn it over to her, as the Republicans always want us 
to do, I would like to read a couple of clauses of the United States 
Constitution. The 14th Amendment, in the end of section 1, says:

       No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
     the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 
     States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
     liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to 
     any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
     the laws. And section two of the 14th amendment of the United 
     States Constitution, says, ``The Congress shall have the 
     power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions 
     of this article.

  ``Any person,'' a key subject for tonight's debate.
  Representative Edwards, you've been at this for many years. Please 
share with us the background, the history, and why this is such an 
important part of what we must do here.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and 
for your leadership.
  I was thinking here, as I was sitting, that 18 years ago almost this 
month, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee before the 
passage of the Violence Against Women Act on behalf of the domestic 
violence advocates and survivors all across this country. And 18 years 
ago, we were discussing with a bipartisan group of Members, Republicans 
and Democrats, men and women who believed that it was finally time for 
the Federal Government to provide resources for shelters and services 
and programs and support for law enforcement and for protections for 
women who were experiencing domestic violence.

                              {time}  2040

  And I am actually saddened today that here we are in the Congress 
with Republicans taking one track and Democrats on another track on an 
issue that for the time that I have had professional experience on 
working on this issue in State legislatures and in the Congress has 
always been worked across both sides of the aisle with great agreement 
about the need to protect women against violence, and that in fact we 
stand here today with a partisan divide that I think for so many 
millions of women across this country who are experiencing violence is 
not something that we understand.
  Today, we had an opportunity on the grounds of the Capitol to honor 
peace officers from across the country. Some of those peace officers 
lost their lives because they were responding to situations of domestic 
violence.
  When the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, it was passed 
because of several years of prior work. I remember working on the 
Violence Against Women Act and its various iterations as early as 1990 
with Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, and Senator Joseph Biden, now 
Vice President, a Democrat from Delaware, working on the House side 
with Republicans and Democrats as we sought the right kind of 
compromise so that we can end the scourge of domestic violence in homes 
all across this country.
  Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act as a bipartisan 
piece of legislation, it really revolutionized the way that violent 
crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented and the way that 
communities respond to survivors. I can recall as long ago as when I 
was in second grade living on a military installation in very close 
quarters where you could hear through the thin walls the family that 
was experiencing domestic violence. And our experience then is that the 
military police would respond. They would drive the servicemember 
around the block and he would be back in the home. That was happening 
not just on military installations, but in communities all across the 
country.
  With the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, it was a real 
message to law enforcement: we're going to provide you the tools and 
training and capacity to respond appropriately to victims of domestic 
violence.
  That's what we did in 1994. It's what we reauthorized with bipartisan 
support in 2000, and then again in 2005.
  I can remember as a resident adviser in college the horrible 
situation of having to call an emergency service for a young woman who 
had attempted suicide because she was in a violent relationship. In 
2005 and 2000 we put resources in the Violence Against Women Act that 
enabled colleges and universities and communities to provide the kind 
of support and services that that young woman would have needed.
  I can recall being a coworker of a young woman who showed up at work 
every day, working in a high-technology field, fully educated, but she 
was experiencing violence. She calls me on the telephone in the middle 
of the night from a phone booth, naked, having been battered by her 
abuser, not having anyplace to go and a shelter very far away. Today, 
because of what we've done in the Federal level on violence against 
women, that particular survivor, that victim has recourse and has the 
ability to seek shelter and services available to her.
  When I testified 18 years ago before our House Judiciary Committee, I 
told the story of my own family, a family of four girls--and they say 
one in four women experiences violence at any time in their lifetime. 
Well, that was my family. My one sister was held at gunpoint and at 
knifepoint in my household.
  And I think that what we did in 1994, what we've done in constituent 
legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and 
2005, has gone a long way to ensure that women like my sister, women 
like my coworker, like the students in college, like battered immigrant 
women who, under threat of deportation from their abuser, under the 
threat of their own physical safety, afraid--because they might be 
deported--from going to seek shelter and services.
  Well, in 2005, when we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, 
we said to those battered immigrant women: you don't have to be under 
threat of deportation if you're experiencing domestic violence. And yet 
here we are today in a Congress where the other side of the aisle, the 
Republicans in the Congress, are actually proposing rollbacks in the 
protections that we have offered to those who have experienced domestic 
violence, whether they are citizen survivors or they're immigrant women 
or they require cultural and linguistic services or they're lesbians 
and gays and transgender people in relationships that also require 
services.
  This is not the kind of country we are. I think certainly in 1994 and 
in the subsequent reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act in 
2000 and 2005 that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that we 
did not envision that in 2012 we would actually be rolling back the 
protections that we had offered those who experience violence.
  I will have more to say about this because I think when I think back 
to my history of working on this issue--and so many of us have in this 
Congress--across the aisles to provide the kinds of supports and 
services and shelters and programs and training and law enforcement and 
prosecution that hold people accountable, that it is really sad that 
we're here on this floor of the House today rolling back the 
protections for those who experience violence.
  With that, if you would not mind, Mr. Garamendi, I know that we've 
been joined by others.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Why don't we work together here. But before we pass 
the baton to our colleagues here, I think we all need to recognize the 
extraordinary work that you have done over these many, many years on 
this issue, and understand now how it affected your family. And I dare 
say it affects every family in America. If it's one in four women are 
at some time in their life abused and threatened with violence, we're 
talking some 40 million women. It's an extraordinarily serious problem. 
And the legislation that you helped write back in 1994 needs to be

[[Page H2707]]

reauthorized and strengthened, not weakened.

  I would like now to turn to Sheila Jackson Lee, our colleague from 
Texas, who is deeply interested in this and has spoken on this before. 
And then, with your permission, Representative Edwards, I'll let you 
conduct the rest of this meeting.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
  Ms. Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from California 
and applaud the gentlewoman from Maryland for her early, early 
involvement and leadership on this issue. It was certainly advocates 
like herself that allowed members of the Judiciary Committee, of which 
I was a very young member, to be able to draw upon that advocacy and 
write the VAWA legislation at that time. And I did it with bipartisan 
support. Chairman Hyde was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at 
the time, and I remember distinctly. In fact, I was with Senate Members 
today who remember us from the House coming down to the swamp on the 
Senate side in a bipartisan manner to stand and support VAWA and its 
writing. And it couldn't have been done without the many stories and 
the many advocates like yourself. And so I'm delighted to serve on the 
Judiciary Committee on each and every reauthorization that has come 
about. I have been involved with it and been involved legislatively in 
a bipartisan manner.
  The sadness today to all of us is that we're not able to do this in a 
bipartisan manner. And I will just briefly recount, if I can, what it 
means to a woman--and the enormous range of ages--and then conclude my 
remarks by indicating that the legislation that will be on the floor of 
the House tomorrow, H.R. 4970, is sad because it has not given the 
opportunity to do the right thing for women in a bipartisan manner.

                              {time}  2050

  Just let me cite these stories: Jonathan Barnes, 23, strangled his 
girlfriend, Jessica, to death. Barnes was charged with Jessica's 
murder.
  Carlos Rodriguez, 38, strangled his wife, Rumalda, who was found 
deceased in her bed. She was 27.
  Lucy Garcia, 63. Florentino Suchil, 54, beat and then ran over his 
girlfriend, Lucy, with a vehicle. She died from severe trauma.
  Yolanda Punch, 47. Lonnie Punch, 47, shot his wife, Yolanda, to death 
at her friend's apartment complex.
  Lucinda Bernard, 34. Donald Bernard, 44, stabbed his wife, Lucinda, 
to death in their home.
  Rosa Limon, 25. Victor Azua, 28, shot his girlfriend, Rosa, to death 
before he shot and killed himself.
  Shannon Strickhausen, 38, was shot by Jimmy Yarbrough. He shot 
Shannon to death before he turned the gun on himself. Her 14-year-old 
daughter who was at home called the police.
  Vanessa Favela, 23, was shot and killed.
  Donna Baeza, 48, was stabbed to death by Harold.
  Marquita Brown, 25, was shot to death.
  Another unidentified victim was shot by someone they believed to have 
been her husband, and the children discovered both deceased.
  Someone by the name of Fortunata was killed by Juan Perez, shot to 
death.
  It goes on and on in terms of the violence. It is not a respecter of 
age.
  And what we have in this legislation, H.R. 4970, that is so striking 
for those of us who have dealt with women, I sat on the Houston Area 
Women's Center that provided refuge for women. I have dealt with women 
who have had their faces shot off and have had to run for their life.
  Here's what we have in this legislation, very briefly. As we 
commemorated law enforcement officers who lost their lives today, we 
know when they come upon a domestic violence circumstance, they are in 
jeopardy. But what they want most of all is for that victim to be able 
to talk to them.
  In a series of amendments to this legislation that is not in the 
Senate bill, we have taken to do immigration reform or immigration 
enforcement or immigration oppression, and we have used it in the wrong 
way. We have decided to take victims who happen to be immigrant women 
who happen to be here legitimately through the visa of their spouse, 
and we've indicated these three points. It would unduly restrict what 
we call the U visas. Currently to obtain a U visa for victims of 
serious crime, Federal, State or local law enforcement certifies that 
the applicant has or is likely to be helpful in the investigation, but 
this bill would restrict the law enforcement agency certification only 
to victims for 60 days. Some of these women are running for their 
lives. Some of these women cannot be found.
  Another provision on this would encourage vulnerable victims of 
particularly serious crimes, this would deny them the opportunity for a 
green card. That has always been law, that you have the access. And 
then, of course, it would suggest that these victims are using their 
abuse to fraudulently get a status or to get an immigration process. So 
it would enhance the penalties for those women if they found some flaw 
in their testimony.
  Clearly, a whole segment of the population would be ruled, in 
essence, ineligible for relief or help. But, more importantly, you 
would cast a whole litany of women who have been involved in this 
violence who happen to be immigrants, whose children happen to be 
immigrants, it would, in essence deny them the rights that they had 
before. It would take away current law.
  Let me close by saying the Senator from Minnesota offered an 
amendment that I have offered and hope even though it may be a closed 
rule to be able to provide 70 percent funding to end the backlog of 
rape kits. There is a massive backlog of rape kits, which means that a 
woman is denied justice because those rape kits are not being 
processed. These rape kits are in hospitals. They are in evidence 
rooms. They are in back-door pantries. They are in places where they 
cannot be found, but they are there. We need to be able to put an 
emphasis on ensuring that these rape kits, sometimes years old, 
sometimes women haven't gotten justice. Sometimes the perpetrator, 
having raped again, has not been brought to justice because we have not 
been able to process those kits.
  So there are many things that we could have done in a bipartisan 
manner. Tomorrow we will be debating this bill. Many people will be 
left out. I only say to the women and men who are on the floor tonight 
and those who may be listening to us, let's put this back. Let's go 
forward in a bipartisan manner. Let's make this bill the kind of bill 
that answers all of the concerns that have been expressed, and let's do 
better than H.R. 4970 because the women of this Nation deserve it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her very 
thoughtful and thorough discussion of this piece of legislation. It is 
about all women. We should never exclude any women from the protection 
of this law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) is 
recognized for 35 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding his 
time, and I thank the gentlelady from Texas and for your leadership on 
the Judiciary Committee, and just a reminder to the Chair that at the 
latest count, the bill that the gentlelady from Texas refers to, H.R. 
4970, that would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, is 
currently opposed by 325 advocacy organizations from around the country 
who remain concerned that the legislation proposed by the Republicans 
actually rolls back many protections for immigrant women, for Indian 
women, and for the LGBT community.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank you, Congresswoman Donna 
Edwards, for your long-time and steady support and work on behalf of so 
many issues relating to women, especially those as they relate to 
violence against women. You have consistently over the years done this 
work, oftentimes when no one else was doing it, and thank you for 
staying the course. It is so important that we come together again in a 
bipartisan way to get the right bill, the correct bill, passed; and so 
thank you very much.

[[Page H2708]]

  I want to thank Congressman Garamendi for your leadership in helping 
to put together this Special Order but also for your leadership on 
behalf of women all around the world. I know your wife very well and 
your children, and you have always really stood on the side of what was 
right for equity and for justice as it relates to women, so thank you 
very much.
  I believe we all can agree there really is an acute need to put an 
end to domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual 
harassment. It's critical that we continue to speak out against 
intimate-partner violence at every opportunity and call attention and 
awareness to it whenever we can. And so that's why we really have to 
get this bill back in the shape that it needs to be in so we can 
protect women, because I can remember when I was in the California 
legislature. For example, I wrote California's Violence Against Women 
Act for the State of California; and I worked on many domestic violence 
bills that were signed into law, mind you, by then-Governor Pete 
Wilson, a Republican Governor. And, of course, I continue to cosponsor 
and work on numerous bills here in Congress to support victims of 
domestic violence and to prevent domestic violence.
  Now, as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply 
personal level, I know how traumatic this experience is. I know the 
strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. 
There was no Violence Against Women Act in the late sixties and early 
seventies when I had to deal with many, many issues that we're talking 
about tonight. There was no place to turn. I also know from personal 
experience that domestic violence is not only physical. It is 
emotional. It is brutal. It is dehumanizing to the batterer and the 
battered. And without strong and enforceable criminal laws and services 
in place, one's life really can be shattered and destroyed.
  Unfortunately, instead of being serious about the Federal 
reauthorization of VAWA, Republicans are attempting to roll back 
current law and weaken protections for women. This bill, H.R. 4970, 
would further marginalize LGBT victims, tribal victims, and immigrant 
victims by removing the limited, but important, protections that the 
Senate version extends to LGBT domestic violence victims, including key 
nondiscrimination provisions. Those are essential.
  It removes the commonsense and constitutionally sound provisions in 
the Senate version that would allow the prosecution of nontribal 
violators who commit domestic violence against tribal women. This is 
horrible. It's wrong. It's immoral.

                              {time}  2100

  Under this bill, the protection of immigrant victims would be subject 
to unsubstantiated, abuser-provided evidence, among other bureaucratic 
barriers to protection, including delays in the prosecution of abusers.
  Now, without changes and rollbacks like these--and these are only a 
few of them--I question, really, if the Republican proposal should even 
be called a Violence Against Women Act. I understand that Congresswoman 
Adams' amendment would make some small changes to this bill; however, 
it would still roll back key protections for immigrant victims, 
allowing the abuser to have the power during investigations and to 
maintain control of the victim's immigration status.
  Under the guise of fraud concerns, Republicans are attempting to roll 
back important protections even as the Department of Homeland Security 
officials say that VAWA petitions are among the hardest immigration 
programs to defraud because of the already high evidence requirements.
  Now, our colleagues in the Senate recognized the need to modernize 
and expand protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, stalking, and dating violence. On April 26, the Senate version 
of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed with a rare 
show of bipartisan support, and that is what we are here to say we 
should do tomorrow in this House.
  In this bill, though, that the House is considering, this would 
really pose a serious threat to the lives of victims. This is happening 
while all around the world nearly one in three women has been beaten, 
coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime--one in three, 
here in the United States. As many as one in three American women 
report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or a boyfriend 
at least once in their lives. That's shocking.
  In my home State of California, the statistics are even more 
staggering, where approximately 40 percent of California women 
experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. Of 
these women, three out of four had children under the age of 18 at 
home.
  Children who see or experience domestic violence have a much greater 
chance to become either victims or perpetrators as adults. They are 
also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs, run away from home, 
engage in teenage prostitution, and commit other crimes.
  So there is unquestionable evidence of the need for a serious 
proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. So I urge my 
colleagues to pass the Senate Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act.
  We cannot afford to play political games with women's lives. We must 
not go back to the days, which many of us remember, where there were no 
protections, no safe places, where the courts would not allow battered 
women syndrome as admissible evidence in court, and women were 
incarcerated for defending themselves against their abusers.
  So I have to thank Congresswoman Edwards, again, for your tremendous 
leadership in bringing us all together and continuing to try to work in 
a way that's in a bipartisan fashion--because that's the only way we 
can do this--on behalf of all women. This really is, in many ways, 
about life and death.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady. And thank you so much for 
pointing out, especially with these diverse communities, the real 
importance of developing programs and services that respond directly to 
those communities, whether they're immigrant populations, LGBT 
populations, native populations, and others, that require the services 
and support that have been offered traditionally in the Violence 
Against Women Act and its subsequent reauthorizations up until now.
  I'm actually reminded that, years ago, one of the most horrible calls 
that I responded to on a hotline was a woman in a lesbian relationship 
that was abusive and the difficulty of getting her into a program and 
services that were uniquely tailored to make sure that she could live 
safely. It is so sad for me to think, as the gentlewoman has pointed 
out, that we are going to roll back provisions in the Violence Against 
Women Act that would deny that woman the protections that would be 
offered to any other person who was experiencing domestic violence 
because we made some political and partisan decision about who should 
get services and who should be denied. So I thank the gentlelady.
  With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Edwards, for your 
leadership before you even became a Member of Congress, but especially 
tonight to lead this discussion.
  I can't believe what we're about to do tomorrow in a vote to 
reauthorize. I was here in 1994 when we were so proud of creating this 
historical legislation to protect women against violence. It wasn't 
some women; it was all women. And now we're on the verge, 18 years 
later, of saying, well, let's change that.
  What's so appalling about it is we're going to take that in a debate 
tomorrow in this room, where every time we're in session we start that 
session by getting up and taking a pledge to that flag behind you 
saying ``justice for all.'' That's our role. We're elected here to 
bring about justice for all.
  We just had a census in the United States. In that census, we didn't 
just count some people because they were citizens, some people because 
they were rich, some people because they were this or that or had an 
education. We counted every living being in the United States. Why? 
Because the laws of this country are supposed to be protecting and 
enhancing and providing a quality of life for every living being. Now 
we're on the verge, in an election year--when the majority of voters in 
this country are women--to say to the

[[Page H2709]]

women of this country, Oh, by the way, we're going to start taking back 
some of the provisions that have protected you.
  You know, I rise, as Mr. Garamendi did before me, we rise as 
brothers, as husbands, as fathers, as a grandfather. In every one of 
those situations, the brother is because I have a sister, the husband 
is because I have a wife, the father is because I have a daughter, and 
the grandfather is because I have a granddaughter. My world in politics 
is about their lives and the future and growing up in the great country 
of the United States of America.

  So here we are with this law that we passed back in 1994. We 
reauthorized it. We didn't have takeaways when we reauthorized that law 
in 2000. We didn't take away things when we reauthorized it in 2005. 
And now we're in 2012 and the vote before the Congress is: Let's take 
away some stuff. Why? It doesn't make any sense at all.
  Why do you say, well, you can exclude Native Americans? Why? Aren't 
they? They're Americans. They're Native Americans. They're probably 
more American than anybody. Take away rights that those women have been 
given and now are being taken away.
  Noncitizen women? Noncitizen women. Those are a lot of immigrants. It 
doesn't matter whether you have a green card or no card, taking away 
your rights to complain about violence.
  To those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, 
they're individuals. You take away their rights? Shame.
  It's an election year. Women are voting. I hope they will wake up and 
understand that the Congress, led by the Republican leadership in this 
House, is about to destroy the ability for people to access justice in 
a Congress and in a Nation where we pledge allegiance and pledge 
justice for all. Not tonight.
  Thank you for having this special session.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. And I thank him for his 
leadership because it took real courage for a bipartisan consensus to 
develop in this Congress, in this House of Representatives, in the 
Senate, with virtually no opposition because Members of Congress came 
together from every single State, from every community, from every 
congressional district and said that this kind of violence that happens 
in intimate relationships is not right, and that the Federal Government 
has a special role to play in making sure that those who experience 
violence have the ability to receive the kinds of programs and services 
and shelter and law enforcement protections, no matter what their 
status, because violence is wrong.
  I thank the gentleman from California and other Members of the 
Congress who, in 1994--and then again in 2000, and then again in 2005--
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act across party lines because 
we share an oath and an obligation to provide those kinds of 
protections and services to all who experience violence. It is such a 
sad day that here we are here in the House of Representatives, and 
tomorrow we will have before us legislation that strips away that 
bipartisan effort that we engaged in just 18 years ago.

                              {time}  2110

  With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congresswoman Edwards for her phenomenal 
leadership throughout her adult life on this issue, before she came to 
Congress and, obviously, now, a tremendous leader here on an issue of 
vital concern, and I underline the word vital, to America's families, 
to America's women, to those in tribal communities, to lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, transgender communities, to our immigrant families, to our 
immigrant spouses.
  Let me just say that I don't recall ever the Violence Against Women 
Act being controversial. We have always, on a unanimous basis 
practically, passed it year after year after year. But this year, House 
Republicans have decided that they want to make an issue where they 
shouldn't be an issue. How sad. Sort of devolutionist, trying to move 
America backwards rather than forwards.
  Every American should be free from fear. They should be free from 
abuse, and they should have equal protection under the law. The 
Violence Against Women Act does exactly that.
  And I have two cases I just wanted to briefly mention, one from my 
district, where a horrible crime occurred. A woman was literally 
dismembered by her spouse, and each body part was put in a different 
trash can in the western part of one of the counties that I represent. 
And I thought about the agony that that woman suffered, year after year 
after year, fear for her own life, and eventually it was lost, and not 
reporting this, not going anywhere, being completely consumed by the 
fear that eventually resulted in her death. No American should face 
that.
  And then I recall being called in our office by a gentleman saying, 
Marcy, you know, up the street from me, a woman has moved in with a 
man, and she's an immigrant from Russia. And my wife and I believe 
she's being beaten, but she's not a citizen. What can we do? How can we 
help her? This was years ago. This was a few years ago.
  And I think of these cases that have come across during my period of 
service, and I know how important the Violence Against Women Act is to 
reduce domestic violence in our country and give women and give 
individuals a place to go. Even today, since 1994, we know that 
domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. However, the other 
50 percent is still there. And I see this, sadly, in the regions that I 
represent. And I'm not alone. But there's still a lot of people that 
don't know where to go.
  I recall one time traveling with then-Congresswoman, now Secretary of 
Labor Hilda Solis. We were down at the border in Texas, and we went to 
one women's shelter with this gigantic electric fence around it to try 
to protect the women in those border communities for the violence that 
they were enduring.
  And so I want to thank Congresswoman Edwards for taking this lead 
tonight, to help to reauthorize this important program, to assure that 
we have adequate refuge for those who are living in fear in order to 
save their lives.
  My goodness. This is the greatest country in the world, and we know 
that statistics show 1 in 4 women, this is a shocking number, have been 
the victims of severe physical domestic violence, and 1 in 5 women have 
been raped in their lifetimes, many in the U.S. military.
  And I want to compliment Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her 
phenomenal leadership on that issue to try to get justice inside the 
military, as well as in civilian society.
  So I just want to say that I'm sorry that there are those who don't 
want to protect the lives of all citizens that live inside our borders, 
and immigrants that have come here who face tremendous obstacles of 
various kinds that many people can't imagine, but they're actually 
happening, and to make sure that all those within our borders are given 
equal protection under the law and justice and the opportunity to live 
in freedom without fear.
  So I want to thank Congresswoman Edwards for bringing us together 
this evening and for making such a tremendous contribution to doing 
what's right and what's necessary for our country. Thank you for 
leading us forward.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady, and thank her also for her 
leadership and commitment to all those who experience violence. And I 
think the message here tonight is that clearly we need to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act. I think we agree about that.
  But the question is, what do we do that actually expands the 
protections of a really vital piece of legislation for women all across 
this country, however they're situated? Unfortunately, H.R. 4970 simply 
doesn't do that. It eliminates protections for crime victims that are 
offered by the U visa, as our colleagues have pointed out. It deters 
immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying nearly all U visa 
recipients the protections offered by lawful permanent resident status.
  If anyone has ever held the hand of an immigrant woman whose status 
is in question and whose abuser has known that and uses that as part of 
the instrument of violence against her, you could not be possibly for 
legislation that would, in fact, roll back the protections that she 
deserves. I've held that woman's hand.

[[Page H2710]]

  There's no reason, in this great country, that we should not have 
protections for those who've come here, for those whose legal status is 
actually under threat only because they're a victim of violence.
  Now, there are some who suggest that somehow there's great fraud 
going on, and that principally, women are saying that they are 
experiencing violence so that they can receive protections.
  I have to tell you, in my more than 20 some years of working on 
issues of domestic violence, on responding to telephone calls, and 
taking intakes in shelters, and sitting with victims and survivors in 
court, I can't recall anyone saying that they had experienced 
violence when they hadn't. And so I don't know what fraud the other 
side is trying to get at.

  What I do know is that H.R. 4970 would roll back protections from the 
very women, from the very victims who are the most vulnerable, who need 
those protections. It would endanger victims by making it difficult for 
them to obtain visa protection.
  H.R. 4970 needlessly requires that an investigation or prosecution is 
actively pursued. Can you imagine that a batterer would love the idea 
that you'd have to pursue an active investigation and prosecution, 
otherwise that person is free to continue battering, free to continue 
the abuse because they know that they, in effect, have the protection 
of the law. This is, unbelievable.
  H.R. 4970 would require that a victim help to identify the 
perpetrator. All of us who have worked, particularly, with victims of 
sexual assault and other victims, would know what a dangerous position 
it puts a victim in of having to identify a perpetrator. Very often a 
sexual assault victim will not even know who the perpetrator is.
  So I would urge my colleagues, as we consider reauthorizing the 
Violence Against Women Act, which we know we need to do for those who 
experience violence all across this country, that we consider those who 
are the most vulnerable, and that we stop down this path of 
politicizing and turning the Violence Against Women Act into a partisan 
issue, when we know that since 1994, to 2000, to 2005, Republicans and 
Democrats in this Congress have come together to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act because we stand together against domestic 
violence.
  I've been joined by my colleague from Vermont, Peter Welch, and I'm 
sure that he has a few words to share with us about supporting a 
robust, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. WELCH. Thank you.
  You've been a leader on this; but the challenge that we face in 
Congress is whether we're going to take seriously the epidemic of 
violence that's inflicted on women throughout this country. This 
legislation has to address what is a very serious problem in this 
country, which is that women are being subjected to violent attacks and 
that do we have it in our heart--do we have it in our will?--to provide 
legal protections to women who are the victims of assaultive and 
violent conduct in this country? It's really that simple.
  That should apply to all women. Any person who is attacked on the 
basis of gender should be protected. What their views are about 
anything--what their views are on politics, what their views are on 
sexual orientation--are really irrelevant to the basic, independent, 
individual right that all of us have--men and women, incidentally--
which is to live our lives in peace and with protection and with the 
confidence that our physical integrity will not be violated. It's 
really as simple as that.
  So this is a question of whether this country has it in its heart to 
understand that there is violence out there that is affecting half of 
our population. Do we as a society have the desire and have the will to 
provide legal protection to people who are on the receiving end of 
violent conduct?
  In my view, we have that in our heart, we have it in our soul, we 
have it in our will, and we can do it.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I think the gentleman from Vermont raises an interesting 
point. We do have it in our heart. The question is whether we have the 
will to do the right thing.
  This is not a selfish question, because, in fact, while we can 
sympathize and empathize with the experiences of victims and can 
provide support and services to them, we also recognize that it is 
really costly to us as a society when people are experiencing violence 
in their homes. It impacts our workplaces; it impacts our communities; 
it impacts our streets. When young people witness violence--when 
children witness violence in their homes--it is more likely that they 
will either experience violence themselves or they will become 
perpetrators. Our prisons and jails are filled with young people, men 
and women, who, when you get down to the core and ask them the question 
about their life experiences, will repeat to you their experiences of 
violence.
  So this isn't an abstract question about whether we feel good in 
doing it. The impact for all of our communities and for society is 
really tremendous. Domestic violence spills out onto our streets and 
into our workplaces. It is estimated that the cost to our Nation is on 
the order of $8 billion in lost productivity because of domestic 
violence. It's attributed to productivity and to health care costs--the 
violence that causes 2 million injuries each year, three deaths each 
day, untold amounts of suffering to women and others who experience 
violence.
  I know that we talk about women because the overwhelming majority of 
those who experience intimate partner violence are women, but we want 
to acknowledge that there are some men who experience violence. Some of 
those men are in same-sex relationships, and for some of those men, the 
women are perpetrators of violence; but the overwhelming majority of 
violence is violence that takes place between men and women, with men 
being the principal perpetrators.
  It is why we've supported at the Federal level through the Violence 
Against Women Act a system of shelters and services and support for 
those who experience violence. It's why we've provided training for 
police officers, for all in law enforcement--for our prosecutors so 
that they become better prosecutors, for our judges so that they 
actually understand in our family courts and in our criminal courts 
what's going on with violence and so that it makes them better at 
meting out justice. It's the reason that we provide training in 
workplaces and with medical practitioners--so that they are able to 
identify when violence is happening in the emergency rooms and other 
health care facilities. It is the reason that here in this Congress we 
have this debate.
  The fact is, under H.R. 4970, which we are considering, if you are an 
immigrant woman, you can say, You know what? The abuser, because he 
knows about my immigration status, can abuse me all he wants because I 
will not be afforded any protection. There is no place that I can go. 
If you are from the LGBT community, you can experience untold violence, 
and there will not be protections and services for you.
  So H.R. 4970 actually turns on its head what we began to do in 1994 
with the first passage of the Violence Against Women Act and with its 
subsequent reauthorizations, which is that we began to expand the 
protections. Then we began to ask: What are the levels of services that 
we can provide to communities, however they're situated, so that we can 
make sure we have culturally sensitive programs and services, 
linguistically sensitive programs and services, and programs targeted 
at specific communities so that they can take advantage of them?
  Mr. WELCH. What about the kids? Whether they're lesbian or immigrants 
who take care of the children, isn't it the mothers who have the burden 
of that at the end of the day? Aren't we doing something that's going 
to protect those kids as well?
  Ms. EDWARDS. The gentleman makes an amazing point.
  When children witness violence, and especially as they grow older, 
children will often want to protect their mothers, and that actually 
puts them in greater danger. That is especially true for young boys, 
for male children, who will want to protect their mothers and think 
that they can intervene. There are children who grow up thinking that 
they were the reason that their mothers were experiencing violence, and 
then that has an untold downstream impact on them as they grow older.
  The fact of the matter is we need to reauthorize the Violence Against

[[Page H2711]]

Women Act, and we need to do that in a bipartisan fashion. We need to 
make sure that whether you're an immigrant woman, whether you're a 
Native American woman, or whether you are in the LGBT community that 
you have the full protections of the law against experiencing violence 
in your intimate relationships. This is the least that we can do. It is 
just unfortunate that the Republicans aren't even going to allow an 
amendment that would actually allow us to expand these protections so 
that we could come to a bipartisan solution.

  I can't tell you--I will just say to the chair--how sad it makes me 
as somebody who was in the trenches in 1990 to 1994, with advocates 
from across this country who were seeking to expand protections and 
services and programs for those who were experiencing violence, to know 
that we were able to do that with Republican Orrin Hatch from Utah; 
with Joe Biden from Delaware, a Democrat; with Connie Morella, a 
Republican from Maryland; with John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan. 
We were able to do that across the aisle; but today, instead, what we 
are doing is a Republican bill that would roll back the protections 
that many of us had sought to have.
  Mr. WELCH. You make a good point.
  Is it the case in this country that it's Republican women or 
Democratic women or Republican children or Democratic children who are 
on the bad end of violence? We know that's not the case. There is a lot 
of human emotion that goes into this, and it's uncontrolled emotion. We 
know that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat child or woman 
that you're entitled to the physical integrity of your own safety.
  So it's not an issue that should be decided on partisan grounds. It 
should be decided on the basic right of human beings to physical 
security, and it should be about the goal all of us, I believe, have--
that we want to have respectful and loving relationships, particularly 
in our intimate relationships.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the baseline, 
which is, when you're experiencing violence, you don't identify 
yourself as a Republican or as a Democrat.

                              {time}  2130

  You're not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. Children witness 
violence, women--and some men--experience violence. Native American 
women experience violence, and so do immigrants experience violence. 
Our law should afford the full protection of the law against those who 
would perpetrate and provide services and programs for those against 
whom violence is committed.
  I strongly urge the passage of the Violence Against Women Act that is 
a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 4970 simply misses the mark and 
would tip the scales in favor of abusers, that would tip the scales 
against immigrant women, that would tip the scales against the LGBT 
community, and would tip the scales across the board.
  With that, I urge that we would defeat H.R. 4970 and come back to the 
table with sensible bipartisan legislation in the tradition of the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________