Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills: H.R. 4970, the Cantor-Adams bill, and H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Before we discuss the unprecedented rule for the Cantor-Adams bill, which has really turned what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue into a political football--to the detriment of women across our country--I would like to say a few words about the National Defense Authorization Act, which is also included in this rule.

I am really dismayed that the Defense authorization bill that House Republicans have brought before us undermines the bipartisan agreement which was reached just last summer. The bill funds defense spending at $8 billion over the levels set in the Budget Control Act and $3 billion over the President's budget request--again, more deficit spending in this Republican bill before us under this rule.

As our deficit spirals out of control, we need to tighten our belt and balance our budget. Instead, this bill doubles down on 10 years of ballooning defense budgets, which have played a major role in our deficit. This bill continues to kick the can down the road toward balancing our budget and leaves an only bigger hole that the Republican tax-and-spend policies continue to dig, putting our Nation deeper and deeper into debt.

Additionally, this bill ties the hands of our military and law enforcement by requiring in statute to keep military detainees in Guantanamo, handcuffing any President, Democrat or Republican, and preventing him from coming up with a plan for what to do with these individuals. This bill panders to our fears by insisting that the detainees remain in Guantanamo interminably. It tries to tell generals how to do their jobs and sets a timetable for troop levels in Afghanistan rather than does our normal civilian process.

Finally, I am disappointed by the political posturing included in the bill. The NDAA used to focus solely on setting defense policy and protecting our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to use this bill to also push political wedge issues. There is language in this bill prohibiting the use of military facilities to conduct same- sex marriages even in States that allow same-sex marriages. It even prevents gay and lesbian chaplains from marrying members of the military to other members of the military.

Further, I am deeply disturbed that, in a bill that governs our national security, language was included that would increase our dependence on foreign oil and that would undermine our long-term energy security interest. This bill's exemption of the Department of Defense from complying with section 526 of the 2007 energy bill hurts water and recreational interests in my State and harms research and development and investment in renewable energy.

Now, sadly, as disappointing as it is to see political posturing in the Defense authorization bill under this rule, it is truly horrifying to see the political posturing in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, which under this House version would likely lead to more violence against women. The Violence Against Women Act has a long bipartisan history. Both sides have traditionally sought to protect all victims of domestic violence, not just some. Sadly, this bill before us undoes much of the work that previous Congresses have done and accomplished on this issue for no reason when we have a bipartisan Senate version of the bill that protects all women from the abuse of partners.

Why would we exclude certain women in this country? If a woman is in a lesbian relationship, should she not be protected if she is a victim of domestic abuse? If a woman doesn't have the documentation to be in this country and is here illegally, should she not be protected under this law?

VAWA protects women who are actually convicted of other crimes. If a woman stole a car and served time, was convicted of that crime, she is still protected from domestic abuse under VAWA. Yet nonviolent offenders of our civil code, like undocumented immigrants, would no longer be protected because they would effectively face deportation after 4 years for testifying against the perpetrators of their abuse, making it much less likely that they would bring the perpetrators to justice and end the vicious cycle of domestic abuse in their families.

The majority in the House has offered no explanation for their refusal to allow us to take up the Senate bipartisan bill. My colleague Virginia Foxx was noncommittal in her response about whether we would be taking up the Senate bipartisan bill. If she doesn't know the answer--and I certainly take her on her word--I would hope that somebody on the other side would come to the floor and say, Can we take up this Senate bipartisan bill? And if not, why not? And if so, when?

It passed the Senate with 68 votes, Republicans and Democrats. This is the time to stand up and see if our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about responding to the insidious domestic violence crimes that occur every day throughout this country. Frankly, that could start by the defeat of this bill, allowing for an open process in considering this bill on the floor of the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I want to make sure that the time is not begun until the gentlelady begins.

Thank you.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I would inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining speakers.

I'd like to inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining speakers.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Though we disagree on the bill, we can both agree that this is a terrible rule. And I encourage my colleagues to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa in opposing this rule.

I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this closed rule to make in order the bipartisan Violence Against Women bill that passed the United States Senate with 68 votes as an amendment offered by Representative Conyers, Representative Moore, and Representative Lofgren. If the House passes that, it will proceed to President Obama's desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and allow the Senate bill that has passed with a bipartisan majority, that actually expands protections for all women, to be considered by this body.

Here, Madam Speaker, is the face of somebody affected by the Violence Against Women Act from Colorado. Her name is Sara. Sara came to our country illegally. She was brought illegally, unbeknownst to her, by her American husband. Once in the United States, she was abused. She was isolated. She was effectively kept a prisoner in her own house by her husband.

The first time she was violently beaten by her husband was when she went on a walk because her husband claimed that she had disobeyed him. She was trapped in a relationship where she was abused, sexually as well as verbally, for 14 years.

She finally escaped with her son to safe transitional housing called Alternatives to Violence in Loveland, Colorado. Once there, she learned English and obtained temporary legal status through a U visa provided under the Violence Against Women Act.

Today, I'm proud to say, Madam Speaker, she's a United States citizen and works as an advocate for other immigrant victims of domestic abuse.

Stories like Sara are inspiring and reinforce the reason that so many of us feel passionately to join across party lines to ensure that no domestic victim is left unserved.

This Cantor-Adams bill offers us a false choice between weakening and undermining protections in the Violence Against Women Act or maintaining the status quo. The American people understand that a vote for the Cantor-Adams bill is a vote to roll back protections for all domestic and sexual violence victims and puts the safety of our most vulnerable domestic violence victims at risk.

Immigrants, Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and bisexual victims all have historically faced many barriers to reporting sexual violence. But instead of removing those barriers, this bill, under this closed rule, creates new ones.

Lesbian and gay survivors face particular obstacles in accessing the criminal justice system. Lesbian and gay survivors are often reluctant to report abuse, and when they do finally seek assistance, they frequently don't receive the support they need across lifesaving services and resources. Studies tell us that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at roughly the same rates as the general population. It is no surprise that less than one in five gay and lesbian victims of intimate partner violence receives help through a service provider.

This bill fails to provide the same vital protections for gay and lesbian families that have been overwhelmingly approved in the Senate bill. During the Judiciary markup, I offered an amendment to restore these protections, but unfortunately, it was voted down. This closed process prevents the ability of Members of the House to even consider or vote on adding these protections back in. Had the House Republicans allowed amendments on the

floor today, I would have offered two amendments that I offered--along with my colleagues Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Lofgren, Representatives Deutch and Chu, all who were leaders in the Judiciary markup--which would have eliminated these atrocious provisions from the bill.

Some of the most egregious anti-immigrant provisions would destroy incentives to cooperate with law enforcement. People like Sara, who bravely came forward to report domestic violence, would face deportation after 4 years. Why would somebody come forward and report something if it would ultimately lead to her own deportation?

All women deserve to be protected from domestic violence--even women who have committed crimes, even women who have had civil violations, like violating our immigration laws, even women who are lesbians. All women deserve to be protected by the Violence Against Women Act, and that is what this bill is about. The Senate bill, which passed on a bipartisan basis and included a report from well over a dozen Republican Senators, included these provisions.

Abuse is abuse, whether it occurs against immigrants, whether it occurs against gay and lesbian Americans, or whether it occurs against Native Americans. Yet, under this bill before us, a Native American woman who is living on a reservation and who is raped and abused by a nontribal member lacks protection and remains at risk of serious sexual and physical violence by her abuser. Under this underlying bill, gay and lesbian survivors and victims will struggle to get protective orders or will be turned away from service providers just because of their sexual orientation or gender identities.

Just as alarming, this bill removes protections that currently exist for some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations: battered immigrant spouses, restricting the ability of U visa holders to apply for permanent resident status and forcing them to face deportation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bills and to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 656 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of

order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

The question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 656? Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, excludes from the application of that act any legislative provision that establishes or enforces statutory rights prohibiting discrimination.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that while they have not reviewed a provision in section 3 of H.R. 4970 for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates, since that provision prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability, other provisions of H.R. 4970 would impose no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.

CBO goes on to say the bill would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on brokers of international marriage and certain supervisors over persons under official control of the United States. However, CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA: $146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation.

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

None of the amendments were made in order except the manager's amendment, which brings the bill closer to the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot assume what this body will do in the future. I am one member of the Rules Committee and the Education Committee. I do not have control over that, and I don't believe anybody can predict the future.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's question is a question for the rule and is not relevant to the point of order which she has raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it really pains me to see my colleagues across the aisle make the kind of accusations that they make about Republicans being unconcerned about the issue of violence against women. How could they possibly accuse us of not being concerned about that issue? All Republicans are concerned about violence against anyone. Violence, we are very concerned about that. I personally won't even watch any kind of movie that has any kind of violence in it because I can't stand to see violence perpetrated on another human being. So Republican men and women both abhor violence against women.

But what we have done in the legislation that we are proposing is we are asking for increased accountability and to see that more services are directly offered to women who have violence perpetrated against them. In fact, I would say that we are more concerned about violence for women because we want to see those women served better and we want to see the money spent better.

Mr. Speaker, helping victims of abuse and domestic violence is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I have been pleased to work with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez on H.R. 196, Simplifying the Ambiguous Law Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe, or STALKERS, Act which she has championed for the last two Congresses. The Democrats wouldn't bring this bill up when they were in control of the House.

The STALKERS Act updates the Federal stalking statute to include electronic surveillance and other means of cyber-stalking to ensure that potential stalking victims are protected as technology changes. In addition, the STALKERS Act increases criminal penalties by 5 years for offenders who have violated a protective order or whose victims are under the age of 18 or elderly.

Congresswoman Sanchez and I worked together regardless of which party was in charge of the House, and I'm pleased that legislation with the original cosponsor, who's a Democrat, has been included in the VAWA reauthorization bill that the House will vote on today. The VAWA reauthorization bill also adds stalking as an allowable grant purpose to continue the work of protecting these victims.

As we all know, law enforcement and prosecutors must have the resources they need to pursue violent criminals, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for H.R. 4970 after voting for this rule providing for its consideration, or the rule we will consider in just a few minutes.

I'm not going to impugn the character of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We all want to stop violence against women. That's why Republicans have brought forth this bill. Again, the STALKERS Act could have

been brought forward under Democrat control of the House. It was not, and I'm very disappointed. But I'm proud of Republicans, that we're doing it and we're strengthening the Violence Against Women Act, not weakening the act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 656 provides for a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and general debate for H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

As an original cosponsor of the underlying bill, I am proud to stand with my Republican colleagues in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, otherwise known as VAWA.

The House Judiciary Committee-passed version of VAWA before us today is a commonsense proposal to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and efficiently while also improving access to services for victims. With this bill, we have also worked to add accountability requirements to conduct the necessary oversight of VAWA grant recipients and programs. Our goal is to ensure that more money is spent on direct services and less on administrative bureaucracy.

I commend Representative Adams on authoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Nugent from Florida, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert.

I would like to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri, Congresswoman Hartzler.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio says, the second bill that's made in order under this rule is H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, otherwise known as the NDAA.

As we debate this very important bill, let's keep in mind the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families, and in particular those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of American freedom, which includes this deliberative process of freely debating our laws and ideas about the role of government. We could not be here today without the sacrifices of those who've served in the military and helped protect us as a free people.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers:

The operations of the Federal Government will be most

extensive and important in terms of war and danger.

Our Founding Fathers had a clear view that the primary and central job of the Federal Government was ``to provide for the common defense,'' which is a constitutional mandate. It is not an issue that should divide us or devolve into partisan rancor but unite us as a country that supports our military and provides them with the resources necessary to complete their critically important mission.

Madam Speaker, in a few days, we will be in our districts participating in Memorial Day events. I approach Memorial Day with mixed emotions, as a part of me celebrates the joy and pride of living in this great country where we're all free to participate in a robust public policy debate. I am proud that I live in a meritocracy, where anyone can choose which path to follow and succeed. But Memorial Day also elicits somber thoughts of those who have given their lives in defense of the greatest country in the history of humankind.

While many of our fellow Americans will be celebrating with cookouts and family, I ask that we all pause and think about those families who will have an empty place at their dinner table, those families who still mourn the loss of a loved one and, rather than cooking out, will be visiting our fallen heroes in hallowed grounds across these United States. That's the true purpose of Memorial Day--to pause, remember, and honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to preserve all that is great in our country.

So as we return home to our districts, I ask all of my colleagues to keep in mind the spouses, children, and families of the fallen. As President Lincoln stated in his second inaugural address:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with

firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let

us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the

Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the

battle, and for his widow and his orphan--to do all which may

achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among

ourselves, and with all nations.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Roby.

Madam Speaker, we do have other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington, a member of our leadership, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers.

Yes, Madam Speaker, we have one more.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree with my colleague from Colorado. Abuse is abuse, no matter against which person it is, and nothing in this Violence Against Women reauthorization bill prohibits grant recipients from serving all victims of domestic violence, and I am glad to hear my colleague say that.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to help women, particularly those who have been victims of violence and abuse, while also being good stewards of limited taxpayer resources. The 2012 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act accomplishes these goals. In addition, the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act ensures that the men and women in our military have the resources they need while protecting taxpayer investments.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of improved congressional oversight and against special interests by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I join the United States Conference of Mayors and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination in opposition to the bill, and I ask unanimous consent to submit their letters for the Record.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill that rolls back protections for domestic violence victims and survivors, and I include three letters representing hundreds of organizations--law enforcement organizations, advocacy organizations around the country--in opposition to the rule.

Before coming to Congress, I founded and was the first executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I've trained thousands of police officers and judges, held victims' hands in courts. I've done intake in shelters and held their children in emergency rooms and answered calls on hotlines.

This bill, the underlying bill and the rule, do great damage to the work that we've done across the aisle as advocates and leaders of good will to protect the interests of battered women of domestic violence, victims and survivors.

Since the passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has revolutionized the way violent crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented. Never would I have imagined that, when working on this 18 years ago, that we'd be in this Congress rolling back the protections that have been expanded to protect women, victims, survivors across this country and their children. It really is a sad day in this Congress. We should be ashamed of what we're doing.

We should make sure that we expand protections for women, for immigrant women, for lesbian and gay men and women, and to make sure that we pass a rule that truly is bipartisan in this Congress that reflects the values and the needs and the spirit of the 1994 law.

May 15, 2012.

Re: Update--Manager's amendments to VAWA (H.R. 4970) do not

fix critical problems. H.R. 4970 eliminates protections

for battered immigrants; harms victims.

House of Representatives.

Dear Member of Congress: As a diverse coalition of

immigration, faith, labor, civil rights, human rights and

community organizations serving and advocating on behalf of

immigrant victims of domestic violence, human trafficking,

sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, we urge you to

oppose H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization

Act of 2012 (VAWA) (Adams, R FL) when it comes to the House

floor.

The amendments offered by Representative Adams (``manager's

package'') that will be considered by the Rules Committee

today are inadequate and do not correct the major problems

with H.R. 4970. With the manager's package. H.R. 4970 will

still roll back existing protections for battered immigrants

that were created with bi-partisan congressional support.

Enacted in 1994 and reauthorized twice in 2000 and 2005,

VAWA has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common

purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. When VAWA was conceived, Congress

recognized that the noncitizen status of battered immigrants

can make them particularly vulnerable. Abusers often exploit

their victims' undocumented status, leaving the victim afraid

to report the abuse to law enforcement and making them

fearful of assisting with the prosecution of these crimes.

As modified, H.R. 4970 effectively eradicates protections

created by VAWA that have been available for almost twenty

years to immigrant victims of violence. The bill establishes

an extremely onerous adjudication process for victims to

receive protection that is not required in other areas of the

law. Finally, it wastes government resources when allegations

of fraud have not been substantiated.

H.R. 4970 eliminates protections for crime victims offered by

the U visa.

Deters immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying

nearly all U visa recipients the protections offered by

lawful permanent resident status. By offering only temporary

relief, H.R. 4970 will eliminate an important incentive for

victims to report crimes and silence victims who fear

deportation. A victim could be deported and be forced to

leave her children behind with an abuser if he has legal

status but she does not.

Endangers crime victims by making it extremely difficult

for them to obtain U visa protection. H.R. 4970 needlessly

requires that an investigation or prosecution is being

actively pursued. Current law already requires that law

enforcement certify that the victim has been or is likely to

be helpful to an investigation or prosecution.

H.R. 4970 requires that the victim help identify the

perpetrator. Many sexual assault victims never get a good

look at the perpetrator.

H.R. 4970 denies battered immigrants the protections of

``self-petitioning.''

Gives perpetrators tools to interfere with a victim's

immigration case.

Forces every VAWA self-petitioner to participate in two

face-to-face interviews with DHS officials, subjecting them

to unnecessary additional screening that can be dangerous for

victims who may have to account for their every movement to

the abuser.

Requires untrained local field office staff conduct in-

person interviews with victims of domestic violence and

sexual assault. Long delays to secure initial interviews at

local offices will put victims trying to leave abusive

relationship at greater risk.

Endangers the safety of battered immigrants by suspending

adjudication of their case if there is an open criminal

investigation or prosecution of the perpetrator.

H.R. 4970 requires DHS officials to conduct expensive and

time consuming reviews of the victims' cases that are not

required in other areas of law. These wasteful reviews are

motivated by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and abuse within

VAWA programs.

H.R. 4970 endangers victims, and undoes years of bipartisan

progress made in previous VAWA bills by taking us to a time

before 1994 when abusers were allowed to use immigration

status as a tool for further abuse. When H.R. 4970 is brought

to the floor of the

House of Representatives, we urge you to vote NO. This bill

goes against the core of VAWA by eliminating protections for

victims and placing victims in danger.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mony

Ruiz-Velasco, National Immigrant Justice Center, or Grace

Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Sincerely,

America's Voice Education Fund; American Civil Liberties

Union; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American

Jewish Committee; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Asian

American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for

Advancing Justice; Asian Pacific Islander Institute on

Domestic Violence; ASISTA; Benjamin N. Cardozo Human Rights

and Genocide Law Clinic; Break the Cycle; California

Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza:

National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and

Communities; Centro Legal de la Raza; Church World

Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; Disciples Home

Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Human Rights Defense Center;

Hutto Visitation Program.

Immigrant Rights Clinic at Rutgers School of Law;

Immigration Equality; Immigration Law Center of Minnesota;

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American

Community; International Institute of Buffalo; International

Organization for Adolescents; Jesuit Social Research

Institute/Loyola University New Orleans; Jewish Council for

Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Women

International; Kids in Need of Defense; Legal Aid Justice

Center; Legal Services of New Jersey; Lutheran Immigration

and Refugee Service; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee

Advocacy Coalition.

National Center for Victims of Crime; National Coalition

Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of Anti-

Violence Programs (NCAVP); National Council of Jewish Women;

National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration

Forum; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration

Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Organization

for Women; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending

Sexual Assault; National Network to End Domestic Violence;

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; Northwest

Immigrant Rights Project; Physicians for Human Rights;

Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project; Rabbis

for Human Rights-North America; Rocky Mountain Immigrant

Advocacy Network; South Asian Americans Leading Together

(SAALT).

Texans United for Families; Tahirih Justice Center; The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Reformed

Church of Highland Park, NJ; The Young Center for Immigrant

Children's Rights at the University of Chicago; Vermont

Immigration and Asylum Advocates; VIDA Legal Assistance,

Inc.; Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance;

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Women

of Color Network; Women's Refugee Commission; Who Is My

Neighbor? Inc.

Before today, every VAWA bill we've considered over the last 20 years had three things in common: they've all been bipartisan, they've all been written in consultation with the advocates and service providers on the front lines against domestic violence, and they've all increased protections for victims of domestic violence.

This bill, even as amended, shares none of those attributes. It actually reduces protections that exist in current law for victims of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault. It was developed without any support or consultation from the minority or from the domestic violence advocates. And it is not bipartisan.

Now, the bill's opposed by every leading domestic violence organization. It's opposed by the National Association of Evangelicals and the Willow Creek Church, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, all the leading women's groups. It's opposed by law enforcement officials with years of experience fighting domestic violence. It's opposed by tribal authorities, immigration advocates, LGBT groups. The list goes on and on.

So the question really is this: If everyone from the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood to the National Association of Evangelicals and the Catholic Church have extreme concerns about this bill, who thinks this is a step in the right direction?

And as far as I can tell, the only groups who openly support the bill and the amendments are groups like SAVE and A Voice for Men, who align themselves, not with battered women, but with the men who abuse them.

I will insert into the Record an article from Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and Lynne Hybels, the co-founder of the Willlow Creek Community Church. This is what they say:

Nicole came to the U.S. from Indonesia on a temporary fiancee visa, expecting to enjoy life as a spouse. Instead was trafficked.

They oppose the bill.

[From CNN, May 16, 2012]

Protect Immigrant Women From Violence

(By Leith Anderson and Lynne Hybels)

Nicole came to the United States from Indonesia on a

temporary fiancee visa, fully expecting that she would enjoy

life in a new country with the U.S. citizen she intended to

marry. Instead, she found herself trapped as a victim of sex

trafficking.

Nicole (not her real name), like thousands of other women,

was forced to engage in commercial sex acts against her will.

We heard about her when she received support from the

Salvation Army STOP-IT Program in Illinois, which serves

victims who have been harmed by the sex trade. (The Salvation

Army is a denominational member of the National Association

of Evangelicals.) Eventually, Nicole escaped from her

trafficker and assisted law enforcement in the prosecution of

the crime committed against her.

Though Nicole's fiancee visa had lapsed, leaving her

susceptible to deportation, our nation's anti-trafficking law

provided a legal option for her to be granted permanent legal

status by helping law enforcement to prosecute her

trafficker. With the help of a nonprofit legal service

provider and the Salvation Army, Nicole was able to petition

on her own for legal status--and obtain it--through a special

``U'' visa for immigrant victims of crime, allowing her to

get back on her feet and begin rebuilding her life.

This week the House of Representatives is considering a

proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, first

enacted in 1994, but in a new version that would

significantly undermine the same U visa program that provided

Nicole with safety and permanency in the United States.

The U.S. government estimates that as many as 17,500

foreign-born victims are illegally trafficked in from abroad

each year, and academic estimates suggest that at least

100,000 victims of human trafficking live in the United

States today.

By force, fraud or coercion, traffickers keep victims

enslaved in prostitution or forced labor.

If the House proposal is enacted, thousands like Nicole

could remain enslaved, too afraid to speak out because some

of their most effective safeguards will have disappeared. The

proposal introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Florida, would

dramatically roll back important protections for battered

immigrant women and their children. It could face a vote

Wednesday afternoon.

Several provisions would leave immigrant victims of human

trafficking and domestic abuse no legal way to break the

cycle of violence in which they are trapped.

Specifically, this version would remove the incentive of

permanent safe haven in the United States for women who help

bring abusers to justice. By changing the U visa from

permanent to temporary, the bill could validate an abuser's

threat that a call to police could result in deportation.

Many women would keep quiet rather than risk immigration

consequences.

The bill would also allow abusive partners in domestic

violence cases to provide input as to whether their victim

should qualify for immigration relief, stripping

confidentiality provisions that currently protect victims.

Abusive spouses, who are in a position to petition to adjust

the status of their immigrant wives through marriage, can

choose not to do so as a tool of abuse and fear. Abusers

frequently deny guilt and falsely accuse victims of fraud or

abuse.

We don't want a bill that endangers some of the women and

children it purports to help. Overall, this bill's proposed

changes to current law would discourage immigrant victims

from escaping abuse and reporting crimes, and make all of us

less safe.

Women--and, often, their children--come to our churches for

sanctuary and hope. We believe Adams' proposal would put more

lives in danger. It would perpetuate abusers' use of

immigration status as part of the cycle of exploitation.

As evangelical Christians, we are committed to Jesus' great

commandment to love God and to love our neighbor, with a

particular concern for those who are most vulnerable. Through

local churches and ministries, we extend that love when we

provide counseling and support for victims of human

trafficking and domestic violence. In doing so, we point to

the ultimate healing and restoration that we believe is found

only in Jesus.

We also love our neighbor by speaking up when laws are

proposed that could cause harm, intentionally or not. Loving

our neighbor not only means reaching out to those in need,

but also means addressing systemic problems that harm those

in need.

That's why we're asking Speaker John Boehner and the House

leadership to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act

continues to protect vulnerable immigrant women who are

victims of human trafficking or domestic violence. They need

our protection.

I think sometimes it's helpful to get into the nitty-gritty of legislation. This bill changes the law that exists today and reduces protection for immigrant women in key ways. Let me just talk about one of the ways.

If you are an immigrant temporarily here, or even without your documents, and you are a victim of domestic violence and the police want to keep you here because you're a witness or they need your help in a prosecution, the police can obtain what is called a U visa so you get to stay here. That's in the current law. It was bipartisan. It was done in the year 2000.

This bill changes that in important ways. Under current law, if you are a U visa holder, you have the possibility of applying for a permanent visa. Why is that important? Because otherwise, if you come forward to cooperate with the police, you could be voluntarily deporting yourself and be separated from your children, and that is a deterrent to people coming forward to work with the police. That's why it was crafted the way it was. Even under the manager's amendment, there is a diminution of that possibility, and it would lead to absurd results.

I'll give you an example.

Under the manager's amendment, you can only apply for the residence if your abuser had been deported to the country where you are from. So a U visa is for 4 years. If your abuser is serving a 5-year sentence, you have to be deported, and then your abuser will come after you the next year. It's a stupid provision, unfortunately. I can't believe that that's the intended result. I know Mrs. Adams is sincere, but that's what is in the bill. And that's why people object to the bill--that, among many other provisions that will endanger women and take us back from where we were.

I think that when you take a look at not just the groups that support the Senate bill instead of this, but the groups that support this bill, who embrace abusers, you know where you need to stand--and that's not with this bill, despite the sincerity of the author.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4970, as amended, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to stand in support of this important and life-saving bill.

According to national statistics, an average three women are killed by a

current or former intimate partner a day, every day, and 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. For me, these statistics are way too real.

Some of you may already know that at the age of 17 I dropped out of high school and joined the Air Force. I soon married by 18 and had a young daughter. For me, it was a blessing, but I soon found out that the man I married had a penchant for drinking and was very violent when he drank. I gave him the chance to be the father I thought he could be, and it didn't happen. So I took my daughter, our clothing, and we left.

Like many women who leave an abusive relationship, there were times that the only thing that kept me going was knowing that I was responsible for my daughter, and she depended on me to make a better life for both of us where we both felt safe.

Years later, I experienced another side of domestic violence while working as a deputy sheriff for the Orange County Sheriff's Office. I encountered many victims who had been abused, whether it was from domestic violence, rape, or stalking. These victims were always victims. That's what victims are, all inclusive. Back then, issues like domestic violence and sexual assault weren't really discussed; they were hidden behind closed doors, leaving many of the victims to either underreport or not report at all. They didn't turn for help because they felt helpless. So when the Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994, it brought attention to an issue that was underreported, or maybe not even reported at all.

Eighteen years ago, VAWA established within the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services a number of life-saving grant programs for State, local, and Indian tribal governments. Since then, the act has encouraged collaboration among law enforcement officers, judicial personnel, and public and private sector providers to provide help for the victims of domestic and sexual violence. It also addressed the needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence who are elderly, disabled, children, youth, and individuals of ethnic and racial communities, including Native Americans.

Congress has twice reauthorized the VAWA grant programs with strong bipartisan support, once in 2000 and again in 2006. Keeping with the bipartisan nature of the act, the House bill, H.R. 4970, reauthorizes the grant programs in VAWA for a third time at the same funding levels as our colleagues in the Senate agreed to last month.

In addition to making several key improvements to the Senate bill, including nearly doubling resources for eliminating the backlog of unprocessed rape evidence kits, the House bill brings greater accountability to VAWA grant administration by ensuring that funding is spent on the victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and not on Washington bureaucrats.

To achieve these goals, H.R. 4970 requires that the inspectors general of DOJ and HHS conduct an annual audit of at least 10 percent of all VAWA grant recipients and limits the use of funds for OVW salaries and administrative expenses to 5 percent of the annual authorization. H.R. 4970 also requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to improve the coordination of grants within the Department in order to eliminate duplication and overlap.

Make no mistake about it: this is a victim-centered bill which includes all victims--an all-inclusive, victim-centered bill. Turning this reauthorization into a political issue is not only wrong, but it is dangerous. It is dangerous. We cannot allow domestic violence in this country to become a campaign issue. It must be a reflection of our best efforts as Americans united against breaking a cycle of violence and helping victims become survivors.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this life-saving legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). She is a cosponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack), who is a cosponsor of this important pro- victim legislation.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who is also a cosponsor of this important pro- woman legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is a cosponsor of the legislation and the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to myself just to point out that the survey that we've heard about was received back, and the complaint was the lack of data that it received. I will remind my colleagues on

the other side that this bill and the current law protects all victims.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), who is a cosponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) who is also a cosponsor of this very good legislation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Conyers.

I will tell you, shame on them. Shame on them. This bill reauthorizes VAWA for 5 years at the same levels as the Senate. It protects victims.

If the gentleman would yield, I can say that I do, and I know that we have a list of them.

I will tell you, Mr. Conyers, that I have sat quietly and tried to behave here, but I am offended when I hear that this does not protect victims. I am offended when I hear that we are politicizing something that was politicized

on the other side in the other Chamber and by the other side of the aisle.

So I have very much concern about that because, as someone who has been in the situation, who has been on the scenes of these crimes, we are trying to reauthorize something that is very important to victims across our Nation--victims, not politics. And that's where I stand on this issue.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first clarify. The bill requires that U visa holders actually assist law enforcement. Current law does not. Let's make that very clear. The other thing is we do want them to cooperate because we do want those perpetrators off the streets. We want to make sure they're off the streets so that no other victim is victimized.

In the earlier version of the bill, I was very concerned about: What about the next victim? If we do this and we don't address this, what about the next victim? Which victim doesn't make it out of that house? And I've heard my colleagues on the other side talk about how we're trying to do something because of immigration. No. We're trying to do something to protect the victims and the next victims if we don't get the circle of violence stopped. It always repeats itself.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is also a cosponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say that I agree that all victims need to be covered, and that is what this piece of legislation does. We do not segment out. We do not pit victim against victim. It is all victims.

I reserve the balance of my time.