[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 72 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2012

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
this bill. The Violence Against Women Act has never been a divisive 
piece of legislation until this Tea Party Majority came into power. 
Instead of bringing the bipartisan bill already passed by the Senate to 
this floor for a vote, House Republicans are attempting to pass a 
partisan and discriminatory bill that eliminates protections for 
violent crime victims.
  The Republican bill on the floor this week eliminates long-standing 
critical protections for immigrant women who are the victims of crime 
and abuse. This bill rejects the new protections adopted by the Senate 
for gay and transgender individuals. The LGBT community experiences 
domestic violence at roughly the same rates as other populations, but 
these survivors often face discrimination when seeking the services 
they need to escape abuse. The bipartisan Senate bill included 
provisions to ensure LGBT victims can find refuge and access needed 
services.
  This bill also eliminates the new provisions for Native American 
victims. One in three native women is raped in her lifetime, three in 
five suffer domestic assault, and a majority of the perpetrators are 
non-Indian. Considering these horrific statistics, I am dismayed that 
the bill the Republican majority brought before us today does not 
include adequate protections for Native women. The provision included 
at the last minute--section 1006--actually takes a step backward by 
placing the burden on the woman seeking protection, who would have to 
travel to a federal court and hire legal counsel. It forces tribal 
women to rely on federal law enforcement, who already decline to 
prosecute more than half of the violent crimes in Indian Country, and 
an even higher percentage of sexual assault cases.
  According to the National Congress of American Indians, in one 
alarming case, a woman was assaulted by her non-Native boyfriend and 
had her nose broken. When she filed a police report, she heard that the 
injury was just broken cartilage, and that the case would not be 
prosecuted because U.S. attorneys will not take a domestic violence 
case unless the disfigurement is permanent. This is the status quo that 
the bill before us will maintain. It is unacceptable, especially with a 
better bipartisan alternative available.
  The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill passed by the 
Senate, S. 1925, had provisions that provided for tribes to prosecute a 
non-Indian for domestic violence in a constitutional manner. Defendants 
would still have access to free counsel, to due process, and to a jury 
of their peers including non-Indians. These common-sense provisions 
were developed during years of consultation with tribes and were 
recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice after studying the 
crisis. Tribal communities need this authority at the local level to 
protect their mothers, sisters and daughters from abuse.
  If the House passed the bipartisan Senate bill, it would send a clear 
message that this country does not tolerate violence against women, 
regardless of their ethnicity or sexual orientation. Moreover, it would 
show Congress' commitment to reducing domestic violence, protecting 
women from sexual assault and securing justice for victims.
  Over a decade ago, VAWA passed the House and Senate by votes of 371 1 
and 95 0, respectively, and then this overwhelming support was repeated 
in 2005. Yet here we are today, with my colleagues across the aisle 
turning this into a divisive and partisan issue.
  It is wrong, it is unfair to victims of domestic violence, and it is 
the latest example of this Tea Party Republican Majority's failure to 
find common ground even on issues that have been historically non-
controversial. We must do better for all women who experience violence, 
which is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I remain 
hopeful that the House will have the opportunity to consider the 
Senate-passed bipartisan language instead.
  The purpose of VAWA has always been to ensure that all victims of 
violence are protected and that their basic human rights are upheld, no 
matter one's sexual orientation, ethnicity, or legal status in this 
country, and this bill shirks that responsibility.

                          ____________________