[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H2717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The Violence Against Women Act has been one of the
great legislative successes of the last two decades. Since it was first
signed into law by President Clinton, there is no question that it has
helped millions of women by funding a variety of community violence
protection programs and a variety of victim assistance services from
coast to coast while providing a legal framework for protection.
Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the legislation in all
subsequent reauthorizations because of the recognition for the vital
nature of the services that are provided and the impact that it has not
just on women, but on the children in these families. That's why it was
reauthorized in 2000 and then again in 2005 under a Republican
administration with President Bush.
In this Congress, that tradition of bipartisan support continues in
the Senate, which has approved a stronger version of the legislation
developed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, cosponsored by both Chair
Leahy and Ranking Member Crapo. Sadly, it's facing a decidedly
different fate in the House.
Once again, the Republican majority is advancing legislation by one
of their new Members that is designed not to bring people together to
solve problems, but to create unnecessary divisions. Their bill would
actually roll back, for the first time, these established rights rather
than increase them. The House legislation would fail to provide
protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual individuals. It
would fail Native American victims who are assaulted on tribal lands by
nontribal predators. The bill would discourage immigrants from
reporting sexual assaults and other crimes by placing unnecessary
restrictions on new visa programs and not increase the emergency visas
for individuals who immigrate to the United States on a marriage or
fiancee visa and are subject to an abusive relationship.
Not only does the House bill miss these opportunities, but it would
remove the current confidentiality protections for victims who still
had immigrant status. It would inexplicably reduce violence reporting
requirements on colleges and universities. These are all tools widely
used and supported by law enforcement officials to help keep
communities safe by prosecuting criminals and protecting victims.
The House bill would decentralize the Violence Against Women
immigration adjudication process, bypassing examiners who are trained
in domestic violence and sexual assault, instead, mandating additional
interviews on battered immigrants. These are people who usually have
very limited options to protect themselves. We should not complicate
the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the United States.
These victims of violence--usually women in the most difficult of
circumstances--will be burdened, hindered, and discouraged from seeking
and getting the help they need.
The House bill would represent the triumph of ideological partisan
politics over solid legislation with an opportunity for solid
bipartisan support. It should be firmly rejected.
Instead, the House should use this opportunity to build on a record
of proven success, bipartisan cooperation, and a commitment to
strengthening the protection of society's most vulnerable by using the
Senate bill as a template. These victims and potential victims deserve
no less. They, their families, and the communities they live in deserve
no less.
Domestic violence is an assault on the entire community and should
not be tolerated. We should not retreat on the Violence Against Women
Act, but strengthen it by using the Senate bill as a point of departure
and reject the House version.
____________________