[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6893]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

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

                          ____________________