[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5729-5768]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I rise today to speak on an issue that is profoundly 
important and meaningful to this body at this moment in history. We 
face a critical juncture in our Nation's history, and we absolutely 
must renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act, not only for 
the sake of women but also our families around Connecticut and this 
country.
  I thank my colleagues for voting to proceed to consideration of S. 
1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. VAWA is 
critically important. It is bipartisan legislation that gives victims 
of domestic violence and sexual assault access to the services they so 
desperately need. This crucial law supports both the organizations that 
provide these services and the law enforcement agencies that assist the 
victims as they pursue justice.
  As a law enforcement official, I saw firsthand in my duties as State 
attorney general for Connecticut how important and practical and 
meaningful this law is. We have a responsibility to not only authorize 
but also to strengthen VAWA right away.
  Some 17 years have passed since the original Violence Against Women 
Act. We have made great strides, but we cannot be complacent in our 
efforts to protect our Nation's children and women. At a time when the 
women of our great Nation face relentless attacks on their rights, we 
cannot afford to lose the ground we have gained over the last 17 years. 
We must address the grave concerns of domestic violence and sexual 
assault which are in no way partisan. As Chairman Leahy so eloquently 
and powerfully stated, there is nothing Republican or Democratic about 
a victim who suffers from this grave ill.
  S. 1925 is a bipartisan bill written over months of negotiations and 
consultations with critical law enforcement and victims advocacy 
groups, and it supports a number of organizations in my home State of 
Connecticut with a mission to protect women who experience violence in 
all forms. This bill provides resources to help a number of 
organizations in Connecticut fulfill their vital mission to protect 
more than 54,000--I am going to repeat that because that is a 
staggering number--54,000 domestic violence victims in Connecticut 
alone.
  Organizations in Connecticut received nearly $5 million in fiscal 
year 2011 from the Violence Against Women Act. But many domestic 
programs in Connecticut and around the country are reporting huge staff 
and resource shortages that are necessary to respond to the hundreds of 
thousands of women in need. It is truly an epidemic in this country 
that we must counter and fight just as we would an epidemic of 
infectious bacteria or other kinds of insidious sources. VAWA would 
give these service providers the resources they need to protect women, 
men, and children who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. We 
have the opportunity to renew and commit to end domestic violence with 
updates and stronger measures in this act.
  I am pleased that S. 1925 builds on the accountability provisions in 
the current law so we can make sure VAWA grant money is used 
effectively and efficiently to support victims. There is a new frontier 
in the fight against domestic violence and sexual assault. We must 
strengthen provisions dealing with Internet abuse to protect women and 
others from those kinds of threats, intimidation, harassment, even 
physical assaults facilitated by the Internet. Domestic violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking can be even more dangerous and threatening 
in the Internet age, requiring broader and stronger protection. We must 
protect the thousands of women who fall victim every year to violent 
crimes facilitated by cyber stalking and impersonation with 
consequences that are truly horrific and reprehensible.
  I am proud to introduce a companion bill to the Violence Against 
Women Act that enhances current law for the Internet age. This 
legislation, the Internet Abuse Act, expands the ability of law 
enforcement to prosecute criminals who use the Internet to intimidate, 
threaten, harass, and facilitate acts of sexual violence against women, 
children, and others.
  The VAWA proposal before us includes key concepts from the Internet 
Abuse Act. One of the key provisions strengthens existing criminal 
provisions against cyber stalking. We must take this act to the new 
frontier of Internet abuse and make it real against the very pernicious 
and reprehensible cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and cyber assault 
that is as much a fact of life as the older forms of domestic abuse. 
This provision gives law enforcement the ability to go after more real 
instances of criminal harassment and abuse online, and I want to stress 
at the same time the provision dramatically strengthens free speech 
protections.
  Currently, the government can prosecute individuals for merely 
annoying online communications as well as communications that may be 
generally offensive but not directed at a specific person. This 
provision removes those authorities from the law so that prosecutors 
will spend their limited resources focusing on real causes of harassing 
and abusive conduct online.
  The law also focuses on vulnerable populations. As we strengthen 
VAWA, we must ensure that all victims of domestic violence are 
protected and have access to the services they need.
  Although VAWA has been strengthened and updated in every past 
reauthorization, the needs of some of our most vulnerable communities 
still have not been fully addressed. One example is elder abuse. 
Although the VAWA reauthorization in 2000 included provisions to deal 
with domestic abuse in later life, our Nation's elders continue to be 
victims of domestic violence. I am pleased that the provisions I 
drafted with my distinguished colleague, Senator Kohl, which improve 
the protections for elder victims of domestic abuse, have been included 
in this reauthorization of VAWA.
  There are LGBT protections. It would simply be unconscionable to deny 
any victim of domestic violence the support he or she needs. For that 
reason, I strongly support the provisions that ensure all victims of 
domestic violence, regardless of gender or

[[Page 5730]]

sexual orientation, have access to lifesaving services, and we are 
talking about lifesaving services.
  In my experience nobody ever asked what the sexual orientation of a 
victim was when that person was, in fact, battered and brutalized. 
There is no such question that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender 
individuals experience domestic violence at the same rate as the 
general population. Yet these individuals face discrimination as they 
attempt to access victims services. That should not be acceptable in 
this country.
  In fact, the survey found 45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away 
when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. Clearly, there 
is a real need to improve the access and availability of services for 
this vulnerable population, and I support measures in the act that 
ensure victims of domestic and sexual violence, regardless of their 
sexual orientation or gender identification, can access the services 
they need.
  In addition, there are broader protections for Native American 
communities. S. 1925 makes great improvements to the law enforcement 
tools available to Native American populations. Members of the Tribal 
Council of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, a great tribal nation 
in Connecticut, have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions in 
S. 1925 and to make sure any amendments are barred if they weaken those 
protections.
  In short, all victims of domestic violence deserve access to the 
services they need and many of my colleagues I know agree. In fact, 61 
from both sides of the aisle have signed on to the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act, and I thank every single one of them for 
stepping forward and speaking out on this profoundly meaningful and 
important issue. We have the opportunity to work to eliminate domestic 
and sexual violence, which is a scourge in our society, costly in 
suffering as well as dollars, and I encourage my colleagues to keep 
faith with the hundreds of thousands of victims who look to us for the 
support they need. We must vote as soon as possible--hopefully today--
to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have seen the good the law called 
the Violence Against Women Act has done in providing victim services in 
my State of Iowa. We all recognize the harm that flows from domestic 
violence. It is harmful to the victims as well as the families of 
victims.
  I have supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 
each time it has come up. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization on 
each of these occasions has been highly bipartisan. We have passed 
consensus bills and we have not played politics with reauthorizing the 
law; that is, until now. This time it seems to be different. I don't 
know why it should be. The majority turned this issue into a partisan 
issue.
  In the Judiciary Committee, the majority gave no notice it would 
inject new matters into the Violence Against Women Act. When the 
committee held a hearing on this issue, these ideas were not discussed. 
Their need has not been demonstrated. We do not know exactly how they 
will work. It was clear committee Republicans would not be able to 
agree to this new added material. Of course, the majority refused 
during negotiations when we asked they be removed.
  Republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the Leahy 
bill. Probably 80 to 85 percent of the substitute we are offering is 
the same as the Leahy bill. This includes whole titles of the bill. We 
could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act, but the majority intentionally decided not 
to change the bill. They didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming 
bipartisan majority.
  Now the media has reported this was a deliberate strategy of the 
majority. A recent Politico article quoted a prominent Democratic 
Senator. The article said he ``wants to fast track the bill to the 
floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans 
of waging a war against women.'' This is the cynical, partisan game-
playing Americans are sick of. At every town meeting people say to me: 
When are you going to get together and stop the partisanship? This is 
especially the case on this bill.
  Republicans aren't even blocking the bill. We have called for the 
bill to be brought up. Instead, the majority has taken 6 months to 
reauthorize this program that expired last October. That says something 
about the priorities of the other party.
  For instance, last week, we wasted time on political votes. That 
seems to be the case in the Senate most of this year. The Senate can 
pass a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act by an 
overwhelming margin, but it seems as though the other party doesn't 
want that to happen. When they say unfavorable things about Republicans 
and women, they aren't being forthright. A few weeks ago, the 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising e-
mail. The e-mail stated, in part:

       Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress 
     will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act. 
     Enough is enough! The Republican War on Women must stop NOW . 
     . . Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold 
     Republicans accountable for their War on Women?

  The majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or 
trying to get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill that 
would actually help these victims. I say to my colleagues, there is no 
war on women except the political one. It is a figment of the 
imagination of Democratic strategists who don't want to remember health 
care reform, unemployment or high gas prices. Instead of talking about 
those issues--particularly high gas prices--they would rather make up a 
war against women. All evidence points to the other side being more 
interested in raising money.
  The media has also reported the bill is coming out now because the 
Democrats' desire to gin up a Republican so-called war on women was 
derailed last week, I suppose by other issues. It should be clear at 
the outset Republicans are not blocking, have not blocked, and never 
threatened to block the Senate's consideration of this bill. The 
Judiciary Committee only reported the bill to the Senate 2 months ago. 
It was March before the committee filed its usual committee report to 
the entire Senate. Democrats immediately came to the floor and urged 
the bill to come up right now. It was up to the majority leader to 
decide when the bill should be debated. He finally decided--not right 
after the bill was reported out of committee or not right after the 
committee report was filed--to do it now. Why not back then?
  As long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including 
our alternative bill and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, 
this should be a relatively short process. As the previous speaker 
said, I hope we can get it done this very day.
  There are several other important points I wish to establish. First, 
I hope a consensus version of the Violence Against Women Act will be 
reauthorized. If a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or 
anyone else will be affected if the bill does not pass because, 
contrary to the statements made, there would be no cutbacks of 
services.
  The Violence Against Women Act--the bill before us--is an 
authorization bill only, not an appropriations bill. This bill does not 
allow the expenditure of one dime because that result occurs through 
the appropriations process. Appropriators can and will fund the 
Violence Against Women Act programs regardless of whether this bill is 
reauthorized. This is exactly what happened over the past year. We 
think new issues have arisen since the last Violence Against Women Act 
reauthorization. These issues should be addressed in a consensus 
reauthorization. That can happen. We should give guidance to the 
appropriators. That is what authorization committees, such as in this 
case, the Judiciary Committee, is all about.
  I support the appropriators continuing to fund the Violence Against

[[Page 5731]]

Women Act while we are trying to put together a consensus bill. The 
Violence Against Women Act is being funded despite the expiration of 
its previous authorization. No existing rights of anyone are affected 
if the Violence Against Women Act is not reauthorized. No existing 
rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than 
this partisan bill--I should say the majority's bill, not the partisan 
bill.
  Second, the majority controls how bills move in the Senate. As I 
said, the current Violence Against Women Act reauthorization expired 6 
months ago. If reauthorization was so important, I think the majority 
party could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago. They didn't 
move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are at 
stake. This is true, even though the prior reauthorization has expired 
and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed.
  Third, nothing like the majority's bill, where it does not reflect 
consensus, will become law. It is a political exercise. The other body, 
meaning the House of Representatives, doesn't seem as though it is 
going to pass it the way the majority party here wants it to pass. If 
we want to pass a consensus violence against women reauthorization 
bill, we ought to start with the alternative Senator Hutchison and I 
are going to present to the Senate.
  Fourth, the majority's bill, as reported out of committee, was and is 
fiscally irresponsible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new 
direct spending. That will increase the deficit by that same amount. 
The reason is the immigration provisions that we said previously were 
nonstarters. These were some of the provisions the majority refused to 
take out. Those provisions are bad immigration policy. Nonetheless, I 
am glad the majority has now found an offset for this spending.
  The Republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims 
of domestic violence and sex crimes than does, in fact, the majority 
bill. There are many ways in which this substitute does that. Under the 
substitute amendment, more money goes to victims and less to 
bureaucrats. It requires that 10 percent of the grantees be audited 
every year. This is to ensure taxpayer funds are actually being used 
for the purpose of the legislation--to combat domestic violence.
  This is a very important point. The Justice Department inspector 
general conducted a review of 22 grantees under this law between 1998 
and 2010. Of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of 
violation of grant requirements. The violations range from unauthorized 
and unallowable expenditures to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to 
report in a timely manner. When this happens, the money is not getting 
to the victims and the taxpayers' money is being wasted.
  Let me give some examples. In 2010, one grantee was found by the 
inspector general to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the 
nearly $900,000 they received from the Justice Department. A 2009 audit 
found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.
  The fiscal irregularities continue. An inspector general audit from 
just this year found that this law's grant recipients in the Virgin 
Islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending. Also, a 
grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho found about $250,000 in improperly 
spent funds. This included--can my colleagues believe it--$171,000 in 
salary for an unapproved position.
  In Michigan this year, a woman, at a VAWA grant recipient facility, 
used grant funds to purchase goods and services for personal use.
  We should make sure then that Violence Against Women Act money goes 
to victims and not to waste such as this. That hasn't been the case, 
obviously, under the current situation. So our Republican substitute 
deals with this spending problem.
  The substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to 
lobby for more taxpayer funds. That will ensure that more money is 
available for victims' services. Money that goes to grantees and is 
squandered helps no woman or other victims.
  In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of Violence 
Against Women Act funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries 
to 7.5 percent. That means money that now is over the 7.5-percent 
suggested limit is going to bureaucrats and not to victims. Of course, 
the underlying bill, the Leahy bill, contains no such limit. If you 
want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead 
expenses should be capped at this 7.5-percent level.
  The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of the 
STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protective orders are 
targeted to sexual assault. The Leahy-Crapo bill sets aside only 20 
percent instead of that 30 percent to fight sexual assault.
  The substitute Senator Hutchison and I offer--hopefully this 
afternoon--requires that training materials be approved by an outside 
accredited organization. This ensures that those who address domestic 
violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology. This will 
result in more effective assistance to victims. The Leahy-Crapo bill 
contains no such requirement.
  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute protects due process rights that 
the majority bill threatens. I will give you an instance. The majority 
bill said that college campuses must provide for ``prompt and equitable 
investigation and resolution'' of charges of violence or stalking. This 
would have codified a proposed rule of the Department of Education that 
would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of 
the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that, if 
proved, rightly should harm reputation. But if established on a barely 
``more probable than not'' standard, reputations can be ruined unfairly 
and very quickly. The substitute eliminates this provision.
  The majority has changed their own bill's language. I thank them for 
that. I take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the 
original language.
  The substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim 
who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating 
double jeopardy.
  The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to 
issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians 
based on actions allegedly taking place in Indian country.
  Noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise 
jurisdiction over only those persons who have ``minimum contacts'' with 
the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional 
questions about this provision. The administration and its supporters 
in this body pursue their policy agendas headlong without bothering to 
consider the Constitution. The substitute contains provisions that 
would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.
  We have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit 
provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill are. I strongly support 
funds to reduce the backlog of testing rape kits. But that bill 
provides that only 40 percent of the rape kit money actually be used to 
reduce the backlog. The substitute requires that 70 percent of the 
funding would go for that purpose and get rid of the backlog sooner.
  It requires that 1 percent of the Debbie Smith Act funds be used to 
create a national database to track the rape kit backlog. It also 
mandates that 7 percent of the existing Debbie Smith Act funds be used 
to pay for State and local audits of the backlog.
  Debbie Smith herself has endorsed these provisions. The majority bill 
has no such provisions. Making sure that money that is claimed to 
reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is provictim. True reform 
in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization should further that 
goal.
  Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for 
those who commit these terrible crimes. The Hutchison-Grassley 
substitute creates a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for Federal 
convictions for forcible rape. The majority bill establishes a 5-year 
mandatory minimum sentence. That provision is only in there

[[Page 5732]]

because Republicans offered it and we won that point in our committee.
  Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence 
against women. Our alternative establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum 
sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted 
is under 12 years of age.
  I believe the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher. In 
light of the lenient sentences many Federal judges hand out, there 
should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography 
possession convictions. But the substitute is at least a start. This is 
especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child 
pornography.
  The alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for 
the crime of aggravated sexual assault. This crime involves sexual 
assault through the use of drugs or by otherwise rendering the victim 
unconscious. The Leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual 
assault. The status quo appears to be fine for the people who are going 
to vote for the underlying bill if the Hutchison-Grassley amendment is 
not adopted.
  Instead, the Hutchison-Grassley amendment establishes a 10-year 
mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic 
violence that results in the death of the victim.
  It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for a 
crime where it results in life-threatening bodily injury to, or the 
permanent disfigurement of, the victim.
  It increases from 10 to 15 years the statutory maximum sentence for 
this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim results.
  The Leahy bill contains none of these important protections for 
domestic violence victims.
  The substitute grants administrative subpoena power to the U.S. 
Marshals Service to help them discharge their duty of tracking and 
apprehending unregistered sex offenders. The Leahy bill does nothing to 
help locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders.
  And the substitute cracks down on abuse in the award of U visas for 
illegal aliens and the fraud in the Violence Against Women Act self-
petitioning process. The majority bill does not include any reforms of 
these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in the program.
  One of the Senators who recently came to the floor complained that 
there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the Violence Against 
Women Act. But in the past there were no deliberate efforts to create 
partisan divisions. We always proceeded in the past in a consensus 
fashion.
  Domestic violence is an important issue, serious problem. We all 
recognize that. In the past, we put victims ahead of politics in 
addressing it. When the other side says this should not be about 
politics and partisanship, why, heavens, we obviously agree. It is the 
majority that has now decided they want to score political points above 
assisting victims. They want to portray a phony war on women because 
this is an election year. They are raising campaign money by trying to 
exploit this issue, and I demonstrated that in one of the e-mails that 
came to our attention.
  There could have been a consensus bill before us today, as in the 
past. There is controversy now because that is what the majority seems 
to want. We look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance 
to offer and vote on our substitute amendment. That amendment contains 
much that is in agreement with the Leahy bill. The substitute also is 
much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to protect victims 
of domestic violence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 1925, the 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization of 2011.
  Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has enhanced the investigation and 
prosecution of incidents of domestic and sexual violence and provided 
critical services to victims and their advocates in court. It has truly 
been a lifeline for women across the country, regardless of location, 
race, or socioeconomic status.
  For these reasons, VAWA's two prior reauthorizations were 
overwhelmingly bipartisan. This year, however, a number of my 
colleagues are opposing the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization 
because they object to, among other things, the authority that it 
restores to Native American tribes to prosecute those who commit 
violent crimes against Native women.
  This bill's tribal provisions address the epidemic rates of violence 
against Native women by enabling VAWA programs to more directly and 
promptly respond to their concerns and needs. These tribal provisions 
are critical to the lives of Native women and doubly important to me as 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and a Native 
Hawaiian.
  Native women are 2\1/2\ times more likely than other U.S. women to be 
battered or raped. These are extremely disturbing statistics: 34 
percent of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes and 39 percent 
will suffer domestic violence. That is more than one out of every three 
Native women. We must come together to put a stop to this.
  Last summer I chaired an oversight hearing entitled ``Native Women--
Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our Sisters, Mothers, and 
Daughters.'' I heard the heartbreaking stories that lie behind the grim 
and troubling statistics on violence against American Indian, Alaska 
Native, and Native Hawaiian women.
  My committee heard from the chief of the Catawba Nation, who gave a 
moving account of his experience growing up with domestic violence and 
the impact it had on the women and children in his community. He also 
spoke of the importance of reauthorizing VAWA.
  We heard from officials who described how existing laws are failing 
Native women. We heard, for example, that women in tribal communities 
live in a confusing and dangerous jurisdictional maze, in which the 
absence of clear lines of authority often leads to offenders, many of 
whom are non-Native men, escaping investigation and prosecution, to say 
nothing of punishment. This outrageous and unacceptable situation has 
led to repeated offenses against Native women that too often spiral 
into violence with tragic consequences for the women, their children, 
and their communities.
  My committee also heard that Native women are being increasingly 
targeted by the sex-trafficking industry and that many have, according 
to police reports in tribal communities across the country, simply 
vanished into this terrible underworld. The draft bill to address 
violence against Native women was circulated to a wide range of 
stakeholders for feedback. This led to strengthened provisions in the 
draft bill which I introduced as S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence 
and Empower Native Women Act.
  The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a legislative hearing on 
my bill the following month and then reported it out of the committee 
in December.
  Since then, I have worked closely with my good friend and colleague 
Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as we developed S. 
1925, which now includes the SAVE Native American Women Act. S. 1925's 
tribal provisions empower tribal courts to prosecute crimes of domestic 
violence, dating violence, or violations of protection orders 
regardless of the race of the alleged abuser. This bill also 
strengthens research and programs to address sex trafficking. Since 
VAWA was enacted 18 years ago and reauthorized twice since then, a 
hallmark of the law is that it has expanded its protections to classes 
of once neglected victims. Accordingly, S. 1925's tribal provisions are 
consistent with VAWA's history as well as its intent and purpose, which 
past Congresses have embraced.
  Last week 50 law professors from leading institutions across the 
country sent a letter to Congress expressing their ``full confidence in 
the constitutionality of the legislation and in its necessity to 
protect the safety of Native women.'' Just this week the White

[[Page 5733]]

House released a Statement of Administration Policy stating that it 
strongly supports these provisions, which will ``bring justice to 
Native American victims.''
  I commend Chairman Leahy for his dedicated leadership in developing 
this bill. He has truly worked in the spirit of aloha by partnering 
with the Indian Affairs Committee and other offices to craft a VAWA 
reauthorization bill that reasserts VAWA's intent, purpose, and 
history.
  I would also like to say mahalo--thank you--to each of this bill's 
other bipartisan cosponsors. As we all know, domestic and sexual 
violence continues to occur, and far too many women across the country 
are victims of these horrible acts. We have heard from victims, from 
service providers, and from law enforcement that these crimes can leave 
victims with lasting emotional and physical scars, while endangering 
their security, their families, and their lives.
  This bill will strengthen the Violence Against Women Act and extend 
its protections to include Native women who are underserved in the 
current system.
  This is not an issue that should divide us along partisan lines. On 
the contrary, it should unite us to take a stand against these awful 
crimes. So I urge you to join me and the rest of S. 1925's cosponsors 
to protect our sisters, mothers, and daughters and pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to speak about our Constitution's 
Federalist structure and the real danger of the Federal Government 
unduly interfering with the ability of States and localities to address 
activities and concerns in their communities.
  Everyone agrees that violence against women is reprehensible. The 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization had the honorable goal of 
assisting victims of domestic violence, but it oversteps the 
Constitution's rightful limits on Federal power. It interferes with the 
flexibility of States and localities that they should have in tailoring 
programs to meet particular needs of individual communities, and it 
fails to address problems of duplication and inefficiency.
  First, violent crimes are regulated and enforced almost exclusively 
by State governments. In fact, domestic violence is one of the few 
activities that the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically 
said Congress may not regulate under the commerce clause. As a matter 
of constitutional policy, Congress should not seek to impose rules and 
standards as conditions for Federal funding in areas where the Federal 
Government lacks constitutional authority to regulate directly.
  Second, the strings Congress attaches to Federal funding in the VAWA 
reauthorization restrict each State's ability to govern itself. Rather 
than interfering with State and local programs under the guise of 
spending Federal tax dollars, Congress should allow States and 
localities to exercise their rightful responsibility over domestic 
violence. State and local leaders should have flexibility in enforcing 
State law and tailoring victim services to the individualized needs of 
their communities, rather than having to comply with one-size-fits-all 
Federal requirements.
  Third, even if the Federal Government had a legitimate role in 
administering VAWA grant programs, the current reauthorization fails to 
address many instances of duplication and overlap among VAWA and other 
programs operated by the Department of Justice and by the Department of 
Health and Human Services, nor does it address the grant management 
failings by the Government Accountability Office.
  My opposition to the current VAWA reauthorization is a vote against 
big government and inefficient spending and a vote in favor of State 
autonomy and local control. We must not allow a desire by some to score 
political points and an appetite for Federal spending to prevent States 
and localities from efficiently and effectively serving women and other 
victims of domestic violence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, when my wife Frannie and I decided that 
I should run for the Senate, we were greatly influenced by the example 
set by Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. The Wellstone 
example serves as a constant reminder of what public service is all 
about. It is about helping others. It is about giving a voice to those 
who otherwise might go unheard. It is about making the law more just 
and more fair, especially for those who need its protections the most.
  Frannie and I have a personal responsibility to carry on the 
Wellstones' legacy. We all do. And you know what, I think Paul and 
Sheila would be proud of what we are doing here today. We are on the 
verge of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
  Paul and Sheila were extraordinary people. An unlikely couple, Sheila 
was born in Kentucky to Southern Baptist parents. Paul was born here in 
Washington, the son of Russian-Jewish immigrants. But love and fate--
they work in mysterious ways--brought Paul and Sheila together.
  Sheila's family moved to Washington, where she and Paul became high 
school sweethearts. Paul went to North Carolina for college, and Sheila 
went back to Kentucky. But a freshman year apart was more than they 
could bear. Sheila moved to North Carolina to be with Paul. They got 
married. A year later they were proud parents. They eventually would 
have two more children. The Wellstones were a big happy family.
  After Paul earned his Ph.D. in political science, the Wellstones 
moved to Minnesota, where Paul had a successful teaching career at 
Carleton College. Sheila, meanwhile, worked two jobs: She was a full-
time mother and a part-time library aide.
  A happy family life in Minnesota would have been enough for most 
people but not for Paul and Sheila. Their compassion knew no limits. 
They wanted to make the world a better place for others, and they set 
out to do just that. Paul ran for public office. He and Sheila worked 
as a team during Paul's Senate campaign, as they did in all aspects of 
their lives. Paul's opponent outspent him by a large margin, but what 
Paul and Sheila lacked in resources they made up for in grassroots 
support, a tireless work ethic, and an unparalleled commitment to the 
people of Minnesota, and also quite a bit of charm. Improbable as it 
must have seemed at the outset, Paul won. He was elected to the Senate 
in 1990. So the Wellstones went to Washington, the city where they 
first fell in love.
  At the time, Sheila was not really a public figure--at least she did 
not view herself as such. In fact, Sheila was a bit shy, and she 
avoided public speaking when she could. But Sheila started spending 
time at women's shelters in Minnesota and elsewhere, listening to 
painful stories about domestic violence and assault. She realized there 
were a lot of women across the country who needed a voice, who needed 
someone to speak up for them. Sheila set out to become that person.
  Here is what she said:

       I have chosen to focus on domestic violence because I find 
     it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, 
     the most violent, and, in fact, the most deadly place for 
     her. And if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her 
     children. It is time that we tell the secret. It is time that 
     we all come together to work toward ending the violence.

  Sheila matched her words with action. She became a champion for 
survivors of domestic violence in Minnesota and throughout the country. 
Each year, she hosted an event in the Capitol to raise awareness about 
that issue. That annual event continues to this day. And as I said, 
Sheila and Paul were a team, so Sheila worked very closely with Paul to 
champion the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark Federal law that 
affirmed our Nation's commitment to women's safety.
  Signed into law in 1994, VAWA increased the number of beds and 
shelters that were available to women who needed refuge. It provided 
critical support to law enforcement officers and prosecutors so they 
could respond more effectively to incidents of domestic violence. It 
funded support services and crisis centers for victims. And perhaps

[[Page 5734]]

most importantly, VAWA sent a message: Domestic violence no longer will 
be tolerated in America. Since VAWA was enacted, incidents of domestic 
violence have been reduced significantly. VAWA has improved lives. It 
has saved lives. It is part of the Wellstones' proud legacy.
  VAWA is part of this institution's legacy too. When it comes to 
violence against women, Members of the Senate always have been able to 
come together. VAWA has been reauthorized twice. Both times it had 
unanimous support in the Senate--unanimous support. The VAWA 
reauthorization bill we are considering today is in keeping with VAWA's 
bipartisan tradition. Its 61 cosponsors come from across the country 
and across the aisle.
  I am grateful to Senators Leahy and Crapo for their leadership on 
this bill.
  The VAWA Reauthorization Act renews our national commitment to 
prevent responsive incidents of sexual assault, a heinous crime that 
remains all too common in America, even while domestic violence is 
becoming less common.
  The VAWA Reauthorization Act addresses the alarming rates of violence 
against women in Indian Country by giving tribes jurisdiction to 
prosecute acts of domestic violence in their communities. The VAWA 
Reauthorization Act cuts redtape and spending by consolidating grant 
programs and improving accountability measures.
  This is a good bill, and I am proud to support it. I am also proud to 
have written two of its provisions. I thank Chairman Leahy for inviting 
me to do so and for including those provisions in the final bill.
  First, the VAWA reauthorization bill includes the provision from the 
Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, one of the first bills I 
wrote after being sworn into the Senate. When this bill becomes law, 
survivors of sexual assault never again will suffer the indignity of 
paying for forensic medical exams. VAWA provides State and local 
governments with funding to administer these exams, which also are 
known as rape kits, and are used to collect evidence in sexual assault 
cases. The problem is that under current law, grant recipients can 
charge the survivor for the upfront cost of administering the exam, 
leaving the survivor to seek reimbursement later. Too often survivors 
are not reimbursed. They get lost in the maze of paperwork or are left 
high and dry when funds run out.
  Can you imagine if we required crime victims to pay for the police to 
gather evidence such as fingerprints from a crime scene? Of course not. 
We should not require victims of sexual assault to pay for rape kits. 
This isn't a partisan issue; it is common sense.
  I am grateful to Senator Charles Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's 
ranking member, for his ongoing support for this bill. He was an 
original cosponsor when I introduced it in 2009 and when I reintroduced 
it last year.
  Survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. They should 
not have to pay for rape kits. They will not have to once this bill 
becomes law.
  The VAWA reauthorization bill also includes the Housing Rights for 
Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act, legislation that I 
introduced with Senators Collins and Mikulski last fall. This bill will 
help women stay in their homes when they are most vulnerable, when they 
need a roof over their heads the most.
  The link between violence and homelessness is undeniable. By one 
account, nearly 40 percent of women who experience domestic violence 
will become homeless at some point in their lives--nearly 40 percent. 
Once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes even more vulnerable to 
physical or sexual abuse.
  In my State nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic 
violence, and half of those women have children with them. That is not 
the world that Sheila Wellstone envisioned. Nobody should have to 
choose between safety and shelter. While the link between violence and 
homelessness is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. We need shelters and 
transitional housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. The 
VAWA reauthorization bill provides continued support for those 
programs.
  There is also much we can do to prevent women from becoming homeless 
in the first place, such as housing rights legislation, which will make 
it unlawful to evict from federally subsidized housing a woman just 
because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to 
call the police to enforce a protective order because she was afraid 
she would be evicted from her home if she did so.
  I am grateful to the many wonderful organizations that have worked 
with me on this bill. They include women's victims advocacy groups such 
as the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the MNCASA, and the 
Minnesota Domestic Abuse Project. They include tenant advocacy groups 
such as the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. They include the 
Legal Aid Society, Minnesota Legal Assistance, and they include leaders 
of the housing industry too. In fact, I recently received a letter from 
the National Association of Realtors, the Institute for Real Estate 
Management, and other housing industry representatives expressing their 
support for this bill.
  They wrote that they ``believe that preserving housing for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking is 
critically important.''
  I could not agree more. That is exactly what this bill does.
  Sheila Wellstone isn't with us today. Sheila and Paul and their 
daughter Marcia were tragically taken from us too soon. But Sheila's 
example is with us, her legacy is with us, and her words are with us. I 
would like to close with those. Here is what Sheila said:

       We really have to look at the values that guide us. We have 
     to work toward the ethic that expects every individual to be 
     physically and emotionally safe. No one, regardless of age, 
     color, gender, background, any other factor, deserves to be 
     physically or emotionally unsafe. In a just society, we 
     pledge to act together to ensure that each individual is safe 
     from harm. In a just society, I think we have to say this 
     over and over and over: We are not going to tolerate the 
     violence.

  Madam President, the VAWA reauthorization bill is another step toward 
a more just society, as Sheila was describing. I look forward to it 
becoming law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today with the surest conviction 
that this body--united as a group of Democrats and Republicans--can and 
will vote to ensure the women and children of this country are free 
from domestic abuse. I believe that opposing the bill before us would 
defy every ounce of common sense I have in my body.
  I am a proud sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, as are most 
of my colleagues in this body, because it is unfathomable that any 
individual could oppose efforts to ensure women and children are free 
from violence.
  The bill we are currently considering would reauthorize several 
essential grant programs that have made a tremendous difference in my 
State of West Virginia and across this Nation. Here is what I have 
heard from the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence Team 
Coordinators Sue Julian and Tonia Thomas:

       The Violence Against Women Act is the most critical piece 
     of federal legislation affecting the safety of survivors of 
     domestic violence and their children in every county of West 
     Virginia. [The law] supports cost-effective responses to the 
     pervasive and insidious crimes of domestic violence. VAWA 
     funds innovative, successful programs that are at the core of 
     our nation's response to domestic violence, sexual assault, 
     dating violence and stalking. Action taken at the 
     congressional level to end violence against women, children, 
     and men echoes through the hills and hollows of the most 
     remote communities in this state. Without VAWA, the 
     collaborative efforts of law enforcement, prosecution, victim 
     advocates, and judicial personnel would be fragmented, 
     compartmentalized, and at worse counterproductive to each 
     other. VAWA saves lives, changes communities, offers safety 
     and creates channels of hope.

  We know since it first passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act 
has reduced domestic violence by more

[[Page 5735]]

than 50 percent through the critical programs it funds. Still, violence 
against women and children is a terrifying reality in this country.
  Let me share with you some startling statistics that illustrate the 
scope of the problem.
  According to the West Virginia Foundation for Rape Information and 
Services--our State's sexual assault coalition--one in six women in 
West Virginia will be a victim of attempted or completed rape.
  According to the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
on any given day, licensed domestic violence programs in West Virginia 
provide services to nearly 600 women, children, and men.
  Every 7 minutes a call is made to a domestic violence hotline in West 
Virginia. One-third of homicides in West Virginia are related to 
domestic violence. More than two-thirds of women murdered in West 
Virginia are killed by a member of their family or their household.
  In 2010, there were 11,174 investigations into domestic violence 
allegations in West Virginia, which required 272,450 hours of law 
enforcement involvement. This legislation is a fight on behalf of the 
women whose stories are contained in those numbers but whose lives are 
invaluable and more important than any statistic could ever hope to 
portray. No one can better speak to the importance of the Violence 
Against Women Act than the groups whose work each and every day is 
improved because of the programs supported by the law.
  Growing up in a small community, as I did in Farmington, WV, in a 
loving family, violence against women and children was unfathomable. I 
would not even have thought it. The most beautiful people in my life 
were my mother, my grandmother, my sister, my aunts, and my cousins. 
They were the most beautiful people I could have hoped to grow up with. 
My grandmother--we call her Mama Kay--had been the glue to our family 
and kept it together, and she really kept the community together. She 
was a symbol of strength to whom others would turn for a place to stay 
or a hot meal in times of trouble.
  We celebrated and admired the women who raised us and those around 
us. We thanked them and loved them and showed them appreciation and 
respect. So it is incomprehensible to me how anybody could make a 
decision to inflict physical pain on a woman or a child or even a man. 
Truly, life is tough enough without involving violence.
  Once again, for each and every Member of the Senate who will cast a 
vote on this bill, the question comes down to this: What is it that we 
truly value? What are our priorities?
  Ensuring that women and children have adequate protection against 
violence just makes common sense. To the people of West Virginia, I 
know this is the highest of priorities. Of course, these atrocities are 
not unique to my State. Nationally, domestic violence accounts for 22 
percent of the violent crimes experienced by women and 3 percent of the 
violent crimes against men.
  Approximately 37 percent of the women seeking injury-related 
treatment in hospital emergency rooms were there because of injuries 
inflicted by a current or former spouse or partner. In tough economic 
times--like those we are experiencing now--women are more likely to 
become a victim of domestic violence.
  According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, domestic 
violence is more than three times as likely to occur when couples are 
experiencing high levels of financial strain as when they are 
experiencing low levels of financial strain. Women whose male partners 
experienced two or more periods of unemployment over a 5-year study 
were almost three times as likely to be victims of intimate violence as 
were women whose partners had stable jobs.
  Seventy-three percent of shelters attributed the rise in abuse to 
``financial issues.'' ``Stress'' and ``job loss'' were also frequently 
cited as causing the increase of victims seeking shelter. It goes on 
and on.
  All we are asking for is to make this a nonpartisan issue--come 
together as Americans, as Senators, not worrying about political 
differences. This is one bill that brings us all together for a common 
cause--a most decent cause--and something that is needed in America.
  I urge the support of all of my colleagues. Please support this. 
Let's come back together as Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in calling 
for passage of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I am 
disheartened that in the last several months petty, partisan 
gamesmanship has held up this legislation.
  Since VAWA originally passed on a bipartisan basis in 1994, the 
annual incidence of domestic violence has decreased by 53 percent. Many 
victims are now reporting incidents of abuse rather than hiding in 
fear. Reports of abuse have increased by 51 percent. This law has 
transformed our criminal justice system and victim support services. 
The law has worked well because it encourages collaboration among law 
enforcement, health and housing professionals, and community 
organizations to help prevent and respond to intimate partner violence.
  In one recent instance in my State, a man was on pretrial release 
after being charged with stalking his wife. Thanks to the STOP grants 
funding--which provide services and training for our officers and 
prosecutors--he was being monitored. This individual was being 
electronically monitored and was caught violating the conditions of his 
release when he went to his estranged wife's home. The supervising 
officer was immediately notified of this violation and police officers 
found the man with the help of the GPS and arrested him in his 
estranged wife's driveway.
  Thank goodness this woman was protected and this incident did not add 
another victim to the 73 deaths caused by domestic violence each year 
in North Carolina.
  Unfortunately, though, the well-being of women in North Carolina and 
around the country hangs in the balance until we in Congress take 
action on this act.
  Domestic violence also hurts our economy. It costs our health care 
system $8.3 billion each year. The reauthorization of this act 
streamlines crucial existing programs that protect women while 
recognizing the difficult fiscal decisions facing the Federal 
Government today. Thirteen existing programs would be consolidated to 
four, which will reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication. New 
accountability provisions will also require strict audits and 
enforcement mechanisms aimed at ensuring these funds are used wisely 
and efficiently.
  In fact, title V of this bill includes one of my bills--the Violence 
Against Women Health Initiative. My bill provides vital training and 
education to help health care providers better identify the signs of 
domestic violence and sexual assault. It helps medical professionals 
assess violence and then refer patients to the appropriate victim 
services.
  This training would have helped Yolanda Haywood, a woman who, as a 
young mother of three, found herself in an abusive marriage. Her 
husband abused her regularly and one night punched her in the face and 
split her lip, which sent her to the emergency room. She obviously 
needed stitches. As she sat on the examination table, the physician who 
was sewing her lip back asked: Who did this to you? Yolanda quietly 
said: My husband. The physician responded by telling her she needs to 
learn how to duck better.
  Yolanda spent the next several years learning how to duck before 
finally leaving that abusive relationship. Empowered by her experience, 
she went to medical school and now teaches students at a prestigious 
university the importance of identifying and treating domestic violence 
and sexual assault, as well as working in an ER.
  In a recent visit to a woman's domestic shelter in Charlotte, I met a 
counselor who shared this story with me. A young boy had just spent his 
first night

[[Page 5736]]

at the shelter. The next morning the counselor was talking to him and 
he said he slept with both eyes shut last night. The counselor asked 
the young boy: Well, how do you usually sleep? He said: I usually sleep 
with one eye open and one eye closed because the last time I slept with 
both eyes closed my mommy and I both got hurt.
  This is the kind of experience this bill will help with. It will 
protect women and children. For all the progress we have made combating 
violence against women, this must continue to be a priority. I urge 
each of my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Violence 
Against Women Act because it literally saves lives in North Carolina 
and around the country, while ensuring a better future for our 
children.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about another vital 
program we must reauthorize and continue before it expires; that is, 
the National Flood Insurance Program. Right now, that is due to 
completely expire at the end of May. So I wanted to bring this to 
everyone's attention, particularly that of the majority leader, so we 
take this up in time--as soon as possible--and put it in line 
absolutely as soon as possible so this can be extended and there will 
be no interruption.
  This is an important program for the country. It provides vital flood 
insurance for millions of Americans. Many properties cannot have a real 
estate closing on them. They cannot be transferred without that 
important flood insurance. It is particularly important in my home 
State of Louisiana, where the risks of flooding--coastal and 
otherwise--are even greater than the national average.
  Unfortunately, we have been on a path the last few years of just 
barely hobbling along, using a bandaid approach to extend this 
necessary program just a little bit at a time. This got to its worst 
state in 2010, when we not only extended it just a little bit at a 
time, but we actually allowed it to lapse, to expire, for several days 
at a time on four different occasions, for a total of 53 days. What 
happened? Each of those times the program expired, many real estate 
closings--tens of thousands of real estate closings around the 
country--came to a screeching halt. They were cancelled. They were put 
off.
  So here we are, in a very soft economy and trying to eke out of a 
real estate-led recession. Yet for no good reason--because of our 
inability to, frankly, get our act together and organize ourselves and 
extend this noncontroversial program--we had lapses in the program so 
that thousands of real estate closings were put off. That lapse 
occurred, as I said, in 2010, four different times, for a total of 53 
days.
  Since then, we have improved a little bit. We have extended the 
program for 6 months at a time under legislation I have introduced. But 
now we need to take the next step and not just continue to hobble along 
but have a full reauthorization, with important bipartisan reforms, of 
this National Flood Insurance Program.
  There has been a lot of work done in that regard. The House of 
Representatives has done a complete reauthorization bill, and they 
adopted that bill by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 22 last July 2. So 
they have acted. They have done their part going back going almost 1 
year ago--about 9 months ago. On the Senate side, we have made 
important bipartisan progress in the Banking Committee, which is the 
committee of jurisdiction. We have worked hard to put together a full 
5-year reauthorization bill with reforms on a bipartisan process.
  As ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, I have put a lot of 
work into this with many others, including my subcommittee chairman Jon 
Tester. We reported that bill through the entire committee. It got a 
strong report out of committee and is ready for action on the Senate 
floor. So now we need to take that next step. We need to get it on the 
Senate floor, pass it through, and reconcile it with the House bill.
  There are no major substantive obstacles. This is a true bipartisan 
effort. We have worked well together and through a number of issues. 
The only issue is getting time on the Senate floor and moving this 
forward so we can do this full-scale, 5-year reauthorization before the 
program expires this May 31.
  Again, I just come to the floor to urge all of us, and in particular 
the majority leader who sets the schedule, to schedule this, to find 
that time, to put it in line as soon as possible. We are now on the 
Violence Against Women Act, which we support being on. I believe next 
we are moving to student loans. I have no problem with that. But let's 
put this important measure in line right after that, as soon as 
possible, so we can take it up and accomplish this task well before the 
May 31 deadline.
  We can get this done. As I said, there are few, if any, substantive 
hurdles. We can get this done. We can produce a long-term 
reauthorization, we can produce good reforms in that bill, as we have 
in the Senate committee bill and as the House has. We just need to move 
it through the process. I certainly commit to everyone, starting with 
the majority leader, that if we get that minimal amount of time on the 
Senate floor, we will certainly work to have that process run as 
smoothly and as quickly as possible. I have worked with Senator Tester 
in that regard, toward that end, and we will continue to work through 
the remaining Senate proceedings.
  Finally, in support of this plea, I have a letter, dated February 13 
of this year, addressed to the majority and minority leaders from a 
long list of Senators, both parties, urging that we take this action, 
urging that we schedule this for the Senate floor absolutely as soon as 
possible so we can get this job done. As I said, this letter was dated 
February 13. Obviously, a few months have passed since then and the 
clock is ticking and that clock runs out on May 31.
  Again, I urge us, particularly the majority leader, to please put 
this necessary and important and bipartisan legislation in line for 
floor consideration as soon as possible. We can get this done. We can 
get this done by the current deadline. We can get this done for the 
good of the American people and on a bipartisan basis and I urge us all 
to work toward that end, as Jon Tester and I have been doing and as the 
committee chair and ranking member have been doing. I certainly know 
the ranking member of the committee, Senator Shelby, strongly supports 
this plea.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter to which I have just referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2012.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: As we begin the Second 
     Session of the 112th Congress, we the undersigned urge you to 
     bring legislation to the floor to provide for a long-term 
     reauthorization and meaningful reform of the National Flood 
     Insurance Program (NFIP) as expeditiously as possible in 
     February or very soon thereafter.
       The National Flood Insurance Program was first established 
     in 1968, and has since that time been instrumental in 
     protecting America's families, homes and businesses from 
     financial ruin when flooding occurs. The program was last 
     reauthorized in 2004. That reauthorization expired in 2008, 
     and since then the program has been extended through a series 
     of short-term measures. In fact, the program expired four 
     times in 2010 resulting in lapses totaling 53 days. It has 
     been estimated that those program lapses resulted in the 
     delay or cancellation of more than 1,400 home closings per 
     day, further damaging an already fragile housing market.
       As you know, the House of Representatives passed its 
     version of a long-term reauthorization on July 12, by an 
     overwhelming vote of 406-22. The Senate Banking Committee has 
     reported a committee print with overwhelming bipartisan 
     support which is currently awaiting floor action. This bill 
     makes essential changes to the program in an attempt to 
     protect taxpayers and restore its solvency. We sincerely 
     believe that, with a

[[Page 5737]]

     concerted effort on the part of Senate and Banking Committee 
     leadership, as well as interested Senators, the bill can be 
     brought to the floor of the Senate, debated and passed as 
     soon as possible in order to ensure this process is completed 
     before the NFIP expires at the end of May.
       The Senate should take this opportunity to capitalize on 
     the bipartisan efforts by both the Senate Banking Committee 
     and the House of Representatives thus far to make major 
     improvements to this important program. We believe that 
     passage of a comprehensive, bipartisan flood reauthorization 
     bill is within reach, and we respectfully urge you to 
     schedule such a debate.
           Sincerely,
       Senator Jon Tester, Senator David Vitter, Senator Ben 
     Nelson, Senator Kay Hagan, Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator 
     Michael Bennet, Senator Thomas Carper, Senator Amy Klobuchar, 
     Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Mark Warner, Senator Herb Kohl, 
     Senator Mike Crapo, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Johnny 
     Isakson, Senator Mike Johanns, Senator John Boozman, Senator 
     Bob Corker, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Pat Roberts, 
     Senator Susan Collins.
       Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator Robert Menendez, Senator 
     Richard Blumenthal, Senator John Kerry, Senator Daniel 
     Inouye, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, 
     Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Al Franken, Senator 
     Christopher Coons, Senator Daniel Coats, Senator Jerry Moran, 
     Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator James 
     Inhofe, Senator Jack Reed, Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator 
     Patrick Leahy, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Mark 
     Begich, Senator Richard Burr.

  Mr. VITTER. Again, I hope we all come together in plenty of time to 
take care of this important business. I bring it up now, well before 
the deadline, because the clock is ticking. A Senate bill would have to 
be reconciled with the House. We need to get floor time absolutely as 
soon as possible and I look forward to that happening and I look 
forward to working with Senator Tester and others on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise, as do my Democratic 
colleagues and quite a few of my Republican colleagues, in support of 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  My remarks will extend beyond the time we have left, so I will ask 
the Chair to advise me when 2 minutes have passed, and I will try to 
conclude over a 3-minute timeframe so other colleagues can speak on 
this very important piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the Violence Against Women 
Act--known as VAWA--has been in effect for 18 years and it has saved 
lives and strengthened families all over the country. I speak as a 
Coloradoan, and I will cite statistics that will point to the concrete 
effects the Violence Against Women Act has had in my State.
  This was a landmark piece of legislation and it changed the way we 
think about and respond to domestic violence. It has made a difference 
in the lives of literally millions of women all over the country by 
bringing the perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
child abuse to justice. It has made a difference by providing safe and 
secure support services to victims of crimes. It has established a 
National Domestic Violence Hotline and so much more. It is little 
wonder such a commonsense and far-reaching concept in legislation has 
found support from Members of both sides of the aisle.
  I mentioned Colorado. Let me cite some numbers. In 2010 alone, 60,000 
victims of domestic violence contacted State crisis hotlines seeking 
help. The funding that VAWA provides not only gives our law enforcement 
beefed up resources and tools for catching and then prosecuting 
perpetrators, but it also supports critical services for victims and 
survivors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Chair.
  These resources have literally saved the lives of women from Durango 
to Craig and from Pueblo to Denver, and I wish to commend all the 
important organizations in my State that make it all possible.
  The great news is that today--right now--we have the opportunity to 
make this an even better piece of legislation.
  This reauthorization builds upon and strengthens the current act, 
expanding access to the resources so many victims desperately need. It 
also contains important reforms that will increase accountability in 
the use of VAWA resources, ensuring these federal dollars are going to 
serve the victims who need them most. Taxpayers demand that we spend 
their monies wisely especially during tough economic times and this 
VAWA bill meets that high standard they expect of us.
  Moreover, it is worth noting this bill makes college campuses safer 
by requiring that schools develop comprehensive plans to combat and 
prevent crimes against women.
  It also takes the imperative step of strengthening the Federal 
Government's response to domestic and dating violence on tribal lands, 
which has climbed to near epidemic levels across the country.
  Furthermore, it increases protections and outreach for LGBT victims, 
because the right to live free from domestic violence should not depend 
on gender identity or sexual orientation.
  The most recent reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 
expired in September of last year. The bottom line is that it is past 
time to get this done. The legislation before us today has 61 
cosponsors, is broadly bipartisan, and has the support of countless 
women and men around the country.
  I believe there is an alternative version of this bill that may come 
before us for a vote as well. I know this is an election year, and the 
increasingly partisan climate in Congress has made it tempting to take 
truly bipartisan legislation such as this and inject division into the 
debate. But the issues addressed by VAWA are not partisan to the people 
back in Colorado and around the country. So let us resist that path.
  The bipartisan legislation drafted by Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo 
is the only bill that truly provides the resources necessary in the 
most effective way to help end violence against women.
  I know my colleagues in the Senate share my commitment to reaching 
this goal, so I am glad this bipartisan bill is finally receiving a 
vote.
  When I served in the House of Representatives, I worked with a 
bipartisan group of colleagues to reauthorize VAWA both in 2000 and 
2006, so I know we can come together and pass this reauthorization as 
well.
  We all agree that violence against women is unacceptable. This is a 
necessary and carefully constructed bill that will protect the lives of 
women in Colorado and throughout the country.
  In concluding, we all agree violence against women is flatout 
unacceptable, and this is a necessary and carefully constructed bill 
that will protect the lives of women in Colorado and throughout the 
country. So let's come together in the Senate, put aside our 
differences, and pass what is a strong and important bipartisan bill. 
The families and the communities of my State and our country are 
counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I too rise today to discuss the incredible 
importance of the Violence Against Women Act.
  For nearly 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the 
centerpiece of our Nation's commitment to end domestic violence, dating 
violence, and sexual violence. Congress authorized the Violence Against 
Women Act in 2000 and again in 2005 with overwhelming bipartisan 
support.
  I am a longtime champion of the prevention of domestic violence 
because I have seen the impact of this abuse firsthand in Idaho. The 
act provides critical services to victims of violent crime as well as 
agencies and organizations that provide important aid to those victims.
  The Violence Against Women Act has been called by the American Bar 
Association ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to 
the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 
stalking in our country.''
  This legislation provides access to legal and social services for 
survivors.

[[Page 5738]]

It provides training to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, 
attorneys, and advocates to address these crimes in our Nation's 
communities. It provides intervention for those who have witnessed 
abuse and are more likely to be involved in this type of violence. It 
provides shelter and resources for victims who have nowhere else to 
turn, who are literally victims in their own homes.
  There is significant evidence that these programs are working. In 
Idaho, the number of high school students reporting that they have 
experienced violence by a dating partner has dropped since the Center 
for Healthy Teen Relationships began its work in 2006. The U.S. 
Department of Justice reported that the number of women killed by an 
intimate partner decreased by 35 percent between 1993 and 2008.
  The legislation is working and our collective efforts across this 
country to respond to this epidemic are working, but our fight against 
domestic violence is far from over. Last year in my State 22 people 
were killed by a domestic partner. Approximately one in three 
adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, 
emotional, or verbal abuse from a dating partner. Nearly 1 in 10 high 
school students Nationwide was hit, slapped, or physically hurt on 
purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend.
  Future tragedies of the kinds we have seen in Idaho and across this 
country have to be prevented. And while we may not all agree on the 
specifics of this reauthorization, all of us agree on one very 
important aspect; that is, we must end domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the United States.
  No bill is ever perfect. As we go through the process of working 
through this bill on the floor, we will see amendments brought seeking 
to perfect and improve it. I will support some of those amendments, 
others will support some of those amendments, and the bill will be 
addressed, as all bills should be, on the floor of the Senate. But when 
we are done and the debate is over and the voting on the amendments is 
concluded, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
reauthorization of this critical program. We must continue the life-
changing work this legislation helps us accomplish.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we speak, the Alaska Network on 
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault's 24-hour hotline that allows 
folks to seek assistance--their numbers are ringing. This evening, 363 
Alaskans will spend the night in an emergency domestic violence shelter 
or in transitional housing provided by an Alaskan domestic violence 
program, programs such as the Lee Shore Center in Kenai, the Safe 
Shelter in Dillingham, the WISH shelter in Ketchikan, and the AWAIC 
shelter in Anchorage. The number of Alaskans seeking shelter is rising 
on the order of over 5 percent per year. These programs and the 
Alaskans who benefit from them are all supported by the Violence 
Against Women Act.
  As we debate and deliberate on the reauthorization of VAWA, the 
Violence Against Women Act, we express our respect for the volunteers 
and the professionals who support and who constantly advocate on behalf 
of these victims. These are Alaskans such as Peggy Brown and Katie 
TePas, who lead the effort across my State, and others like them 
throughout Alaskan communities. It is important that as we again 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, we do so as a tangible 
display of our support for their very important work.
  Let me share some statistics with you, as others have shared from 
their respective States. In Alaska, somewhere between 25 and 40 percent 
of all domestic violence assaults are witnessed by children. On a 
national scale, more than 90 percent of abusers are people whom 
children know, love, and trust.
  I come to the floor today to express my support for the Leahy bill, 
S. 1925. I have proudly cosponsored this effort and came on very early 
in the effort. It is the product of literally thousands of hours of 
work by domestic violence advocates and dedicated Senate staff members. 
I do believe it represents a real improvement in the services that are 
offered to victims even in a difficult budget environment. I would like 
to give a few illustrations.
  Back in 2010, there were more than 800 Alaskans who sought pro bono 
legal assistance from the Alaska Legal Services Corporation and the 
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. A little over 
500 of these victims could be served. Another 300 had to be turned away 
due to the lack of resources--turning people away who are victims 
because we don't have the resources to provide the help. This bill 
establishes a new pro bono legal program within VAWA to ensure that 
victims of domestic violence have access to lawyers.
  Back in 2011, 12 percent of Alaska high school students reported they 
were hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or 
their girlfriend, and 9 percent reported they had been physically 
forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want it. This bill 
focuses resources on the protection of our young people--and rightfully 
so--because 70 percent of all reported sexual crimes in the United 
States involve children. This legislation devotes needed resources to 
protect our children, and it also devotes increasing resources to 
protect our elders, who are increasingly victims of sexual assault and 
domestic violence--again, a side that most people don't want to 
acknowledge or talk about, but our statistics cannot be denied.
  In addition, S. 1925 sends a strong message to offenders that they 
will be held accountable. In the remote Native villages of Alaska, 
where the victims of domestic violence literally have no place to hide, 
reauthorization of VAWA will mean there will be more funds to hire 
village public safety officers who are first responders in the last 
frontier.
  I would like to express my appreciation to the Judiciary Committee 
for including a provision I have requested concerning the Alaska Rural 
Justice and Law Enforcement Commission. The Rural Justice Commission is 
a joint Federal, State, and tribal planning body that was created by 
the late Senator Ted Stevens back in 2004 to coordinate the public 
safety efforts in our remote rural villages. It is in danger of 
shutting its doors at this point in time, and the legislation before us 
establishes the framework for the Rural Justice Commission to continue 
its very important work.
  Last weekend there was a great deal of concern that arose 
particularly amongst Alaska tribes that the version of S. 1925 that 
came out of the Judiciary Committee diminished the ability of the 
Alaska tribes to issue domestic violence protection orders that would 
enjoy full faith and credit from the State of Alaska. The concern we 
had was the result of an inadvertent technical drafting error that 
expanded certain tribal powers within Indian Country, but it appeared 
to repeal other existing tribal powers that are currently held by 
Alaska tribes. Our State has very little Indian Country. We do not have 
reservations, with the small exception of one reservation down in 
southeastern Alaska. So for the past couple days, I have been working, 
along with Senator Begich, to address this issue and have worked on a 
technical correction to address the concern in a way that ensures that 
Alaska tribes lose none of the jurisdiction or the authority they 
presently have to issue and to enforce their domestic violence 
protection orders.
  It was just this morning that I received a copy of a letter from Ed 
Thomas, who is president of the Central Council Tlingit and Haida 
Tribes of the State, and he has come out clearly endorsing the 
amendment.
  I would note that Senator Leahy has included these technical 
corrections in the substitute amendment he intends to bring forward, 
and I would certainly urge that it be adopted.
  As my colleague from Idaho just mentioned, there is a divergence of 
views within this Chamber on what the reauthorization of VAWA should 
say. It is important to point out that we are

[[Page 5739]]

in agreement on the vast majority--well over 80 percent--of the 
provisions in S. 1925. The disagreement is in a few smaller areas. 
There are Senators whose ideas were not incorporated in the Leahy bill 
and who wish to be heard, and I think it is appropriate that they be 
heard.
  Again, I would concur with my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, in 
stating that when the Violence Against Women Act was first initiated 
back in 1994, it was a bipartisan effort. It was a collaborative 
effort. The effort this year with the reauthorization should be no 
less. I have every confidence that this body will once again act in a 
bipartisan fashion to reauthorize this very critical piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, 35 years ago I was a very young 
assistant prosecutor. There weren't any other women who were assistant 
prosecutors in Kansas City, and I got assigned a lot of cases that the 
men in the office used to jokingly call women's work, which meant that 
I got a lot of cases on welfare fraud and food stamp fraud. And then, 
as I spent more time in the office, I got sexual assaults and I got 
domestic violence.
  I remember as if it were yesterday the feeling of helplessness as I 
sat across the desk from a woman who had been beaten to within an inch 
of her life, and I remember calling the police department and asking 
for help and them saying: You know, hon, let it go. Tell her to go 
home.
  I remember her asking me: What do I do about my children? I have no 
money. I don't really want to prosecute him--I don't think he will 
leave me alone.
  I remember not being able to sleep at night because I was so worried 
about the women who had really no place to go, no one to guide them 
through the terrifying journey the criminal justice system can be, much 
less the terrifying journey their lives were. That was 35 years ago.
  When I ran for prosecutor in 1992, I said: I am going to start a 
domestic violence unit, because since then I had spent time working on 
the laws in Jefferson City, and I had also spent time on the board of a 
domestic violence shelter--one of the first in Kansas City--and then I 
became prosecutor, and we started a domestic violence unit.
  The police department still pushed back and said: These aren't real 
crimes. If the victim doesn't want to testify, we have no evidence to 
go forward.
  And I said to them: Wait a minute. We go forward on homicides when 
the victims can't testify. We should build these cases around the facts 
and circumstances regardless of the mental state of the victim.
  I remember feeling so helpless that we had no resources. And then I 
remember, as the Jackson County prosecutor in Kansas City, when the 
Violence Against Women Act passed. I remember reviewing our grant 
application for the victim advocate in our office, and I remember all 
of a sudden thinking, you know, we are going to turn the corner.
  Is it still a huge problem? Yes. But if you were there 35 years ago 
on the front lines and you knew the progress we have made to date, you 
wouldn't be voting no in the Judiciary Committee on the reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act. You wouldn't be doing that.
  So let's move forward. Let's make sure the victim advocates who 
arrive on the scene as a result of this important piece of 
legislation--let's make sure they stay on the job. Let's make sure 
there are not any young prosecutors today who are going home sleepless, 
much less victims who look at someone who claims they love them, claims 
they are their protector, but at the same time knowing that person is 
capable of taking their life. Let's make sure those women have 
someplace to turn to, their children have someplace to turn to. Let's 
reauthorize this act today and make sure all the women out there have 
that help and assistance they need in their time of need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is a shame it has taken so long to get 
to this point, but I am very glad to see we are close to having this 
body move forward on this legislation.
  The Violence Against Women Act has helped provide lifesaving 
assistance to hundreds and thousands of women and families, and it was 
certainly a no-brainer to make sure that all women had access to that 
assistance. I was proud to have been here serving in the Senate in 1994 
when we first passed VAWA. Along with its bipartisan support, it 
received praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, 
victims, service providers, faith leaders, health professionals, 
advocates, and survivors. It obtained that broad support because it has 
worked.
  Since it became law 18 years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 
53 percent. We have made a lot of progress since 1994, and I am glad we 
are continuing on that path today on behalf of all women. In fact, 
Deborah, is here with us today.
  Deborah is the Vice Chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State 
of Washington.
  Yesterday she joined Senators Boxer, Klobuchar and me to tell her 
emotional story about the devastating effects violence can have on 
women--especially Native women.
  Deborah was repeatedly abused, starting at a very young age, by a 
non-tribal man who lived on her reservation. Not until after the abuse 
stopped around the 4th grade did Deborah realize she wasn't the only 
child suffering at the hands of her assailant--at least a dozen other 
young girls had fallen victim to this man.
  This is a man who was never arrested for these crimes; never brought 
to justice; and still walks free today. All because he committed these 
heinous acts on the reservation--and as someone who is not a member of 
a tribe, it is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to be held 
liable for his crimes.
  The debate we had over the provisions in this legislation was a 
matter of fairness.
  Deborah's experience--and the experience of the other victims of this 
man--does not represent an isolated incident.
  In fact 34 percent of Native Women will be raped; 39 percent of 
Native Women will be subjected to domestic violence; and 56 percent of 
Native Women will marry a non-Indian who most likely would not be held 
liable for any violent crimes committed if these protections hadn't 
been included in this legislation.
  Where people live and who they marry should not determine whether or 
not perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice.
  With this bill today, we are taking a major step to uphold our 
government's promise to protect its citizens.
  This bill builds on what works in the current law, improves what 
doesn't, and it continues on the path of reducing violence toward 
women.
  It certainly should not have been controversial.
  It is time for us to come together and support this bill so women and 
families across America can get the resources and support they need.
  I particularly want to thank the courageous work of this wonderful 
tribal woman to help explain to all of us why the bill we have put 
before the Senate is so critical today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute 
be withdrawn, that a Leahy substitute amendment which is at the desk be 
made pending, and the only amendments in order to the Leahy substitute 
or the underlying bill be the following: Klobuchar No. 2094, Cornyn No. 
2086, and Hutchison No. 2095; that there be 60 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for 
consideration of the amendments and the bill; that there be no 
amendment in order to any of these amendments; that there be no motions 
or points of order to the amendments or the bill other than budget 
points of order or the applicable motions to waive; that the amendments 
be subject

[[Page 5740]]

to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that upon disposition of the three 
amendments, the Leahy substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be 
agreed to and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as 
amended; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes and there be 
2 minutes equally divided between the two votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will briefly say--I know everyone is 
anxious to get to work--we have had some pretty good work in recent 
days. The postal bill was extremely difficult to get done. We had the 
highway bill; that was difficult to get done. Those are bipartisan in 
nature. It took a while to get through this matter that is before us, 
but now we are there. It is an effort on everyone's behalf. On my side, 
I am grateful for the work done by Senators Patty Murray and Pat Leahy 
and many others, but I am glad we are at the point where we are today.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I add I agree entirely with the remarks 
of the majority leader. This is the way the Senate ought to operate--on 
both these bills, both the postal bill, which was challenging for 
everyone to get through, and the Violence Against Women Act, on which 
there is broad, probably unanimous agreement. In fact, the last time it 
passed the Senate it did pass on a voice vote. We are proceeding to 
handle it in a way entirely consistent with the Senate's past and 
procedures, with some amendments but limited debate time on each of 
them. We will be able to finish this bill today.
  I commend Senator Hutchison and others on our side who have been 
deeply involved in this--Senator Cornyn--in bringing us to the place we 
are now.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the substitute.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2093.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note my colleague from New Jersey was also 
standing. I have about 5 minutes of remarks. Did the Senator from New 
Jersey wish also to speak?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I plan to, but I will defer, if the Senator is in a 
rush.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate that very much and I perhaps will ask unanimous 
consent the Senator from New Jersey follow my remarks?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--and I know we will be getting back onto this matter and I will 
be seeking time, I certainly do not object to my two friends taking 
time now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support reauthorization of the Violence 
Against Women Act. Throughout my career, I have worked on a number of 
crime victims' rights measures that, taken together, provide the mosaic 
of protections for all crime victims.
  As a member of the House of Representatives, I cosponsored the Sexual 
Assault Prevention Act--SAPA--which was incorporated into the Omnibus 
Crime Control Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. Among a 
number of reforms, SAPA increased penalties for stalking and sexual 
assault, and it changed the Federal Rules of Evidence to allow 
admission of prior sexual offenses in sexual assault cases. In 1997, I 
successfully petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to adopt this change 
to Arizona's rules of evidence.
  In 2004, I co-authored the Crime Victims' Rights Act with Senator 
Feinstein. This legislation included a bill of rights for victims of 
Federal crimes, including the right to be informed, present, and heard 
at critical stages of the proceedings. That bill was signed into law by 
President Bush.
  I also supported the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act, which included a section Senator Cornyn and I wrote that 
expanded the Federal DNA collection program.
  Today, I am pleased to support the Hutchison/Grassley bill 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I regret that there are 
competing versions of reauthorization, especially since I believe that 
virtually all of us support the current law.
  I cannot, however, vote for the Leahy version for a number of 
reasons. First, a new section, 904, is blatantly unconstitutional. This 
new section would give Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction to arrest, 
prosecute, and imprison non-Indians under tribal law for certain 
domestic-violence offenses.
  Adding this language to the existing law violates basic principles of 
equal protection and due process. All tribes require either Indian 
ancestry or a specific quantum of Indian blood in order to be a tribal 
member. Even a person who has lived his entire life on the reservation 
cannot be a tribal member if he does not have Indian blood. Such a 
person, no matter how long he has lived in the area, cannot vote in 
tribal elections and would have no say in crafting the laws that would 
be applied against him by section 904.
  Section 904 breaks with 200 years of American legal tradition that 
tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. By doing 
so, it creates a clear violation of the Constitution's equal protection 
and due process guarantees.
  I also take issue with the new Section 905 of the Leahy bill, which 
would allow Indian tribes to issue ``exclusion orders'' barring non-
Indians from lands within the tribes' ``Indian country.'' ``Indian 
country'' is a term of art in Federal Indian law. It is meant to 
include lands that were allotted and sold to non-Indians, or allotted 
to Indians who later sold the land to non-Indians, but that are within 
the exterior boundaries of a historic Indian reservation. Many non-
Indian families have lived on such lands for generations. Other such 
residents include people with Indian blood, but who have been expelled 
from membership in the tribe for various reasons. Section 905 would 
literally allow the tribes to issue orders that bar these individuals 
from entering their own land, land which they own in fee simple 
absolute.
  The primary rationale for these proposed additions to VAWA was to 
provide protection for tribal members. The Hutchison/Grassley 
alternative does that by replacing the unconstitutional provisions of 
the Leahy bill with an authorization for tribes to seek protection 
orders to prevent domestic violence, issued directly by a Federal 
court, upon a showing that the target of the order has assaulted an 
Indian spouse or girlfriend, or a child in the custody or care of such 
person, and that a protection order is reasonably necessary to protect 
the well-being of the victim. Violations of the order would be subject 
to criminal prosecution in Federal court.
  While punishing an offender for any underlying crime is important, 
preventing harm is critical; and it is often easier to prosecute 
violations of the terms of a protection order. For example, parties who 
are not in a romantic relationship with the defendant typically will be 
available to testify that the defendant entered areas from which he is 
excluded under the order. Protection orders, thus, tend to provide an 
effective means for preventing acts of domestic violence. And because 
orders would be issued by a Federal court, we can be reasonably certain 
that such orders will comply with basic principles of due process and 
will be enforced.
  The Hutchison/Grassley reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act contains other improvements on the Leahy version, and I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on this floor we talk a lot about the 
critical importance of family. I frequently speak about my family, my 
10 grandchildren and 4 children, who are the foundation and inspiration 
for everything I do. But for some Americans, the family is instead a 
source of fear.
  Domestic violence wreaks havoc in our homes and our communities 
across the country. The statistics are shocking. Every year 12 million 
women and men in our country are victims of rape,

[[Page 5741]]

physical violence, and stalking. The numbers are shocking. They 
represent a national tragedy. But these are not just numbers, they are 
lives. In 2010, 38 of New Jersey's domestic violence incidents ended in 
death. I have visited women's shelters in New Jersey, and I have seen 
fear in the faces of women holding their children. It takes a lot of 
courage for a woman to stand up and leave her abuser. As a society, we 
have to be able to tell these women they will have a safe place to go, 
they will have resources to help them, and they will see justice for 
their abuser.
  Today we are debating legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act, which for almost 18 years has provided women with support 
programs they need to escape abusive situations. Make no mistake, VAWA 
is working for women. Since its passage, occurrences of domestic 
violence have decreased by more than 50 percent. But despite this 
incredible progress, these horrible acts continue.
  In fact, our progress should inspire us to work harder. Domestic 
violence programs in our communities are on the front line, and they 
are starved for resources. More than one-third of New Jersey's domestic 
violence programs report not having enough funding to provide needed 
services, and approximately one-quarter report not having enough beds 
available for women and children trying to escape violent situations. 
Since 2006, more than 40 programs in New Jersey alone have received 
almost $30 million in funding through the Violence Against Women Act.
  Let me be clear. It would be tragic to turn our backs on victims and 
the people who dedicate their lives to supporting them. While we cannot 
stop all malicious acts, we can do more to keep women and their 
families safe.
  In 1996, I wrote the domestic violence gun ban, which forbids anyone 
convicted of domestic violence from getting a gun. Since the law's 
inception, we have kept guns from falling into violent hands on over 
200,000 occasions. For instance, our gun laws allow domestic abusers to 
sidestep the ban on getting a gun. The loophole allows a convicted 
abuser to walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun, no questions 
asked. That is because background checks are not required for private 
sellers at gun shows.
  Since 1999, I have introduced legislation to close the gun show 
loophole and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, and it passed 
in the Senate with the vote of the Vice President to break the tie. 
Thirteen years later, this gap in our law remains in place, and people 
can go to the gun show, walk up to an unlicensed dealer, put the money 
down, and walk out with a gun. It is an outrage. If we want to protect 
victims from domestic abuse, we ought to commit ourselves to closing 
the gun show loophole for the safety of women, their families, and 
other victims of abuse. Saving the lives of women should be above 
politics.
  The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed the Senate 
unanimously in 2000 and 2005, and it is incomprehensible that we would 
turn our back on those who are so abused. I ask those who would vote 
against passing this bill to think about their own families, think 
about their spouses, think about their daughters, think about their 
children.
  Every Republican in the committee voted against reauthorizing the 
VAWA in committee. Every one of them voted against the bill that 
primarily protects women. They walked away.
  Today they have taken a different approach. They presented an 
amendment, and it is a sham. It actually removes the word ``women'' 
from a key part of the bill. It also fails to protect some of our most 
vulnerable victims. Apparently, some of our colleagues would vote 
against protecting women if it means they also have to protect 
immigrants and people in the gay and lesbian community.
  I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us 
and our families. We know they care. Show it. Show it in this vote we 
are about to take. Send a clear message that this country does not 
tolerate brutality against anyone, and show it with a little bit of 
courage. Stand and say: No, I want to protect my family, I want to 
protect those who are abused routinely in our society. That is the 
plea. I just hope each one of them will look at a picture of their kids 
and their families and say: I owe you that protection.
  We worked hard here with the premise that we are protecting people, 
so let's show it.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in 
support of S. 1925, the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act, and I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo for their 
leadership on this important issue.
  Originally passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has 
improved the criminal justice system's ability to hold perpetrators 
accountable and protect victims of domestic violence. The Violence 
Against Women Act also provides important services to women who have 
been victims of domestic violence to help them get their lives back on 
track.
  Now, the data tells us that the Violence Against Women's Act has been 
effective and is needed: In my State of Florida in 2010, according to 
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there were 113,378 reported 
domestic violence offenses. This includes domestic violence crimes of 
stalking, threats and intimidations, assaults, rapes, and murders. 
(SOURCE: Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (2011). Crime in 
Florida, 2010 Florida Uniform Crime Report. Tallahassee, FL: DLE.) 
Those reports resulted in 67,810 arrests. That's about 60%. 
Unfortunately, we may not ever fully know the full extent of domestic 
violence. Many victims do not report the abuse that they experience to 
the police or request domestic violence services out of fear and 
embarrassment.
  Since 1994, studies estimate that reporting of domestic violence has 
increased as much as 51%. Across the Nation we are seeing more victims 
of domestic violence step out of the shadows, and come forward to ask 
for help. And we are seeing more prosecution of domestic violence 
perpetrators. And, this is a trend that we want to see continue.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to swiftly pass this 
important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice in support of the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, of which I am proud 
to say I am a cosponsor.
  In Virginia, this act has doubled the resources available for 
prevention and intervention of sexual violence in communities and on 
campus. The funding provides crisis services in nearly every locality 
in Virginia. Funds have helped develop State databases like the 
protective order registry in the Virginia Criminal Information Network, 
VCIN, and the I-CAN system housed with the Virginia Supreme Court. 
These databases have helped improve responses across the Commonwealth 
to sexual and domestic violence.
  Some startling Virginia domestic and sexual violence incidence 
statistics highlight just how critical this legislation is to anyone in 
my State and across the country who may find themselves in need of 
help.
  Virginia has seen a 12 percent increase over the past 2 years in the 
number of men, women and children staying in domestic violence 
emergency shelters on an average night.
  Nearly 1 million women and more than 600,000 men in Virginia have 
experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate 
partner.
  According to the State's medical examiner, one in three homicides in 
Virginia is due to family or intimate partner violence.
  As these statistics show, the services authorized through VAWA 
continue to be a necessity. It is important that we continue to support 
access to these vital services that will provide significant benefits 
to those most in need of assistance.
  For the Violence Against Women Act to truly work as intended, we must 
have effective accountability. Particularly in times of tight budgets, 
it is important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. It is 
critically important that we continue to advance effective, 
comprehensive policies that will

[[Page 5742]]

provide appropriate preventive and supportive services that many in my 
State, as well as across the country, will benefit from.
  The accountability measures included in this bill are patterned after 
proposals offered by my Republican colleagues for other grant programs, 
and these accountability measures have been tailored to VAWA to make 
sure that funds are efficiently spent and effectively monitored.
  The bill authorizes the Department of Justice's inspector general to 
audit grantees to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. It gives grantees a 
reasonable amount of time to correct any problems that were not solved 
during the audit process, but imposes severe penalties on grantees that 
refuse to address the problems identified by the inspector general.
  Rather than Congress mandating a set number of audits, the Office of 
Inspector General will have the ability to set the appropriate number. 
This will give the experts in the inspector general's office the 
ability to more effectively perform important oversight. The Department 
of Justice has also taken significant steps to improve monitoring of 
VAWA grant awards by updating grant monitoring policies and 
incorporating accounting training for all grantees.
  The bill has taken the important step of holding the Department of 
Justice accountable when using Federal funds to host or support 
conferences. These new accountability provisions are an integral piece 
in this process and a meaningful additional check to ensure the 
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars for these important programs.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today in support of the 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I cosponsored 
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) when it was originally enacted in 
1994, and have cosponsored every reauthorization since then. The 
Violence Against Women Act continues to be as important today as it was 
in 1994. The programs VAWA supports have gone a long way to help stop 
batterers in their tracks and provide victims with the support they 
need to recover and rebuild their lives. This reauthorizing legislation 
builds upon proven prevention and support strategies and includes new 
provisions to address the changing and still unmet needs of victims.
  VAWA has been a success story over the past 18 years because it 
encourages communities to more effectively and efficiently respond to 
domestic violence. Working together, law enforcement, judges, domestic 
violence shelters, victim advocates, healthcare providers, and faith-
based advocates are able to better prosecute abusers and protect and 
aid the women, men and children who find themselves in dangerous and 
potentially life threatening domestic relationships. Programs 
authorized by VAWA also provide victims with critical services, 
including transitional housing and legal assistance, and address the 
unique issues faced by elderly, rural, and disabled victims. No one 
should have to choose between staying in a harmful relationship and 
losing their home or job.
  Yet, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 makes 
needed reforms and changes that will strengthen and streamline existing 
programs, while also consolidating programs and reducing authorizations 
to recognize the difficult fiscal situation we face. The bill also 
incorporates new accountability provisions, to ensure that VAWA funds 
are used effectively and efficiently. Our bill implements cuts that 
will save $135 million each year.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, we have seen 
far too many instances of physical, mental, and financial abuse of our 
Nation's seniors. So I thank Senator Leahy for including provisions 
from my End Abuse in Later Life Act. Those provisions ensure that 
appropriate enforcement tools are available to combat sexual assault 
and domestic violence against the elderly, and that older victims 
receive victim services.
  We commend Senator Leahy for his work on this important, bipartisan 
bill. VAWA reauthorizations passed the Senate unanimously in 2000 and 
2005, and I look forward to the long overdue passage of S. 1925 today.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which I am proud to 
cosponsor. As attorney general of Rhode Island, I saw firsthand the 
good work that the Violence Against Women Act has done to protect 
victims of domestic violence, to provide crucial services to those who 
have been harmed, and to hold batterers accountable for their crimes. 
It is vital that we reauthorize this important law.
  In Rhode Island and across the country, the Violence Against Women 
Act continues to support essential tools for preventing and responding 
to domestic violence. The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence reports, for example, that we now have 23 transitional housing 
units in our State, helping victims of violence become safe and self-
sufficient as they escape a batterer. VAWA's law enforcement and legal 
assistance programs have also proven essential, especially in light of 
difficult State and local budgets. VAWA supports seven law enforcement 
advocates in Rhode Island, who work in local police departments to 
provide immediate assistance to victims of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking. These and other VAWA programs have improved the 
criminal justice response to violence against women and ensured victims 
and their families the services they need.
  The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act builds on that record 
of success. It makes important updates to strengthen the law, while 
remaining cognizant of the challenging budget circumstances we face. 
The bill includes an increased focus on sexual assault prevention, 
enforcement, and services. It provides new measures to prevent 
homicides through programs to manage high-risk offenders. It also 
consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs and add 
efficiency. And it incorporates new accountability provisions to ensure 
that VAWA funds are used effectively and efficiently.
  Senators Leahy and Crapo led a fair and open process in crafting this 
bill. They have carefully studied these issues, consulted with a great 
number of experts and stakeholders, and as a result have achieved a 
bill with 60 cosponsors in this body.
  I would particularly like to thank Senators Leahy and Crapo for 
including in this bill a measure I authored to help prevent teen dating 
violence. Far too many teens suffer abuse at the hands of a dating 
partner. The Centers for Disease Control report that one in ten 
teenagers was hit or physically hurt on purpose by a boyfriend or 
girlfriend in the past year. The Saving Money and Reducing Tragedies 
through Prevention, or SMART Prevention Act, which I introduced last 
year and is included in this bill, will support innovative and 
effective programs to prevent this dangerous abuse.
  At a subcommittee field hearing I chaired last year on strategies for 
protecting teens from dating violence, each of the expert witnesses 
testified that prevention programs can help address this serious 
problem. Ann Burke, a leading national advocate, explained that school-
based teen dating violence prevention programs have proven effective in 
changing behaviors. For example, in 2 years following the passage of 
Rhode Island's Lindsay Ann Burke Act, named in memory of Ann's 
daughter, a victim of dating violence, the number of teenagers 
physically abused by a dating partner in our State decreased from 14 
percent to 10.8 percent.
  Prevention programs are most effective when part of a community 
approach. Kate Reilly, the executive director of the Start Strong Rhode 
Island Project, testified that effective prevention programming should 
``meet kids where they live and play.'' That requires involving 
parents, coaches, mentors, and community leaders--men and women--as 
well as innovative uses of technology and social media.
  One group of children needs particular attention: those who have 
witnessed abuse in their home. Deborah

[[Page 5743]]

DeBare, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence, explained at our hearing that ``growing up in a 
violent home may lead to higher risks of repeating the cycle of abuse 
as teens and young adults.'' By supporting robust services for children 
exposed to domestic violence, we can help to lift the emotional burden 
on children who witness their parents' violence and break the 
intergenerational cycle of violence.
  The VAWA Reauthorization Act's SMART Prevention provisions build on 
Ann and Kate and Deb's insights. The bill supports educational programs 
warning young people about dating violence, as well as programs to 
train those with influence on youth. To save costs, the new program is 
consolidated with existing grant programs, including a program directed 
at children who have witnessed violence and abuse. Coordinating and 
focusing prevention resources will save money, and abuse that is 
prevented reduces the strain on our overburdened health, education, and 
criminal justice systems.
  I again congratulate Senators Leahy and Crapo for their strong 
bipartisan leadership in helping us extend our longstanding bipartisan 
commitment to preventing domestic violence. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, so that we can 
keep working toward a country that is free of this scourge.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of The 
Violence Against Women Act. This consequential measure reauthorizes a 
landmark federal law and, once the Senate has finished a free and open 
debate including a full range of amendments, we should pass this bill 
with a strong, bipartisan majority. Approving this measure offers the 
Senate an opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that we 
still have the capacity to meet the challenge of forging effective 
solutions to monumental matters affecting Americans in their daily 
lives.
  For far too long, domestic violence has been an extremely serious and 
common crime that devastated families and silently took a great toll on 
our society. Decades ago, domestic violence went largely unreported, in 
part because the victim viewed the violence as personal, or because 
they were afraid of retribution, or they were embarrassed and did not 
want family members, friends, or neighbors to know.
  I well recall in 1990, when I was serving as the co-chair of the 
House Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues with Pat Schroeder, and 
Congress started to focus greater attention on these kinds of heinous 
transgressions and those who perpetrate them. Just as we fought 
vigorously for women's health equity, as well as economic security for 
women, the Caucus was a driving force for change in combating domestic 
violence, with then-Congresswoman Boxer taking a leadership role in 
authoring legislation, along with Connie Morella. As we were building 
legislative momentum in the House, then-Senator Joe Biden was 
shepherding this initiative through the Senate.
  This culminated in the original Violence Against Women Act, enacted 
in 1994, a truly landmark piece of legislation. For the first time, 
Congress enacted legislation that sought to comprehensively address the 
problem of violence against women. We provided assistance to States to 
improve law enforcement and prosecution efforts, and funded shelters 
and services to help women and their families extricate themselves out 
of these violent and abusive situations and into safety.
  Here we are, 18 years later, and yes, we can feel fortunate for the 
progress we have made on this critical issue. The evidence clearly 
bears this out.
  According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, reporting 
of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent. Reporting is 
an instrumental first step to ensuring that women receive the support 
they want, need, and deserve. As a result, hundreds of thousands of 
women have been helped through VAWA-supported programs such as 
hotlines, individual and court advocacy, emergency shelters, 
transitional housing and housing assistance. Furthermore, the annual 
incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent.
  While women are the most frequent targets of domestic violence, 
children are also too often victims in these tragedies as well. For 
this reason, the best approach must be comprehensive in scope and the 
urgent necessity for action, such as early intervention, is paramount.
  Earlier this month, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and the 
Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota released 
a study--the first of its kind--that prospectively examined the effects 
of interpersonal trauma on children--particularly young children. On 
average, children exposed to such trauma had cognitive scores that were 
the equivalent of 7 IQ points fewer, with the most significant and 
enduring cognitive deficits appearing in children exposed to trauma 
between birth and 2 years of age. As study leader Dr. Michelle Bosquet 
Enlow observed, ``If we wait until children are identified by the 
school . . . a lot of the damage will have already been done.''
  Well, I could not agree more, and that is why along with early 
intervention, we must also increase access to quality early childhood 
health and education programs. The challenge in 2012 is to understand 
and act upon the systemic, reverberative consequences of this violence.
  Consider the reality that domestic violence does not merely occur at 
home. In fact, the one place where an abuser can be confident to find 
his victim is at work. In a survey conducted by the Maine Department of 
Labor, 74 percent of abusers had easy access to their partner's 
workplace, with 21 percent of offenders reporting that they contacted 
the victim at the workplace in violation of a no contact order.
  At the same time, among female employees who experienced domestic 
violence, 87 percent received harassing phone calls at work; 78 percent 
reported being late to work because of abuse; and, incredibly, 60 
percent lost their jobs due to domestic abuse. As Ranking Member of the 
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I find these 
facts chilling, because not only do these alarming invasions of privacy 
threaten women's financial independence, they can also erode elements 
of a woman's critical support system that can often be found in the 
workplace as well.
  Turning now to my own State of Maine where approximately half of all 
homicides each year stem from domestic violence, I want to begin with 
the tragic case of Amy Lake. A kindergarten teacher from Dexter, ME, 
Amy, and her two children, Coty and Monica, were killed last year by 
her abusive husband before he killed himself.
  Domestic violence experts and law enforcement authorities contend 
that Amy did everything possible to protect herself and her two 
children. Amy and her children lived in seven different places the year 
before their deaths. Amy sought and received a protective order, which 
her husband proceeded to violate five times. This wrenching incident 
has galvanized the local community and the entire state of Maine at 
large to redouble our efforts to end domestic violence. And frankly it 
is cases like Amy's that tell us in no uncertain terms our work is far 
from finished. Our job is NOT completed. And our task remains for us 
all to strive to solve.
  In fighting domestic violence, engaging men is a fundamental part of 
the answer. I salute the efforts of Maine's Governor, Paul LePage, who 
himself has overcome tragedy as a child and has courageously and 
aggressively pursued changes aimed at protecting victims, such as 
reforming bail rules, and strengthening notification requirements. 
Additionally, Black Bears Against Domestic Violence--an initiative 
involving male athletes from all of the sports teams from the 
University of Maine--has done an outstanding job in speaking out 
against dating violence both on campus and at local high schools.
  This bill before us today, which I am pleased to cosponsor, 
successfully

[[Page 5744]]

 builds upon past strides at both the State and Federal levels. We 
include a number of judicial improvements, such as encouraging the use 
of best practices among law enforcement and court personnel to better 
assess the risk of domestic violence homicide and to provide immediate, 
crisis intervention services for those at risk of escalating violence. 
Maine is already moving in that direction in light of the tragedy that 
befell Amy Lake, which is vividly emblematic of the imperative to get 
the right information to the right people at the right time.
  Our legislation also reauthorizes grants to encourage arrest policies 
and enforce protection orders. At the same time, it explicitly calls on 
law enforcement to identify and inventory backlogs of sexual assault 
evidence collection kits and to develop protocols for responding to and 
addressing such backlogs in the purpose area of Services--Training--
Officers--Prosecutors, STOP, grants and Grants to Encourage Arrest 
Policies and Enforce Protection Orders, GTEAP. Human Rights Watch 
points out two astounding facts--first, that the arrest rate for rape, 
which stands at 24 percent, has not changed since the late 1970s. 
Second, it estimates that the number of untested rape kits reaches the 
hundreds of thousands. Indeed, a recent Newsweek article profiled 
Detroit prosecutor Kym Worthy, who was attacked at law school while on 
a run but never reported it, is spearheading an effort to ensure that 
more than 11,000 police rape kits are tested in Detroit. As she 
rightfully surmises, ``when victims go through a 3-hour plus rape kit 
exam, they expect the police to use the evidence to catch the rapist.''
  Now, I am cognizant that some of my colleagues--especially those who 
have enthusiastically supported the original law and past 
reauthorizations--are fully committed to fighting violence against 
women but have concerns about the version before us. I hope we can 
cooperatively work through these issues in an effort to ensure that at 
the end of the day the overall passage of a significant reauthorization 
is NOT jeopardized.
  Let me be clear, quelling domestic violence is too vital, too urgent, 
and too necessary a challenge to countenance division along party 
lines. Our answer must be to counter the impulse to create a political 
wedge with a desire to legislate in good faith. What is effective 
fodder for campaign vitriol has no place in a measure like this 
endeavor to reauthorize The Violence Against Women Act.
  Time is of the essence when it comes to legislation with life and 
death ramifications. Politically, this law has a strong bipartisan 
pedigree, which has been crucial to its success and enduring legacy. In 
deference to that tradition, rather than focusing on how to parlay our 
differences into political advantage, I urge my colleagues try to 
bridge the divide first.
  As someone who has dedicated her life in public service to empowering 
women, I know this much to be true we can adopt measures that promote 
and enhance women's health, but if we achieve those noble goals, yet 
fail to ensure women's security, the victory is pyrrhic at best. If we 
make strides in education and economic opportunity, but jettison 
efforts to protect women from abuse, the gains we make will have come 
at a steep price.
  The opportunities to rally around a common cause have been 
regrettably rare in this chamber so far this Congress. Let us seize 
this moment and send the strongest signal possible to the nation that 
on our watch women will receive the protections they require and 
deserve.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, every single American should be able to 
count on the law to protect them from domestic violence and sexual 
assault, regardless of who they are, where they live, or whom they 
love. That means giving law enforcement the tools they need to 
investigate and prosecute these crimes while investing in a community-
based approach, like we have in Delaware. In reauthorizing the Violence 
Against Women Act today, the Senate is taking an important step in the 
ongoing effort to rid domestic abuse from our communities and our 
Nation.
  The Violence Against Women Act has been an unqualified success at 
reducing domestic violence and bringing this once-hidden crime into the 
light. Yet there is no question that the need for this legislation 
persists.
  Just last month, a 26-year-old male was placed under arrest in New 
Castle County, DE, after assaulting his ex-girlfriend in front of her 
five children. The assault involved dragging the victim by her hair 
into the kitchen, where the violence continued. The victim's teenage 
son was forced to make the call to 9-1-1--another stark and horrifying 
example of how not all victims of domestic violence have bruises.
  Like many aspects of modern law enforcement, the best strategies for 
fighting domestic violence and sexual assault change over time. What 
Congress and experts understood to be effective in 1994 may not be the 
best or most comprehensive approach today. That is why the original 
authors of this act provided for reauthorization every 5 years. Twice 
each decade, we must take a hard look at where we are failing and where 
we are succeeding in this important fight.
  In this year's reauthorization, we made changes that generally fall 
into two categories: reducing bureaucracy and strengthening 
accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely; and 
ensuring that every victim of abuse in this country is able to count on 
the law to protect them, regardless of who they are, where they live or 
whom they love.
  Sometimes it takes an extra step on our part to make sure underserved 
communities, like those in the LGBTQ community, receive the same 
protection under the law as everyone else. I believe it is a step worth 
taking.
  The reauthorization we are considering today takes that step, moving 
us forward by adding protections for victims of domestic violence 
regardless of their sexual orientation. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgendered Americans experience domestic violence in the same 
percentage of relationships as the general population--a shocking 25 35 
percent--yet these victims often don't have access to the same services 
as their straight friends and neighbors.
  Nearly half of LGBTQ victims are turned away from domestic violence 
shelters, and a quarter are often unjustly arrested as if they were the 
perpetrators.
  In Delaware and across this country, our law enforcement officers are 
doing an incredible job responding to domestic violence cases, due in 
part to the training they receive from VAWA programs. Providing the 
resources necessary to help ensure officers treat all victims equally 
is essential to keeping our communities safe.
  Today's reauthorization makes plain that discrimination is not the 
policy of the United States of America. It says no program funded by 
Federal VAWA dollars can turn away a domestic violence victim because 
of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  That is it. That is all this part of the bill does, and I can't 
believe any of my distinguished colleagues would want to let 
discrimination persist in the laws of this country.
  Every single American should be able to count on the law to protect 
them from domestic violence and sexual assault. Whether the victim is 
gay or straight, American Indian, white, black or Latino, they deserve 
protection from abuse and justice for their abusers. The amendment 
offered by Senator Hutchison removes these key provisions and would 
allow the denial of VAWA assistance to victims solely because of their 
LGBT status.
  I opposed the Hutchison amendment for this reason, and because it 
eliminates improvements that will help law enforcement conduct 
investigations of the crimes targeted by VAWA.
  As cochair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, I convened a 
roundtable discussion in New Castle, DE, earlier this year to hear from 
leaders across the spectrum of law enforcement, the nonprofit sector, 
and the judiciary.
  One thing the roundtable made absolutely clear is that law 
enforcement agencies use VAWA funding to hold

[[Page 5745]]

training and share information they can't get anywhere else.
  Chief Jeffrey Horvath of the Lewes Police Department explained that 
in a small police unit such as the one he leads, marshaling the funds 
to provide officer training on domestic violence would be impossible 
without VAWA assistance.
  These local experts also stressed the critical need for ongoing and 
continued training. MAJ Nathaniel McQueen of the Delaware State Police 
noted that because the research continues to evolve, trainings must be 
given every year.
  Patricia Dailey Lewis, representing the Family Division of the 
Delaware Attorney General's Office, explained that VAWA provides the 
social workers that are critical to ushering victims through the 
criminal justice system. Without a social worker as a guide, the 
complications and frustrations of the justice system can be 
overwhelming--ultimately deterring victims from coming forward and 
pushing domestic violence back into the shadows.
  VAWA funds the Victims Advocate Office in the Delaware State Police 
Department, which LT Teresa Williams reported has served over 6,000 
Delawareans in 2 years. As that number suggests, the prevalence of 
domestic and sexual violence cases remains a huge concern. Chief James 
Hosfelt of the Dover Police Department estimated that one-third of his 
case files relate to incidents of domestic violence.
  Once law enforcement and prosecutors have secured a court order, VAWA 
plays a pivotal role in reducing recidivism. As Leann Summa, director 
of Legal Affairs of the Family Court in Delaware, explained to me, VAWA 
funds through STOP grants provide the only method by which the Delaware 
Family Court can ensure that individuals comply with court orders of 
treatment and counseling. For victims, VAWA also provides the support 
groups that reach those who might otherwise fall back into dangerous 
conditions. Maria Matos, executive director of the Latin American 
Community Center, explained to me that, while members of the Latino 
community do not often join in support groups, VAWA has helped create 
one that has worked successfully in Delaware.
  So if we are to tackle a problem this large, this pervasive, and this 
dangerous, we need well-trained, dedicated law enforcement officers but 
we also need support from a whole community providing a broad range of 
services. And in Delaware, that is exactly what we have. VAWA has 
fostered a community of those dedicated to reducing violence, allowing 
each group to serve as a force multiplier for others and adding value 
that individual programs alone would not create.
  Another participant in our roundtable, Bridget Poulle, executive 
director of the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, told me that 
even though the council she represented receives no VAWA funds, that, 
``VAWA has allowed all systems to work at a higher level.''
  Tim Brandau, executive director of CHILD, Inc., agreed that it is the 
broad community created by VAWA that is most important to sustain. 
Commissioner Carl Danberg of the Department of Corrections, who also 
joined us at the roundtable, reminded us how, in the early days of 
addressing domestic violence, the typical response was to ``lock them 
both up,'' revictimizing the innocent party. What seemed an appropriate 
or sufficient response at one time sounds appalling to our ears today--
reinforcing the need to reevaluate these programs regularly.
  VAWA makes the whole system better by bringing together the necessary 
pieces of a fully functioning justice system. At the roundtable, 
Patricia Dailey Lewis, representing the Family Division of the Delaware 
Attorney General's Office, explained that VAWA provides the social 
workers that are critical to ushering victims through the criminal 
justice system. Without a social worker as a guide, the complications 
and frustrations of the justice system can be overwhelming--ultimately 
deterring victims from coming forward and pushing domestic violence 
back into the shadows.
  The breadth of the VAWA community is key to its success. This was 
emphasized at the roundtable by Carol Post, executive director of the 
Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and by Deanee Moran, 
Director of the Sexual Assault Network of Delaware. They reported how 
VAWA touches everything from transitional housing to the national 
hotline, from the safe exchange of children to increased awareness on 
college campuses; from STOP grants in rural neighborhoods to SASP 
funding in urban communities. Not only for women, but also for men, and 
for children.
  My colleagues who opposed this reauthorization were willing to put 
all of this progress at risk. Their insistence on excluding some of our 
friends and neighbors because of their background or sexual orientation 
is unconscionable.
  I am proud to represent a State that has taken a leadership role in 
the fight against domestic violence, and I thank Joe Biden, the former 
Senator from Delaware, for his leadership in advancing the first VAWA 
statute.
  It is my pleasure, honor, and great responsibility to do all that I 
can to secure VAWA reauthorization this year--the safety of our 
communities depends on it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I write today to explain my vote in 
opposition to S. 1925, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 
VAWA. I have several outstanding concerns with this legislation, some 
of which were reflected in the amendments I circulated during the 
Senate Judiciary Committee's February 2012 markup of this legislation. 
In particular, I believe this legislation violates the principles of 
federalism outlined in the Constitution, fails to completely address 
duplication and overlap both within VAWA programs and with non-VAWA 
programs administered by both the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, ignores the continuing 
problem of grant management and waste, fraud and abuse at the Office of 
Violence Against Women, OVW, and disregards our country's fragile 
financial condition, which has worsened significantly since the last 
VAWA reauthorization in 2005.
  First and foremost, I do not think anyone would disagree with the 
fact that violence of any type against women, domestic, dating or 
sexual violence, is reprehensible and should not be tolerated. However, 
regardless of the extent of this or any other problem, we must 
carefully weigh the proper role of the Federal Government so Congress 
does not violate its limited authority under the Constitution. Domestic 
violence laws, like most other criminal laws, are State laws, and 
nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government tasked with 
providing basic funding to States, localities, and private 
organizations to operate programs aimed at victims of State crimes such 
as domestic violence. Far too often, Congress infringes upon the rights 
of the people and the States by overreaching in its legislative 
efforts.
  Although many VAWA programs are laudable, they are not the Federal 
Government's responsibility. In fact, the entire purpose of this 
legislation is to provide funding for State, local, non-profit, and 
victim services grantees to serve victims of State crimes, such as 
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual violence. These crimes and the 
treatment of its victims are appropriately in the jurisdiction of the 
States, not the Federal Government. In light of our current economic 
crisis, Congress must evaluate each and every program to determine if 
it is constitutional, whether it is a Federal responsibility, and 
whether it is a priority. Combating violence against women is certainly 
a priority, but it is not a Federal responsibility.
  Second, this legislation fails to completely address the duplication 
and overlap within VAWA programs and with non-VAWA programs operated by 
both the DOJ and HHS. At the beginning of every Congress, I send to 
each Senator my letter outlining the criteria he will use to evaluate 
legislation. This Congress, it was also signed by seven other Members. 
The VAWA reauthorization violates several of

[[Page 5746]]

those criteria, including elimination and consolidation of duplicative 
programs prior to reauthorization.
  While I recognize the legislation does consolidate some programs, it 
has not eliminated all duplication. There are several VAWA grant 
programs that are so broad that they duplicate one another, providing 
multiple opportunities for grantees to double dip into Federal funds. 
In addition, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, FVPSA, 
which predates the original VAWA legislation, authorized several HHS 
programs aimed at reducing domestic violence and helping victims. 
Several of those programs fund the same types of services as those 
authorized by the VAWA grants in this legislation.
  Furthermore, in the Government Accountability Office, GAO Duplication 
Report released at the end of February 2012, GAO found the DOJ 
administers more than 250 grant programs to provide crime prevention, 
law enforcement, and victims' services, totaling approximately $30 
billion since 2005. Specifically, GAO noted more than 20 percent of the 
253 grants reviewed by GAO are for victims' assistance.
  In addition, according to GAO, this June that office will be 
releasing yet another duplication report specifically on the OVW, 
Office of Justice Programs, OJP, and Community Oriented Policing 
Services, COPS Program. Before moving forward with a VAWA 
reauthorization, Congress should evaluate this report on OVW to 
determine how we can streamline the victims' services DOJ already 
provides. Reauthorizing VAWA programs now, without taking into account 
the recent and forthcoming work of GAO, is premature.
  As a result, I am very disappointed the Democrats refused to allow a 
vote on the amendment No. 2085 I filed to eliminate unnecessary 
duplication within DOJ, especially since the savings would have been 
largely directed to helping bring justice to rape cases. This amendment 
would have provided at least $600 million in additional funds to 
support efforts to use DNA to solve crimes.
  This amendment would have required the Department of Justice to 
identify every program its administers, consolidate unnecessary 
duplication, and apply savings towards resolving rape cases and 
reducing the deficit.
  Specifically, the amendment directed the Attorney General to develop 
a plan that would result in financial cost savings of at least 20 
percent of the nearly $3.9 billion in duplicative grant programs 
identified by the Government Accountability Office.
  According to GAO, since 2005, Congress has spent $30 billion in 
overlapping Department of Justice grants for crime prevention police 
and victims services from more than 250 DOJ grant programs, and $3.9 
billion in grants just in 2010.
  As much as 75 percent of the savings, nearly $600 million, may be 
directed towards alleviating any backlogs of analysis and placement of 
DNA samples from rape, sexual assault, homicide, kidnapping and other 
criminal cases, including casework sample and convicted offender 
backlogs, into the Combined DNA Index System. The remainder of the 
savings will be returned to the Treasury for the purpose of deficit 
reduction.
  By requiring the consolidation and elimination of duplication at DOJ, 
Congress will free Federal funding which can be more appropriately 
dedicated to bringing justice to rape victims, while also reducing the 
deficit.
  DNA testing provides a powerful criminal justice tool to convicting 
rapists and exonerating the innocent--DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, 
testing has become a powerful criminal justice tool in recent years. 
``DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when 
biological evidence exists. By the same token, DNA can be used to clear 
suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of 
crimes. In all, DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring 
accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system,'' according to 
the Department of Justice.
  ``Each person's DNA is unique (with the exception of identical 
twins). Therefore, DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can 
implicate or eliminate a suspect, similar to the use of fingerprints. 
It also can analyze unidentified remains through comparisons with DNA 
from relatives. Additionally, when evidence from one crime scene is 
compared with evidence from another using the Combined DNA Index 
System, those crime scenes can be linked to the same perpetrator 
locally, statewide, and nationally.''
  ``When biological evidence from crime scenes is collected and stored 
properly, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that may 
be decades old. Therefore, old cases that were previously thought 
unsolvable may contain valuable DNA evidence capable of identifying the 
perpetrator.''
  In New York authorities used DNA evidence to link a man to at least 
22 sexual assaults and robberies. Authorities in Philadelphia, PA, and 
Fort Collins, CO, used DNA evidence to link and then solve a series of 
crimes--rapes and a murder--perpetrated by the same individual.
  DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. First, in 
cases where a suspect is identified, a sample of that person's DNA can 
be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this 
comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime. 
Second, in cases where a suspect has not yet been identified, 
biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed and compared 
to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator. 
Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime scenes through 
the use of DNA databases.
  DNA evidence is generally linked to DNA offender profiles through DNA 
databases. In the late 1980s, the Federal Government laid the 
groundwork for a system of national, State, and local DNA databases for 
the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the 
Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, maintains DNA profiles obtained under 
the Federal, State, and local systems in a set of databases that are 
available to law enforcement agencies across the country for law 
enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime scene evidence to a 
database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders. CODIS can 
also link DNA evidence obtained from different crime scenes, thereby 
identifying serial criminals.
  In order to take advantage of the investigative potential of CODIS, 
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, States began passing laws requiring 
offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples. 
Currently all 50 states and the Federal Government have laws requiring 
that DNA samples be collected from some categories of offenders.
  When used to its full potential, DNA evidence will help solve and may 
even prevent some of the Nation's most serious violent crimes. However, 
the current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system needs 
improvement, according to the Department of Justice: In many instances, 
public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA 
samples. In addition, these labs may be ill-equipped to handle the 
increasing influx of DNA samples and evidence. The problems of backlogs 
and lack of up-to-date technology result in significant delays in the 
administration of justice. More research is needed to develop faster 
methods for analyzing DNA evidence. Professionals working in the 
criminal justice system need additional training and assistance in 
order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and 
assist victims.
  Thousands of sexual assault DNA kits are still not tested--``The 
demand for DNA testing continues to outstrip the capacity of crime 
laboratories to process these cases,'' according to a National 
Institute of Justice report. ``The bottom line: crime laboratories are 
processing more cases than ever before, but their expanded capacity has 
not been able to meet the increased demand.''
  The DNA casework backlog, consisting of forensic evidence collected--
from crime scenes, victims and suspects in criminal cases--has more 
than doubled from less than 50,000 in 2005 to more than 100,000 in 
2009.

[[Page 5747]]

  There are thousands of rape kits ``sitting waiting to be tested'' in 
Houston, TX alone. The Houston Police Department may have up to 7,000 
sexual assault kits that have not been tested. Houston recently 
accepted an $821,000 Federal grant to study the backlog of untested 
kits, but ``the bulk of the money has to be spent on figuring out the 
reasons rape kits have gone untested'' and less than half of the money 
``will go towards dealing with the actual backlog.''
  This amendment provides roughly $600 million to help resolve more 
than 340,000 rape and other criminal cases with DNA testing--This 
amendment would have provided at least $600 million in additional funds 
to support efforts to use DNA to solve crimes.
  The amendment would have directed the Attorney General to develop a 
plan that would result in financial cost savings of at least 20 percent 
of the nearly $3.9 billion in duplicative grant programs identified by 
the Government Accountability Office. As much as 75 percent of the 
savings, nearly $600 million, may be directed towards alleviating any 
backlogs of analysis and placement of DNA samples from rape, sexual 
assault, homicide, kidnapping, and other criminal cases, including 
casework sample and convicted offender backlogs, into the Combined DNA 
Index System. The remainder of the savings will be returned to the 
Treasury for the purpose of deficit reduction.
  In 2010, National Institute of Justice's DNA Backlog Reduction 
Program provided more than $64.8 million which allowed more than 37,000 
cases to be tested. The $600 million provided by this amendment could 
therefore be enough to provide testing for over 342,000 cases.
  No list of Justice Department programs exists, yet GAO found more 
than 250 overlapping DOJ grant programs--As with many other agencies, 
the Justice Department cannot fully account for each program in its 
purview. In fact, in its review of DOJ programs for their annual report 
on duplication, even the GAO could not fully account for every program 
at the agency.
  The number of Justice programs detailed by GAO, 253, may actually be 
an understatement. The report explains Justice grant programs can 
continue for up to 5 years, and as such, ``the total number of active 
justice grant programs can be higher than what is presented,'' which is 
only a one year snapshot of the Department's programs.
  This amendment would require the Department to provide a full listing 
of every single program administered under their jurisdiction, which 
will assist in Congress's work to address this extensive overlap when 
making funding decisions.
  In their duplication report, GAO revealed that ``overlap and 
fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers 
of unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating duplication, 
overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer 
dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective 
services.''
  This amendment would have addressed this overlap and unnecessary 
duplication at the Department of Justice by also requiring the 
following: a listing of other programs within the Federal Government 
with duplicative or overlapping missions and services; the latest 
performance reviews for the program, including the metrics used to 
review the program; the latest improper payment rate for the program, 
including fraudulent payments; and the total amount of unspent and 
unobligated program funds held by the agency and grant recipients.
  This information would be updated annually and posted on-line, along 
with recommendations from the agency to consolidate duplicative and 
overlapping programs, eliminate waste and inefficiency, and terminate 
lower priority, outdated and unnecessary programs.
  According to GAO, since 2005 Congress has spent $30 billion in 
overlapping Department of Justice grants for crime prevention, police, 
and victims services through more than 250 programs, and $3.9 billion 
in grants in 2010.--In February, the Government Accountability Office, 
GAO, released its second annual report addressing duplication and areas 
for cost savings throughout the Federal Government. The report, 
``Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, 
Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' exposed 51 specific examples of 
government duplication and areas of Federal spending with potential for 
significant cost savings.
  Included in this year's report are some very troubling findings of 
extensive duplication in a large portion of Department of Justice, DOJ, 
programs. GAO found the Justice Department administers more than 250 
duplicative programs to provide ``crime prevention, law enforcement, 
and crime victim services,'' costing taxpayers roughly $30 billion in 
the last 6 years.
  Their report details the widespread duplication in the Department, 
enumerating at least 56 victims' assistance programs, 33 juvenile 
justice efforts, more than 40 technology and forensics grant 
solicitations, and 16 community crime prevention strategy programs, to 
name a handful of the many identified.
  In 1 year alone, three primary offices--the Office of Justice 
Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the Community 
Oriented Policing Services Office--awarded $3.9 billion through 11,000 
grants, many of which the GAO found to be duplicative and in need of 
review and coordination.
  GAO attributes much of the duplication among these 253 grant programs 
to the fact Justice officials do not conduct a full cross reference 
check to ensure applicants have not applied for or received overlapping 
grants from the Department.
  In fact, Justice employees contend they simply do not have enough 
time before providing a grant to ensure recipients have not already 
received funding. GAO observed, ``Justice officials stated that the 
timeline for reviewing applications, making recommendations on their 
merit, and processing awards each year is compressed and that it would 
be difficult to build in the extra time and level of coordination 
required to complete an intradepartmental review for potentially 
unnecessary duplication of funding prior to making awards.''
  This amendment would direct DOJ to use their own authority to 
eliminate and consolidate overlapping programs as identified by GAO and 
develop a plan that would result in financial cost savings of no less 
than 20 percent of the nearly $3.9 billion in duplicative grant 
programs identified by the Government Accountability Office.
  Addressing duplication at GAO is one step in addressing our nearly 
$16 trillion debt--With the release of the GAO report, combined with 
last year's recommendations, Congress and the administration have been 
given extensive details in 132 areas of government duplication and 
opportunities for significant cost savings, with dozens of 
recommendations for how to address the duplication and find these 
savings.
  The problem in Congress today is not an issue of ignorance--it is one 
of indifference and incompetence. We know we have a problem. We know we 
have cancer. Yet we refuse to stop making it worse, we refuse to apply 
the treatment, and we refuse to take the pain of the medication for the 
long-term benefit of a cure.
  The report provides a clear listing of dozens of areas ripe for 
reform and in need of collaboration from members on both sides of the 
aisle, to find solutions to address these issues.
  We are looking into a future of trillion dollar deficits and a 
national debt quickly headed toward $20 trillion. Our Nation is not on 
the verge of bankruptcy, it is already bankrupt. Over the last 2 years, 
there have been countless discussions and bipartisan talks about how to 
address our debt and deficit. Yet there has been little agreement, and 
at the end of this year we will be faced with another tax extenders 
package and another increase in the debt limit, all while sequestration 
will be poised to kick in and achieve the savings Congress has been 
unable to muster the courage to pass.
  But, before us, we have part of the answer. GAO's work presents 
Washington with literally hundreds of options for areas in which we 
could make

[[Page 5748]]

a decision now to start finding savings, potentially hundreds of 
billions of dollars. If we are unable to agree on eliminating even one 
small duplicative program or tax credit when clearly we know there are 
hundreds, we have little hope of ever coming to a comprehensive 
compromise for fixing our floundering budget.
  Congress should require the Department of Justice to provide a full 
listing of every program in their jurisdiction. Further, the Department 
can find savings from consolidating the overlap outlined by the GAO, 
freeing up Federal funding to dedicate toward solving unresolved rape 
cases, while also reducing the deficit.
  As a Nation, we simply cannot afford to reauthorize programs that 
waste taxpayer dollars by duplicating programs operated by other 
Federal agencies for the same purposes. To be clear, addressing 
duplication and overlap is not a matter of refusing to provide services 
to victims of domestic violence but, rather, it is to ensure they are 
properly served by programs that are efficient, effective and not 
bogged down in Federal Government bureaucracy.
  Third, both the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the DOJ 
Office of the Inspector General, DOJ OIG, have repeatedly documented 
the failure of OVW to manage its grants and monitor its grantees 
effectively. Following this statement, I have included in the Record 
summaries of both GAO and DOJ OIG reports on OVW and VAWA grants. 
Overall, DOJ has long had problems with its grant management. The DOJ 
OIG has published for more than a decade a list of the Top 10 
Management Challenges at the DOJ. Grant management, unfortunately, has 
appeared on that list ever since the inception of this evaluation, with 
OVW being called out as particularly problematic.
  Since 2001, GAO has noted various problems at OVW and with particular 
VAWA grants. With regard to OVW grant management, GAO noted grants 
awarded by OVW ``often lacked the documentation necessary to ensure 
that the required monitoring activities occurred.'' As a result OVW 
``was not positioned to systematically determine staff compliance with 
monitoring requirements and assess overall performance.''
  Furthermore, since 1998, the DOJ IG has issued audit after audit 
noting unallowable expenditures, questioned grant costs, weak internal 
reporting, and poor oversight in numerous VAWA grants across the 
country. For example, a 2011 DOJ IG audit of a Boston grantee 
questioned over half $638,298 of its $1.3 million grant. The questioned 
costs were used for unsupportable conferences, bonus payments, and 
consultant fees.
  Even my constituents have directly experienced OVW mismanagement. For 
example, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, OK DAC, which is the 
Oklahoma State administrative agency for many Federal grants, has had 
specific, documented problems with the poor job OVW has been doing in 
its grant management and oversight. OVW does not answer or return phone 
calls in a timely manner and has consistently been unavailable to 
answer grantees' questions in the middle of the work week. Moreover, 
according to the OK DAC, in the last 4 years that Oklahoma has received 
one particular VAWA grant, OVW has failed to perform even one site 
visit to check on the implementation of the grant and the grantee's use 
of Federal funds.
  After more than a decade of significant challenges, it is my hope the 
DOJ OIG will be able to remove grant management from DOJ's top 10 
management challenges. However, until that occurs, it is the job of 
Congress to ensure we are not turning a blind eye to DOJ's failure to 
properly administer taxpayer funds through Federal grant programs, 
including those authorized by VAWA.
  Fourth, the fiscal condition of our country has worsened dramatically 
since the original passage of this bill in 1994 and the last 
reauthorization in 2005. In fact, at the end of 2005, our national debt 
was approximately $8.1 trillion. It is now over $15.6 trillion--a 
growth of over $7.5 trillion, or 92.6 percent, in just over 6 years. 
The Federal Government is in no position to spend more money on any 
grant programs without offsets. We simply cannot afford it.
  Although Chairman Leahy recognized the inordinately high 
authorization levels in the last VAWA reauthorization by reducing some 
of those amounts, S. 1925 continues to inflate the actual funding we 
know Congress will provide to VAWA grantees. The bill authorizes 
approximately $660 million in grants each year for 5 years, totaling 
$3.3 billion. None of these funds are offset. The 2005 VAWA 
reauthorization provided approximately $779 million per year for 5 
years, totaling $3.89 billion. Thus, while S. 1925 reauthorizes a total 
of $590 million less than the 2005 VAWA reauthorization, this total is 
still much higher than actual past appropriations.
  In fact, from 2007 to 2011, Congress appropriated a total of $2.71 
billion for VAWA grant programs, which is $590 million less than this 
bill's authorized funding. From 2007 to 2011, although Congress 
authorized a total of $3.89 billion, it actually appropriated $1.18 
billion less than that figure, 2.71 billion. Thus, while S. 1925 may 
reduce authorizations, it still provides a total authorization that is 
significantly higher than total VAWA appropriations over the past 5 
years. If we know, based on past funding history, it is highly unlikely 
Congress will ever provide to VAWA grantees the level of funding 
authorized in this legislation, why would we send a false message to 
grantees by retaining such inflated estimates in VAWA?
  Fifth, I also have concerns about a section of this bill that allows 
a tribal court to have jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit a 
domestic violence crime in Indian country or against an Indian. The 
language explicitly provides that the self-governance of a tribe 
includes the right ``to exercise special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction over all persons.'' To my knowledge, this is the first 
time the Federal Government has given Indian courts jurisdiction over 
``all persons.'' While I recognize domestic violence is a serious 
problem in Indian Country, this change could cause particular problems 
with tribes in Oklahoma. Oklahoma has no reservations, but it does have 
39 separate Indian governments. The individual allotment lands and 
trust lands are small and dispersed within Oklahoma communities and 
counties. The tribes do not have large continuous land bases, and 
because of its unique history, many Oklahomans claim Indian enrollment 
but have no relationship to the tribe or a tribal community.
  Further, the Bill of Rights does not apply in Indian courts. Instead, 
most of the protections are preserved because of the Indian Civil 
Rights Act, but it does not preserve all rights. For example, the 
Indian Civil Rights Act only guarantees right to counsel at an 
individual's own expense. If the ``all persons'' language is as 
absolute as it appears, it could allow a non-Indian to be tried in 
tribal court without the full protection of the Constitution. S. 1925 
includes language that says: ``In a criminal proceeding in which a 
participating tribe exercises special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction, the participating tribe shall provide to the defendant . 
. . all other rights whose protection is necessary under the 
Constitution of the United States in order for Congress to recognize 
and affirm the inherent power of the participating tribe to exercise 
special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over the defendant.'' 
Still, I am not certain this is enough and am afraid it will be subject 
to future court challenges.
  Proponents of this provision argue that such allowances to tribal 
courts are necessary because no one is prosecuting non-Indian 
offenders, and that may be true in some cases. But, instead of creating 
a conflict between Indian country and the Federal Government's 
jurisdiction over American citizens who commit crimes, we believe we 
should deal with the bigger problem by holding the Department of 
Justice and local U.S. attorneys accountable for not prosecuting these 
cases.
  Finally, while I applaud and support Senator Grassley's effort to 
increase

[[Page 5749]]

accountability at the DOJ and to address problematic definitions, 
immigration provisions, and criminal statutes in his substitute 
amendment, for many of the same reasons I outline above, I must also 
oppose his substitute. Although Senator Grassley's alternative is, in 
several areas, likely a better alternative than S. 1925, it fails to 
reduce authorizations or offset those amounts, does not fully address 
grant management problems at OVW or program duplication, and still runs 
counter to my basic constitutional concerns with VAWA programs.
  As a result, I cannot support S. 1925 or Senator Grassley's 
substitute.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the attached documents supporting my 
statement on the Violence Against Women Act of 2011 in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Summary of Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports Addressing 
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Grants and/or the Office of Violence 
                             Against Women


 ``Justice Impact Evaluations: One Byrne Evaluation Was Rigorous; All 
Reviewed Violence Against Women Office Evaluations Were Problematic,'' 
 United States Government Accountability Office, GA0-02-309, March 2002

       The title of this report summarizes the VAWA program well--
     ``all reviewed Violence Against Women Office evaluations were 
     problematic.''
       From 1995 2001, NIJ awarded $6 million for five Byrne grant 
     evaluations and five VAWA grant evaluations. VAWA funds 
     provided all of the funding for NIJ's evaluation of its 
     grants ($4 million). GAO reviewed in depth three of the VAWA 
     evaluations, ``all of which . . . had methodological problems 
     that raise concerns about whether the evaluations will 
     produce definitive results.''
       ``With more up-front attention to design and implementation 
     issues, there is a greater likelihood that NIJ evaluations 
     provide meaningful results for policymakers.''
       While OVW provides grantees flexibility to develop projects 
     to fit their communities, ``the resulting project variation 
     makes it more difficult to design and implement definitive 
     impact evaluations of the program. Instead of assessing a 
     single, homogeneous program with multiple grantees, the 
     evaluation must assess multiple configurations of a program, 
     thereby making it difficult to generalize about the entire 
     program.''
       All three VAWA evaluations were designed ``without 
     comparison groups [which] hinders the evaluator's ability to 
     isolate and minimize external factors that could influence 
     the results of the study.'' As a result, ``lack of comparison 
     groups . . . makes it difficult to conclude that a reduction 
     in violence against women and children . . . can be 
     attributed entirely, or in part, to the . . . program. Other 
     external factors may be operating.''


Statement of Laurie Ekstrand, Director of Justice Issues, United States 
Government Accountability Office, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on 
  Crime and Drugs, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 
``Leading the Fight: The Violence Against Women Office,'' GAO-02-641T, 
                             April 16, 2002

       The primary conclusion of Ms. Ekstrand's testimony was the 
     following: ``Our recent work has shown a need for improvement 
     in [OVW] grant monitoring and in the evaluations that are 
     intended to assess the impacts of [OVW] programs.''
       VAWA programs have grown significantly since its 1995 
     inception. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of VAWA 
     discretionary grants ``increased about 362%--from 92 in FY 
     1996 . . . to 425 in FY 2000.'' During the same time period, 
     the dollar amount of all VAWA discretionary grants 
     ``increased about 940%--from just over $12 million in FY 1996 
     . . . to about $125 million in FY 2000.''
       Ms. Ekstrand referenced the March 2002 report by stating 
     ``grant files for discretionary grants awarded by [OVW] often 
     lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the 
     required monitoring activities occurred.'' As a result OVW 
     ``was not positioned to systematically determine staff 
     compliance with monitoring requirements and assess overall 
     performance.''


        Report to The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, House of 
Representatives, ``Violence Against Women: Data on Pregnant Victims and 
  Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies Are Limited,'' United States 
         Government Accountability Office, GA0 02 530, May 2002

       This report was requested by Eleanor Holmes Norton due to 
     her concern about pregnant women being victims of homicide 
     and other types of violence.
       GAO concluded the data was incomplete on the number of 
     pregnant women who are victims of violence and that data 
     ``lacks comparability.''
       ``Research findings on whether women are at increased risk 
     for violence during pregnancy are inconclusive.'' A report by 
     the CDC noted, ``the risk of physical violence does not seem 
     to increase during pregnancy.''
       Little information is available on the effectiveness of 
     strategies to prevent and reduce violence against women . . 
     .''


``Prevalence of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and 
Stalking,'' United States Government Accountability Office, in Response 
      to a Report Mandated by the Violence Against Women and DOJ 
        Reauthorization Act of 2005, GAO-07-148R, November 2006

       VAWA advocates attempt to highlight how many (incidence) of 
     these crimes occur and how many people are victimized 
     (prevalence) as evidence of why we need to pay for additional 
     services to victims of domestic violence. However, this GAO 
     report notes there is not an accurate nationwide estimate of 
     the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating 
     violence, and stalking.
       That is not to say it does not occur. Rather, that is to 
     note, as policymakers, we really do not have adequate 
     information to make decisions on what grants are necessary, 
     if any, to address this problem because we do not know its 
     scope. GAO notes ``no single, comprehensive effort currently 
     exists that provides nationwide statistics on the prevalence 
     of these four categories of crime [domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, dating violence, and stalking].'' In fact, ``since 
     2001, the amount of national research that has been conducted 
     on the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault has 
     been limited, and even less research has been conducted on 
     dating violence and stalking.'' Yet, in the 2000 
     reauthorization of VAWA, language was added to put greater 
     emphasis on dating violence.
       While it could be costly to design a single, nationwide 
     effort, DOJ has not even performed a cost-benefit analysis to 
     determine if such a national effort should move forward.
       In addition, while there have been some analysis by 
     individual subdivisions of agencies (approximately 11 
     collection efforts focusing on various aspects of domestic 
     violence), even their work has not produced results that can 
     be extrapolated nationally. For example, the CDC and OJP have 
     taken some steps at providing consistency in some of their 
     data collection and definitions of terms such as ``dating 
     violence'' or ``domestic violence,'' however, GAO notes even 
     agencies like these ``encourage but do not require grantees 
     to use these definitions as part of their research efforts 
     and cannot always use these definitions in their own work.''
       GAO concludes, ``the absence of comprehensive nationwide 
     prevalence information somewhat limits the ability to make 
     informed policy and resource allocation decisions about the 
     statutory requirements and programs create to help address 
     these four categories of crime and victims.''


 ``Services Provided to Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, 
       Dating Violence, and Stalking,'' United States Government 
Accountability Office, in Response to a Report Mandated by the Violence 
 Against Women and DOJ Reauthorization Act of 2005, GAO-07-846R, July 
                                  2007

       This is the second part of the mandate to GAO from the 2005 
     VAWA Reauthorization. The first part was completed in the 
     November 2006 report mentioned above.
       This report focused on eleven federal grant programs and 
     how each collected and reported data to the respective 
     agencies (OVW/OVC/HHS-ACF) on the services they provide. 
     While information is reported, ``data are not available on 
     the extent to which men, women, youth, and children receive 
     each type of service for all services.'' GAO notes this 
     ``occurs primarily because the statutes governing these 
     programs do not require the collection of such data.''
       Even if such data were available, GAO notes, among several 
     concerns, the data may not be reliable because ``recipients 
     of grants administered by all three agencies use varying data 
     collection practices.''
       While I understand concerns for victims' confidentiality 
     and safety, there are clearly improvements that can be made 
     in improving the uniformity and reliability of data 
     collection.
       In addition, due to Congress placing different requirements 
     on different grants and having a complicated maze of grant 
     programs we cannot keep track of, we have not provided the 
     appropriate consistency to grantees to make data collection 
     requirements easy to understand and perform. Better drafting 
     on our part could also improve the data we receive, which, in 
     turn, would greatly improve and inform our policymaking 
     efforts.

[[Page 5750]]




Statement of Eileen Larence, Director of Homeland Security and Justice, 
 United States Government Accountability Office, Testimony Before the 
   Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, ``The Violence 
 Against Women Act: Building on 17 Years of Accomplishments,'' GAO-11-
                          833T, July 13, 2011

       This testimony focused on a review of the 2006 and 2007 
     reports above and updates to those recommendations conducted 
     in July 2011.
       Of the eleven national data collection efforts mentioned in 
     the 2006 report, four only focused on incidence (the number 
     of times a crime is committed), not the prevalence (how many 
     individuals are actually victimized).
       GAO reports DOJ's OJJDP completed a nationwide survey in 
     2009 of incidence and prevalence of children's exposure to 
     violence. This should help in the area of teen dating 
     violence. While CDC has begun a teen dating violence 
     prevention initiative, it just began implementing the first 
     phase in four high risk areas in September 2011, and results 
     are not expected until 2016. Thus, GAO says ``it is too early 
     to tell the extent to which this effort will fully address 
     the information gap related to prevalence of stalking victims 
     under the age of 18.''
       In 2006, GAO reported different agencies used different 
     definitions related to different types of domestic violence, 
     which led to problems collecting accurate national 
     statistics. This report notes HHS still continues to 
     encourage the use of uniform definitions, but it does not 
     require grantees to do so. In 2010, CDC convened a panel to 
     update and revise its definitions. CDC is reviewing those 
     results and plans another panel in 2012.
       DOJ has reported its juvenile justice division created 
     common definitions for use in a national survey of children's 
     exposure to violence. This is encouraging, but clearly 
     significant divisions of DOJ, such as OVW, which are 
     responsible for a large portion of VAWA grants, have not 
     reported advances in developing common definitions.
       A CDC/NIJ Report on the prevalence of domestic violence was 
     released mid-December 2011.
       As a result of the 2007 report, HHS and DOJ stated ``they 
     modified their grant recipient forms to improve the quality 
     of the recipient data collected and to reflect statutory 
     changes to the programs and reporting requirements.'' 
     Officials stated this resulted in an increase in the quality 
     of data received.
       Overall, GAO's testimony concluded ``having better and more 
     complete data on the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, dating violence and stalking as well as related 
     services provided to victims . . . can without doubt better 
     inform and shape the federal programs intended to meet the 
     needs of these victims.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for 
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act--VAWA. VAWA is a 
critical piece of legislation that protects American women from the 
plague of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence and sexual 
assault. The Violence Against Women Act is the centerpiece of the 
federal government's efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual 
assault and has transformed the response to these crimes at the local, 
State and federal levels.
  As my colleagues know, VAWA was signed into law in 1994. This body 
reauthorized it in 2000 and again in 2005 on an overwhelming bipartisan 
basis. And it is my hope that we can repeat this bipartisan cooperation 
with the current reauthorization bill. I applaud those on both sides of 
the aisle for coming together to support this legislation. The measure 
today has a total of 61 cosponsors, including eight Republicans. VAWA 
has always been bipartisan, is bipartisan today, and needs to come to a 
vote.
  During my days as the mayor of San Francisco, law enforcement 
officers most worried about responding to domestic abuse calls. That is 
where things got really rough. Tragically, I saw it happen over and 
over again. It was a big problem then, and it remains a big problem 
today.
  To address these problems, the bill reauthorizes a number of grant 
programs administered by the Departments of Justice and Health and 
Human Services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, 
and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and 
stalking. It also provides support for State agencies, rape crisis 
centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable women. 
And American women are safer because we took action.
  Today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the 
police, and the rate of non-fatal partner violence against women has 
decreased by 53 percent since 1994, according to the Department of 
Justice. Because of VAWA, States have the funding to implement 
``evidence-based'' anti-domestic violence programs, including 
``lethality screens,'' which law enforcement uses to predict when a 
person is at risk of becoming the victim of deadly abuse.
  In my home state of California, with the help of VAWA funds, we 
reduced the number of domestic violence homicides committed annually by 
30% between 1994, the year in which VAWA was enacted, and 2010. Simply 
put, VAWA funding saves lives.
  An extremely noteworthy example of VAWA's success came to my office 
from the Alameda County District Attorney.
  In 1997, Alameda County, CA reported 27 deaths as a result of 
domestic violence. That was about the normal rate at that time. But by 
last year, 2011, the district attorney reported just three deaths. The 
district attorney credits VAWA for reducing the number of domestic 
violence homicides in Alameda County. This is a clear example of why we 
need to reauthorize VAWA.
  Through the use of VAWA funding, Alameda County created the Family 
Justice Center in 2005 to provide comprehensive services to adults and 
children who experience domestic violence or sexual assault. Today, the 
center is a national model of how communities can bring service 
professionals together to serve crime victims.
  During these tough economic times, the demand for the Family Justice 
Center's services has grown--as has its need for VAWA funding. In the 
center's first year, they treated approximately 8,000 clients, 
including an estimated 1,000 children. In 2010, the center treated 
12,000 clients. Last year, the center treated more than 18,000 women, 
men, children and teens who were victims of interpersonal violent 
crimes.
  During a recent visit to my office, the Alameda County District 
Attorney noted that without VAWA funding it would not be possible for 
the Family Justice Center to continue to serve this growing population 
of crime victims.
  The vital need for domestic violence prevention services was 
highlighted in a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention--CDC--which found that on average, 24 people per minute are 
victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner 
in the United States. Over the course of a year, that equals more than 
12 million women and men.
  In California, about 30,000 people accessed crisis intervention 
services from one of California's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 
2011. These centers primarily rely on federal VAWA funding--not State 
funding--to provide services to victims in their communities.
  In 2009 alone, there were more than 167,000 cases in California in 
which local county or State police officers were called to the scene of 
a domestic violence complaint according to the California Department of 
Justice.
  The bill we are are considering today gives increased attention to 
victims of sexual violence. This form of violence is particularly 
destructive because, for many years, our society viewed sexual violence 
as the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator.
  Although VAWA has always addressed the crime of sexual assault, a 
smaller percentage of the bill's grant funding goes to sexual assault 
victims than is proportional to their rates of victimization. The bill 
does three things to address this imbalance: No. 1, it provides an 
increased focus on training for law enforcement and prosecutors to 
address the ongoing needs of sexual assault victims; No. 2, the bill 
extends VAWA's housing protections to these victims; No. 3, and the 
bill ensures that those who are living with, but not married to, an 
abuser qualify for housing assistance available under VAWA.
  The bill also updates the federal criminal code to clarify that 
cyberstalking is a crime. With increasing frequency, victims are being 
stalked over the Internet through e-mail, blogs, and Facebook. When 
stalking is done online, the message sent by the perpetrator is 
memorialized forever, making it more difficult for victims to put the 
painful experience in

[[Page 5751]]

the past and move forward in their lives.
  Despite the fact that the underlying bill has 61 cosponsors from both 
parties, not a single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee--of 
which I am a longtime member--voted to advance the legislation.
  The bill considered in the Judiciary Committee includes several 
changes that I believe improve the underlying bill.
  For example: It creates one very modest new grant program, 
consolidates 13 existing programs, and reduces authorization levels for 
all other programs by 17 percent. The new bill would decrease the total 
authorization level of $795 million in fiscal year 2011 to $659 million 
in fiscal year 2012. And it places emphasis on preventing domestic 
homicides and reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits.
  Yet, there are some who refuse to support it because it now includes 
expanded protections for victims. Specifically, VAWA was expanded to 
include additional protections for gay and lesbian individuals, 
undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse, and 
authority for Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.
  In my view, these are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic 
violence. I ask those who oppose the bill: If the victim is in a same-
sex relationship, is the violence and danger any less real? If a family 
comes to this country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, 
do we say, well, you are illegal; I am sorry, you don't deserve any 
protection?
  911 operators and police officers don't refuse to help a victim 
because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were 
born. When you call the police in America, they come.
  VAWA will help ensure that all victims have access to life-saving 
services, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Lesbian, 
gay, bisexual and transgendered victims experience domestic violence in 
25 percent to 35 percent of relationships--the same rate as 
heterosexual couples. Yet, these victims are often turned away when 
they seek help from shelters and professional service providers and 
they do not receive the help they need.
  VAWA would improve the LGBT community's ability to access services by 
explicitly prohibiting grant recipients from discriminating based on 
sexual orientation or gender identity and by clarifying that gay and 
lesbian victims are included in the definition of underserved 
populations.
  Domestic and sexual violence in Tribal communities is a problem of 
epidemic proportions. Studies indicate that nearly three out of five 
Native American women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate 
partners. The VAWA Reauthorization bill provides law enforcement with 
additional tools to take on the plague of violence affecting Native 
women. The bill adds new Federal crimes--including a 10-year offense 
for assaulting a spouse or intimate partner by strangling or 
suffocation--the two types of assault that are frequently committed 
against women in Indian Country. And it closes loopholes to ensure that 
those who commit domestic violence in Indian Country do not escape 
justice.
  The Chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Highland, 
CA recently wrote to me to emphasize the importance of closing the 
jurisdictional loophole. According to the chairman, the rampant 
violence against Native women can in part be attributed to the absence 
of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators.
  Crimes of domestic violence or dating violence that would typically 
lead to convictions and sentences of anywhere between 6 months and 5 
years in U.S. courts are too often falling through the cracks in the 
legal system when identical crimes occur in Indian Country.
  The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 is supported 
by over 50 national religious organizations including the Presbyterian 
Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the 
National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Catholic Women, 
the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church.
  As I mentioned earlier, law enforcement officers are at particular 
risk when they respond to domestic violence incidents. According to the 
Law Enforcement Officer Deaths Memorial Fund, in 2009, 23 percent of 
firearms-related deaths involved domestic disturbance calls. In 2010, 
eight officers were killed responding to domestic violence calls.
  VAWA provides needed training to decrease the risk to law enforcement 
when responding to domestic violence calls. The legislation includes 
grants to develop and strengthen policies and training for law 
enforcement to recognize and effectively respond to instances of 
domestic abuse.
  To me, this bill is a no-brainer. To stand in the way of this bill is 
almost to say we don't consider violence against women an important 
issue.
  Let me repeat: this bill protects American women. It has support on 
both sides of the aisle. It saves lives. It is a lifeline for women and 
children who are in distress.
  We need to show our commitment to end domestic violence and sexual 
violence. I hope that all senators will support this important effort 
to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with strong bipartisan 
support as we always have. This has always been a bipartisan effort. 
Let's vote and let's get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994 and again in 2000 and 2005, the 
Senate took a strong, bipartisan stance against acts of domestic and 
sexual violence that alter the lives of far too many American families 
and especially American women. With the passage and later 
reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress provided 
invaluable aid--sometimes lifesaving aid--to hundreds of thousands of 
Americans. There is no reason we cannot reauthorize this legislation 
again this year with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress 
to support this bill.
  Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has provided 
comprehensive support to survivors of domestic and sexual violence and 
to the Federal, State, and local agencies that confront this scourge 
every day. The original legislation passed in 1994 laid a strong 
foundation that helped establish a coordinated response to violence 
against women. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 strengthened that 
foundation. Today, through violence prevention grants, services to 
survivors of sexual assault, legal assistance, transitional housing 
grants, assistance to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, and 
other efforts, VAWA has made an enormous difference.
  Deaths due to violent acts by intimate partners have decreased 
significantly. And according to a cost-benefit analysis, VAWA saved 
nearly $15 billion in its first 6 years of existence by avoiding the 
high social costs violence against women exacts on our Nation. William 
T. Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, calls VAWA 
``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in 
this country.''
  For all its successes, VAWA has not ended our responsibility to act 
against violence. Domestic and sexual violence remain far too common 
for us to abandon our efforts. And just as we have in past 
authorizations, the legislation before us would strengthen our ability 
to confront violence in new ways.
  Now, some of these new efforts have become controversial. Some of our 
Republican colleagues have questioned provisions that extend VAWA's 
antidiscrimination protections. Some have questioned extending the 
umbrella of this Nation's protections to immigrants. And some have 
questioned provisions designed to protect Native American women from 
sexual and domestic violence. In fact, some of my colleagues have 
denied that these provisions are necessary, and some have criticized 
them as ``political.''
  I certainly do not consider extending the successful protections of 
this legislation to all Americans as ``political.''

[[Page 5752]]

I consider it common sense. I consider it our duty to help these 
survivors get the assistance they need. I strongly support these 
important extensions of the act's protections, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support them as well.
  This is not a partisan issue. I hope the Senate can, as it has in the 
past, send a strong bipartisan message of support to survivors of 
domestic or sexual violence. And I hope our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives will quickly take up and approve legislation that will 
make an enormous positive difference in the lives of so many.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to briefly comment on an issue 
that has been raised by some with respect to the stalking provisions in 
the bill.
  Some outside observers have questioned whether the language in the 
bill would chill free speech or even criminalize constitutionally 
protected speech. Obviously, that was not the intent of the language 
and I do not believe that would be the impact.
  In fact, a statute cannot criminalize constitutionally protected 
speech. If it is protected under the Constitution, then it is 
protected, plain and simple.
  The stalking provision is intended to make our anti-stalking laws 
more effective. The problem with current law is that we require a 
victim to actually suffer from substantial emotional distress in order 
for the perpetrator to be prosecuted.
  But sometimes victims are not even aware that they are being stalked, 
especially if the stalker is using electronic surveillance, video 
surveillance, or other technology that is specifically designed for 
spying.
  So a stalker who is using technology to stalk his victim can escape 
prosecution simply because he goes undetected by the victim. That does 
not make sense to me.
  With the provision in the bill, we allow law enforcement and 
prosecutors to focus on the stalker's actions, and not just the 
victim's emotions.
  This will allow prosecutions if the perpetrator is caught before the 
victim has suffered the necessary level of emotional distress. Under 
current law, law enforcement has to wait until that harm has occurred, 
even though the stalker has already committed terrible invasions of the 
victim's privacy.
  But I understand the concerns of those who are worried about free 
speech. I am willing to work with them to address their concerns as we 
move forward.
  I have no desire to inhibit free speech. This is not about speech, it 
is about video surveillance, tracking devices, and other secretive 
methods of stalking. It is about truly dangerous and despicable 
behavior.
  Mr. DURBIN. According to a recent survey, 24 people every minute 
become victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate 
partner in the United States. That means that just in the time it takes 
me to finish this statement, dozens will have been victimized.
  Since it was passed by Congress in 1994, the Violence Against Women 
Act has provided valuable, even life-saving, assistance to these 
hundreds of thousands of individuals. The impact of this bipartisan 
legislation has been profound. According to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, the rate of domestic violence against women has dropped by 
53 percent since VAWA's passage. This legislation is critical.
  There is no question that we are making tremendous progress. But 
there are so many who urgently need help. Let's look at incidence of 
physical violence: The Centers for Disease Control tell us that nearly 
one in four women reports experiencing severe physical violence by an 
intimate partner. And the consequences can be severe. For example, 
according to one report, in 2007, 45 percent of the women killed in the 
United States died at the hands of an intimate partner.
  Sexual assault statistics are just as alarming: The CDC tells us that 
nearly one in five women in the United States has been raped. And more 
than half of female rape victims report being raped by an intimate 
partner. One in six women in the United States has experienced 
stalking. Each one of these statistics, and every person who has 
suffered domestic and sexual violence, shows us that we need to 
reauthorize this legislation, and we need to do it now.
  This legislation is supported by victims, experts, and advocates. It 
is supported by service providers, faith leaders, and health care 
professionals. And it is supported by prosecutors, judges, and law 
enforcement officials. It should be supported by all of us here in 
Congress.
  The last two VAWA reauthorizations have appropriately--and 
carefully--expanded the scope of the law and improved it. This 
reauthorization is no exception. It applies the important lessons we 
have learned from those working in the field and renews our commitment 
to reducing domestic and sexual violence. Here is what the 
reauthorization does:
  It ensures that funding will continue to go to the organizations and 
individuals who need help most. It places increased emphasis on 
responding to sexual assault, in addition to domestic violence. It does 
things like encourage jurisdictions to evaluate their rape kit 
inventories and reduce existing backlogs.
  The reauthorization incorporates important accountability mechanisms. 
It consolidates programs to reduce duplication and unnecessary 
bureaucracy. And it reduces spending. Total annual authorization has 
been cut by 17 percent. The reauthorization also helps meet the needs 
of victims from communities that have had difficulty accessing 
traditional services, for example, because of their religion, sexual 
orientation, or gender identity. It helps tribal communities. It helps 
abused immigrants.
  The reauthorization helps ensure that law enforcement officials have 
access to the tools they need by allowing for the ``recapture'' of a 
modest number of U Visas. U Visas, for victims of crimes, are an 
important law enforcement tool. They may be granted only after law 
enforcement certification and only if a non-citizen is the victim of 
enumerated--and serious--crimes. Law enforcement officials across the 
country have advocated for increased accessibility to U Visas: In my 
home State of Illinois, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez 
said: ``Increasing the accessibility to U Visas will provide to 
prosecutors like me an important tool in protecting public safety.'' 
The Fraternal Order of Police wrote: ``The expansion of the U Visa 
program will provide incalculable benefits to our citizens and our 
communities at a negligible cost.''
  I want to take a moment to discuss an important provision in this 
reauthorization that I authored, working with Senator Leahy, to address 
an appalling situation taking place in our immigration detention 
facilities. We have heard about truly horrific instances of sexual 
assault occurring in immigration detention facilities.
  A troubling episode of Frontline, the PBS program, detailed one 
woman's story in great detail recently. But that was hardly an isolated 
incident. As the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has said: 
``[A]ccounts of abuse by staff and by detainees have been coming to 
light for more than 20 years. As a group, immigration detainees are 
especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects while detained . 
. . .''
  The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003--``PREA''--aimed to eliminate 
the sexual abuse of those in custody. This was legislation, championed 
by Senator Sessions, that I cosponsored. Our goal, together, was to 
create a ``zero-tolerance'' policy for this intolerable behavior. 
Nobody behind bars should have to fear abuse from others in detention 
or from those meant to protect them. Simply put: sexual abuse is not, 
and cannot be, part of the punishment for those accused of violating 
our laws.
  We are waiting on the Department of Justice's final National 
Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape. But it is 
unclear to what extent those standards will be interpreted to apply to 
immigration detention facilities--as opposed to, say, facilities under 
the Bureau of Prisons. When we drafted and passed PREA, it was always 
our intent that it would apply to

[[Page 5753]]

all those in detention--including immigration detainees.
  It was important to me to have a provision that clarifies that 
standards to prevent prison rape must apply to immigration detainees. 
This provision requires that, in the absence of other steps, the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human 
Services quickly adopt standards for the prevention and punishment of 
sexual assault in all facilities with immigration detainees.
  Custodial sexual assault is just one of the many issues addressed by 
the Violence Against Women Act. I urge my colleagues to work with me to 
reauthorize this legislation. Previous VAWA reauthorizations have 
always had broad bipartisan support. This legislation is not Democratic 
or Republican. It is about protecting our communities from abuse and 
violence. This reauthorization that we are passing is an impressive 
product that carefully incorporates the expert feedback from those in 
the field.
  The dozens of individuals who have been victimized since I stood up 
here today need our help now. Let's give it to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the work the leadership has 
done, and I know Senator Murray has been very involved with that too, 
and I appreciate her help in getting us to a point where we now have a 
unanimous consent to get to votes and we can finally pass this bill.
  I think sometimes a bill like this is an abstract matter. It is not 
an abstract matter to the women's organizations that support it. It is 
not abstract to law enforcement who support it. And if I might speak 
personally for a moment, it is not an abstract matter to me.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer and I come from probably the 
safest, lowest crime State in the country, but we both know that crimes 
do happen. We also know that in a rural State, oftentimes domestic 
violence is not reported. We don't talk about this outside the family. 
And I know that in some of those instances, when I had the privilege of 
serving as a prosecutor in Vermont, they didn't talk about it. I first 
heard about it usually in the morgue or at the great Fletcher Hospital. 
I learned about it because when the body was picked up, either the 
undertaker or the police or the ambulance driver realized this was not 
a natural cause, and then we would sort of roll the clock back. In 
rolling the clock back, we found that all these warning signals were 
there. There was nowhere for the victim to go. The things we now have 
were not there then.
  I was able to prosecute a number of these people. In fact, I probably 
brought some of the first successful domestic violence prosecutions we 
had. But police and prosecutors will say that those are always after 
the fact.
  So how do we stop this from happening in the first place? That is 
what the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is 
about. It is there to stop the crime before the crime happens. This 
bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law 
enforcement officers from all across the country, of all political 
persuasions. I never knew a time when somebody would come to a crime 
scene and say: Is this victim a Democrat or Republican, gay or 
straight, immigrant or not? We would say: How do we catch the person 
who did this?
  We listened to what the survivors, advocates, and law enforcement 
officers told us. They told us what worked, what did not work, and what 
could be improved. Then we carefully drafted the legislation to fit 
these needs, and that is why our bill is supported by more than 1,000 
Federal, State, and local organizations, service providers, law 
enforcement, religious organizations, and many more.
  There is one purpose, and one purpose only, for the bill Senator 
Crapo and I introduced and others cosponsored: It is to help and 
protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation 
represents the voice of millions of survivors and advocates across the 
country. The same cannot be said with the Republican proposal brought 
forward in the last couple of days. That is why that proposal is 
opposed by such a wide spectrum of people and organizations.
  Domestic and sexual violence knows no race, gender, ethnicity, or 
religion. Its victims can be your next door neighbor, your colleague, a 
fellow church member, or your child's teacher at school. The Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act seeks to ensure that services to help 
victims of domestic violence reach all victims, no matter who they are. 
That is why civil and human rights organizations like the NAACP, the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, 
and End Violence Against Women International have urged Congress to act 
to reauthorize VAWA. I ask consent that these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2012.
     Re: NAACP Support for S. 1925, the reauthorization of the 
         Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and our opposition to 
         weakening amendments

     Members,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, 
     largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil 
     rights organization, I strongly urge you to support the 
     speedy reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 
     (VAWA), S. 1925. As you consider this legislation on the 
     Senate floor, I further urge you to oppose any weakening 
     amendments. Since it was first enacted in 1994, this 
     important legislation has sought to improve community-based 
     and criminal justice system responses to domestic violence, 
     dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United 
     States.
       The NAACP strongly supported passage of the original VAWA 
     in 1994, and since that time no other law has done more to 
     stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The 
     resources and training provided by VAWA have changed 
     attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes, improved the 
     response of law enforcement and the justice system, and 
     provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild 
     their lives. It is a law that has saved and improved 
     countless lives, and should clearly be reauthorized and 
     strengthened. Within the United States, domestic violence 
     related homicides have dropped significantly since the 
     passage of VAWA.
       On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 Senators Patrick Leahy (VT) 
     and Mike Crapo (ID) introduced S. 1925, a bipartisan bill to 
     reauthorize and improve VAWA. The NAACP has, through its 
     Washington Bureau and in collaboration with the National Task 
     Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, 
     worked closely with these Senators to ensure that under S. 
     1925 VAWA will continue to fund programs which have proven 
     themselves to be effective and that key changes will be made 
     to streamline VAWA and make sure that even more Americans 
     have access to safety, stability and justice.
       In addition to supporting enactment of the VAWA in 1994, 
     the NAACP has joined bipartisan supporters in reauthorizing 
     this important legislation in 2000 and 2005. We have seen the 
     VAWA change the landscape for victims in the United States 
     who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, 
     dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have now been 
     able to access services, and a new generation of families and 
     justice system professionals have come to understand that 
     domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 
     stalking are crimes that our society will no longer tolerate.
       I look forward to working with you to pass a strong 
     reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to honor 
     the memory of the women that have lost their lives and 
     endured these atrocities and for the hope that this bill will 
     continue to protect future generations of women. Thank you in 
     advance for your attention to the NAACP position. Should you 
     have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at my office at (202) 463-2940.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President, 
                                              Advocacy and Policy.

  Mr. LEAHY. These organizations recognize the impact VAWA has in 
reducing incidences of sexual and domestic violence in our country. 
Since its initial passage in 1994, no law has done more to combat 
domestic violence and sexual assault. Because of VAWA, victims have 
access to life-saving services. It is time that we ensure that all 
victims have access to these resources.
  The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against

[[Page 5754]]

Women, which represents dozens of organizations across the country, 
says the substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the 
thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day.
  The substitute includes damaging, nonworkable provisions that will 
harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies. I 
know it may be well-intentioned, but it is no substitute for the months 
of work we have done in a bipartisan way with the people across the 
country to bring this bill that is before us. Unfortunately, it 
undermines the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It 
resolves in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips 
out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all 
victims, including immigrants, Native women, and victims in same-sex 
relationships. Again, a victim is a victim is a victim. We don't say: 
We can help you if you fit in this category. But sorry, battered woman, 
you are on your own because you fit in the wrong category. That is not 
the America I know and love.
  The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act are taken out, and the Republican proposal is no 
substitute. It does nothing to meet the needs of victims. It undermines 
the focus of protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word 
``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. They are still 
victimized at far higher rates and with far greater impact on their 
lives than men. Shifting this focus away from women is unnecessary and 
harmful, and it could send a terrible message. There is no reason to 
turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out, to eliminate the focus 
on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect.
  By contrast, our bipartisan bill does not eliminate the focus against 
women but increases our focus to include all victims of domestic 
violence and sexual assault.
  I see others on the floor. I have far more I am going to say about 
this, and I am about to yield the floor in case others wish to speak.
  Remember, this bill is the Violence Against Women Act. Let's not go 
away from that. It has been carefully put together with the best input 
we could get from law enforcement, from victims organizations, and, I 
must say, from some victims themselves. This is to protect those 
people. I have seen some crime scenes that I still have nightmares 
about decades later, and I can guarantee my colleagues that every 
prosecutor in this country and every police officer in this country who 
deals with these matters probably have the same kinds of nightmares.
  Are we going to stop all violence against women with this act? Of 
course not. But as a result of having had this legislation in effect 
for years, the numbers have come down because there is a place to go, 
there are people to help, and there are people to stop the violence. 
That is what we want to do--not to be, as I was during those nights in 
the morgue, saying to the police: Let's find out who did this so we can 
catch them, but, rather, to stop them before it happens and to protect 
the people so they live. That is what we are trying to do. That is what 
this bill does.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Hutchison, for offering her substitute amendment to the 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill. I am pleased to 
cosponsor her amendment. This amendment is vitally needed.
  The Violence Against Women Act has always been reauthorized in the 
past on a bipartisan, consensus basis.
  It would have been so easy to do so again.
  All of us who support the amendment of the Senator from Texas are in 
agreement with 80 percent of the bill that is before us.
  But the majority has decided to place a higher priority on scoring 
political points than on passing another consensus reauthorization of 
the law.
  Recently, Vice President Biden asked what kind of message it would 
send to women if VAWA were allowed to expire.
  He implied that a crisis would be at hand that must be avoided at all 
costs.
  But the actual answer to his question is clear.
  The majority party has already allowed VAWA to expire.
  VAWA's reauthorization expired last October.
  There has been no crisis of any kind because the appropriations for 
VAWA programs have kept flowing.
  It is the majority, not us, that is responsible for the lapse in 
VAWA's authorization.
  The way that the Judiciary Committee handled reauthorization this 
time has been very disappointing.
  The majority insisted on including--and retaining--provisions that 
appear designed to provoke partisan opposition.
  For instance, the majority insisted on giving Indian tribal courts 
criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian Americans for the first time in 
our country's history.
  The committee held one hearing on reauthorizing this bill, and it 
devoted no attention to exploring how this provision would operate.
  As a result, the committee described this provision in only four 
sentences in its report on the legislation.
  We all recognize that domestic violence rates in Indian country are 
too high.
  Both the committee-reported bill and the Hutchison-Grassley 
substitute contain provisions to address the problem.
  But the majority cannot explain why expanding the power of tribal 
courts would be effective or how this would work.
  Do the tribes have the resources and expertise and resources to 
comply with the Constitution?
  How would the Federal courts' caseload be affected by all the new 
habeas petitions that would necessarily be filed if this became law?
  What changes would occur in the existing relationships between 
Federal, State, and tribal law enforcement?
  The majority has no idea whether this provision would help matters or 
not because it simply did not give this issue any careful attention.
  Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has raised several 
constitutional issues that would be posed by this provision as it was 
reported from the committee.
  These include due process, equal protection, fifth amendment grand 
jury and double jeopardy issues, as well as sixth amendment rights to 
counsel and a jury trial by one's peers.
  At the eleventh hour before floor consideration, the majority has 
recognized the serious constitutional issues that were raised by the 
committee language.
  It has changed the language in an effort to respond to the 
constitutional questions it had denied existed.
  If we had had a hearing on these questions, matters could have 
proceeded differently.
  These changes do not address the constitutional questions CRS posed 
about congressional power to recognize the inherent power of tribes to 
prosecute non-Indians, nor do they affect the inability of a defendant 
to appeal his conviction.
  And, of course, they do not address the practical concerns that I 
have raised all along.
  CRS also raises constitutional due process concerns regarding another 
section in the bill that would give tribal courts the authority to 
enforce protective orders. That section remains unchanged.
  Ironically, the constitutional concerns about the criminal provisions 
are made more severe because the majority refused to eliminate language 
we asked them to omit.
  Constitutional problems are made worse because the bill gives tribes 
criminal jurisdiction as part of their claimed inherent sovereignty.
  Our substitute strikes the provisions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the relevant portions of the CRS analysis.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 5755]]



        [From the Congressional Research Service, Apr. 13, 2012]


                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Senate Judiciary Committee.
     From: Jane M. Smith, Legislative Attorney, 7 7202.
     Subject: State Jurisdiction over Indian country; Public Law 
         280; S. 1925's Provision for Tribal Court Jurisdiction to 
         Issue Protection Orders and Due Process.

       This memorandum is in response to your request for an 
     explanation of state jurisdiction over Indian country; an 
     explanation of how Public Law 280 affects that jurisdiction; 
     and an analysis of whether the provision in S. 1925, the 
     Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act (VAWA 
     Reauthorization), concerning the jurisdiction of tribal 
     courts to issue protection orders against ``all persons'' 
     comports with the requirements of due process under the 
     Constitution.


                 State Jurisdiction Over Indian Country

       In the absence of congressional authorization, state 
     jurisdiction in Indian country depends on whether the conduct 
     at issue involves non-Indians or Indians only.


                  Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians

       Generally, states have civil jurisdiction over non-Indians 
     in Indian country, unless that jurisdiction is preempted by 
     federal law or is incompatible with the right of Indian 
     tribes to govern themselves. In order to determine whether 
     federal law preempts state jurisdiction over non-Indians, 
     courts engage in ``a particularized inquiry into the nature 
     of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an 
     inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific 
     context, the exercise of state authority would violate 
     federal law.''
       The courts:
       examine[] the language of the relevant federal treaties and 
     statutes in terms of both the broad policies that underlie 
     them and the notions of sovereignty that have developed from 
     historical traditions of tribal independence. This inquiry is 
     not dependent on mechanical or absolute conceptions of state 
     or tribal sovereignty, but has called for a particularized 
     inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal 
     interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, 
     in the specific context, the exercise of state authority 
     would violate federal law.
       In order to determine whether state law applies to non-
     Indian conduct in Indian country, therefore, courts engage in 
     a particularized weighing of the federal, tribal, and state 
     interests at stake.
       In Bracker, the Court considered whether the state could 
     impose motor vehicle license and fuel taxes on the logging 
     and hauling operations of a non-Indian contractor working for 
     the tribe exclusively within the reservation. Finding that 
     federal control over tribal timber was pervasive (``the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs exercises literally daily 
     supervision over the harvesting and management of tribal 
     timber''), the Court held that the state taxes were preempted 
     by federal law. Preemption of state law can occur, therefore, 
     not only when the state law violates federal law, but also 
     when federal involvement with the activity is pervasive.
       There is very little case law on when state jurisdiction 
     interferes with the right of Indians to govern themselves. In 
     Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian 
     Reservation, the Supreme Court rejected the tribes' argument 
     that because the tribal government generated substantial 
     revenues from selling cigarettes without state taxes that 
     imposing the state cigarette tax would infringe on their 
     right to govern themselves. The Court noted the tribes' 
     interest in governing themselves was strongest when the 
     conduct at issue involved tribal members only and determined 
     that the tribes did not have a legitimate interest in 
     marketing an exception to state taxation. Because there is so 
     little case law, it is not clear under what circumstances 
     application of state law to non-Indians would interfere with 
     a tribe's ability to govern itself.


                 Criminal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians

       Most states only have criminal jurisdiction over non-
     Indians committing crimes against other non-Indians in Indian 
     country. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction 
     over non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians.


 The Effect of Public Law 280 on State Jurisdiction Over Indian Country

       Public Law 280 gave to certain states criminal jurisdiction 
     and civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over Indian country. 
     ``[W]hen a State seeks to enforce a law within an Indian 
     reservation under the authority of Pub. L. 280, it must be 
     determined whether the law is criminal in nature, and thus 
     fully applicable to the reservation . . ., or civil in nature 
     and applicable only as it may be relevant to private civil 
     litigation in state court.''
       Whether a law is criminal or civil does not depend on 
     whether the law carries criminal penalties. Rather, a law is 
     criminal in nature if it prohibits an activity outright, and 
     it is civil in nature if it allows the activity but regulates 
     it. Thus, in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 
     the Supreme Court held that even though California's gaming 
     laws carried criminal penalties, they were civil in nature 
     because they allowed certain kinds of gaming, but regulated 
     them. Thus, states that have criminal jurisdiction over 
     Indian country under Public Law 280 have criminal 
     jurisdiction over all conduct by Indians and non-Indians 
     which violates a state law that is prohibitory.


  Tribal Court Jurisdiction to Issue Civil Protection Orders Under S. 
                          1925 and Due Process

       Section 905 of S. 1925 provides: ``a court of an Indian 
     tribe shall have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce 
     protection orders involving any person . . . in matters 
     arising anywhere in the Indian country of the Indian tribe 
     (as defined in section 1151) or otherwise within the 
     authority of the Indian tribe.'' According to the Senate 
     Report, this section is intended to make clear that tribal 
     court jurisdiction covers all persons within the tribe's 
     jurisdiction, including non-Indians.


                     The Intent Behind Section 905

       Under current law, the general rule is that ``the inherent 
     sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the 
     activities of nonmembers of the tribe.'' However, there are 
     two exceptions to this rule. First ``[a] tribe may regulate, 
     through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities 
     of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the 
     tribe or its members through commercial dealing, contracts, 
     leases, other arrangements.'' Second, ``[a] tribe may also 
     retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the 
     conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation 
     when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the 
     political integrity, the economic security, or the health or 
     welfare of the tribe.''
       It appears that section 905 would expand a tribe's civil 
     authority over non-Indians to enter protective orders. 
     According to the Senate Report, section 905 is intended to 
     ensure that the result in Martinez v. Martinez is not 
     repeated. In Martinez, Mrs. Martinez, an Alaska Native who 
     was not a member of the Suquamish Tribe, obtained from the 
     Suquamish tribal court a protection order against her 
     husband, a non-Indian. The Martinez family lived on non-
     Indian fee land located within the tribe's reservation. Mr. 
     Martinez objected to the court's jurisdiction and sought an 
     injunction against the tribal court in federal district 
     court. The district court granted the injunction, finding the 
     tribal court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Martinez.
       The federal court rejected the tribe's and Mrs. Martinez's 
     argument that Congress had granted the tribal court 
     jurisdiction to issue protection orders against non-Indians 
     in 18 U.S.C. 2265(e). That section, which was in the Violence 
     Against Women Act (VAWA), provides: ``Tribal court 
     jurisdiction.--. . . a tribal court shall have full civil 
     jurisdiction to enforce protection orders . . . in matters 
     arising within the authority of the tribe.'' The court wrote:
       The Court does not construe the provisions of the VAWA as a 
     grant of jurisdiction to the Suquamish Tribe to enter 
     domestic violence protection orders as between two non-
     members of the Tribe that reside on fee land within the 
     reservation. There is nothing in this language that 
     explicitly confers upon the Tribe jurisdiction to regulate 
     non-tribal member domestic relations. The grant of authority 
     simply provides jurisdiction ``in matters arising within the 
     authority of the tribe.''
       Tribal jurisdiction over non-members is highly disfavored 
     and there exists a presumption against tribal jurisdiction. 
     There must exist ``express authorization'' by federal statute 
     of tribal jurisdiction over the conduct of non-members. For 
     there to be an express delegation of jurisdiction over non-
     members there must be a ``clear statement'' of express 
     delegation of jurisdiction.
       Section 905, therefore, is apparently intended to provide 
     such a delegation of authority to tribal courts to issue 
     protection orders over non-members within the tribes' 
     reservations or jurisdictions.


                 Due Process and Personal Jurisdiction

       The Supreme Court has held that due process requires that a 
     defendant have ``minimum contacts'' with a jurisdiction 
     ``such that the maintenance of the suit [in the jurisdiction] 
     does not offend traditional notions of fair play and 
     substantial justice.'' There may be an issue with section 905 
     in that it would delegate to tribal courts jurisdiction over 
     ``all persons,'' regardless of their contacts with the Indian 
     tribe.
       Taking section 905 literally, it does not appear to require 
     that a person have minimum contacts with the tribe in order 
     for the tribe to exercise jurisdiction over him or her to 
     issue protection orders. Under section 905, the outcome of 
     the Martinez case arguably would have been different: the 
     tribal court would have had jurisdiction over Martinez, a 
     non-Indian, even though he appears to lack contacts with the 
     tribe--he was not married to a member of the tribe, did not 
     work for the tribe, and lived on non-Indian fee land. There 
     is an argument that the tribal court's exercise of 
     jurisdiction over Mr. Martinez would ``offend traditional 
     notions of fair play and substantial justice,'' because he 
     may not have minimum connections to the tribe, and thus 
     violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
       Advocates of tribal jurisdiction would probably argue that 
     because Mr. Martinez lived within the tribe's reservation he 
     had

[[Page 5756]]

     sufficient minimum contacts with the tribe. However, Mr. 
     Martinez lived on non-Indian fee land. Under United States v. 
     Montana, as a matter of federal common law, tribes generally 
     do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians on non-Indian fee 
     land within the reservation, subject to the two exceptions. 
     Therefore, it appears that residence by a non-Indian on non-
     Indian fee land within a tribe's reservation does not connect 
     the resident to the tribe in a way to support tribal 
     jurisdiction under the federal common law. It is not clear 
     whether it would be sufficient to establish minimum contacts 
     for the purposes of due process.
                                  ____


        [From the Congressional Research Service, Apr. 18, 2012]

 Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction over Non-Indians in the Violence Against 
     Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization and the SAVE Native Women Act

   (By Jane M. Smith, Legislative Attorney; Richard M. Thompson II, 
                         Legislative Attorney)

       Domestic and dating violence in Indian country are at 
     epidemic proportions. However, there is a practical 
     jurisdictional issue when the violence involves a non-Indian 
     perpetrator and an Indian victim. Indian tribes only have 
     criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian 
     perpetrators within their jurisdictions. Most states only 
     have jurisdiction over crimes involving a non-Indian 
     perpetrator and a non-Indian victim within Indian country 
     located in the state. Although the federal government has 
     jurisdiction over non-Indian-on-Indian crimes in Indian 
     country, offenses such as domestic and dating violence tend 
     to be prosecuted with less frequency than other crimes. This 
     creates a practical jurisdictional problem.
       Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress, the Violence 
     Against Women Reauthorization Act (S. 1925 and H.R. 4271) and 
     the SAVE Native Women Act (S. 1763 and H.R. 4154), would 
     recognize and affirm participating tribes' inherent sovereign 
     authority to exercise special domestic violence jurisdiction 
     over domestic violence involving non-Indian perpetrators and 
     Indian victims occurring within the tribe's jurisdiction. It 
     is not clear whether Congress has authority to restore the 
     tribes' inherent sovereignty over non-members, or whether 
     such authority would have to be a delegation of federal 
     authority.
       In a series of cases, the Supreme Court outlined the 
     contours of tribal criminal jurisdiction. In United States v. 
     Wheeler, the Court held that tribes have inherent sovereign 
     authority to try their own members. In Oliphant v. Suquamish 
     Indian Tribe, the Court held the tribes had lost inherent 
     sovereignty to try non-Indians. The Court in Duro v. Reina 
     determined that the tribes had also lost the inherent 
     authority to try non-member Indians. In response to Duro, 
     Congress passed an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act 
     that recognized the inherent tribal power (not federal 
     delegated power) to try non-member Indians. The Violence 
     Against Women Reauthorization and the SAVE Native Women Act, 
     would apparently abrogate the Oliphant ruling and ``recognize 
     and affirm the inherent power'' of the tribes to try non-
     Indians for domestic violence offenses.
       The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lara that 
     Congress has authority to relax the restrictions on a tribe's 
     inherent sovereignty to allow it to exercise inherent 
     authority to try non-member Indians. However, because of 
     changes on the Court and, as Justice Thomas stated, the 
     ``schizophrenic'' nature of Indian policy and the confused 
     state of Indian law, it is not clear that today's Supreme 
     Court would hold that Congress has authority to expand the 
     tribes' inherent sovereignty. It may be that Congress can 
     only delegate federal power to the tribes to try non-Indians.
       The dichotomy between delegated and inherent power of 
     tribes has important constitutional implications. If Congress 
     is deemed to delegate its own power to the tribes to 
     prosecute crimes, all the protections accorded criminal 
     defendants in the Bill of Rights will apply. If, on the other 
     hand, Congress is permitted to recognize the tribes' inherent 
     sovereignty, the Constitution will not apply. Instead, 
     criminal defendants must rely on statutory protections under 
     the Indian Civil Rights Act. Although the protections found 
     in these statutory and constitutional sources are similar, 
     there are several important distinctions between them. Most 
     importantly, if inherent sovereignty is recognized and only 
     statutory protections are triggered, defendants may be 
     subjected to double jeopardy for the same act; may have no 
     right to counsel in misdemeanor cases if they cannot afford 
     one; may have no right to prosecution by a grand jury 
     indictment; may not have access to a representative jury of 
     their peers; and may have limited federal appellate review of 
     their cases.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, to address the real problems of domestic 
violence among Native Americans, our substitute would permit tribes to 
petition for protective orders against non-Indians in Federal court.
  The committee-reported bill did not respect due process in the area 
of accusations against college students.
  Of course, allegations of sexual assault on campus should be taken as 
seriously as anywhere else.
  But reputations can be ruined by false charges, so it is important 
that fairness in adjudications occur.
  As a practical matter, the committee-reported bill imposed on these 
campus proceedings the standards of proof issued in a controversial 
proposed regulation by the Department of Education.
  They were very weak and unfair.
  Additionally, under the committee-reported bill, if the campus 
disciplinary authority exonerated the innocent even under the weak 
standard of proof, the accuser could appeal for another round of 
proceedings.
  That just is not fair.
  At the last minute, the majority has changed the first but not the 
second of these provisions.
  Now, the investigation must be fair and impartial.
  That is progress.
  This change should have been made much earlier.
  But the bill still allows a person who has been found innocent after 
a fair investigation to be pursued again at the victim's request.
  Our substitute eliminates that unfairness.
  The committee bill also mishandles immigration issues.
  The one hearing the Judiciary Committee held presented testimony that 
fraud exists in the VAWA-self petitioning process.
  We heard from victims who fell in love with foreign nationals, 
sponsored them for residency in the United States, only to be accused 
of abuse so that the foreign national could get a green card.
  The chairman promised at the hearing to include language in the bill 
that would address this immigration fraud, but his bill fails to 
include anything of the sort.
  Our substitute contains language that will reduce fraud and abuse by 
requiring an in person interview whenever possible with the applicant 
who alleges abuse.
  We cannot allow people to misuse the VAWA self-petitioning process to 
obtain a green card.
  The committee-reported bill also expands the number of U visas by 
tens of thousands without changing the rules by which they are issued.
  Under current law, an individual may be eligible for a U visa if he 
or she has been or is likely to be helpful to the investigation or 
prosecution of a crime.
  However, the requirements for a U visa are generous.
  There is no requirement that an investigation be commenced as a 
result of the alien reporting the crime; there is no time period within 
which an alien has to report the crime; the crime could have occurred 
years before it is reported and there could be no way to identify the 
perpetrator; the alien seeking the ``U'' visa could even have a 
criminal record of their own.
  Our substitute includes commonsense, best practices to ensure that U 
visas are truly used as a tool to fight crime.
  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute amendment will better protect 
victims of domestic violence than does the underlying bill.
  Hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money for domestic violence 
programs are distributed every year.
  For that money to be effective, it must actually reach victims.
  But too much of the money does not reach victims.
  Excess amounts are spent on administrative expenses, conferences, and 
lobbying, and some is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.
  For example, since 1998, the inspector general has audited 22 
individual VAWA grantees.
  In those random audits, 21 were found to have unallowable costs, 
unsupported expenditures, or other serious deficiencies in how they 
expended taxpayer dollars.
  That is millions of dollars that could have helped an untold number 
of victims but instead were lost.
  Although some good accountability measures were included in the 
committee-reported bill, more are necessary.

[[Page 5757]]

  The substitute amendment requires audits and includes mandatory 
exclusions for those who are found to have violated program rules.
  It limits conference expenditures at the Justice Department and 
Health and Human Services Department unless there is proper oversight.
  It prohibits lobbying by grantees, and it limits administrative 
expenses in the government's management of the grants.
  Our substitute directs more money to victims of the most serious 
crimes than the committee bill by requiring 30 percent--not 20 
percent--of the funds go toward sexual assault.
  It directs that 70 percent of the funds for reducing rape kit 
backlogs actually be used for that purpose, not the mere 40 percent in 
the committee-reported bill.
  The substitute protects victims in other ways that are not contained 
in the underlying bill.
  It contains a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated 
sexual abuse.
  It imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year for possession of 
child pornography where the child depicted is under 12.
  That does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
  It is a consensus item that has passed the Judiciary Committee in the 
past with a strong bipartisan vote.
  The alternative also creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years 
for interstate domestic violence that results in death.
  There are opponents of mandatory minimum sentences.
  The leniency-industrial complex is active in this area as in others.
  But we should not take too seriously the claims of opponents of the 
mandatory minimums that they take away judicial discretion.
  They think that judges should be able to give any sentence they want 
on these crimes, even potentially no jail time at all.
  Contrary to victims' groups, they fear that any requirement of jail 
time for these crimes will be counterproductive and lead to lower 
sentences.
  But those same opponents support the grants for arrest in the 
committee-reported bill.
  Unlike sentences, mandatory arrest policies tie the hands of law 
enforcement to take action against people who have not been convicted 
of anything.
  They may reduce the likelihood that the police may be called in 
actual cases of domestic violence.
  They may result in calls to the police by one person for leverage 
against another.
  They may cause other negative unintended consequences as well.
  Our substitute also gives the Marshals Service administrative 
subpoena authority to pursue unregistered sex offenders.
  These are individuals who are required by law to register as sex 
offenders but fail to comply.
  This is another provision that has enjoyed wide bipartisan support in 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Victims will also be helped by the substitute's requirement of an 
audit of the Justice Department's use of the Crime Victims Fund.
  When criminals are convicted and made to pay fines, these fines are 
placed in a fund for the sole purpose of assisting victims.
  However, there are questions whether the Justice Department is 
spending these funds only for their one permitted use.
  An audit is in order.
  And the bill also includes a bipartisan provision to enable victims 
to receive restitution that is owed to them but has not been paid.
  The IRS would be permitted to deduct the money from payments it would 
otherwise make to the perpetrator.
  Mr. President, there is broad bipartisan support for reauthorizing 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute would of the underlying bill 
reauthorize the 80 percent that enjoys that consensus.
  It eliminates provisions that are not consensus and would not pass 
the other body and become law.
  And it adds other provisions that are widely supported and would 
provide real benefits to victims of domestic violence.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on this side of the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to reserve 15 minutes for my 
remarks out of the 24 available, and if I could get some notice from 
the chair when we approach that. I may not use that much; I may yield 
it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. The Violence Against Women Act 
will be reauthorized, at least in the Senate, by bipartisan consensus 
today. There are some different versions that will be offered. I am 
sure each side thinks theirs is an improvement over the alternative, 
and I will leave to Senator Hutchison and Senator Grassley to address 
the improvements they have made over the bill that came out of the 
Judiciary Committee and the alternative they have proposed.


                           Amendment No. 2086

       (Purpose: To amend title 18 of the United States Code and 
     other provisions of law to strengthen provisions of the 
     Violence Against Women Act and improve justice for crime 
     victims)

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have 
offered, and I ask unanimous consent at this time to call up amendment 
No. 2086 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
believe I will object, is this based on the unanimous consent agreement 
that was entered into by the two leaders? I ask, through the Chair, the 
Senator from Texas, is this amendment No. 2086?
  Mr. CORNYN. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, Mr. Kirk, 
     Mr. Bennet, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Vitter, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2086.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. This amendment I have offered in conjunction with Senator 
Vitter, Senator McConnell, Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, and 
others is a bipartisan amendment which will make sure that more of the 
money contained in the funds the Congress appropriates to the 
Department of Justice will be used to test backlogged rape kit evidence 
that has not been tested. I know the jargon may be a little confusing, 
but basically what happens is when the law enforcement officials 
investigate a sexual assault, they take a rape kit to collect physical 
evidence and bodily fluids for DNA testing, among other types of tests.
  It is a national scandal that we don't know how many untested rape 
kits there may be. In other words, criminal investigations take place 
where this critical evidence is acquired, but it never goes to a 
laboratory to be tested to identify the perpetrator of that sexual 
assault. It is estimated that there are as many as 400,000 untested 
rape kits across the country sitting either in laboratories or in 
police lockers, evidence lockers, that have not yet been forwarded for 
testing at a laboratory--400,000.
  I heard a chilling statistic this morning from a young woman, Camille 
Cooper, who is the legislative director of an organization called 
PROTECT out of Knoxville, TN. This is an organization that commits 
itself to combating child sex crimes and to helping those victims get 
justice.
  She said this morning in my presence that before law enforcement 
identifies

[[Page 5758]]

a child sex crime perpetrator, on average they project as many as 27 
children have already been sexually assaulted by this same person 
before law enforcement gets them on their radar. I mention that 
number--I can't vouch for the number, but I do trust her--I mention 
that because the reason these 400,000 estimated rape kits--critical 
evidence in a child or in an adult sexual assault case--if they are 
untested, that evidence cannot be used to then match up against the DNA 
data bank to get a hit to identify the perpetrator of the crime. By the 
nature of the crime, these are not one-time events. These are people 
who for some unknown reason tend to commit serial assaults against 
children and women. So it is even more necessary, more compelling, to 
identify them early because if we wait too long, we may either run into 
a statute of limitations and not be able to prosecute them for that 
crime but, even worse, in the interim, they are committing additional 
sexual assaults against other victims.
  So it is absolutely critical that we get these rape kits tested--this 
physical evidence from sexual assault cases--as soon as we can and 
match it up against the DNA in these DNA data banks that are maintained 
by the FBI so we can identify the people who are committing these 
heinous crimes and get them off the streets sooner, so that future 
victims will be protected from those assaults. It is also important 
that a person who is suspected of one of these heinous crimes be 
exonerated if, in fact, the physical evidence will rule them out from 
having committed the crime.
  My amendment to the underlying bill is included in the Hutchison-
Grassley version. But in the event the Hutchison-Grassley version does 
not prevail today, I offer my amendment that will redirect more of the 
money--the $100 million that is appropriated by Congress under the 
Debbie Smith Act--to make sure this critical evidence is tested on a 
timely basis for the reasons I mentioned.
  My amendment requires that at least 75 percent of the funds given out 
through grant programs by the Department of Justice be used for the 
core purpose of testing those rape kits. Also, 7 percent of those funds 
would be used to inventory the backlog.
  To me, it is a scandal that we don't even know what the backlog 
consists of because there are actually two kinds of backlog cases: One 
is the case where the kit is already at the laboratory and it is a part 
of the backlog of the laboratory. But the hidden backlog consists of 
the rape test kits that are maintained in police lockers and have never 
been forwarded to the laboratory in the first place. Those are not 
typically part of this estimate of the backlog. The experts--the people 
who watch this area closely--estimate that if we count all of the 
untested kits that are evidence waiting for a laboratory to test them 
to match up with a perpetrator of these crimes, there could be as many 
as 400,000 of them untested by the labs in the backlog.
  I know my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, will be offering an 
alternative to my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record at the end of my present remarks a letter from the Rape, 
Abuse and Incest National Network on those two competing amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I will not read the whole letter, which is addressed to 
me, but I will read parts of it:

       I am writing to express RAINN's concern with the draft VAWA 
     amendment by Sen. Klobuchar. Unlike the Cornyn amendment, we 
     do not believe this draft amendment will make effective or 
     positive improvements to the Debbie Smith Act.

  Indeed, they conclude later in the letter:

       Overall, we believe this amendment is largely symbolic and 
     will not have the impact in reducing the backlog that we find 
     in the Cornyn amendment.

  Very quickly, there is no requirement in the Klobuchar amendment that 
audits actually have to be conducted. So, to me, that seems like a case 
of willful blindness to the size and scope of the backlogs and the 
problems.
  There is no requirement in the Klobuchar alternative for a registry. 
In other words, there is no way the Department of Justice can make sure 
the money granted to law enforcement is actually used for the purpose 
for which the grant was intended, by creating a registry. In fact, the 
Klobuchar amendment actually diverts some of the funds from the core 
purpose of the Debbie Smith Act for the purpose of testing this 
critical evidence. It takes out a provision for administrative 
subpoenas to track unregistered sex offenders. It cuts some of the 
sentencing provisions in my amendment for people guilty of interstate 
child sex trafficking--children under 12 years of age--and it 
eliminates the sense-of-the- Senate provision that I worked on with 
Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois condemning a Web site known as 
backpage.com, which has been identified in the New York Times and other 
places as a source of advertising for underage prostitution--something 
certainly worthy of our condemnation as a Senate.
  So I will come back to talk about other aspects of this, but I hope 
my colleagues will look at the letter from RAINN, the largest 
antisexual violence organization in the United States, which says they 
believe the Klobuchar amendment is largely symbolic and does not do as 
much as the Cornyn amendment would to get at these perpetrators and to 
identify them for what they are.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              Rape, Abuse & Incest


                                             National Network,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sen. Cornyn: I am writing to express RAINN's concern 
     with the draft VAWA amendment by Sen. Klobuchar. Unlike the 
     Cornyn amendment, we do not believe that this draft amendment 
     will make effective or positive improvements to the Debbie 
     Smith Act.
       The Klobuchar amendment adds an additional purpose area to 
     the Debbie Smith Act promoting inter-agency communication, 
     potentially at the expense of reducing the backlog. Funds 
     used for this section have the potential to be used for 
     radios and other communication tools. While we can't speak to 
     the need for such spending, we do know that this would not 
     have a direct impact on the backlog and would not aid in 
     solving cases. Unlike the Cornyn amendment, which nearly 
     doubles the percentage of Debbie Smith funds that are spent 
     on casework, this provision would divert money from labs and 
     go against the congressional intent of the original bill.
       In addition, this draft would allow the Justice Department 
     to fund backlog audits, but would not designate funds 
     specifically for that purpose. It would not establish a 
     registry to allow the collection of data; would not establish 
     any process for transparency; and would not provide the kind 
     of comprehensive information that is needed to efficiently 
     target Debbie Smith funds to the areas of greatest need. 
     Finally, it strips out a number of provisions that were 
     included at the request of law enforcement agencies, in order 
     to ensure that their compliance would not be burdensome. The 
     SAFER Act section of the Cornyn amendment has none of these 
     defects, and has safeguards to ensure that funds spent on an 
     audit and registry will not take away from funds spent on 
     testing DNA evidence. Overall, we believe this amendment is 
     largely symbolic and will not have the impact in reducing the 
     backlog that we find in the Cornyn amendment.
       RAINN is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence 
     organization. RAINN created and operates the National Sexual 
     Assault Hotlines (800.656.HOPE and rainn.org), which have 
     helped more than 1.7 million people since 1994. RAINN also 
     carries out programs to prevent sexual assault, help victims, 
     and ensure that rapists are brought to justice. For more 
     information about RAINN, please visit www.rainn.org.
       I appreciate your work on this issue, and encourage you to 
     continue to push for adoption of the Cornyn amendment, which 
     will make real, positive changes in the lives of victims.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Scott Berkowitz,
                                            President and Founder.

  Mr. CORNYN. With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my 
time and yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the time allotment at present?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 12\1/2\ minutes total.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 12 minutes.

[[Page 5759]]

  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to join those of 
my colleagues who are urging that we come together this afternoon, and 
I am pleased we are going to see votes on the Violence Against Women 
Act to reauthorize the legislation as it has passed through the 
Judiciary Committee.
  As we all know, domestic violence continues to be a serious problem 
across our country. In New Hampshire, nearly one in four women has been 
sexually assaulted. At least one-third of New Hampshire women have been 
victims of a physical assault by an intimate partner. More than one-
half of all women in my State have experienced sexual or physical 
assault over the course of their lifetimes.
  All of us share in an obligation to stop this epidemic, and VAWA is a 
proven tool in this fight. The real importance of this legislation lies 
not in the statistics but in hearing about those women who have been 
helped by the services that are provided by the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  I have had a chance to visit several crisis centers around New 
Hampshire in the past few weeks, and I have met with the survivors and 
the advocates who depend on this funding. I went to a crisis center 
called Bridges in Nashua where I spoke with a survivor of domestic 
violence. She told me: When you are a victim of domestic violence, you 
think you are worthless. She said: There are so many times that I would 
have gone back to my abuser, except that I had the ability to call 
Bridges crisis line at 2 o'clock in the morning and talk to somebody 
who could help me so that I knew I was supported.
  Because of the Violence Against Women Act, the Bridges program can 
operate and have a crisis line for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
Because of the support she got through the Bridges program, this 
survivor is going back to college, she is free from abuse, and she is 
going to have a life that is saved because of programs that are 
supported by the Violence Against Women Act.
  The law enforcement community has been very supportive of this 
legislation. They need this bill too. In New Hampshire, half of all 
murders are domestic violence related. I spoke to the chief of police 
in Nashua, our State's second largest city. He gets just $68,000 from 
the Violence Against Women Act funding, but that allows him to have a 
dedicated unit within the police department that can respond to 
domestic violence and sexual assault cases.
  I heard from retired Henniker police chief Timothy Russell. He is a 
37-year veteran in law enforcement, and he now travels around the State 
teaching police officers how to respond to domestic violence cases. It 
is funds from the Violence Against Women Act that allow him to conduct 
the specialized training so police officers can identify patterns of 
domestic abuse and prevent those situations from escalating. Officers 
are taught to maintain good relationships with crisis centers, and 
Chief Russell tells them: If you see a victim in trouble, get a 
counselor on the phone to talk to them. Tell them what their options 
are. Again, thanks to funding from the Violence Against Women Act, he 
has resources to bring this training throughout New Hampshire to police 
officers so they can help the victims.
  I saw just this kind of cooperation and action when I visited the 
Family Justice Center in Rochester, NH, this week. They have made a 
multitude of services accessible in one place so victims do not have to 
go all over town or all over the county to get the help they need. They 
can see a counselor, get childcare assistance, and fill out an 
application for a protective order; women can even get their injuries 
treated and officially documented. They can get free legal help--all in 
this Family Justice Center, made possible by a Violence Against Women 
Act grant.
  If we do not support this because it is the right thing to do--and I 
think it is--we should also support this legislation because it saves 
money. It is a cost-effective approach because, in addition to reducing 
crime, victims are less reliant on emergency rooms. They are less 
likely to need State assistance when they can connect with resources. 
They can get help with childcare and housing and get back on their feet 
and become productive citizens. This is the type of help every citizen 
deserves and ultimately makes us all safer.
  I am also pleased to see there is particular language in this 
legislation that requires service providers to help any victim of 
domestic violence regardless of their race, religion, sexual 
orientation, or immigration status.
  I think Sergeant Jill Rockey, whom I met when I was in Rochester at 
the Family Justice Center, put it best when she said:

       When someone calls for help in a domestic or sexual 
     violence case, we don't ask if they are an immigrant or gay. 
     We just go.

  Well, hopefully, today we will respond in passing this bill with that 
same sense of urgency. Let's make sure we do not let victims, first 
responders, or our communities down. Let's give everyone the help they 
need and deserve. Let's pass this legislation today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the hallmarks of the Violence 
Against Women Act is the success it has had reducing violence against 
women across the country. Because we have made much progress over the 
past 18 years on domestic violence but have had less success with 
combating sexual assault, our bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill takes 
important steps to increase the focus on sexual violence. As we were 
writing this bipartisan legislation, we consulted with the men and 
women who work with victims every day to develop a consensus bill that 
will help emphasize the need to further reduce the incidence of sexual 
assault. The administration and law enforcement groups like the 
National Association of Attorneys General, the National District 
Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police understand and support 
our goals.
  Unfortunately, while I do not doubt that Senator Cornyn shares our 
goals, the amendment he is offering can have the perverse affect of 
hindering progress on these issues. That is why there will be an 
amendment offering a better approach and a better way forward together. 
The alternative to the Cornyn amendment will allow us to make progress 
on to reduce the backlog in the testing of rape kits and other DNA 
samples, as I have always supported in the Debbie Smith Act. 
Accordingly, I will urge all Senators to reject the Cornyn amendment 
and support the alternative, which will complement the work we are 
doing by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
  I point out that the provisions in the Cornyn amendment are 
duplicative of provisions in the Republican proposal offered by 
Senators Hutchison and Grassley. The Senate is already voting on those 
provisions.
  Further, Senator Cornyn, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
did not offer his current amendment when the VAWA reauthorization was 
considered earlier this year. I offered an amendment on his behalf that 
the committee adopted on another issue.
  Moreover, the separate issue of the Debbie Smith Act is part of a 
larger effort on which the Judiciary Committee is considering as we 
move to reauthorize the Justice for All Act that we passed with 
bipartisan support several years ago. Although we have made reduction 
of rape kit backlogs an additional use for which VAWA STOP grants 
funding may be used by State and local jurisdictions, this matter is on 
a separate legislative track.
  I am not insisting or formality in this regard and have worked with 
other Senators on the alternative amendment that should be helpful to 
our goal of reducing the rape kit testing backlog. To make sure our 
work is successful, we will also need to pay careful attention to the 
standards for testing and the controversies surrounding those matters, 
however. Moreover, there is a risk of making money available that 
swamps the capacities for accurate testing. This is not as simply as 
throwing money at the problem. I have worked and remain hard at work on 
forensic reforms to ensure that our

[[Page 5760]]

criminal justice system takes advantage of scientific advancements 
while remaining fair.
  A concern with the Cornyn amendment is its mandating the diversion of 
7 percent of Debbie Smith Act funding to create an unwieldy national 
database of rape kits. The amendment would also compel jurisdictions to 
undergo a burdensome process of entering information into that database 
without procedural safeguards to ensure its accuracy. These 
requirements would force state and local law enforcement to invest time 
and resources to comply with onerous and illogical reporting 
requirements and divert their focus from their core law enforcement 
mission of actually responding to calls and investigating sexual 
assault cases. It is no wonder that the National Association of Police 
Organizations opposes the Cornyn amendment.
  The amendment also contains a number of criminal sentencing mandates 
that have no place in our VAWA bill. Victims' advocates like the 
National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women 
say its provisions ``would have a chilling effect on victim reporting 
and would not help hold perpetrators accountable.'' Victim advocates 
tell us that, particularly in cases where the perpetrator is known to 
the victim, these kinds of mandated sentences can deter victims from 
reporting the crimes and actually contribute to continuing abuse. 
Mandatory minimum sentences such as these also worsen prison 
overcrowding and budget crises at the Federal, State, and local level, 
and undermine our effective Federal sentencing system. The National 
Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Association to End 
Sexual Violence, the National Council Against Domestic Violence, and 
the National Congress of American Indians Task Force oppose these 
sentencing provisions.
  There could be an extended Senate debate about whether mandatory 
minimums are good policy and the unintended consequence they may have 
of worsening abuse in domestic violence situations. That would be a 
long debate with strongly held views. That is not what the Violence 
Against Women Act is about. We should not complicate passage of this 
bipartisan measure with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of 
the bill. Such debates are for another time and other bills.
  Our VAWA reauthorization bill should not be seen as a catch-all for 
all criminal proposals or sentencing mandates. There are other bills 
and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass 
this year. Some may come up in the Justice for All Act is we are able 
to get Senate floor time for that measure. Some have come up on 
separate bills that are awaiting Republican clearance for Senate 
passage. Among those are a package of bills including the Strengthening 
Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act, the 
Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, the Dale Long Public 
Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act, along with Finding 
Fugitives Sex Offenders Act from which the Cornyn Amendment takes its 
administrative subpoena provisions.
  Let me turn to the Debbie Smith Act and a woman I admire very much. 
Debbie Smith is a survivor of a terrible crime who had to wait in 
terror for far too long before evidence was tested and the perpetrator 
was caught. She has worked tirelessly to make sure that other victims 
of sexual assault do not have to endure similar ordeals. I have been a 
proud supporter of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program since its 
creation, and I have worked with Senators of both parties, including 
Senators Mikulski and Hutchison on the Appropriations Committee, to see 
that it receives as much funding as possible each year. As I noted, 
although its authorization does not expire until 2014, I included an 
extension of its reauthorization in the Justice For All Reauthorization 
Act I introduced earlier this year. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant 
Program has been very successful in reducing evidence backlogs in crime 
labs, particularly in sexual assault cases. That is why I am glad that 
the alternative amendment will allow us to ensure that the program is 
authorized through 2017 at a level of $151 million a year.
  Unfortunately, disturbing reports have emerged of continuing 
backlogs, with some cities finding thousands of untested rape kits on 
police department shelves. That means that there is more need than ever 
for the Debbie Smith Act but also that there must be increased emphasis 
on reducing law enforcement backlogs, where there has been less 
progress. That is why it is so important that alternative to the Cornyn 
amendment expands the Debbie Smith Act to allow law enforcement to 
obtain funding for the collection and processing of DNA evidence. Law 
enforcement burden is one of the key bottlenecks in the process at 
present. In contrast to the Cornyn amendment, the alternative calls for 
new national best practices and protocols for law enforcement handling 
of rape kits and for Justice Department assistance to law enforcement 
in addressing this continuing problem. This will help to make real 
progress in overcoming the last major hurdles in reducing backlogs of 
rape kits.
  The amendment takes steps to ensure that more of the Debbie Smith Act 
funds are used directly for DNA evidence testing to reduce backlogs. 
That will make this key program even quicker and more effective in 
reducing backlogs. The Debbie Smith program is an important tool in the 
fight against sexual assault, and I hope all Senators will join us in 
reauthorizing and strengthening it by rejecting the Cornyn amendment in 
favor of the alternative.
  As I have said during this debate, we must do more to reduce sexual 
assault, and the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill focuses on that goal. I 
believe that Senator Cornyn's amendment will distract from the progress 
that is most helpful to victims, despite his good intentions. I urge 
Senators to vote against the Cornyn amendment and support the 
alternative to expedite improvements to the Debbie Smith Act to reduce 
the backlog of untested rape kits and other DNA evidence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2095

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of my 
substitute amendment along with Senator Grassley and other cosponsors, 
and I call up the amendment, No. 2095.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Alexander, 
     Mr. Moran, and Mr. Corker, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2095.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the substitute amendment is a bill 
that takes the good parts and the important parts of the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that I think are 
universal--the parts that have passed unanimously through Congress in 
recent years, starting 16 years ago--but the substitute also 
strengthens the bill. I am glad we are going to get a chance to vote on 
something that will strengthen it because there are some areas where 
the underlying bill is not as strong as our substitute bill, amendment 
No. 2095, would be, especially in the area of abuse of children and 
child pornography and child sex trafficking. This is our most 
vulnerable victim: the child who is abused.
  I want to read from some of the national organizations for victims as 
they write about this important aspect which is included in our bill 
but not covered as well in the underlying bill.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with whom I 
have worked to try to get the AMBER Alert system to be relevant across 
State lines--where we have actually saved, we believe, 550 children who 
have been abducted and taken across State lines--because of the quick 
action of the AMBER Alert system, they have

[[Page 5761]]

been able to be safely brought back home. The National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children says:

     . . . possession of child pornography is a serious crime that 
     deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, we support a 
     reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this offense.
       As we have . . . testified, child protection measures must 
     also include the ability to locate non-compliant registered 
     sex offenders. . . . The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead 
     federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives. 
     Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the 
     authority to serve administrative subpoenas. . . .

  Now, that is key because it is covered in our substitute. It is 
covered in Senator Cornyn's amendment. It is not covered in either the 
underlying Leahy bill nor in Senator Klobuchar's side-by-side. So this 
is a major area of strengthening that this very important victims' 
rights organization is supporting.
  Shared Hope International is another children's advocate organization 
that says:

       Child pornography is one form of child sex trafficking and 
     is too often intertwined with the other forms of sexual 
     exploitation, which include prostitution and sexual 
     performance. Stiffer penalties will bring greater deterrence 
     and justice for the victims.

  Then, RAINN, which is the largest victims' rights organization for 
sexual assault, says:

       Thank you . . . for including the SAFER Act--

  Which is Senator Cornyn's amendment.

     . . . . We are grateful for your leadership in the battle to 
     prevent sexual violence and prosecute its perpetrators.

  Then, PROTECT also says:

     . . . the apologists for child pornography traffickers deny 
     the pain and harm done by possessors of these images.

  They go on further to say:

     . . . ``simple processors''--

  Which would mean people who have this and have it on their computers 
and sell it--

     fuel the market for more and more crime scene recordings of 
     children being raped, tortured and degraded.

  Now, these are people who are for the Cornyn amendment, and they are 
for the protection we have in the substitute.
  It is so important we strengthen this area to try to protect our most 
vulnerable victims. That is one area where strengthening can make such 
a difference. The Marshals Service being able to have administrative 
subpoenas will allow them to track even known sexual predators who have 
fled and you have a hard time finding them.
  I gave an illustration this morning of two children who were abducted 
by a known sexual predator, but they did not have the administrative 
ability to find that sexual predator, and he ended up killing one of 
the children, the children's mother, the mother's boyfriend, and 
another relative.
  In the underlying bill, the mandatory sentences are days. We have a 
minimum mandatory 1-year sentence for a crime of having pornography 
that shows 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Now, I would think a 1-
year minimum sentence for that kind of promotion of this degradation of 
children would be something all of us could support.
  I heard people on the floor say our substitute does not fully cover 
some areas, such as Indian women. Well, our bill assures that Indian 
women are going to have the protections in a constitutional way so the 
bill is not thrown out. Indian women on reservations are particularly 
vulnerable, and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, has told me that in 
Alaska they do not have reservations to a great extent, but they do 
have a record of abuse of Indian women, and we need to protect them.
  We do it in a constitutional way in our substitute, and I think that 
protection is very important. It has been determined by several 
organizations--criminal justice organizations--that the underlying bill 
is not constitutional and would not work for Indian women.
  It has been asserted on the Senate floor that we do not protect 
victims of same-sex sexual violence, but we do. We neutralize in our 
bill any reference or discrimination. In fact, I will read the language 
of our bill:

       No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual 
     or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or 
     disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
     benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 
     program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds 
     made available under [this act].

  We cover every person who is a victim under this bill. I have been 
made aware through very sad stories of the need to protect men as well, 
as victims of same-sex domestic violence. Men who have been gang raped 
are less likely to report it because of a shame they feel, and it is a 
different aspect than we have dealt with in previous Violence Against 
Women Act bills. But it is real and we do need to cover that. We do in 
the substitute bill, absolutely fully. We cover victims of domestic 
violence in our bill, and that is what is important to all of us.
  Immigrant women who are illegal have the same protections they have 
had in every Violence Against Women Act that has been passed over the 
last 16 years. So we do not change that. We do not change the 
authorization levels.
  So all of these--along with our strengthening of the bill with the 
Marshals Service's ability to get administrative subpoenas, as well as 
the minimum sentences that are so very important--make our bill the 
right alternative.
  I have said before that I feel so strongly about this issue that I 
intend to vote for, of course, my amendment, which I think is 
strengthening; most certainly for Senator Cornyn's amendment, which is 
a strengthening amendment to the underlying bill--it is included in our 
substitute as well; Senator Cornyn is another cosponsor, as is Senator 
McConnell, of the substitute--but I intend to vote for the underlying 
bill even with its flaws because I wish to make sure there is no 
cutting off of the aspect of this most important legislation because of 
the time limit of our action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 3 minutes remaining reserved 
for the junior Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator wishes to speak further, I am happy to 
yield.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield to Senator Hutchison 2 of these 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator. I would just say I have had a 
long record in this area. When I was a member of the State legislature, 
Texas passed the most far-reaching protection for victims of rape in 
the whole country. I was the lead sponsor of that bill. When we passed 
it in 1975, it then became the model other States used to strengthen 
the laws to help these victims.
  One day, just in this last year, I was at a grocery store in Dallas, 
TX. A woman came up to my truck I was driving, knocked on the window. I 
had no idea what she was going to say, but I rolled down the window. 
She said: Senator Hutchison, thank you for the bill you passed in Texas 
in 1975--because I was a victim of rape, and I would not have gone 
forward without your protections. But I did and that man was sent to 
prison.
  That is what we are here for, and that is why I have this strong 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have letters in support of the 
legislation we have talked about, the SAFER amendment, the alternative 
to the Klobuchar amendment, from the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children, from Arrow Child and Family Ministries, from the 
Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, and from PROTECT. I ask 
unanimous consent that all those letters be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I wish to talk about one aspect of Senator Hutchison's 
legislation that is also included in my stand-alone amendment. This is 
the administrative subpoena authority. Because this has been taken out 
of the Klobuchar alternative, it is not in underlying Leahy bill.

[[Page 5762]]

  What happens is sex offenders are required to register. If they do 
not register, they are much more likely to commit future acts of sexual 
assault and abuse, particularly against children. As a matter of fact, 
one of the biggest indicators that someone is likely to reoffend is 
when they do not register. So what the Hutchison bill does, what my 
bill does, is give U.S. marshals the administrative subpoenas to 
collect records and information to help identify these unregistered sex 
offenders and to protect future victims from their sexual assault.
  Because if they are registered, if they are identified, they are much 
less likely to reoffend and commit further acts of sexual abuse. We all 
want to see this legislation pass. But I would just reiterate for my 
colleagues' benefit, the letter we received from the Rape, Abuse and 
Incest National Network that said the alternative to my amendment that 
will be offered--that the alternative is largely symbolic and will not 
have the impact of reducing the impact we find in the Cornyn amendment.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and to support 
certainly Senator Hutchison's amendment. I commend her for her great 
work on this subject.

                               Exhibit 1

         National Center for Missing


                                         & Exploited Children,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2012.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: As you know, the National Center 
     for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) addressed the issue 
     of sentencing for federal child pornography crimes in our 
     testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 
     2011. The 1.4 million reports to NCMEC's CyberTipline, the 
     Congressionally-authorized reporting mechanism for online 
     crimes against children, indicate the scope of the problem. 
     These child sex abuse images are crime scene photos that 
     memorialize the sexual abuse of a child. Those who possess 
     them create a demand for new images, which drives their 
     production and, hence, the sexual abuse of more child victims 
     to create the images.
       Despite the heinous nature of this crime, the federal 
     statute criminalizing the possession of child pornography has 
     no mandatory minimum sentence. This, combined with the 
     advisory nature of the federal sentencing guidelines, allows 
     judges to impose light sentences for possession. Congress 
     passed mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes of receipt, 
     distribution, and production of child pornography. We don't 
     believe that Congress intended to imply that possession of 
     child pornography is less serious than these other offenses. 
     NCMEC feels strongly that possession of child pornography is 
     a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, 
     we support a reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this 
     offense.
       As we have previously testified, child protection measures 
     must also include the ability to locate non-compliant 
     registered sex offenders--offenders who have been convicted 
     of crimes against children yet fail to comply with their 
     registration duties. The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead 
     federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives. 
     Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the 
     authority to serve administrative subpoenas in order to 
     obtain Internet subscriber information to help determine the 
     fugitives' physical location and apprehend them.
       Thank you for your efforts to protect our nation's 
     children.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ernie Allen,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                              Arrow Child & Family Ministries,

                                                   April 25, 2012.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: Arrow Child & Family Ministries 
     supports the proposed ``Justice for Victims Amendment'' to S. 
     1925. VAWA Reauthorization is of critical importance to 
     victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic and dating 
     violence and your proposed amendment will provide additional 
     protections and accountability to victims.
       As a provider of foster care services in Texas, California, 
     Pennsylvania and Maryland, Arrow sees first-hand the impact 
     domestic and sexual violence has on families and society's 
     youngest victims--children. Arrow is also engaged in helping 
     victims of child sex trafficking with the opening of Freedom 
     Place, a long-term comprehensive care facility located in 
     Texas for underage American girls who have been bought and 
     sold as sex slaves. The average age of these girls is 12 to 
     13 years old. Once they become victims, their life expectancy 
     is only seven years. This is not just an international 
     problem. Thousands of girls and boys from towns and cities 
     across America are victims. In fact, according to the 
     National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and 
     Throwaway Children, an estimated 1 out of every 3 children 
     who run away is lured into sex trafficking within 48 hours of 
     leaving home.
       Our children are in crisis and we thank Senator Cornyn for 
     his willingness to toughen sentencing for some of the worst 
     sex offenders, and call on Backpage.com to remove part of its 
     website that has been linked to child sex trafficking.
           Respectfully,
                                                     Mark Tennant,
     Founder and CEO.
                                  ____

                                              Rape, Abuse & Incest


                                             National Network,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2012.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sen. Cornyn: I am writing to express RAINN's strong 
     support for the Justice for Victims Amendment, which will 
     strengthen the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and 
     have a tremendously positive impact on how our nation's 
     criminal justice system responds to--and prevents--sexual 
     violence.
       One out of every six women and one in 33 men are victims of 
     sexual assault--20 million Americans in all, according to the 
     Department of Justice. Rapists tend to be serial criminals, 
     often committing many crimes before they are finally caught; 
     and only about 3% of rapists will ever spend a single day in 
     prison.
       First, this amendment will help eliminate the DNA evidence 
     backlog by ensuring that 75% of DNA spending goes directly to 
     solve cases, a big improvement over current practice. It will 
     also establish the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry, 
     which will bring transparency, efficiency and accountability 
     to the DNA backlog problem and allow policymakers to closely 
     track local backlogs and prioritize testing. The amendment 
     will also ensure that criminals convicted of severe crimes of 
     violence against women receive a just punishment, and ensure 
     that fugitive sex offenders are swiftly identified and 
     located. If enacted, these provisions will lead to more 
     successful prosecutions, more violent criminals behind bars, 
     and safer communities.
       RAINN is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence 
     organization. RAINN created and operates the National Sexual 
     Assault Hotlines (800.656.HOPE and rainn.org), which have 
     helped more than 1.6 million people since 1994. RAINN also 
     carries out programs to prevent sexual assault, help victims, 
     and ensure that rapists are brought to justice. For more 
     information about RAINN, please visit www.rainn.org.
       Thank you for introducing the Justice for Victims 
     Amendment. We believe this amendment will greatly enhance 
     VAWA and result in a stronger, more effective bill. We are 
     grateful for your unflagging leadership in the battle to 
     prevent sexual violence and prosecute its perpetrators, and 
     we look forward to working with you to encourage passage of 
     this important amendment and to reauthorize VAWA.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Scott Berkowitz,
     President and Founder.
                                  ____

                                                          Protect,
                                    Knoxville, TN, April 16, 2012.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to express PROTECT's 
     strong support for the Justice for Victims Amendment.
       This amendment to the Violence Against Women Act will 
     create needed penalty enhancements for several crimes, 
     including child trafficking and domestic violence. It would 
     also begin to address the nation's outrageous and 
     unacceptable backlog of rape kits, by reforming how the 
     Justice Department allocates existing resources.
       PROTECT has members in all 50 states and around the world. 
     As you know, we have focused on addressing the magnitude of 
     online child exploitation. The PROTECT our Children Act of 
     2008, which we initiated (and which had 61 Senate sponsors) 
     exposed the magnitude of this problem both domestically and 
     abroad and mandated increased transparency and accountability 
     by the U.S. Department of Justice and the agencies it funds.
       We also want to thank you for including an important 
     provision granting the US Marshals Service administrative 
     subpoena power to track unregistered sex offenders. Since 
     1993, the national trend to use public registration in lieu 
     of meaningful containment and supervision has threatened 
     community safety. Aggressively pursuing those who fail to 
     comply is thus an especially valuable public safety strategy. 
     PROTECT is intimately familiar with the work of the Service 
     and can attest to the hard work and success that office has 
     tracking and apprehending child predators.
       We thank you for continued leadership in the battle to 
     protect American Children. The Justice for Victims Amendment 
     is a much-needed advance in this battle. We look forward to 
     working with you to secure passage

[[Page 5763]]

     of this amendment to champion the re-authorization of VAWA.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Grier Weeks,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes 20 seconds for the 
majority.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Zero.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act is based on months of work with survivors, 
advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country.
  We listened when they told us what was working and what could be 
improved. We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our 
legislation to respond to those needs.
  Our bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local 
organizations. They include service providers, law enforcement, 
religious organizations, and many, many more.
  There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that Senator 
Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims of 
domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices of 
millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country.
  The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward 
in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is 
opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and 
organizations.
  The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against 
Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country 
says: ``The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input or 
consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work 
every day.
  The substitute includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will 
harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies.'' 
Although well-intentioned, the Republican proposal is no substitute for 
the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with victims and 
advocates from all over the country.
  I regret to say that the Republican proposal undermines core 
principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in 
abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key 
provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims--
including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex 
relationships.
  The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no 
substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims.
  The Republican proposal fundamentally undermines VAWA's historic 
focus on protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word 
``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. Women are still 
victimized at far higher rates, and with a far greater impact on their 
lives, than men. Shifting VAWA's focus away from women is unnecessary 
and harmful.
  The Republican proposal would send a terrible message. There is no 
reason to turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out and eliminate 
the focus on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect.
  Our Leahy-Crapo bipartisan bill, by contrast, does not eliminate the 
focus on violence against women, but increases our focus to include all 
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
  The Republican proposal strips out critical protections for gay and 
lesbian victims. The rate of violence in same sex relationships is the 
same as the general population, and we know that victims in that 
community are having difficulty accessing services.
  To strip out these critical provisions is to turn our backs on 
victims of violence. That is not the spirit of VAWA. We understand that 
a victim is a victim is a victim, and none of them should be excluded 
or discriminated against.
  The Republican proposal would extend and institutionalize that 
discrimination. The Republican proposal should be rejected.
  The Republican proposal also fails to adequately protect Tribal 
victims. Domestic violence in tribal communities is an epidemic. Four 
out of five perpetrators of domestic or sexual violence on Tribal lands 
are non-Indian and currently cannot be prosecuted by tribal 
governments.
  If you need more convincing of this problem, listen to the senior 
Senator from Washington and the Senators from New Mexico, Montana, 
Alaska and Hawaii who have spoken so compellingly to the Senate about 
these concerns and who strongly support the provisions in the 
bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill.
  The Republican proposal is no real alternative to fix the 
jurisdictional loophole that is allowing the domestic and sexual 
violence against Native women to go undeterred and unremedied. Its 
proposal offers a false hope, a provision that purports to allow a 
tribe to petition a Federal court for a protective order to exclude 
individuals from tribal land. It does not even allow the victim herself 
to request the order, and it does nothing to ensure that a violent 
offender is held accountable.
  This is a false alternative. It is not what the Justice Department 
has suggested. It is not what the Indian Affairs Committee has 
supported. It will do next to nothing and is no answer to the epidemic 
of violence against Native women.
  The Republican proposal also abandons immigrant victims and 
disregards law enforcement requests for additional U visas, a law 
enforcement tool that encourages immigrants to report and help 
prosecute crime. To the contrary, the Republican proposal would add 
dangerous restrictions on current U visa requirements that could result 
in that tool being less effective.
  The U visa process already has fraud protections. For law enforcement 
to employ U visas, law enforcement officers must personally certify 
that the victim is cooperating with a criminal investigation. The new 
restrictions the Republican proposal seeks to add will discourage 
victims from coming forward and will hinder law enforcement's ability 
to take violent criminals off the street.
  I will be offering an amendment to offset the minimal additional 
costs associated with our increasing the number of U visas that can be 
used. With that amendment the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill will not 
``score'' and will be deficit neutral.
  The Republican proposal also would add burdensome, unnecessary and 
counterproductive requirements that would compromise the ability of 
service providers to maximize their ability to reach victims. In 
contrast, the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo accountability provisions ensure 
the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars without unnecessary regulatory 
burdens.
  It is all the more ironic that the Republican proposal would add 
massive, new bureaucratic requirements to service providers who are 
understaffed and operating on shoestring budgets like most small 
businesses and nonprofits. These requirements are unnecessary and would 
add significant costs to victim service providers, undercutting their 
ability to help victims.
  It is easy to call for audits, but without proper resources and 
focus, such demands could be counterproductive and lead to decreased 
accountability. The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, by contrast, includes 
targeted accountability provisions.
  While I have been willing to accommodate improvements to this 
legislation from day one, I have also been clear that I will not 
abandon core principles of fairness. Regrettably, that is what the 
Republican proposal would result in doing. It would undermine the core 
principle of VAWA to protect victims--all victims--the best way we know 
how. Our bill is focused on VAWA and improvements to meet the unmet 
needs of victims.
  It is not a catch-all for all proposals for criminal law reform, for 
sentencing modifications. There are other bills

[[Page 5764]]

and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass 
this year. We should not complicate passage of this bipartisan measure 
with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of the bill. Such 
debates are for another time and other bills.
  I urge all Senators to join together to protect the most vulnerable 
victims of violence, including battered immigrant women assisting law 
enforcement, Native American women who suffer in record numbers, and 
those who have traditionally had trouble accessing services.
  A victim is a victim is a victim. They all deserve our attention and 
the protection and access to services the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill 
provides.
  The path forward is to reject the Republican proposal, which is no 
alternative to the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill. Let us move forward 
together to meet the unmet needs of victims.
  I would just say that the Leahy-Crapo bill does not eliminate the 
focus on violence against women; it protects women, unlike the 
Republican proposal which strips out so many aspects.
  Our bill is inclusive. Theirs is exclusive. A victim is a victim is a 
victim. We do not exclude anybody. As the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire said earlier today: They do not ask who the victim is 
when there is a victim.
  With my remaining time, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey and the remaining time to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. 
Klobuchar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to salute the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the incredible work he has done 
to bring us to this moment.
  I held a roundtable in New Jersey with about 35 organizations that 
deal with the challenge of violence against women. They unequivocally 
expressed their support for what we are doing here today and the 
importance in the lives of women whom they deal with every day.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to strip 
provisions that protect women from discrimination and abuse in certain 
categories. In my view, violence against any woman is still violence. 
The Nation has been outraged about violence against women for almost 
two decades. We have seen the violence. We continue to fight against 
it. We have tried to end it. In my mind, there is no doubt--and I would 
find it very hard to understand why anyone would stand in the way of 
denouncing violence against any woman, no matter who they are, no 
matter what their class is.
  I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude 
violence against certain women; turn back the clock to a time when such 
violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace, and make a 
distinction when and against whom such violence meets our threshold of 
outrage. In my mind, there can be no such threshold, no such 
distinction. Violence against any woman is an outrage, plain and 
simple.
  The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act does not just 
affect those who are here or might become victims of sexual violence or 
domestic violence; it affects all of us. Nearly one in five women 
report being the victim of a rape or an attempted rape. One in six 
report being stalked. One in four women report having been beaten by 
their partner. Of those who report being raped, 80 percent report being 
raped before the age of 25.
  The short-term physical and emotional trauma of such an event cannot 
be overstated. That is why it is critical we pass VAWA as the committee 
has moved forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                Amendment No. 2094 to Amendment No. 2093

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2094.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2094 to amendment No. 2093.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide Debbie Smith grants for auditing sexual assault 
                           evidence backlogs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEBBIE SMITH GRANTS FOR AUDITING SEXUAL ASSAULT 
                   EVIDENCE BACKLOGS.

       Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) To conduct an audit consistent with subsection (n) of 
     the samples of sexual assault evidence that are in the 
     possession of the State or unit of local government and are 
     awaiting testing.
       ``(7) To ensure that the collection and processing of DNA 
     evidence from crimes, including sexual assault and other 
     serious violent crimes, is carried out in an appropriate and 
     timely manner.
       ``(8) To ensure effective communication among emergency 
     response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, 
     courts, defense counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and 
     crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence to 
     be tested.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(3)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2017''; and
       (B) by striking ``40'' and inserting ``70'';
       (3) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for 
     grants under this section $151,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2017.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Use of Funds for Auditing Sexual Assault Evidence 
     Backlogs.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--The Attorney General may award a grant 
     under this section to a State or unit of local government for 
     the purpose described in subsection (a)(6) only if the State 
     or unit of local government--
       ``(A) submits a plan for performing the audit of samples 
     described in such subsection; and
       ``(B) includes in such plan a good-faith estimate of the 
     number of such samples.
       ``(2) Grant conditions.--A State or unit of local 
     government receiving a grant for the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(6) shall, not later than 1 year after 
     receiving such grant, complete the audit described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) in accordance with the plan submitted under 
     such paragraph.
       ``(3) Extension of initial deadline.--The Attorney General 
     may grant an extension of the deadline under paragraph (2)(A) 
     to a State or unit of local government that demonstrates that 
     more time is required for compliance with such paragraph.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Awaiting testing.--The term `awaiting testing' means, 
     with respect to a sample of sexual assault evidence, that--
       ``(i) the sample has been collected and is in the 
     possession of a State or unit of local government;
       ``(ii) DNA and other appropriate forensic analyses have not 
     been performed on such sample; and
       ``(iii) the sample is related to a criminal case or 
     investigation in which final disposition has not yet been 
     reached.
       ``(B) Possession.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `possession', used with respect 
     to possession of a sample of sexual assault evidence by a 
     State or unit of local government, includes possession by an 
     individual who is acting as an agent of the State or unit of 
     local government for the collection of the sample.
       ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i) shall 
     be construed to create or amend any Federal rights or 
     privileges for non-governmental vendor laboratories described 
     in regulations promulgated under section 210303 of the DNA 
     Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14131).
       ``(o) Development of Protocols and Practices.--
       ``(1) Protocols and practices.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Violence Against Women 
     Reauthorization Act of 2011 the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, in consultation with Federal, State, 
     and local government laboratories and law enforcement 
     agencies, shall develop and publish a description of 
     protocols and practices the Director considers appropriate 
     for the accurate, timely, and effective collection and 
     processing of DNA evidence, including protocols and practices 
     specific to sexual assault cases, which shall address 
     appropriate steps in the investigation of cases that might 
     involve DNA evidence.
       ``(2) Technical assistance and training.--The Director 
     shall make available technical assistance and training to 
     support States and units of local government in adopting and 
     implementing the protocols and practices developed under 
     paragraph (1) on and after the date on which the protocols 
     and practices are published.

[[Page 5765]]

       ``(3) Definition of backlog for dna case work.--The 
     Director shall develop and publish a definition of the term 
     `backlog for DNA case work' for purposes of this section--
       ``(A) taking into consideration the different stages at 
     which a backlog may develop, including the investigation and 
     prosecution of a crime by law enforcement personnel, 
     prosecutors, and others, and the laboratory analysis of crime 
     scene samples; and
       ``(B) which may include different criteria or thresholds 
     for the different stages.''.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison for their 
words and their work. I rise to discuss my amendment that would respond 
to the problems we are seeing with rape kit backlogs, which Senator 
Cornyn has identified, while also reforming what we know is working 
well on this issue.
  This amendment would amend the Debbie Smith Act, which, similar to 
the Violence Against Women Act, has a history of bipartisan support. 
The Debbie Smith Act, as you know, was enacted in 2004. It was named 
after a courageous survivor of sexual assault.
  What this amendment does is to basically increase the percentage of 
Debbie Smith grant funds that are available for use in testing the 
backlog of rape kits. We raise the current percentage of 40 percent up 
to 70 percent. So it is a significant change.
  The amendment also asks the National Institute of Justice to develop 
protocols to help law enforcement with sexual assault cases and to 
provide technical assistance and training to law enforcement and local 
governments. The amendment also allows funds to be used for auditing 
rape kit backlogs, which is one of the important issues Senator 
Cornyn's amendment addresses.
  The difference between Senator Cornyn's amendment and my amendment is 
that mine does not mandate that a minimum percentage of funds be used 
for audit. Senator Cornyn's amendment also has provisions such as 
subpoena authority for U.S. marshals who are tracking fugitive sex 
offenders that I have supported in the past and I will continue to 
support in the future. I will be glad to work with Senator Cornyn and 
Chairman Leahy and others to get this done and to look for an 
appropriate vehicle to address this issue.
  But today is about passing VAWA without delay. We have worked on the 
Judiciary Committee for 1 month with every group that wanted to have a 
say in the reauthorization of VAWA, and we have worked closely with all 
on the committee. As you know, Senator Crapo has been the long-time 
Republican coauthor of this bill. We have a number of Republican 
supporters. I wish to end with the words of Paul Wellstone, who once 
served in the Senate on behalf of the State of the Minnesota, who was a 
fierce advocate for the Violence Against Women Act.
  He said this:

       What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with their 
     voices and with their lives, and this violence must end.

  Let's get the Violence Against Women Act done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are about to vote. This is a time for 
both Republicans and Democrats to come together and say what we all 
know in our heart: We oppose violence against women. Let's say it not 
just in our heart, let's say it in legislation--good legislation.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, which is the first amendment to be 
considered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Klobuchar 
amendment, No. 2094.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2086

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 2086, 
offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for those who supported the Klobuchar 
amendment, here is your last chance to make sure more money under the 
Debbie Smith Act is appropriated and directed toward solving the 
400,000 untested rape kits backlogged in this country that is nothing 
short of a national scandal.
  We know the people who commit these sexual assault crimes are serial 
offenders. If we don't catch them early, more people are going to get 
hurt. The best way to catch them is to collect this DNA, match it 
against banked DNA, and take them off the street, and to exonerate 
those who may be under suspicion but who are innocent.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It has the support 
of the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, and it has 
administrative subpoenas to track down unregistered sex offenders who 
are more likely to commit crimes against children and other innocent 
victims. Please vote for this amendment. It will strengthen the 
Violence Against Women Act and you can be proud of your vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have been able to get very good 
progress on the rape kit backlogs in the Leahy-Crapo bill. I wish we 
had passed the Klobuchar amendment. The Cornyn amendment is well 
intentioned, but it will undermine, rather than enhance, the progress 
we have made.
  The Cornyn amendment will divert funding from the Debbie Smith rape 
kit backlog reduction program. Let me repeat: It will divert funding 
from the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog reduction program to create an 
unwieldy national database of rape kits. It could force State and local 
law enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous and 
illogical reporting requirements instead of actually responding to 
calls and investigating sexual assault cases.
  Key victims' groups have opposed it, saying all the things it adds in 
here--the things we have taken care of to help victims--would actually 
hurt them. It creates new mandatory minimum penalties that victims' 
groups say will have the opposite effect of what we want by deterring 
abused women from reporting violence and sexual assault crimes. And I 
strongly oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page 5766]]


  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Under the previous order 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2095

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2095, offered by the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, No. 2095 takes the part of the bill 
that reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act and continues those, 
but it does important things that are not in the underlying bill:
  No. 1, a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for aggravated sexual 
assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim 
unconscious is not in the underlying bill. It is in our substitute.
  No. 2, it grants administrative subpoena power to U.S. Marshals so 
they can have the ability to quickly find a known sexual predator. This 
has been cited by the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children as a key part of the need to help get these offenders when 
they are going to prey on children. It is not in the underlying bill; 
it is in ours.
  It protects Indian women on reservations in a constitutional way. The 
underlying bill has been questioned as to constitutionality by the 
Congressional Research Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. And it also does what the Cornyn and Klobuchar 
amendments attempted to do and assure that we get this backlog of 
people who have committed rape off the streets.
  Please support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reason why so many people across the 
political spectrum support the Leahy-Crapo bill and the reason they 
oppose this amendment is it is going to remove the historic emphasis of 
women in VAWA. The improvements we have made in the bipartisan Leahy-
Crapo bill are gone from the Republican proposal. There is only one 
real Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, and this is not it. It 
undermines core principles. It abandons some of the most vulnerable 
victims. It strips key provisions that are critically necessary to 
protect all victims, including battered immigrants, Native women, and 
victims of same-sex relationships.
  I hope my colleagues will strongly and roundly defeat this 
alternative. It guts the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to commend and thank Senator 
Klobuchar, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, and Senator Cantwell for 
their outstanding statements earlier today in support of our bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Their contributions to the 
bill and their leadership have been essential. They have spoken often 
and consistently about this legislative priority. They bring their 
experiences and years of work on these matters to this effort.
  I also wish to commend the statements made by Senators from both 
sides of the aisle yesterday as the Senate began consideration of the 
bill. I have always enjoyed working with the senior Senator from Texas 
and recall how we worked together to pass our Amber Alert legislation 
in record time. As I have said, we have included the Klobuchar-
Hutchison provision updating Federal antistalking legislation in our 
bill from the outset. I appreciate her saying that she ``is going to 
support'' the Leahy-Crapo bill. Likewise, I have supported giving the 
Republican proposal a Senate vote, although I have explained why I will 
vote against it.
  I thought the statements by the majority leader, Senator Begich, 
Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Tester, Senator Gillibrand, 
Senator Schumer, as well as Senator Heller were strong and compelling.
  We now have the opportunity to consider our amendment to improve upon 
the bill. Our amendment continues to focus on protecting victims. By 
way of our amendment, we can fix a ``scoring'' problem by adding an 
offset for the measures in the bill that the Congressional Budget 
Office determined after its technical analysis would result in

[[Page 5767]]

affecting budget. That amendment should keep the measure budget 
neutral. We also are pleased to include provisions suggested by 
Senators Murkowski and Begich to correct the manner in which Alaska is 
affected by the tribal provisions in the bill. We worked with them on 
the initial language and are pleased to continue that bipartisan 
cooperation. These are additional steps we can take to make sure we 
pass the best possible legislation we can.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Crapo over the last many 
months to reauthorize and improve the Violence Against Women Act. We 
have been committed to an open, bipartisan process for this legislation 
from the beginning. This amendment I am offering continues that process 
and incorporates further important suggestions we have received from 
both sides of the aisle.
  The substitute makes modest changes to the tribal provisions to 
further protect the rights of defendants. These changes are in response 
to concerns raised by Senator Kyl and others, and I am happy to make 
them. The substitute also responds to concerns raised by Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Begich about the legislation's impact on Alaska 
Native villages. Again, I am pleased to be able to address those 
concerns. The bill is stronger for it.
  The substitute also incorporates national security protections at the 
request of Senator Feinstein.
  We also add a small fee for applications for diversity visas that 
will more than cover the modest costs of protecting additional battered 
immigrants who assist law enforcement. This addition renders the bill 
deficit neutral and alleviates budget concerns. It, too, makes the 
legislation stronger.
  The amendment strengthens the campus provision of the legislation 
while responding to concerns that the bill might have inadvertently 
affected burdens of proof in campus proceedings. I thank Senator Casey 
for working with us on this aspect of the amendment.
  These are very modest changes, but every one reflects our continued 
commitment to listening to those who work with victims of domestic and 
sexual violence every day and to working with Senators of both parties 
to make the legislation stronger. The legislation came to the floor 
with 61 Senators, including 8 Republicans, as cosponsors. These 
adjustments should make it even more of a consensus bill.
  I have been heartened by the constructive tone of debate on the floor 
of the Senate and the near universal support for reauthorizing VAWA. 
Let's continue this consensus, bipartisan process by passing this 
amendment and then adopting the bill with these improvements. Let's 
pass this reauthorization. As Congress faces unrelenting criticism for 
gridlock and dysfunction, our reauthorizing VAWA in a bipartisan way 
that helps all victims of domestic and sexual violence is an example of 
the Senate at its best. I hope all Senators will join us in this 
effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 2093, 
the Leahy substitute amendment, is agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on S. 1925.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. As we proceed to vote to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act, I look forward to a strong bipartisan vote. I thank the 
majority leader and the Republican leader for their work to bring us to 
this point. I commend the Senators from both sides of the aisle who 
have worked so hard to bring us to this. In particular I thank my 
partner in this effort, Senator Crapo, and our bipartisan cosponsors. I 
also commend Senator Murray and Senator Murkowski who have been so 
instrumental in helping both sides arrive at a fair process for 
considering amendments and proceeding without unnecessary delays.
  The Violence Against Women Act continues to send a powerful message 
that violence against women is a crime, and it will not be tolerated. 
It is helping transform the law enforcement response and provide 
services to victims all across the country. We are right to renew our 
commitment to the victims who are helped by this critical legislation 
and to extend a hand to those whose needs have remained unmet.
  As we have done in every VAWA authorization, this bill takes steps to 
improve the law and meet unmet needs. We recognize those victims who we 
have not yet reached and find ways to help them. This is what we have 
always done. As I have said many times the past several weeks, a victim 
is a victim is a victim. We are reaching out to help all victims. I am 
proud that the legislation Senator Crapo and I introduced seeks to 
protect all victims--women, children, and men, immigrants and native 
born, gay and straight, Indian and non-Indian. They all deserve our 
attention and the protection and access to services our bill provides.
  I have said since we started the process of drafting this legislation 
that the Violence Against Women Act is an example of what the Senate 
can accomplish when we work together. I have worked hard to make this 
reauthorization process open and democratic. Senator Crapo and I have 
requested input from both sides of the aisle, and we have incorporated 
many changes to this legislation suggested by Republican as well as 
Democratic Senators.
  Our bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and 
law enforcement officers from all across the country and from all 
political persuasions. We worked with them to craft a bill that 
responds to the needs they see in the field. That is why every one of 
the provisions in the bill has such widespread support. That is why 
more than 1000 national, State, and local organizations support our 
bill.
  I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill has had from the 
beginning, and I want to commend our 61 cosponsors. I commend our eight 
Republicans for their willingness to work across party lines.
  I cannot overstate the important role played by Senators Murray, 
Murkowski, Mikulski, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Boxer, Hagan, Shaheen, 
Cantwell, Gillibrand, Collins, Snowe, and Ayotte in this process. The 
work these women Senators have done in shaping the legislation, and 
supporting it here on the Senate floor, as well as back home in their 
States, has helped create the urgency needed to get a bill passed. They 
are among the strongest supporters of our bill, and the bill is better 
for their efforts. I also appreciate the gracious comments Senator 
Hutchison made about the Leahy-Crapo bill, and I am encouraged by her 
now joining with us to pass the bill.
  I also want to thank the many members of the Judiciary Committee who 
helped draft various provisions in the bill. Senators Kohl, Durbin, 
Schumer, Franken, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Coons, and Blumenthal offered 
significant contributions.
  The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without 
the hard work of many dedicated staffers. I would like to thank in 
particular Anya McMurray, Noah Bookbinder, Ed Chung, Erica Chabot, Liz 
Aloi, Matt Smith, Kelsey Kobelt, Tara Magner, Ed Pagano, John Dowd and 
Bruce Cohen from my staff.
  I know the staff of Senator Grassley has put in significant time on 
this legislation as well. I thank Kolan Davis, Fred Ansell, and Kathy 
Neubel for their efforts.
  I also commend the hardworking Senate floor staff, Tim Mitchell and 
Trish Engle, and the staffs of other Senators who I know have worked 
hard on this legislation, including Erik Stegman, Wendy Helgemo, Josh 
Riley, Ken Flanz, Susan Stoner, Nate Bergerbest, Kristi Williams, Stacy 
Rich, Mike Spahn, Serena Hoy, Bill Dauster, and Gary Myrick.
  Most importantly, I thank the many individuals, organizations, and 
coalitions that have helped with this effort. I thank the Vermonters 
who have helped inform me and this legislation, Karen Tronsgard-Scott 
of the Vermont Network to End Domestic and Sexual

[[Page 5768]]

Violence and Jane Van Buren with Women Helping Battered Women. And I 
thank all those involved with the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence Against Women, American Bar Association Commission on 
Domestic Violence, Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic 
Violence, Break the Cycle, Casa de Esperanza, Futures Without Violence, 
Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance to End 
Sexual Violence, National Center for Victims of Crime, National 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti-
Violence Programs, National Congress of American Indians Taskforce on 
Violence Against Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National 
Domestic Violence Hotline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, SCESA, 
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National Sexual Violence 
Resource Center, Resource Sharing Project of the Iowa Coalition Against 
Sexual Assault, YWCA USA, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, 
NAACP, Mayors of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, the National 
Sheriff's Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, 
FLEOA, National Center for State Courts, National Association of 
Attorneys General, National Association of Women Judges, Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Faith Groups, and so 
many more for their focus on the victims and their unmet needs.
  This is an example of what the Senate can do when we put aside 
rhetoric and partisanship. I believe that if Senators, Members of the 
House, Americans from across the country take an honest look at the 
provisions in our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, they will find 
them to be commonsense measures that we all can support. Sixty-one 
Senators have already reached this conclusion. I hope more will join us 
and the Senate can promptly pass and Congress can promptly enact the 
Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
  I thank the bipartisan coalition that has come together on this. Most 
importantly, the coalition across the political spectrum that is so 
opposed to violence against women will thank us for passing this bill.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time on our side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The bill (S. 1925), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________