[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3226-S3230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT of 2012
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Senate came together and
passed the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2012. Our legislation takes some much needed steps to help the most
vulnerable victims of domestic and sexual violence, and it was passed
with significant bipartisan support. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against
Women Act was an example of what we accomplish when we put politics
aside and work to find real solutions to real problems facing real
Americans.
Few laws have had a greater impact on the lives of women in this
country than the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). By shining a light
on the insidious crimes of domestic and sexual violence, this law(s
initial passage nearly 20 years ago sent a powerful message that
violence against women would no longer be tolerated. The days of
dismissing these crimes with a joke or a shrug were over. The
resources, training and law enforcement tools provided by VAWA
transformed the criminal justice and community-based response to abuse.
It gave support and protection to the victims who for generations had
been blamed, humiliated and ignored.
[[Page S3227]]
With each reauthorization of this landmark law, Congress has
repeatedly shown its bipartisan commitment to ending domestic and
sexual violence by building on the protections in the initial
legislation and expanding the reach of VAWA to meet the remaining unmet
needs of victims.
The bill that I introduced with Senator Crapo, and which passed the
Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan majority just last month, is
based on the successful tradition of preserving and enhancing
protections. It is based on months of work with survivors, advocates,
and law enforcement officers from all across the country and from
across the political spectrum. We purposely avoided proposals that were
extreme or divisive and selected only those proposals that law
enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime
victims every day told us were essential. That is why the provisions in
the Senate bill have such widespread support. More than 1,000 Federal,
state, and local organizations have endorsed it, including service
providers, law enforcement, religious organizations and many, many
more.
The inclusive, open process of drafting this legislation is also why
the Senate bill always had strong bipartisan support. It was a
bipartisan effort from the beginning with eight Republican Senators
cosponsoring the bill and seven more joining Democratic and Independent
Senators in voting to pass the bill. We were able to move able to move
to the bill without a filibuster, to consider amendments, which were
rejected, and to pass the bill with almost 70 votes. We adopted a bill
of which the Senate can be proud, because it serves the interests of
the American people while improving support and protection for victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault.
I am alarmed the other body--the House--has chosen a different path.
Instead of building on the broad bipartisan support for the Senate-
passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, Republican members
of the House Judiciary Committee last week took up a bill, H.R.4970,
that they crafted in back rooms without the input of those who dedicate
their lives to helping victims. This afternoon the House Republican
leadership brought that same bill to the floor, with only minor
modifications that do little to respond to the urgent concerns of
victims, and is forcing an up or down vote while blocking any attempts
to modify the legislation in response to the concerns raised by victims
and service providers around the country. Their legislation not only
fails to include the critical improvements in the Senate bill that
would increase protections for Native-American women, gay and lesbian
victims, battered immigrant women, and victims on college campuses or
victims in subsidized housing, it actually rolls back existing
protections leaving many victims more vulnerable to sexual and domestic
abuse. Among the most troubling provisions are those that drastically
undercut important, longstanding protections that are vital to the
safety and protection of battered immigrant victims.
As a result of this misguided effort, the House bill is strongly
opposed by many of the leading organizations that know these issues
best, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to
End Sexual Violence, the American Bar Association, the YWCA, the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and many, many more.
The thousands of local advocates and service providers around the
country that make up the National Network to End Domestic Violence
warned in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that H.R. 4970
would (weaken, rather than enhance, protections for victims of domestic
violence.( Sue Else, the President of that organization, lamented:
This is an unprecedented departure from this effective
law(s original intent. Thousands of victim advocates across
the country recommended substantial improvements for the
latest reauthorization, and the U.S. Senate accepted those
recommendations in a bipartisan way. It is alarming that the
House Judiciary Committee has not done the same.
The American Bar Association has stated:
Unlike the recently passed Senate bill (S. 1925), which
reflects discussions with more than 2,000 advocates and
experts across the country, H.R. 4970 represents a retreat
from the fight against domestic and sexual violence. It fails
to add critical improvements to address the needs of
underserved populations, like victims who are members of
faith communities and those who are denied services because
of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and strips
critical protections from existing law.
The YWCA, the largest provider of services for battered women in the
country, calls the House bill a ``dangerous bill that puts the lives of
millions of women across the nation at risk.'' These organizations
represent those on the front lines against domestic and sexual
violence. They are motivated by their desire to see all victims get the
help they need.
Likewise, a number of faith-based organizations, such as the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of
Evangelicals, and nearly 20 other religious institutions have joined a
letter stating that they are ``deeply troubled'' by the ``many
provisions [in the House bill] that actually would roll back
protections in current law for battered non-citizens, making them more
vulnerable and, in some cases, endangering their lives.''
House Republicans are headed down the wrong path. In fact, when the
Senate rejected their alternative to our bipartisan bill last month by
a strong bipartisan vote of only 37 in favor and 62 opposed, I had
hoped that would end the partisanship and the gamesmanship and we would
be able to move forward together to reauthorize the Violence Against
Women Act. I was encouraged to see the lead sponsor of the Republican
alternative, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, do just that
and join with us to support the bipartisan Senate bill upon final
passage. I commended Senator Hutchison for doing so. Likewise, we were
buoyed by the support on final passage by the Senior Senator from
Arizona, the Senators from Tennessee, Senator Coates of Indiana,
Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Portman of Ohio and Senator
Vitter of Louisiana.
Despite all this, House Republicans seem determined to destroy this
bipartisan effort. As evidenced by the vote they are forcing today,
they are intent on proceeding with their bill to roll back victim
protections and insistent that it be done without the opportunity to
consider the better, Senate-passed bill or, for that matter, any other
amendments to their ill-conceived effort to undercut the Violence
Against Women Act.
The House Republican bill not only fails to protect more victims, but
actually weakens existing protections. I fear that it puts more lives
at risk.
In its Statement of Administration Policy, the Obama administration
correctly opposes the House bill, H.R. 4970, as a measure that ``would
undermine the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act.'' It
notes the House Republican bill ``retreats'' from the progress
represented by the protections included in the bipartisan Senate-passed
bill and ``weakens'' critical protections for victims. The House
provisions ``senselessly remove existing legal protections, undermine
VAWA's core purpose of protecting victims of sexual assault and
domestic violence, frustrate important law enforcement objectives, and
jeopardize victims by placing them directly in harm's way.'' It
concludes with a threatened veto recommendation since the House measure
``rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.'' Never before, in
either Republican or Democratic administrations, Republican- or
Democrat-controlled Houses or Senates, has the Violence Against Women
Act been used to increase the dangers to women and so consciously
disregard the unmet needs of our most vulnerable victims. Never before.
Last week the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women noted
that the House Republican bill ``adds burdensome, counter-productive
requirements that compromise the ability of service providers to reach
victims, fails to adequately protect Tribal victims, lacks important
protection and services for LGBT victims, weakens resources for victims
living in subsidized housing, and eliminates important improvements to
address dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses.'' She
is right.
The closed process by which the House Republican leadership insisted
[[Page S3228]]
its ill-conceived bill be rubberstamped breaks House Republican
promises to allow amendments and proceed by an open amendment process.
The House Republican bill's roll back of protections breaks the promise
of the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault. Never before has the Violence Against
Women Act been used to increase the dangers to women and so consciously
disregarded the unmet needs of our most vulnerable victims.
A recent New York Times editorial entitled ``Backwards on Domestic
Violence'' had it right: ``House members on both sides of the aisle who
are serious about combating domestic violence must work to defeat this
atrocious bill.'' That sentiment was reinforced by a recent Los Angeles
Times editorial which stated: ``Republicans in the House should drop
their attempts to undermine the Violence Against Women Act and instead
move swiftly to reauthorize and strengthen the existing program, as the
Senate has already done.''
Today The Washington Post reports on another study by Human Rights
Watch documenting sexual violence and harassment of female farmworkers.
Congress should not be turning its backs to these battered and abused
women. We should be moving forward promptly to adopt the provisions of
the Senate-passed bill to protect the most vulnerable among us, women
who are doubly victimized by abusers and by the fear that they have no
recourse.
I thank Senators Murray, Menendez and Shaheen for their strong
statements in support of the Senate-passed Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act yesterday. I am disheartened by the decision of the
House Republican leadership to try to push through their destructive
bill over the clear objections of those very victims it is supposed to
serve. I urge the supporters of the bipartisan Senate bill to continue
our efforts to see that this carefully crafted legislation that meets
the needs of so many people is finally passed into law.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement
of Administrative Policy, the editorials from the New York Times and
the Los Angeles Times, and the letters to which I have referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4970--Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012
(Rep. Adams, R FL, and 40 cosponsors, May 15, 2012)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4970, a bill that
would undermine the core principles of the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA). VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation
that first passed the Congress in 1994 and has twice been
reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support, each time
with important improvements to strengthen VAWA. The Act
transformed the Nation's response to violence against women
and brought critically needed resources to States and local
communities to address these crimes.
H.R. 4970 retreats from this forward progress by failing to
include several critical provisions that are part of the
Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill. For instance, H.R.
4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic
violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over
non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full
civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over
non-Indians. Given that three out of five Native American
women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, these
omissions in H.R. 4970 are unacceptable. The bill also fails
to include language that would prohibit discrimination
against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual
assault or domestic violence victim should be beaten, hurt,
or killed because they could not access needed support,
assistance, and protection. In addition, H.R. 4970 does not
include important improvements to the Clery Act found in the
Senate-passed bill that would address the high rates of
dating violence and sexual assault experienced by young
people in college and other higher education institutions.
The bill also weakens critical new provisions in the Senate-
passed bill that would improve safety for victims living in
subsidized housing.
H.R. 4970 also takes direct aim at immigrant victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault by removing critical
protections currently in law. H.R. 4970 allows abusers to be
notified when a victim files a VAWA self-petition for relief,
and it eliminates the path to citizenship for U visa
holders--victims of serious crimes such as torture, rape, and
domestic violence--who are cooperating with law enforcement
in the investigation or prosecution of these crimes. These
proposals senselessly remove existing legal protections,
undermine VAWA's core purpose of protecting victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence, frustrate important law
enforcement objectives, and jeopardize victims by placing
them directly in harm's way.
The Administration urges the House to find common ground
with the bipartisan Senate-passed bill and consider and pass
legislation that will protect all victims. H.R. 4970 rolls
back existing law and removes long-standing protections for
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault--crimes that
predominately affect women. If the President is presented
with H.R. 4970, his senior advisors would recommend that he
veto the bill.
____
National Network To End
Domestic Violence,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers: The
National Network to End Domestic Violence, which represents
all of our nation's state and territorial domestic violence
and dual domestic violence-sexual assault coalitions, their
2,000 member programs and the millions of victims they serve
every year, opposes HR 4970, a bill introduced by
Representatives Sandy Adams (R FL) and Eric Cantor (R VA) to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
VAWA was initially passed in 1994 and subsequently
reauthorized in 2000 and 2005 to meet the needs of victims.
HR 4970 fails to meet, and in fact, weakens, rather than
enhances, protections for victims of domestic violence. The
network of survivors and advocates who work on a daily basis
with courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, shelters, academic
and medical institutions need VAWA's tools--its laws and
programs--to help keep victims safe. All of us are alarmed
that HR 4970 takes the wrong direction and will be dangerous
for victims.
We are particularly concerned with provisions that erode
critical safety measures for immigrant victims seeking safety
and justice, fail to fix a jurisdictional issue for victims
on tribal lands who are beaten by non-tribal perpetrators
with near impunity, and turn a blind eye to lesbian, gay and
other marginalized communities. If enacted, this bill would
jeopardize victims' lives and embolden perpetrators of
violence. HR 4970 also wrongly grows bureaucracy through the
costly and excessive auditing of small nonprofits. Resources
would be better spent training and supporting those important
organizations that provide these lifesaving services and
advocacy. And finally, the emergency housing transfer section
in this bill, which is intended to help victims flee violent,
dangerous perpetrators without becoming homeless, is weakened
by allowing the adoption of transfer policies to be
``voluntary'' by owners, managers and public housing
agencies.
The U.S. House of Representatives has the opportunity to
develop and pass a bipartisan VAWA that meets the needs of
victims. HR 4970 is not such a bill. We look forward to
working with the House Judiciary Committee and all Members of
Congress to develop a bill that is reflective of the needs of
all victims. Please contact Paulette Sullivan Moore, NNEDV's
Vice President of Policy, at [email protected] with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Sue Else,
President.
____
May 7, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers: On behalf
of the undersigned faith leaders and faith-based
organizations concerned about victims of domestic violence,
human trafficking, sexual assault, and other forms of
violence, we write to express our concerns about Title VIII
of H.R. 4970, legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA), which we understand the House Committee on
the Judiciary plans to mark up tomorrow.
Faith communities are on the front lines, identifying
victims, providing refuge, referring victims and their
families for services, and offering hope and healing. In
times of crisis, victims often turn to faith communities and
leaders for support and moral guidance because they see
places of worship as a sanctuary from the horrors they have
experienced. Through our ministry with victims, we have
learned that abusers often exploit a victim's immigration
status, leaving individuals extremely vulnerable and afraid
to report the abuse to law enforcement, assist in the
prosecution of crimes, and seek services.
Congress created VAWA in 1994, and it has voted twice since
then to reauthorize the law, each time with broad bipartisan
support. However, we are deeply troubled by Title VIII of
H.R. 4970, as introduced. Title VIII contains many provisions
that actually would roll back protections in current law for
battered non-citizens, making them more vulnerable and, in
some cases, endangering their lives. We urge you to strike
these provisions from the bill before the measure is brought
before the full House of Representatives for a vote.
[[Page S3229]]
VAWA is an effective tool in combatting the devastating
crimes of domestic violence and providing lifesaving programs
and services. We urge Congress to preserve and improve
protections for vulnerable immigrant victims.
Sincerely,
Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development
Association; Rev. John L. McCullough, Executive Director and
CEO, Church World Service; Wendy Tarr, Director, Clergy and
Laity United for Economic Justice; Alex Baumgarten, Director
of Government Relations, The Episcopal Church; Luis Cortes,
President, Esperanza; Alexia Salvatierra, Director of Justice
Ministries, Southwest California Synod Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America; Patrick Carolan, Executive Director,
Franciscan Action Network; Gideon Aronoff, President and CEO,
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Orlando Crespo, National
Director, La Fe Multi-Ethnic Ministries, Intervarsity
Christian Fellowship/USA; Janet Mock, CSJ, Executive
Director, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
Linda Hartke, President and CEO, Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service; Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, Director,
Mennonite Central Committee, U.S. Washington Office; Salam
Al-Marayati, President, Muslim Public Affairs Council; Leith
Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals;
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian
Leadership Conference; Rev. Gabriel Salguero, President,
National Latino Evangelical Coalition; Jim Wallis, President
and CEO, Sojourners; Johnny Young, Executive Director,
Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops; Lynne Hybels, Willow Creek Community Church; Deborah
Fikes, Executive Advisor, World Evangelical Alliance; Stephan
Bauman, President and CEO, World Relief.
____
American Bar Association,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar
Association, with nearly 400,000 members, I write to express
our opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act
reauthorization bill introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL),
which is scheduled to be considered by the House Judiciary
Committee on May 8, 2012. We urge members of the committee to
oppose the bill.
VAWA has been the single most effective federal effort to
respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country. The
act has ensured that legal and social services are available
to survivors, and that law enforcement, prosecutors, judges,
attorneys and advocates are well-trained and equipped with
cutting-edge resources to effectively address these crimes in
their own communities.
Reauthorization of VAWA is critical, providing Congress
with the opportunity to amend the act in order to combat
domestic and sexual violence more effectively. For example,
in 2000, Congress created the Legal Assistance to Victims
grant program. It also created the U visa for immigrants who
are victims of serious crimes and who have cooperated with
authorities in the prosecution of the perpetrator, and it
authorized funding for increased protection of older
individuals and individuals with disabilities. And in 2005,
it became unlawful to deny an individual housing assistance
simply because the individual is a victim of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.
Congress also created a new grant program to improve court
responses to these crimes.
H.R. 4970 does not continue this tradition of improvement.
Unlike the recently passed Senate bill (S. 1925), which
reflects discussions with more than 2,000 advocates and
experts across the country, H.R. 4970 represents a retreat
from the fight against domestic and sexual violence. It fails
to add critical improvements to address the needs of
underserved populations, like victims who are members of
faith communities and those who are denied services because
of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and strips
critical protections from existing law.
The provisions of H.R. 4970 that significantly undermine
protections available to vulnerable immigrant victims of
violence are of particular concern. Before enactment of VAWA,
abusive U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs)
were able to use the immigration laws as a mechanism to
further abuse and control their immigrant spouses and
children. Perpetrators of domestic violence routinely would
thwart, or threaten to thwart, the visa petitioning process.
In creating a special application process for battered
spouses and children of U.S. Citizens and LPRs, lawmakers
recognized that many victims of domestic abuse were
unwittingly victimized by the immigration system as well.
The current VAWA green card application process involves a
``self-petition,'' so that the abuser is not involved at all
in the process and prohibits the government from releasing
information about the existence of a VAWA immigration case to
the abuser or others. H.R. 4970 removes those critical
protections. A forced choice between deportation or safety
from an abusive spouse or trafficker is the precise evil that
the original self-petitioning provisions of the VAWA were
intended to eliminate. H.R. 4970 creates obstacles for
immigrant victims seeking to report crimes and increases the
danger to victims by eliminating important confidentiality
provisions.
Because it fails to improve upon our nation's response to
domestic violence and sexual assault by ensuring that all
populations are protected and in fact rolls back critical
protections in existing law, the ABA urges you to oppose H.R.
4970. VAWA is a critical tool in the arsenal to address
domestic and sexual violence, and it must be improved during
this reauthorization process to address the needs of all
victims and hold more offenders accountable.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Susman,
Director, Governmental Affairs Office.
____
May 7, 2012.
Dear Representative: As the largest provider of battered
women's services in the United States, with over 1300
locations in 47 states, the YWCA is deeply invested in the
safety and health of all women. The YWCA serves over half a
million women each year through its anti-violence programs,
providing much needed access for victims of violence to 24-
hour crisis hotlines, emergency shelter, counseling services,
legal assistance, child care, economic empowerment programs
and transitional housing. The YWCA strongly opposes any
legislation that puts victims' lives at risk, and as such,
opposes H.R. 4970 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL).
For nearly 18 years, VAWA has provided a national,
streamlined response to address domestic violence, sexual
assault, dating violence and stalking. H.R. 4970 cuts back on
critical provisions outlined in S. 1925, passed last month,
that protect some of the most vulnerable women in our
communities, and as a result, is a dangerous bill that puts
the lives of millions of women across the nation at risk.
Under H.R. 4970, immigrant women will be required to
conduct interviews for U-visa petitions in person, which does
not take into consideration the unfortunate reality of many
victims of violence where their movement is strictly limited
or closely monitored by their abusers. In addition, H.R. 4970
would eliminate key confidentially measures by allowing USCIS
officers to notify and interview the abusers. Not only will
this keep immigrant victims from reporting abuse, but it will
put their lives at risk if they do proceed to apply for a U-
visa. Studies indicate that the two most heightened periods
of danger for victims of abuse are when they are pregnant and
when they decide to leave an abusive situation--disregarding
the importance of confidentiality and informing the abuser of
the victims' intent to leave will undoubtedly lead to greater
danger for the very people that this bill purports to assist.
H.R. 4970 disregards the epidemic rates of violence in
Indian Country by allowing batterers to avoid prosecution on
Tribal lands. By doing so, the bill fails to hold
perpetrators of violence accountable for their actions and
sends a clear message to Native victims of violence to remain
silent and endure abuse. Without explicitly addressing the
issue of accountability, Native victims will continue to
remain fearful of reporting crimes of abuse. H.R. 4970 also
strips all support for LGBT victims of abuse, claiming that
they are not the `right' victims. The YWCA supports all women
and victims of abuse regardless of sexual orientation,
immigration status, or race, and does not stand for isolating
entire subsets of the community that face unique barriers to
accessing services. By excluding the LGBT community in the
bill, H.R. 4970 it prevents providers from serving ALL women,
and no one should be denied help based on their sexual
orientation.
H.R. 4970 fails to provide inclusive provisions that
address the unique needs of underserved communities, which
would in turn endanger the lives of millions of women across
the nation. The YWCA supports legislation that is trauma
informed, victim centered, and evidence based, and is opposed
to any provisions that force victims to negotiate their
safety when seeking assistance from abusive situations.
In short, we urge you to oppose H.R. 4970.
Please contact Desiree Hoffman, Director of Advocacy and
Policy at [email protected] or Qudsia Jafree, Field and
Policy Coordinator at [email protected] should you have
questions.
Sincerely,
Desiree Hoffman,
YWCA USA, Director of Advocacy and Policy.
____
[From the New York Times]
Backward on Domestic Violence
In an all-too-rare show of bipartisanship, 15 Senate
Republicans joined with the Democratic majority last month to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, the landmark 1994
law that is key to efforts against domestic violence, sexual
assault and stalking.
Unfortunately, the lopsided 68-to-31 Senate vote halted
G.O.P. opponents only temporarily. The House Judiciary
Committee last week approved its version of the
reauthorization bill, which not only omits improvements the
Senate bill made to the law but also removes existing
protections for immigrant women, putting them at greater risk
of domestic and sexual abuse.
The Senate's measure ensures that victims are not denied
services because they are gay or transgender. It also strives
to ensure that domestic violence crimes committed by non-
Indian men in tribal communities are prosecuted. The Senate
bill also would modestly
[[Page S3230]]
expand the availability of special U-visas for undocumented
immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. That move
was supported by law enforcement to encourage victims to come
forward and testify against their abusers.
The regressive House alternative removes these and other
improvements, including new protections for students on
college campuses. The House measure would eliminate a
confidentiality requirement in current law that protects the
identity of immigrant women who file domestic violence
complaints against a spouse who is a citizen or legal
resident and allows the women to apply for legal status on
their own.
House Republicans claim there is a big fraud problem in
this area, but there is no hard evidence of that. And their
plan to end the centralized handling of these issues by a
Vermont-based office would undermine the government's ability
to detect untruthful stories.
House members on both sides of the aisle who are serious
about combating domestic violence must work to defeat this
atrocious bill. If that fails, the Senate will need to insist
on fixing it during the reconciliation process.
____
[From latimes.com, May 15, 2012]
Partisanship and the Violence Against Women Act
The House needs to reauthorize the law, without limits, as
it has in the past, so Republicans can demonstrate that
helping battered women is more important than political
games.
The political climate in Congress is so noxious these days
that even a law that originally passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support because it provided much-needed help to
abused women is now a partisan issue. That's shameful.
Republicans in the House should drop their attempts to
undermine the Violence Against Women Act and instead move
swiftly to reauthorize and strengthen the existing program,
as the Senate has already done.
First enacted in 1994, the law has been renewed twice
without a fight. Last week, however, some of the same GOP
lawmakers who once endorsed the law retreated, voting in
committee to strip out provisions designed to protect
immigrants. Under VAWA as it has long existed, if an
immigrant married to a U.S. citizen or a green-card holder--
and therefore eligible to stay in the country permanently--
can show evidence of abuse, he or she may file independently
without having to rely on the abusive spouse. VAWA's gender-
neutral protections apply to legal and illegal immigrants and
allow the victim to file confidentially.
Confidentiality is crucial. As the Republican-led House
Judiciary Committee noted in its 2005 report to reauthorize
VAWA and expand protections, without such guarantees, an
abuser could try to derail a spouse's green-card application
or push to have him or her deported. A battered woman whose
application depends on her abusive husband certainly might
think twice about filing if she knew her abuser would be
notified that she was seeking help without him.
Eliminating the confidentiality provision is one of several
changes House Republicans would like to make to weaken the
law. They argue that the changes are necessary to combat
fraud, in which immigrants falsely claim to have been abused
in order to obtain visas. But where are the data and studies
that fraud is a problem? Immigrant victims who petition for
visas under VAWA are already required to supply ample
evidence of abuse, such as police reports or medical records.
And applications undergo intense scrutiny. In fiscal 2011,
immigration officials denied nearly a third of those
petitions.
The House reauthorization bill also seeks to undercut a
provision that allows undocumented immigrants who assist in
prosecutions of serious crime for U visas, and ultimately
obtain green cards. The proposed changes would allow victims
to obtain temporary visas only. Surely, even those lawmakers
who embrace anti-immigrant legislation can appreciate that U
visas help protect American citizens too, by encouraging
witnesses to step forward without fear of deportation. That's
why the program enjoys the backing of many law enforcement
groups.
The House will vote on Wednesday. It should reauthorize
VAWA without limits, as it has in the past, and demonstrate
that helping battered women, those who are immigrants, isn't
a partisan issue.
____________________