[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6730-6732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Violence

[[Page 6731]]

Against Women Act that the Senate passed, but we seem to have a 
challenge with our colleagues in the House of Representatives. In my 
view, violence against any woman is still violence. Apparently, my 
Republican colleagues in the House do not share that view. Republicans 
in the House have introduced a bill that would not protect all women. 
Their bill would roll back protections for certain vulnerable 
populations. It would strip provisions in the Senate bill that protect 
women from discrimination and abuse, specifically Native American 
women, the LGBT community, and for undocumented immigrants it actually 
rolls back protections they have under current law.
  We have seen that violence against women is an epidemic and it 
plagues all of us, not just some of us. We have fought against it, we 
have tried to end it, we have established programs and policies at the 
national and State levels to mitigate it. We have stood with the 
victims of domestic violence. Now we must stand and reaffirm our 
outrage.
  It is in my mind a no-brainer. I am, frankly, hard-pressed to 
understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence 
against any woman, no matter who they are, no matter what their sexual 
orientation or citizenship. 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. There can be no such threshold 
and no such distinction. Violence against any woman is an outrage, 
plain and simple.
  Is the message to be that we are willing for some reason that in my 
mind defies logic to accept violence against certain women? Because 
that seems to be the message the other body is sending us. I cannot 
believe anyone would take such a position, but that is exactly what we 
would do if we listened to our Republican House colleagues, and that is 
completely unacceptable to this Senator and should be unacceptable to 
every Member of Congress and every American. If our friends on the 
other side deny they are waging a political and cultural war against 
women, then why are they willing to accept an actual war against 
certain women by excluding them from protection under the Violence 
Against Women Act?
  The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act doesn't just 
affect those who are or might become victims of sexual violence or 
domestic violence; it affects all of us. Nearly one in five women 
reports being the victim of rape or attempted rape. One in six reports 
being stalked. One in four reports 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. Domestic and sexual violence is an issue 
that affects us all, and we must all be part of a solution.
  Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece 
in our comprehensive approach to protect and empower women, and it must 
remain so. Since the passage of VAWA in 1994, there has been enormous 
positive change.
  From 1993 to 2010, the rate of intimate partner violence declined 67 
percent. More victims are reporting violence to police, and those 
reports are resulting in more arrests and prosecutions. VAWA is 
working, but there are still women who need protection.
  For example, in 1 day in New Jersey, a survey found that domestic 
violence programs assisted 1,292 victims. On that same day, New Jersey 
domestic violence hotlines answered 444 phone calls. So our work on 
this issue is not yet done.
  Looking to the merits of the reauthorization, let me highlight, for 
the record, several critical changes in the legislation--changes that 
did not simply extend successful programs but built upon them. Every 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has incorporated new 
understanding and updated knowledge, and this reauthorization was and 
should be no different.
  First and foremost, the Senate reauthorization includes additional 
training for law enforcement, victim services, and courts that increase 
the focus on high-risk offenders and victims, including connecting 
high-risk victims with crisis intervention services. I am sure no one 
can argue against that.
  Second, the Senate bill strengthens our response to sexual assault 
while increasing the connection to nonprofit groups. Sexual assault 
coalitions in every State have been indispensable allies. I met with a 
large roundtable before our debate and discussions in the Senate, and 
this bill supports their efforts. It included a 20-percent setaside for 
assistance to States for sexual assault programs and also included 
reforms to reduce the unprecedented backlog of rape kits.
  I have been proud to support funding to reduce this backlog. Just 
recently I supported Senator Leahy's effort to fund the Debbie Smith 
DNA Backlog Grant Program at the current level of $125 million with at 
least $90 million directly spent on reducing the DNA backlogs. I am 
happy to say the Violence Against Women Act will make important strides 
to reduce the backlog.
  Most importantly, given the debate on this legislation, this 
reauthorization recognizes that domestic and sexual violence affects 
all groups regardless of their sexual orientation. We included 
commonsense protections against discrimination on race, religion, 
national origin, sex, and disability because it is, quite simply, the 
right thing to do because all violence against women is an outrage to 
all of us.
  For the first time the Senate bill established the fundamental notion 
that victims cannot be denied services based on gender identity or 
sexual orientation. We included provisions to protect immigrant victims 
of violence and Native American victims.
  In the Senate the bill passed 68 to 31 with a dozen Republicans 
voting in support of the final legislation despite Republican attempts 
to weaken the bill during the Senate's consideration of the 
legislation. Unfortunately, Republicans in the House are attempting to 
weaken the bill and do what a minority in the Senate could not. For the 
first time in the nearly 20-year history of the Violence Against Women 
Act, the House reauthorization doesn't expand protections but instead 
eliminates a series of them.
  In its version, the House sent an undeniable message: If you are 
Native American, LGBT, or undocumented, you do not deserve protection. 
That is the House message.
  To start, LGBT victims do not receive the protection they need in the 
House bill. Professionals in the field specifically requested 
nondiscrimination provisions based upon their direct experiences. 
Studies on the issue only confirm this need: 45 percent of LGBT victims 
were turned away from domestic violence shelters, and 55 percent were 
denied protective orders. The Senate version ensures all victims, gay 
or straight, share in the protections of VAWA. But the House version 
denies these critical protections to LGBT victims.
  Under the House legislation, immigrant victims of violence would fare 
far worse than under current law--far worse than under current law. 
Domestic violence advocates tell us that often abusers threaten their 
significant others that they will take them to the authorities with the 
possibility of deportation unless they continue to submit themselves to 
dangerous and inhumane treatment.
  The Violence Against Women Act provides a way out, but the House 
version of that law does away with confidentiality protections for 
immigrant victims. Studies have shown that victims are most vulnerable 
immediately before or after they leave the abuser. VAWA protects these 
victims with confidentiality when they come forward to seek help. The 
House version instead creates a cruel possibility that in seeking help, 
the victim will be exposed and face more abuse. How perverse is that?
  House Republicans would put burdensome new requirements on immigrant 
victims and give them less help than

[[Page 6732]]

they receive under the current law. The abuser often possesses the 
relevant evidence while the abused faces language barriers, isolation, 
and limited access to legal representation.
  In past Violence Against Women Act debates, we have had wide 
bipartisan consensus around protections for these victims because a 
victim is a victim is a victim. But the House reauthorization ignores 
this consensus and places an unimaginable burden on self-petitioners.
  Under the House proposal, the program to protect immigrant victims, 
called the U Visa Program, would be a hollow shell of its former self. 
The permanent visa would now be temporary, reducing the incentive for 
immigrants to take the risk and assist law enforcement in identifying 
the person who may have committed a sexual rape.
  Of course proponents claim these reforms are needed to combat 
``fraud'' in the system. But I have to ask: What fraud? To obtain a U 
visa in the first place, law enforcement personnel must personally sign 
off. Is there a suggestion that somehow the law enforcement personnel 
are engaged in a fraud? There is no evidence of fraud in this program. 
The simple enforcement technique has proven profoundly effective. Yet 
the House insists on adding additional burdens on a vulnerable 
population only to fight a nonexistent problem.
  Moreover, allowing these abusers to go free puts more criminals in 
our community who can then victimize more women in the future. Our 
whole goal is to end the abuse and to get the abuser to ultimately face 
up to their punishment. Instead we would say: Oh, no. Let the abuser go 
ahead and continue their abuse, and we will subject the victim 
ultimately to a set of circumstances in which not only will they not 
come forth and talk about the abuse, we will subject the victim 
ultimately to facing even greater challenges in their lives.
  Knowing what is at stake and what it would mean to the many victims 
of domestic violence and sexual violence, there is no question we must 
pass final legislation as soon as possible. The debate should be about 
one thing and one thing only: protecting victims, all victims. Each and 
every one of these women in these categories is, in fact, a victim. 
There should be no differentiation and there should be protection for 
all.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________