Driver Privacy Act

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus from New York, Mr. Joe Crowley.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Susan Davis.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of our time, 4\1/4\ minutes, to the distinguished gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the controlling objective here is that, if we reject the substitute and, instead, adopt the bipartisan and comprehensive Senate bill, the bill will go directly to the President for his signature. So I rise in strong opposition to the substitute and in support of the Senate bill, the Violence Against Women Act of 2013.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I thank the gentlelady.

Members of the House, I was here in 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act was introduced to provide critical lifesaving assistance for women, children and men. This law has been the centerpiece of our government's commitment to combating domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The results have been striking:

In the nearly two decades since the landmark legislation was passed, the rate of intimate partner violence against women has dropped by nearly two-thirds. On two occasions since its enactment, Members of both bodies have worked on a bipartisan basis to extend the Violence Against Women Act's protections and to make necessary improvements.

Unfortunately, in the last Congress, we weren't able to agree on a bill, and the authorization was allowed to lapse. This month, the Senate took the unique opportunity to pass strong bipartisan legislation by a vote of 78-22--with all of the women in the Senate. It incorporates years of analysis of the problem and the solutions proposed by law enforcement and victim service providers. In my judgment, it is much stronger.

I urge my colleagues to join with me, the 78 Senators, the President, and the more than 1,300 organizations in supporting S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

February 22, 2013.

Dear House Leaders: We, the undersigned local, state,

tribal, and national organizations, represent and support

millions of victims of domestic violence, dating violence,

sexual assault and stalking throughout the United States,

American Indian Tribal lands and U.S. Territories. On behalf

of the victims we represent, and the professionals who serve

them and the communities that sustain them, we ask that you

support the Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA)

reauthorization by bringing the recently-passed bipartisan

Senate VAWA (S.47) to the House floor for a vote as speedily

as possible. As you know, VAWA passed the Senate on Tuesday,

February 12 with a resounding bipartisan vote of 78-22 in

favor of an all-embracing bill that strives to address

violence for all victims in communities, homes, campuses and

workplaces all around the country.

VAWA's programs support national, state, tribal,

territorial, and local efforts to address the pervasive and

insidious crimes of domestic violence, dating violence,

sexual assault and stalking. These programs have made great

progress towards reducing the violence, helping victims to be

healthy and feel safe and holding perpetrators accountable.

This critical legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a

continued response to these crimes.

Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has dramatically

enhanced our nation's response to violence against girls and

women, boys and men. More victims report domestic violence to

the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner

violence against women has decreased by 64%. The sexual

assault services program in VAWA helps rape crisis centers

keep their doors open to provide the front-line response to

victims of rape. VAWA provides for a coordinated community

approach, improving collaboration between law enforcement and

victim services providers to better meet the needs of

victims. These comprehensive and cost-effective programs not

only save lives, they also save money. In fact, VAWA saved

nearly $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in just its

first six years.

VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to

these terrible crimes. Nonetheless, much work remains to be

done to address unmet needs and enhance access to protections

and services for all victims, including housing, campus

security, and addressing the needs of racial and ethnic

communities, tribal, immigrant and LGBT victims. We urge you

work with your colleagues in both parties as we all work to

build upon VAWA's successes, continue to enhance our nation's

ability to promote an end to this violence, to hold

perpetrators accountable and to keep victims and their

families safe from future harm. Thank you.

Sincerely,

National Organizations

1. 3 DVas, LLC

2. 9to5

3. Abortion Care Network

4. AFGE Women's/Fair Practices Departments

5. AFL-CIO

6. African Action on Aids

7. AFSCME

8. After The Trauma

9. Alianza--National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of

Domestic Violence

10. Alliant International University

11. American Association of University Women (AAUW)

12. American Baptist Women's Ministries, ABCUSA

13. American College Health Association

14. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

15. American Dance Therapy Association

16. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

17. American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial

Organizations

18. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal

Employees

19. American Federation of Teachers, AFL/CIO

20. American Humanist Association

21. American Postal Workers Union

22. American Psychiatric Association

23. American Psychological Association

24. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

25. Americans for Immigrant Justice, Americans Overseas

Domestic Violence Crisis Center

26. Amnesty International USA

27. Anti-Defamation League

28. Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum

29. Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence

30. Asian American Justice Center, member of Asian American

Center for Advancing Justice

31. Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

32. Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource

Project

33. ASISTA Immigration Assistance

34. Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies

35. Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent in N.

America (APPNA)

36. Bah'ais of the United States

37. Battered Mothers Custody Conference

38. Black Women's Health Imperative

39. Black Women's Roundtable

40. Break the Cycle

41. Business and Professional Women's Foundation

42. Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy

Families and Communities

43. Casa Esperanza

44. Center for Family Policy and Practice

45. Center for Partnership Studies

46. Center for Reproductive Rights

47. Center for Women Policy Studies

48. Central Conference of American Rabbis

49. Choice USA

50. Church Women United

51. Circle of 6 App

52. Clan Star

53. Clery Center for Security On Campus

54. Coalition of Labor Union Women

55. Coalition on Human Needs

56. Communications Workers of America

57. Communications Workers of America (CWA)

58. Community Action Partnership

59. cultureID

60. CWA National Women's Committee

61. Daughters of Penelope

62. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority

63. Dialogue on Diversity

64. Disciples Justice Action Network

65. Domestic Abuse intervention Programs

66. Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project

(DV LEAP)

67. Elder Justice Coalition

68. Episcopal Church

69. Episcopal Women's Caucus

70. Expert Panel on violence, American Academy of Nursing

71. FaithTrust Institute

72. Falling Walls

73. Family Equality Council

74. Federally Employed Women (FEW)

75. Feminist Agenda Network

76. Feminist Majority

77. Feminist Peace Network

78. Freedom from Hunger

79. Friends Committee on National Legislation

80. Friends of Nabeela

81. Futures Without Violence

82. Gay & Lesbian Medical Association

83. General Board of Church & Society, United Methodist

Church

84. General Federation of Women's Clubs

85. George Washington University Law School

86. Girls Inc.

87. GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality

88. GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network)

89. Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America,

Inc.

90. HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society)

91. Hindu American Seva Communities

92. Human Rights Campaign

93. Indian Law Resource Center

94. Inspire Action for Social Change

95. Institute for Interfaith Activism

96. Institute for Science and Human Values

97. Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American

Community

98. IOFA

99. Jewish Council for Public Affairs

100. Jewish Labor Committee

101. Jewish Women International

102. Joe Torre Safe at Home Foundation

103. Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

104. League of United Latin American Citizens

105. Legal Momentum

106. LiveYourDream.org

107. Log Cabin Republicans

108. Media Equity Collaborative

109. Men Can Stop Rape

110. Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office

111. Men's Resources International

112. Methodist/Catholic

113. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

114. Migrant Clinicians Network

115. MomsRising

116. Ms. Foundation for Women

117. Muslim American Society

118. Muslim Bar Association

119. Muslim Public Affairs Council

120. Muslims for Progressive Values

121. NAACP

122. NAPAFASA

123. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd

124. National Alliance to End Sexual Violence

125. National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

(NAPABA)

126. National Association of Commissions for Women (NACVV)

127. National Association of Hispanic Organizations

128. National Association of School Psychologists

129. National Association of State Head Injury

Administrators

130. National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators

131. National Center for Lesbian Rights

132. National Center for Transgender Equality

133. National Center for Victims of Crime

134. National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

135. National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered

Women

136. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

137. National Coalition for LGBT Health

138. National Coalition of 100 Black Women

139. National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)

140. National Coalition on Black Civic Participation

141. National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse

142. National Congress of American Indians

143. National Council for Jewish Education

144. National Council of Churches, USA

145. National Council of Jewish Women

146. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

147. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA

148. National Council of Women's Organizations

149. National Council on Independent Living

150. National Dating Abuse Helpline

151. National Domestic Violence Hotline

152. National Employment Law Project

153. National Fair Housing Alliance

154. National Family Justice Center Alliance

155. National Focus on Gender Education

156. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

157. National Hispanic Council on Aging

158. National Housing Law Project

159. National Indian Health Board

160. National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

161. National Latina Psychological Association

162. National Latina/o Psychological Association

163. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty

164. National Network to End Domestic Violence

165. National Org of Asian Pacific Islanders Ending Sexual

Violence

166. National Organization for Men Against Sexism

167. National Organization for Women (NOW)

168. National Organization of Asian Pacific Islanders

Ending Sexual Violence

169. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement

Executives

170. National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending

Sexual Assault

171. National Partnership for Women & Families

172. National Research Center for Women & Families

173. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

174. National Stonewall Democrats

175. National WIC Association

176. National Women's Health Network

177. National Women's Law Center

178. National Women's Political Caucus

179. Native American Indian Court Judges Association

180. Native American Indian Housing Council

181. NCAI

182. NCCE

183. NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

184. NLPA

185. Nursing Network on Violence against Women

International

186. NVC Academy

187. One Woman's Voice

188. Our Bodies Ourselves

189. OWL--The Voice of Midlife and Older Women

190. Peaceful Families Project

191. PFLAG National

192. Rape Crisis Services

193. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)

194. Reformed Church in America

195. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

196. Rural Women's Health Project

197. Rural Womyn Zone

198. Ryan Immigration Law

199. Safe Kids International

200. Safe Nation Collaborative

201. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

202. Sauti Yetu

203. School and College Organization for Prevention

Educators

204. Secular Woman

205. Self Empowerment Strategies

206. SER-Jobs for Progress National Inc.

207. Service Employees International Union

208. Share Time Wisely Consulting Services

209. Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault

210. Sisters of Mercy Institute Justice Team

211. Sojourners

212. South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)

213. Spittin' Out the Pitts

214. Stonewall Democratic Club

215. SuhaibWebb.com

216. Survivors In Service

217. Tahirih Justice Center

218. Take Back The Night

219. The Episcopal Church

220. The Jewish Federations of North America

221. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

222. The Line Campaign

223. The National Council on Independent Living

224. The National Resource Center Against Domestic Violence

225. The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church &

Society

226. Tribal Law and Policy Institute

227. UAW

228. Union for Reform Judaism

229. Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO

230. Unitarian Universalist Association

231. United Church of Christ, Justice & Witness Ministries

232. United States Hispanic Leadership Institute

233. United Steelworkers

234. UniteWomen.org

235. US National Committee for UN Women

236. US women Connect

237. USAction

238. V-Day

239. Veteran Feminists of America

240. Victim Rights Law Center

241. Vital Voices Global Partnership

242. We Are Woman

243. Winning Strategies

244. Witness Justice

245. Women Enabled, Inc.

246. Women of Color Network

247. Women of Reform Judaism

248. Women, Action & the Media

249. Women's Action for New Directions

250. Women's Business Development Center

251. Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press

252. Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

253. Women's Media Center

254. Women's Resource Center

255. YWCA USA

256. Zonta

Alabama

1. Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence

2. Alabama--NOW

3. St Vincent's Hospital

4. The Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA)

Alaska

1. WOMEN IN SAFE HOME, INC

2. Native Village of Emmonak Women's Shelter

3. South Peninsula Haven House

4. Yup''ik Women's Coalition

5. YWCA Alaska

Arizona

1. Arizona Bridge to Independent Living

2. Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence

3. Arizona NOW

4. Arizona State University

5. Child Crisis Center Foundation

6. Community Alliance Against Family Abuse

7. Family LAW CASA

8. Hopi-Tewa Women's Coalition to End Abuse

9. Jewish Community Relations Council (Tucson)

10. M.U.J.E.R. Inc.

11. National Organization for Women--AZ

12. Phoenix/Scottdale NOW

13. Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition (PAFCO)

14. Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault

15. Southwest Indigenous Women's Coalition

16. Yavapai Family Advocacy Center

17. Yup'ik Women's Coalition

Arkansas

1. Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence

2. Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault

3. Arkansas NOW

California

1. 9to5 Bay Area

2. 9to5 California

3. 9to5 Los Angeles

4. AAUW, Big Bear Valley Branch

5. Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault

6. Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault

7. Alliant International University

8. Antolino Family Wellness Center

9. Asia Pacific Cultural Center

10. Asian Law Caucus

11. Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Member of Asian

American Center for Advancing Justice

12. Bay Area Turning Point, Inc.

13. Bay Area Women's Center

14. CA Rural Indian Health Board, Inc.

15. California Coalition Against Sexual Assault

16. California Latinas for Reproductive Justice

17. California National Organization for Women

18. California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

19. California Protective Parents Association

20. California School of Professional Psychology

21. California School of Professional Psychology at Al

22. California Women Lawyers

23. CARECEN Los Angeles

24. Catalyst Domestic Violence Services

25. Catalyst Domestic Violence Services

26. Center For A Non Violent Community

27. Center for the Pacific Asian Family

28. Central CA Coalition of Labor Union Women

29. Children's Institute, Inc.

30. Choices Domestic Violence Solutions

31. Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Los

Angeles

32. Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse

33. County of Sacramento, Native American Caucus

34. C--VISA, Coachella Valley Immigration Service and

Assistance

35. Domestic Abuse Center

36. Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County

37. DOVES in Natchitoches, LA

38. DOVES of Big Bear Lake, Inc.

39. End DV Counseling and Consulting

40. Episcopal Women's Caucus

41. Family Services of Tulare County

42. Forward Together

43. Freshwater Haven

44. Good Shepherd Shelter

45. Haven Hill, Inc

46. Haven Women's Center of Stan islaus

47. Hollywood Chapter of the National Organization for

Women

48. House of Ruth, Inc.

49. Humboldt County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

50. Immigration Services of Mountain View

51. Institute for Multicultural Counseling and Education

Services (IMCES)

52. Instituto Para La Mujer

53. Inter-Tribal Council of California, Inc.

54. Lone Band of Miwok Indians

55. Jafri Law Firm

56. Jewish Community Relations Council

57. Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles

58. Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region

59. L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

60. La Casa de las Madres

61. La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

62. Law Students for Reproductive Justice

63. Marjaree Mason Center

64. Maya Chilam Foundation

65. MINDS--Medical Network Devoted to Service

66. Miracle Mile LA NOW

67. Monterey County Rape Crisis Center

68. MORONGO BASIN UNITY HOME

69. Mountain Crisis Services, Inc

70. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, San Francisco

Chapter

71. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Silicon Valley

Chapter

72. National Council of Jewish Women, Sacramento Section

73. National Hispanic Media Coalition

74. Oakland County Coordinating Council against Domestic

Violence

75. OPCC

76. Option House, Inc.

77. Project: Peacemakers, Inc

78. Rainbow Community Cares

79. Rainbow Services, Ltd.

80. Sacramento Native American Health Center

81. Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments (SAVE)

82. Santa Fe Natl. Organization for Women

83. Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center

84. Shasta Women's Refuge

85. Shelter From the Storm

86. Sojourn Services For Battered Women And Their Children

87. South Asian Network (SAN)

88. Southern Indian Health Council, Inc.

89. STAND! for Families Free of Violence

90. Strong Hearted Native Women's Coalition, Inc

91. The Good Shepherd Shelter

92. Tri-Valley Haven

93. Valley Crisis Center

94. Victim Compensation and Government Claim Board

95. Violence Intervention Program

96. Wild Iris Women's Service in Bishop, Inc.

97. WOMAN, Inc

98. Women's and Children's Crisis Shelter, Inc.

99. Women's Center-High Desert, Inc.

100. Women's Crisis support--Defensa de Mujeres

101. WordsMatter.Episcopal Expansive Language Project

102. YWCA Glendale, CA

103. YWCA Greater Los Angeles

104. YWCA San Diego County

Colorado

1. 9to5 Colorado

2. Advocate Safehouse Project

3. Advocates Crisis Support services

4. Advocates for a Violence-Free Community

5. Advocates for Victims of Assault

6. Alamosa County Sheriffs Office

7. Alamosa Victim Response Unit

8. Alternatives to Violence, Inc.

9. Archuleta County Victim Assistance Program

10. Catholic Charities Diocese of Pueblo

11. Center on Domestic Violence

12. Colorado Anti-Violence Program

13. Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence

14. Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault

15. Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA)

16. Colorado Mesa University Association of Feminists

17. Colorado Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence Center

18. Deaf Overcoming Violence through Empowerment

19. Domestic Safety Resource Center

20. Douglas County Task Force on Family Violence, Inc.

21. Dove Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Women and

Children

22. Gateway Battered Women's Services

23. Gay-Straight Alliance, Colorado Mesa University

24. Gunnison County Law Enforcement Crime Victim Services

25. Gunnison County Sheriffs Office

26. Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County

27. Justice & Mercy Legal Aid Clinic

28. Latina Safe House

29. Moving to End Sexual Assault (MESA)

30. NEWSED C.D.C.

31. NOW Colorado

32. Park County Sheriffs Office, Victim Services

33. Pueblo Rape Crisis Services

34. Rape Assistance and Awareness Program

35. RESPONSE: Help for Survivors of Domestic Violence and

Sexual Assault

36. Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network

37. Rose Forensic & Treatment Services, LLC (Denver, CO)

38. San Luis Valley Immigrant Resource Center

39. San Luis Valley Victim Response Unit (Alamosa)

40. Servicios de La Raza

41. Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center

42. SLV Regional Medical Center

43. TESSA of Colorado Springs

44. The Latina Safehouse

45. Tu Casa, Inc.

Connecticut

1. Beth El Temple Sisterhood

2. Betty Gallo & Company

3. Bridgeport Public Education Fund

4. Center for Women and Families--Bridgeport, CT

5. Center for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield

County Connecticut

6. Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence

7. Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services

8. CT NOW

9. Hartford GYN Center

10. Local 530

11. Meriden-Wallingford Chrysalis, Inc.

12. New Haven Legal Assistance Association

13. Quinnipiac University

14. Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury

15. Sexual Assault Crisis Center of Eastern Connecticut,

Inc.

16. Susan B. Anthony Project, Inc.

17. The Center for Sexual Assault Crisis Counseling and

Education

18. The Center for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield

County

19. United Services, Inc.

20. Women and Families Center

21. Women's Center of Greater Danbury, Inc.

22. YWCA Darien-Norwalk

23. YWCA Greenwich

24. YWCA Hartford Region

25. YWCA New Britain

District of Columbia

1. Ayuda

2. 51st State NOW

3. Community Action Partnership

4. DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence

5. District Alliance for Safe Housing (DASH)

6. Family Place

7. Freedom House

8. George Washington University Law School

9. Hispanic Federation

10. Human Rights Campaign

11. Lutheran Social Services

12. My Sister's Place DC

13. National Capital Area Union Retirees

14. National Organization for Women, Washington, DC Chapter

15. Ramona's Way

16. Safe Haven Ministries

17. SAGE Metro DC

18. Solutions Center

19. Survivors and Advocates for Empowerment (SAFE), Inc.

20. The Family Place

21. Turning Anger Into Change

22. William Kellibrew Foundation

23. Women's Information Network

24. YWCA National Capital Area

Delaware

1. ContactLifeline, Inc.

2. DE Coalition Against Domestic Violence

3. Delaware NOW

4. Delaware Opportunities, Safe Against Violence

5. Domestic Abuse Project of Delaware County

6. HelpLine of Delaware and Morrow County

7. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Delaware Chapter

8. Sexual Assault Network of Delaware

9. Women's Resources of Monroe County, Inc.

Florida

1. Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida

Immigrant Advocacy Center

2. Betty Griffin House

3. Chain of Lake Achievers, Inc.

4. Children's Advocacy Center for Volusia and Flagler

Counties

5. Community Action Stops Abuse

6. Democratic Women's Club of Northeast Broward

7. DOVES, Lake County

8. Empowerment Christian Community Corp

9. Enfamilia, Inc

10. Florida Consumer Action Network

11. Florida Council Against Sexual Violence

12. Florida Equal Justice Center

13. Florida National Organization for Women

14. Hispanic AIDS Awareness Program

15. Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.

16. Manatee Glens Rape Crisis Services

17. National Coalition for 100 Black Women, Polk County

Chapter

18. National Organization For Women, Bay County Chapter

19. National Organization for Women, Broward Chapter

20. Palm Beach County Victim Services and Rape Crisis

Center

21. Pinellas County Domestic Violence Task Force

22. Polk Co Women's Shelter

23. REACH / FCC

24. Safe Harbor Counseling, Inc.

25. South Florida CLUW chapter

26. The Haven of RCS

27. University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic

28. UNO Immigration Ministry

29. West Pinellas National Organization for Women

30. Women's Center of Jacksonville

31. Women's Production Network, Inc.

32. YWCA Palm Beach County

Georgia

1. 9to5 Atlanta

2. 9to5 Atlanta Working Women

3. Angels Recovery & Spirituality

4. Atlanta Women's Center

5. C.O.T.T.A.G.E.Life Coaching, LLC

6. Caminar Latino, Inc.

7. Center for Pan Asian Community Services, Inc

8. Cherokee Family Violence Center

9. Defying the Odds, Inc

10. Faith House, Inc.

11. Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence

12. Georgia Mountain Women's Center, Inc.

13. Georgia Rural Urban Summit

14. Hospitality House for Women, Inc.

15. International Women's House

16. Jewish Family & Career Services, Atlanta, Georgia

17. Northwest Georgia Family Crisis Center

18. PADV Partnership Against Domestic Violence

19. Raksha, Inc

20. Ruth's Cottage

21. Safe Shelter

22. Sankofa Counseling Center

23. Sexual Assault Center of NWGA

24. Shalom Bayit Program of Jewish Family & Career Services

25. SpeakOut Georgia LBGT Anti-Violence

26. Support in Abusive Family Emergencies, Inc (S.A.F.E.)

27. Victim Services South Georgia Judicial Circuit

Guam

1. Guam Coalition Against Sexual Assault & Family Violence

Hawaii

2. AARP Chapter 60 Waikiki

3. AAUW, Honolulu women's coalition, others

4. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Hawaii Section

5. Breasffeeding Hawaii

6. Catholic Charities Hawaii

7. Catholic Charities Hawaii

8. Child & Family Service--Hawaii

9. Community Alliance on Prisons

10. Domestic Violence Action Center Honolulu

11. Hawai'i Women's Coalition

12. Hawaii Commission on the Status of Women

13. Hawaii Rehabilitation Counseling Assoc.

14. Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

15. Hawaii State Democratic Women's Caucus

16. Moloka'i Community Service Council

17. Parents And Children Together, A Family Service Agency

18. The Sex Abuse Treatment Center

19. Women Helping Women Lanai

20. YWCA Kauai

21. YWCA O'ahu

Idaho

1. Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence

2. Idaho State Independent Living Council

3. Native Women's Coalition, Boise

4. United Action for Idaho

5. YWCA Lewiston-Clarkston

Iowa

1. Aging Resources

2. Center for Creative Justice

3. Centers Against Abuse & Sexual Assault

4. Crisis Center & Women's Shelter

5. Crisis Intervention & Advocacy Center

6. Des Moines NOW

7. DIAA/CSD

8. Domestic Violence Alternatives/Sexual Assault Center,

Inc.

9. Domestic Violence Intervention Program, Iowa

10. Family Resources

11. Iowa Citizen Action Network

12. Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence

13. Latinas Unidas por un Nuevo Amanecer (LUNA, Iowa)

14. Mid-Iowa SART

15. Monsoon United Asian Women of Iowa

16. Nisaa African Women's Project

17. Riverview Center

18. Rural Iowa Crisis Center

19. Seeds of Hope

Illinois

1. A Safe Place Domestic Violence Shelter

2. ADV & SAS

3. Apna Ghar, Inc. (``Our Home'')

4. Arab American Family Services

5. Between Friends--Chicago

6. Center on Halsted

7. Christ United Methodist Church, Rockford,IL

8. Citizen Action/Illinois

9. Crisis Center for South Suburbia

10. DuPage County NOW

11. Family Rescue, Inc.

12. Family Shelter Service

13. GLOBES

14. Guardian Angel Community Services

15. Hamdard Center for Health and Human services

16. HEART Women & Girls

17. Hearts of Hope

18. HOPE of East Central Illinois

19. Hospira

20. Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence

21. Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault

22. Illinois National Organization for Women

23. Jewish Child and Family Services

24. Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago

25. Kankakee County Center Against Sexual Assault (KC-CASA)

26. Mercer County Family Crisis Center

27. Metropolitan Family Services

28. Mujeres Latinas en Accion

29. Mutual Ground, Inc.

30. National Council of Jewish Women Illinois State Policy

Advocacy Committee

31. Prairie Center Against Sexual Assault

32. Rainbow House Domestic Abuse Services, Inc.

33. Rape Victim Advocates

34. Riverview Center

35. Rockford Sexual Assault Counseling

36. Safe Harbor Family Crisis Center

37. Sarah's Inn

38. Sexual Health Peers of the University of Illinois

39. Sojourn Shelter & Services, Inc

40. South Suburban Family Shelter

41. Streamwood Police Department

42. The Center for Prevention of Abuse

43. Vermilion County Rape Crisis Center

44. Violence Prevention Center of Southestem IL

45. Violence Prevention Center of Southwestern IL

46. VOICE Sexual Assault Services

47. VOICES DV Stephenson County

48. WINGS Program, Inc.

49. WIRC-CAA Victim Services

50. YWCA Elgin

51. YWCA Evanston North Shore

52. YWCA Kankakee

53. YWCA McLean County

54. YWCA Metropolitan Chicago

55. YWCA Rockford

56. YWCA Sauk Valley

57. Zacharias Sexual Abuse Center

Indiana

1. Alcohol and Addictions Resource Center

2. Franciscan Physician Alliance

3. Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence

4. Indiana Legal Services Organization

5. Legal Aid--District 11

6. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Indianapolis

Chapter

7. Peace Over Violence

8. Praxis Advisors

Kansas

1. Family Life Center of Butler County

2. Harvey County DV/SA Task Force, Inc

3. Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence

4. SAFEHOME, Kansas

5. SKIL Resource Center Inc.

Kentucky

1. Barren River Area Safe Space, Inc.

2. Bethany House Abuse Shelter, Inc.

3. Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program

4. Center for Women and Families

5. Doves of Gateway

6. Hope's Place

7. Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs

8. Kentucky NOW

9. Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

10. Kentucky Domestic Violence Association

11. MensWork: eliminating violence against women, inc

12. Safe Harbor of NE KY

13. The Center for Women and Families

14. The Mary Byron Project

15. UAW 862

16. University of Louisville PEACC Program

17. Women's Crisis Center

Louisiana

1. Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse of NW LA

2. Jeff Davis Communities Against Domestic Abuse CADA

3. LGBT Community Center of New Orleans

4. Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence

5. Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault

6. Louisiana NOW

7. National Council of Jewish Women, Louisiana State Policy

Advocacy Chair

8. New Orleans Family Justice Center

9. New Orleans NOW

10. Project Celebration Inc.

Maine

1. Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

2. Maine People's Alliance

3. NCJW, Southern Maine Section

4. New Hope For Women

5. Safe Passage

6. Spruce Run Association

7. YWCA MDI

Maryland

1. A Woman's Place

2. Anne Arundel County NOW

3. Baltimore Jewish Council

4. Circle of Hope

5. Clearinghouse on Women's Issues

6. Collaborative Project of Maryland

7. Downtown Bethesda Condo Assn

8. Family Crisis Center, Inc.

9. Family Crisis Services

10. First Step, Inc.

11. Global Connections

12. Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer

13. La Voz Latina

14. Maryland Commission for Women

15. Maryland National Organization for Women

16. Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

17. Men On The Move

18. Minara Fellowship

19. Montgomery County Commission for Women

20. Nursing Students for Reproductive Health and Justice at

Johns Hopkins University

21. Parent-Child Center

22. Progressive Maryland

23. Ryan Immigration Law

24. SAFE Harbor Inc.

25. Safe Journey

26. SafeCenter

27. Woman's Place

28. YWCA Greater Baltimore

Massachusetts

1. Aging and Disability Resource Consortium of the Greater

North Shore (ADRCGNS)

2. Boston Area Rape Crisis Center

3. Boston University Civil Litigation Program

4. Broward Women's Emergency Fund

5. Cape Organization for Rights of the Disabled

6. Coalition for Social Justice

7. Everywoman's Center

8. Greater Boston Legal Services, Inc.

9. Independent Living Center of the North Shore & Cape Ann,

Inc.

10. Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against

Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence

11. Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center

12. Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)

13. MataHari: Eye of the Day

14. Men's Resources International

15. Safe Havens Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic

Violence

16. The Network/La Red

17. The Second Step

18. Turning Point, Inc.

19. YWCA Malden

20. YWCA Western MA

Michigan

1. ACCESS Social Services

2. Cadillac Area OASIS/Family Resource Center

3. Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Michigan

4. Detroit Minds and Hearts

5. Domestic And Sexual Abuse Services, MI

6. EVE (End Violent Encounters)

7. HAVEN--Live Without Fear

8. Islamic Association of Greater Detroit

9. Michigan Citizen Action

10. Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence

11. Michigan Muslim Community Council, United Way for

Southeastern Michigan

12. Muslim Community of Western Suburbs

13. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Detroit Chapter

14. National Council of Jewish Women, MI State Policy

Advocate Chair

15. SASHA Center

16. Shelters, Inc.

17. The Center for Women in Transition

18. The Underground Railroad, Inc.

19. U of M-Dearborn Student Philanthropy Council

20. Wayne County Chapter, National Organization for Women

21. Wayne State University

22. Women's Aid Service, Inc.

23. Women's Resource Center for the Grand Traverse Area

24. YWCA Greater Flint

25. YWCA Kalamazoo

26. YWCA West Central Michigan

Minnesota

1. Anna Marie's Alliance

2. Battered Women's Legal Advocacy Project

3. Bridges to Safety

4. Center for Policy Planning and Performance

5. Central MN Sexual Assault Center

6. Committee Against Domestic Abuse, Inc.

7. Cornerstone Advocacy Service MN

8. Day One of Cornerstone

9. Domestic Abuse Project

10. First Nations Coalition, Moorhead

11. Hands of Hope Resource Center

12. HOPE Center

13. Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota

14. Jewish Community Action

15. Mending the Sacred Hoop

16. Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault

17. Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women

18. Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center

19. Minnesota NOW

20. New Hope for Women

21. OutFront Minnesota

22. Pathways of West Central MN, Inc.

23. Pearl Crisis Center

24. Program for Aid to Victims of Sexual Assault

25. Range Women Advocates of Minnesota

26. Safe Haven

27. SARA-Goodhue SMART

28. SCSU Women's Center

29. Sexual Assault Program of Beltrami, Cass & Hubbard

Counties

30. The People's Press Project

31. Volunteer Lawyers Network

32. WINDOW Victim Services

33. Women's Business Development Center

Mississippi

1. Jackson Engineering Womens League (JEWL)

2. Jackson NOW

3. Mississippi Coalition Against Domestic Violence

4. Mississippi NOW

5. Mississippi Women Are Representing (WAR)

6. Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

7. MS Coalition Against Sexual Assault

8. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Northeast

Mississippi Chapter

9. Rape Crisis Center, Catholic Charities, Inc.

Missouri

1. Buchanan County Prosecutor's Office

2. Kansas City Anti-Violence Project

3. Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault

(MOCSA)

4. Missouri NOW

5. Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition

6. Missouri Women's Network

7. National Council of Jewish Women--St. Louis Section

8. National Council of Jewish Women, Missouri State Policy

Advocacy Chair

9. YWCA St. Joseph (MO)

Montana

1. Domestic and Sexual Violence Services (DSVS) of Carbon

County Montana

2. DSVS Red Lodge, MT

3. Ft. Belknap Domestic Violence Program

4. HAVEN

5. Missoula County Crime Victim Advocate Program

6. Missoula County Department of Grants and Community

Programs

7. Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

8. Montana National Organization for Women

9. Montana Native Women's Coalition

10. Montana State Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual

Violence

11. NARAL Pro-Choice Montana

12. Red Lodge DSVS

13. Three Rivers Defense

14. Violence Free Crisis Line/Abbie Shelter

15. YWCA Missoula

Nebraska

1. Family Violence Council

2. National Organization for Women--Nebraska

3. Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition

4. Winnebago Domestic Violence Program

5. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Domestic Violence

Intervention Family Preservation Program

Nevada

1. Clark County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance

Center

2. Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence

3. S.A.F.E. House, NV

4. Safe Nest

5. Sexual Assault Response Advocates, Inc.

6. Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevadans

New Hampshire

1. Bridges: Domestic & Sexual Violence Support

2. Crisis Center of Central New Hampshire

3. New Beginnings Without Violence and Abuse

4. New Hampshire Citizens Alliance for Action

5. New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual

Violence

6. Sexual Assault Support Services

7. Starting Point: Services for Victims of Domestic &

Sexual Violence

8. Support Center at Burch House

9. Voices Against Violence

New Jersey

1. Center for Family Services SERV

2. Cherry Hill Women's Center

3. Coalition Against Rape and Abuse, Inc.

4. CWA 1032

5. Greater NJ CLUW

6. IFPTE Local 194, AFL-CIO

7. Manavi

8. Morris County Sexual Assault Center

9. National Council of Jewish Women Concordia Section NJ

10. National Council of Jewish Women, Jersey Hills Section

11. National Council of Jewish Women, New Jersey State

Policy Advocacy Network

12. Nat'l Council of Jewish Women, Central Jersey Section

13. New Jersey Citizen Action

14. New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault

15. New Jersey Tenants Organization

16. NJ Coalition for Battered Women

17. NJ State Industrial Union Council

18. Partners for Women and Justice

19. Safe in Hunterdon

20. South Jersey NOW--Alice Paul Chapter

21. St. Francis Counseling Service

22. UFCW, Local 888

23. Unchained At Last

24. Womanspace, Inc.

25. Women of Color and Allies Essex County NOW Chapter

26. Youth Development Clinic

27. YWCA Bergen County

28. YWCA Central New Jersey

29. YWCA Eastern Union County

30. YWCA Princeton

31. YWCA Trenton

New Mexico

1. Arise Sexual Assault Services

2. Center for Nonviolent Communication

3. Center of Protective Environment, Inc. (COPE)

4. Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women,

Albuquerque

5. Community Against Violence, Inc.

6. Enlace Comunitario

7. Gila Regional Medical Center SANE

8. New Mexico Asian Family Center

9. New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence

10. New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Inc.

11. New Mexico NOW

12. New Mexico Voices for Children

13. New Mexico Women's Agenda

14. SANE of Otero & Lincoln County

15. Sexual Assault Services of NW New Mexico

16. Silver Regional Sexual Assault Support Services

17. Solace Crisis Treatment Center

18. Southern New Mexico Human Development, INC

19. Southwest Counseling Center

20. Taos SANE at Holy Cross Hospital

21. Tewa Women United, Santa Cruz

22. Valencia Counseling Service Inc.

New York

1. African Services Committee

2. Albany Law School

3. Arab American Association of New York

4. BIBLE FELLOWSHIP PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY OF NY INC.

5. Catholic Charities of Chenango County

6. Citizen Action of New York

7. Committee on the Status of Women

8. COPO (COUNCIL OF PEOPLE ORGANIZATION)

9. Crime Victim and Sexual Violence Center

10. Crime Victim Center of Erie County

11. CWA 1032

12. Domestic Harmony

13. Fordham Prep School

14. Hispanic United of Buffalo

15. In Our Own Voices

16. Legal Aid Society of Rochester, Inc.

17. Liberty House of Albany, Inc.

18. Local 301

19. Los Ninos Services INC

20. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Long Island

Chapter

21. National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Rochester

Section

22. Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence

23. National Council of Jewish Women NY

24. National Council of Jewish Women, Westbury

25. National Organization for Women--New York City

26. National Organization for Women New York State Young

Feminist Task Force

27. National Organization for Women, Greater Rochester

Chapter

28. National Organization for Women, NYC

29. New York Board of Rabbis

30. New York City Anti-Violence Project

31. New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

32. New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault

33. Safe Homes of Orange County

34. SAFER--Survivors Advocating For Effective Reform

35. Sanctuary for Families

36. SEPA Mujer

37. Sojourner House

38. The Family Center

39. Turning Point for Women and Families

40. Unity House of Troy

41. Vera House, Inc.

42. VIBS Family Violence and Rape Crisis Center

43. Victim Resource Center of the Finger Lakes, Inc.

44. Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk

45. Violence Intervention Program

46. Women In Need

47. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center--Violence Intervention

and Treatment Program

48. YWCA Adirondack Foothills

49. YWCA Binghamton & Broome County

50. YWCA Brooklyn

51. YWCA City of New York

52. YWCA Cortland

53. YWCA Elmira & The Twin Tiers

54. YWCA Genesee County

55. YWCA Jamestown

56. YWCA Mohawk Valley

57. YWCA New York City

58. YWCA Niagra

59. YWCA Orange County

60. YWCA Queens

61. YWCA Rochester & Monroe County

62. YWCA Schenectady

63. YWCA Syracuse & Onondaga County

64. YWCA Tonawandas

65. YWCA Troy-Cohoes

66. YWCA Ulster County

67. YWCA Western New York

68. YWCA White Plains/Westchester

69. YWCA Yonkers

North Carolina

1. Charlotte NOW

2. Chrysalis Network

3. Crisis Council, Inc.

4. Families Living Violence Free

5. Family Crisis Council

6. Family Service of the Piedmont

7. Mitchell County SafePlace Inc

8. Muslim American Society of Charlotte

9. National Organization for Women, Fayetteville, NC

10. National Organization for Women, North Carolina Chapter

11. National Organization for Women, Raleigh Chapter

12. NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault

13. North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence

14. OASIS, Inc.

15. YWCA Central Carolinas

North Dakota

1. First Nations Women's Alliance

2. ND Council on Abused Women's Services

3. Spirit Lake Victim Assistance

Ohio

1. Abuse & Rape Crisis Shelter, Warren County

2. Abuse Prevention Council

3. Artemis Center

4. Asha-Ray of Hope

5. Belmont Community Hospital

6. Cleveland Rape Crisis Center

7. COMPASS Rape Crisis

8. Every Woman's House

9. Forbes House

10. Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati

11. Islamic Education Council

12. Mount Carmel Crime & Trauma Assistance Program

13. Muslim Mothers Against Violence

14. National Coalition of 100 Black Women Central Ohio

Chapter

15. Nirvana Now!

16. Ohio NOW

17. Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence

18. Ohio Domestic Violence Network

19. OhioHealth

20. Open Arms Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis Services

21. Otterbein University

22. ProgressOhio

23. Rape Crisis Center of Medina and Summit Counties

24. Salaam Cleveland

25. Sexual Abuse Prevention Awareness Treatment Healing

Coalition of NWO

26. Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio

27. Sinclair Community College--Domestic Violence Task

Force

28. Someplace Safe

29. The Domestic Violence Shelter, Inc. Richland County,

Ohio

30. The SAAFE Center (rape crisis center)

31. The Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio

32. Trumbull County Democratic Women's Caucus

33. Upper Ohio Valley Sexual Assault Help Center

34. Violence Free Coalition

35. West Ohio Annual Conference Team on Domestic Violence &

Human Trafficking

36. WomenSafe

37. YWCA Dayton

38. YWCA Greater Cincinnati

39. YWCA Hamilton

40. YWCA Youngstown

Oklahoma

1. Community Crisis Center of Northeast Oklahoma

2. Family Crisis & Counseling Center, Inc.

3. Family Shelter of Southern Oklahoma

4. Native Alliance Against Violence, Oklahoma City

5. OK Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault

6. Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault

7. Tulsa Immigrant Resource Network, University of Tulsa

College of Law

8. Univ. of Tulsa College of Law

9. YWCA Oklahoma City

10. YWCA Tulsa

Oregon

1. Clackamas Women's Services

2. Jackson County SART

3. Mary's Place Supervised Visitation & Safe Exchange

Center

4. OCADSV

5. Oregon Action

6. Portland Store Fixtures

7. Saving Grace

8. VOA Oregon--Home Free

Pennsylvania

1. Alice Paul House

2. Alle-Kiski Area HOPE Center, Inc.

3. Alliance Against Domestic Abuse

4. Berks Women in Crisis

5. Bloomsburg University

6. Bucks County NOW

7. Bucks County Women's Advocacy Coalition

8. Business & Professional Women's Federation of

Pennsylvania

9. CAPSEA, Inc.

10. Centre Co. Women's Resource Center

11. Clinton County Women's Center

12. Crime Victims Center of Fayet County

13. Crime Victims Council of the Lehigh Valley, Inc.

14. Domestic Violence Center of Chester County

15. Franklin/Fulton Women In Need

16. HIAS Pennsylvania

17. International Association of Counselors & Therapists

18. Just Harvest

19. Keystone Progress

20. Laurel-House

21. Libertae, Inc.

22. Ni-Ta-Nee NOW

23. Northeast Williamsport NOW

24. Pa Democratic State Committee, Elected Member

25. PA Immigrant & Refugee Women's Network (PAIRWN)

26. PathWays PA

27. PCADV

28. Penn Action

29. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

30. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

31. Pennsylvania Council of Churches

32. Pennsylvania NOW

33. Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women

34. Philadelphia Women's Center

35. Safehouse Crisis Center, Inc.

36. Soroptimist International of Bucks County

37. Squirrel Hill NOW

38. Survivors Inc

39. Susquehanna County Victim Services

40. The Abuse Network

41. The Women's Center, Inc. of Columbia/Montour Counties

42. Victim Services Inc.

43. Wise Options/YWCA Northcentral PA

44. Women Against Abuse

45. Women In Transition

46. Women Services Inc.

47. Women's Law Project

48. Women's Resource Center

49. Women's Services, Inc

50. WOMEN'S WAY

51. YWCA Bradford

52. YWCA Dutchess County

53. YWCA Lancaster

54. YWCA Northcentral PA/Wise Options

55. YWCA Victims' Resource Center

56. YWCA York

Rhode Island

1. DVRCSC

2. National Council of Women RI

3. Ocean State Action

4. Olneyville Neighborhood Association

5. Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence

6. Rhode Island NOW

7. The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health

8. Turning Point

9. Women's Medical Center of Rhode Island

South Carolina

1. Appleseed Legal Justice Center

2. Safe Harbor

3. Sexual Assault Counseling and Information Service

4. South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and

Sexual Assault

South Dakota

1. South Dakota Coalition Ending Domestic & Sexual Violence

2. Native American Community Board, Lake Andres

3. Native Women's Society of the Great Plains, Timber Lake

4. White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, Mission

5. Wiconi Wawokiya, Inc., Fort Thompson

6. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

7. Oglala Sioux Tribe Victim Services

Tennessee

1. Abuse Alternatives, Inc.

2. Local 365

3. Muslim Community of Knoxville

4. National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Chattanooga

Chapter

5. Tennessee Citizen Action

6. Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence

7. United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.

8. YWCA Nashville & Middle Tennessee

Texas

1. American Gateways

2. Artemis Justice Center

3. Casa de Esperanza

4. Casa de Proyecto Libertad

5. Catholic Charities of Dallas

6. Citizens Against Violence, Inc.

7. Concho Valley Rape Crisis Center

8. Daya Inc.

9. Fort Bend County Women's Center

10. Harris County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

11. Hospitality House, INC.

12. Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, Inc.

13. Islamic Association of the Mid-Cities

14. Montrose Counseling Center

15. National Council of Jewish Women, Texas State Policy

Advocacy Network

16. New Beginning Center

17. North Dallas Chapter of the National Organization for

Women

18. Our Lady. Of the Lake University

19. Promise House, Inc.

20. Refugio del Rio Grande

21. SafePlace

22. Sam Houston State University

23. Sexual Assault Resource Center of the Brazos Valley

24. Sun City Democratic Club

25. Sun City/West Valley NOW

26. Texas Council on Family Violence

27. Texas Muslim Women's Foundation

28. The Family Place, Dallas TX

29. Travis County Attorney's Office

30. TX Association Against Sexual Assault

31. Women's Shelter of South Texas

32. YWCA Fort Worth & Tarrant County

U.S. Virgin Islands

1. Women's Coalition of St. Croix

Utah

1. Enriching Utah Coalition

2. Holy Cross Ministries

3. Icarus Group

4. Latin American Chamber of Commerce of Salt Lake City

5. National Council of Jewish Women Utah State Policy

Advocacy Chair

6. NCJW, Utah Section

7. PERRETTA LAW OFFICE

8. Salt Lake Family Health Center

9. Utah Assistive Technology Foundation

10. Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault

11. Utah Domestic Violence Council

12. Utah Women's Lobby

13. West Valley City Victim Services

14. YWCA Salt Lake City

Vermont

1. Circle--VT

2. Clarina Howard Nichols Center

3. Finding Our Voices

4. RU12 Community Center

5. Vermont Center for Independent Living

6. Vermont Council on Domestic Violence

7. Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

8. Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

9. Voices Against Violence/Laurie's House

Virginia

1. American Postal Workers Union

2. Center For Behavioral Change, P.C.

3. Domestic Violence Action Center

4. DOVES of Big Bear Valley, Inc

5. Dream Project Inc.

6. Fredericksburg NOW

7. Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies

8. NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia

9. National Organization for Women, Alexandria, VA Chapter

10. National Organization for Women, Virginia Chapter

11. Prince George's Crime Victim's Fund

12. S.H.A.R.E., Inc.

13. Transitions

14. Trinity Episcopal Church

15. Virginia Anti-Violence Project

16. Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance

17. YWCA Central Virginia

18. YWCA DVPC

19. YWCA Greater Harrisburg

Washington

1. African Communities Network

2. ALLYSHIP

3. API Chaya

4. Cambodian Women Networking Association

5. Compass Housing Alliance

6. CIELO Project

7. King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence

8. LGO Consulting

9. Local 242

10. Lummi Nation Victims of Crime Program

11. National Council of Jewish Women, Seattle Section

12. National Council of Jewish Women, Washington State

Policy Advocacy Chair

13. Navos Mental Health Solutions

14. NCJW Seattle section

15. New Beginnings

16. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

17. Seattle NOW

18. Support, Advocacy & Resource Center

19. Tacoma Women of Vision NGO

20. WA State National Organization for Women

21. Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

22. Washington Community Action Network

23. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

24. Women Spirit Coalition, Olympia

25. YWCA Bellingham

26. YWCA Clark County

27. YWCA Kitsap County

28. YWCA Pierce County

29. YWCA Seattle/King/Snohomish

30. YWCA Spokane

31. YWCA Walla Walla

32. YWCA Yakima

33. Zonta Club of Yakima Valley

West Virginia

1. Branches Domestic Violence Shelter, Inc.

2. CHANGE Inc./The Lighthouse

3. CONTACT Huntington

4. Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG)

5. Family Crisis Intervention Center

6. Family Refuge Center

7. Kanawha County Victim Services Center

8. Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living

9. Rape & Domestic Violence Information Center, Inc.

10. Rape and Domestic Violence Information Center

11. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc.

12. West Virginia Citizen Action Group

13. West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence

14. West Virginia Foundation for Rape Information and

Services

15. Women's Aid in Crisis

16. WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence

17. WV NOW

18. YWCA Charleston WV

19. YWCA Wheeling

Wisconsin

1. 9to5 Milwaukee

2. American Indians Against Abuse

3. Asha Family Services, Inc.

4. Beloit Domestic Violence Center

5. Bolton Refuge House, Inc.

6. Bridge to Hope

7. Center Against Sexual & Domestic Abuse, Inc.

8. Citizen Action of Wisconsin

9. Community Immigration Law Center

10. Daystar, Inc.

11. DCY Dubuque Domestic Violence Program

12. Golden House

13. Green Haven Family Advocates

14. Harbor House Domestic Abuse Programs

15. HELP of Door County, Inc.

16. Hmong American Women's Association

17. Hope House of South Central Wisconsin

18. IndependenceFirst

19. Jewish Community Relations Council, Milwaukee Jewish

Federation

20. Manitowoc County Domestic Violence Center

21. New Horizons Shelter and Outreach Centers, Inc.

22. People Against Domestic and Sexual Abuse (PADA)

23. People Against Violent Environment

24. Personal Development Center, Inc.

25. Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

26. Red Cliff Family Violence Prevention Program

27. Safe Harbor of Sheboygan County, Inc.

28. Sojourner Family Peace Center

29. St. Agnes Hospital Domestic Violence Program

30. The Bridge to Hope

31. The Women's Center, Inc.

32. Tri-County Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault, Inc.

33. Tri-County Mental Health and Counseling

34. Tri-Valley Haven

35. UNIDOS Against Domestic Violence

36. United Migrant Opportunity Services

37. Uniting Three Fires Against Domestic Violence, Saulte

Ste. Marie

38. Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence

39. Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault

40. Wisconsin Coalition of Independent Living Centers

41. Wisconsin Community Fund

42. Wisconsin NOW

43. Women and Children's Horizons

44. YWCA Greater Milwaukee

45. YWCA Green Bay

46. YWCA Madison

47. YWCA Rock County

48. YWCA Southeast Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. Gillette Abuse Refuge Foundation

2. Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault

3. Sacred Shield dv/sa program

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the former chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution on the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a number of letters from advocacy and nonprofit groups in opposition to the House substitute and in support of the Senate-passed bill.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Has Broad

National Support

More than 1400 local, state, tribal, and national

organizations have expressed their strong support for passage

of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011

(S.47), including national service providers and victim

advocates, law enforcement organizations, and faith-based

organizations.

Victim Service Providers and Advocates

9 to 5, National Association of Working Women

Alianza-National Latino Alliance to End Domestic Violence

Alternatives to Family Violence

American Bar Association

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence

American Medical Association

Americans Overseas Domestic Crisis Center

Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence

ASISTA Immigration Assistance

Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies

Break the Cycle

Casa de Esperanza: National Latino Network for Healthy

Families and Communities

Daughters of Penelope

Futures Without Violence (formerly the Family Violence

Prevention Fund)

Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American

Community

Jewish Women International

Legal Momentum

Men Can Stop Rape

Men's Resources International

National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators

National-Alliance to End Sexual Violence National Center

for Victims of Crime

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

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 Dating Abuse Hotline

National Domestic Violence Hotline

National Network to End Domestic Violence

National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual

Assault (SCESA)

National Organization for Women

National Organization of Asian Pacific Islanders Ending

Sexual Violence

National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual

Assault

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

Nursing Network on Violence Against Women International

Rape Abuse and Incest National Network

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, to close the debate on our side.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, as I stand under the ``E Pluribus Unum,'' I pray that this body will do as the Senate has done and come together as one to protect all women from violence.

As I think about the LGBT victims that are not here, the native women that are not here, the immigrants who are not included in this bill, I would say, as Sojourner Truth would say, Ain't they women? They deserve protections. And we talk about the constitutional rights. Don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? Ain't they women?

Once again we stand at an important moment in history, when the House stands poised to choose between the Republican ``alternative'' to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the bipartisan, comprehensive Senate bill.

We can choose the real VAWA--which is the Senate bill--that will take positive steps towards ensuring the safety of all women. Or we can choose the House GOP VAWA bill. Now this bill may look good on the surface, bearing the same bill number as the Senate bill. But it is really a wolf in sheep's clothing and would exclude victims and weaken the strong, bipartisan Senate bill.

The choice is ours to make, and the choice is clear.

It pains me to say that House Republicans took the Senate bill, which received such a strong bipartisan vote--winning the support of all Democrats, all female Senators, and a majority of Republicans--and transformed it into something nearly unrecognizable.

I have been a proud sponsor of the House version of the Senate bill-- H.R. 11--and it has truly been rewarding to work to advance this legislation in the House. This bill reflects years upon years of analysis and best practices, and input from law enforcement, victims, service providers, and many more.

But beyond the updates that have been recommended by the experts--the Senate bill is meaningful to me because of the people it will allow us to reach. I know how it feels to survive a traumatic experience and not have access to services. It is simply heart-breaking to think that every day we delay, there are women, and men, across this country who have nowhere to turn.

The Senate version of the VAWA bill, which we will thankfully have the opportunity to consider on the House floor today, would be the one that actually offers hope--to: LGBT victims, tribal victims, women on college campuses, immigrants, rape survivors waiting for justice, and human trafficking victims.

The Republican alternative, on the other hand, is a shadow of the bill these victims need.

I have a number of concerns about the House alternative. Several of the advocacy groups have determined that this legislation rolls back existing protections for victims, much like the bill we considered last year here in the House.

But I'm also concerned about the reality that this House bill further marginalizes the most vulnerable populations of victims. It amazes me, that my Republican colleagues would rather be exclusive than inclusive.

The House bill removes protections for LGBT victims, who face domestic and sexual violence at rates equal to or greater than the rest of us, but who often face barriers to receiving services. Are LGBT women not worthy of protection?

The House bill fails to offer meaningful protections for tribal victims, though domestic violence in tribal communities is an epidemic. Are tribal women not worthy of protection?

The House bill does not include protections for our students on college campuses, though we know that college campuses--which are supposed to be the site of learning and transformation and personal growth--are all too often the site of horrifying assaults against vulnerable young women. Are our young college women students not worthy of protection?

The House bill removes the human trafficking legislation that passed with the support of a whopping 93 Senators. Are we unwilling to protect our women who are being sold throughout this country and abroad like chattel? Are they not worthy of protection?

The House bill is weaker in almost every way, for every group of victims. They even pared down the pieces that have not gained much attention, perhaps assuming we wouldn't notice--like the housing protections that allow victims of violence to quickly get out of dangerous homes and into homes that will keep them safe from further abuse and harm.

Implementing the House GOP VAWA bill would set the plight of women and our country as a whole back indefinitely. But we have a choice and the right choice would be to support the strong, bipartisan Senate version of VAWA--S. 47.

S. 47, the Senate bill. The Senate bill:

Renews successful programs such as STOP Grants and Transitional Housing Assistance Grants, legal assistance for victims, and many others that have helped law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim service providers assist women in need and hold perpetrators accountable.

Includes a new focus on sexual assault--due to the ongoing reality of inadequate reporting, enforcement, and services for victims--including a requirement that STOP grant recipients set aside 20 percent of their funds for sexual assault-related programs.

Includes new tools and best practices for reducing homicide by training law enforcement, victims service providers, and court personnel to intervene more effectively and quickly when they connect with higher-risk victims.

And, of course, the bill improves protections for immigrant survivors, Native American women, and LGBT victims.

As we have debated this bill over the past year or so, I have felt like I was in the Twilight Zone. Some alternate reality, where the passage of a bill; a bill that is supposed to protect all women; a bill that not too long ago would just seem like common sense; a bill that has previously enjoyed broad bipartisan support would be held up and watered down for purely partisan reasons. I found myself asking, ``when will it end?''

The answer to that question is that it ends today. Right now. It is time to put up or shut up. On behalf of all victims and survivors of sexual or domestic assault, I challenge all of my colleagues to make the right choice. We all know that the Senate bill is the real comprehensive Violence Against Women Legislation that will protect all women. And we must vote against the House GOP VAWA and pass the Senate version of VAWA now. Women won't wait any longer. Now is the time to show the people of this country that we value the lives of all women.

Why Section 904 of S. 47 Is Constitutional Under the Supreme Court's

Precedent in United States v. Lara

Based upon Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. Hrg. 112-489, at 129-34(2011) (responses to questions for the record of

Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General)

Section 904 of S. 47, the Senate-passed version of the

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, is

constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). In Lara, the

Supreme Court addressed a Federal statute providing that

Indian tribes' governmental powers include ``the inherent

power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to

exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians,'' including

Indians who are not members of the prosecuting tribe (i.e.,

``nonmember Indians''). Id. at 210 (appendix, quoting the

statute). The Court held generally that Congress has the

constitutional power to relax restrictions on the exercise of

tribes' inherent legal authority, id. at 196, and more

specifically that ``the Constitution authorizes Congress to

permit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal

authority, to prosecute nonmember Indians,'' id. at 210.

The Senate VAWA reauthorization bill, S. 47, uses language

that is nearly identical to the statutory language at issue

in Lara: Specifically, Section 904 of the Senate bill

provides that a tribe's governmental powers

``include the inherent power of that tribe, which is hereby

recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic

violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons,'' including

non-Indians. As Lara strongly suggests, Congress has the

constitutional authority to enact this statute.

The central question raised in Lara was whether Congress

has the constitutional power to recognize Indian tribes'

``inherent'' authority to prosecute nonmembers. The Court's

conclusion that Congress did indeed have this power under the

Federal Constitution rested on six considerations, all of

which apply to Section 904 of the Senate bill as well:

(1) ``the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers

to legislate in respect to Indian tribes,'' id. at 200;

(2) ``Congress, with this Court's approval, has interpreted

the Constitution's `plenary' grants of power as authorizing

it to enact legislation that both restricts and, in turn,

relaxes those restrictions on tribal sovereign authority,''

id. at 202;

(3) ``Congress' statutory goal--to modify the degree of

autonomy enjoyed by a dependent sovereign that is not a

State--is not an unusual legislative objective,'' id. at 203;

(4) there is ``no explicit language in the Constitution

suggesting a limitation on Congress' institutional authority

to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty previously

imposed by the political branches,'' id. at 204;

(5) ``the change at issue here is a limited one, . . .

[largely concerning] a tribe's authority to control events

that occur upon the tribe's own land,'' id.; and

(6) the Court's ``conclusion that Congress has the power to

relax the restrictions imposed by the political branches on

the tribes' inherent prosecutorial authority is consistent

with [the Supreme Court's] earlier cases,'' id. at 205.

Each of these six considerations also applies to Section

904 of the Senate bill. That is self-evident for the first

four of those six considerations.

As to the fifth consideration, like the statute at issue in

Lara, Section 904 of the Senate bill would effectuate only a

limited change. Section 904 would touch only those criminal

acts that occur in the Indian country of the prosecuting

tribe and therefore would not cover off-reservation crimes.

Section 904 would affect only those crimes that have Indian

victims. Tribal courts could not try cases involving only

non-Indians. Unlike the statute at issue in Lara, which

covered all types of crimes, Section 904 is narrowly focused

on a particular subset of crimes: those involving domestic

violence, crimes of dating violence, and criminal violations

of protection orders. The term ``domestic violence'' is

expressly defined in Section 904 to deal with violence

committed by the victim's current or former spouse, by a

person with whom the victim shares a child in common, or by a

person who is cohabiting or has cohabited with the victim as

a spouse. Similarly, Section 904 expressly defines the term

``dating violence'' to mean violence committed by a person

who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or

intimate nature with the victim, as determined by the length

of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the

frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the

relationship. Likewise, protection orders typically involve

spouses or intimate partners.

In combination, these three features of Section 904--being

limited to narrow categories of crimes such as domestic

violence and dating violence, the requirement that the crime

occurred in the prosecuting tribe's Indian country, and the

requirement that the victim be an Indian--will confine

prosecutions to conduct that seriously threatens Indians'

health and welfare and is committed by persons who, though

non-Indian, have entered into consensual relationships with

the tribe or its members. The paradigmatic example of a crime

covered by Section 904 would be an assault by a non-Indian

husband against his Indian wife in their home on the

reservation. Section 904 would not cover crimes involving two

non-Indians, two strangers, or two persons who lack ties to

the Indian tribe.

Section 904 is also limited in its impact on non-tribal

jurisdictions. Under Section 904, tribes would exercise

criminal jurisdiction concurrently, not exclusively. The Act

would not create or eliminate any Federal or State criminal

jurisdiction over Indian country. Nor would it affect the

authority of the United States or any State to investigate

and prosecute crimes in Indian country.

In most respects, then, Section 904 of the Senate bill is

far narrower than the statute upheld by the Supreme Court in

Lara.

As to the sixth consideration analyzed by the Lara Court,

concerning the Supreme Court's precedents, it is noteworthy

that in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191

(1978), the key precedent here, the Court suggested that

Congress has the constitutional authority to recognize and

thus restore Indian tribes' inherent power to exercise

criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Id. at 195 & n.6,

210-12. Indeed, the Oliphant Court expressly stated that the

increasing sophistication of tribal court systems, the Indian

Civil Rights Act's protection of defendants' procedural

rights, and the prevalence of non-Indian crime in Indian

country are all ``considerations for Congress to weigh in

deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized

to try non-Indians.'' Id. at 212.

As the Lara Court explained, the Oliphant decision ``did

not set forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congress

from changing the relevant legal circumstances, i.e., from

taking actions that modify or adjust the tribes' status.''

Lara, 541 U.S. at 205 (citing Oliphant, 435 U.S. at 209-10).

Oliphant ``make[s] clear that the Constitution does not

dictate the metes and bounds of tribal autonomy,'' and the

Federal courts should not ``second-guess the political

branches' own determinations'' about those metes and bounds.

Id. In short, under both Oliphant and Lara, it is

constitutional for ``Congress to change 'judicially made'

federal Indian law through [the] kind of legislation'' that

the Senate is currently considering. Id. at 207.

After analyzing the six considerations listed above and

concluding that Congress can recognize tribes' inherent

authority to prosecute nonmembers, the Court responded to

three ancillary arguments that Mr. Lara had raised. Each of

those arguments is also well addressed by Section 904 of the

Senate bill.

First, Mr. Lara argued that the Indian Civil Rights Act

does not protect an indigent defendant's constitutional right

to appointed counsel in cases imposing a term of

imprisonment. Id. at 207. But under the Senate bill, in any

case in which a term of imprisonment of any length may be

imposed, the tribe must provide to an indigent defendant--at

the tribe's expense--the effective assistance of a licensed

defense attorney at least equal to that guaranteed by the

United States Constitution.

Second, Mr. Lara argued that the statute at issue there

made ``all Indians'' subject to tribal prosecution while

excluding all non-Indians, which he claimed violated the

Equal Protection Clause. The Court did not address the

argument because it would not have altered the outcome of Mr.

Lara's case. But in any event, no such argument could be made

against Section 904 of the Senate bill, because Section 904

recognizes tribes' ``inherent power . . . to exercise special

domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons''

(emphasis added). So the plain text of this legislation,

unlike the statute at issue in Lara, does not distinguish

nonmember Indians from non-Indians.

Third, Mr. Lara argued that United States citizens cannot

be tried and convicted by a political body that does not

include them unless the citizens are provided all Federal

constitutional safeguards. This, too, is addressed in the

Senate bill. Under Section 904, a non-Indian citizen of the

United States would effectively have at least the same rights

in tribal court that he would have in state court. For

example, in any case involving imprisonment, the following

rights would all be protected:

The right not to be deprived of liberty or property without

due process of law.

The right to the equal protection of the tribe's laws.

The right against unreasonable search and seizures.

The right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same

tribal offense.

The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in

a criminal case.

The right to a speedy and public trial.

The right to a trial by a jury of not fewer than six

persons.

The right to a trial by an impartial jury that is drawn

from sources that reflect a fair cross-section of the

community and do not systematically exclude any distinctive

group in the community, including non-Indians.

The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation in a criminal case.

The right to be confronted with adverse witnesses.

The right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in

one's favor.

The right to have the assistance of defense counsel.

The right to effective assistance of counsel at least equal

to that guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The right of an indigent defendant to the assistance of a

licensed defense attorney at the tribe's expense.

The right to be tried before a judge with sufficient legal

training and who is licensed to practice law.

The rights against excessive bail, excessive fines, and

cruel and unusual punishments.

The right to access the tribe's criminal laws, rules of

evidence, and rules of criminal procedure.

The right to an audio or other recording of the trial

proceeding and a record of other criminal proceedings.

The right to petition a Federal court for a writ of habeas

corpus, to challenge the legality of one's detention by the

tribe.

The right to petition a Federal court to be released

pending resolution of the habeas corpus petition.

Finally, one last constitutional concern was aired in Lara,

although it was not discussed in the Court's majority

opinion. Writing only for himself, Justice Kennedy suggested

that the Constitution's structure, based as it is on ``a

theory of original, and continuing, consent of the

governed,'' forbids a tribe from prosecuting any U.S. citizen

who never consented to be subjected to the tribe's

jurisdiction. Lara, 541 U.S. at 212 (Kennedy, J., concurring

in the judgment). Of course, the majority of the Court in

Lara--including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the

Court's opinion in Oliphant--implicitly rejected Justice

Kennedy's view, since Mr. Lara himself was a U.S. citizen who

had never consented to be subjected to the jurisdiction of

the tribe that prosecuted him. Id.

Moreover, the majority correctly rejected Justice Kennedy's

originalist argument because most treaties that the United

States

entered into with Indian tribes between 1785 and 1795--that

is, both immediately before and immediately after the

drafting and ratification of the Constitution--expressly

provided for tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians

residing in Indian country. For example, the very first

Indian treaty ratified by the United States Senate under the

Federal Constitution--the 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot,

Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Sac Nations--

provided that, ``[i]f any person or persons, citizens or

subjects of the United States, or any other person not being

an Indian, shall presume to settle upon the lands confirmed

to the said [Indian tribal] nations, he and they shall be out

of the protection of the United States; and the said nations

may punish him or them in such manner as they see fit''

(emphasis added). Similar language appeared in the last

Indian treaty ratified before the Constitutional Convention--

the 1786 Treaty with the Shawnee Nation. It is difficult,

then, to say that allowing non-Indian citizens of the United

States to be tried and punished by Indian tribes for crimes

committed in Indian country is somehow contrary to the

Framers' understanding of the Constitution's design. Thus,

the Lara Court's holding that Indian tribes' status as

domestic dependent nations does not prevent Congress from

recognizing their inherent authority to prosecute nonmembers

is solidly grounded in our constitutional history. And with

Congress's express authorization, an Indian tribe can

prosecute a non-Indian U.S. citizen, regardless of whether he

has consented to the tribe's jurisdiction.

It is important to note that while the elements of Section

904 discussed above are more than sufficient to address the

considerations raised by the Lara Court, we do not mean to

suggest that each of these elements is required in order to

address these considerations.

Thank you, distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I've listened very carefully and very patiently to all of my colleagues in the House, and it seems that everyone in the Chamber is against violence against women. It's just which women we want to protect that remains the question.

For the last 18 months, it appears that I have lived in some sort of twilight zone, like that program on TV, ``Sliders,'' where there are alternate realities. This debate recalls that alternate reality when we hear support of the House amendment over the Senate amendment, and we hear that all women are protected.

For example, the Senate bill supports LGBT victims but the House bill strikes LGBT women as underserved communities. It also strikes the language that would have them as a protected group to not be discriminated against.

The distinguished floor leader has asked us to find areas in the legislation that are wanting, and I would submit that that is one area that is wanting.

The distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways that the substitute is wanting and the Senate bill is superior.

We give lip service to wanting to support tribal women. But when you stop and think about it, in 1978, the Supreme Court in the Oliphant case decided that Federal laws and policies divested tribes of criminal authority over non-Indians, and the substitute seeks to affirm that, even though that was modified and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lara, which said that, in fact, if this body voted, we could, in fact, confer upon Native Americans the authority to give--we have plenary power to enact legislation to relax restrictions on tribal sovereign authority, that we have the power to allow them to enforce domestic violence laws and rape laws on their land.

We so need it, Madam Speaker, because if you are a member of a tribe--say, for example, the Bad River Chippewa band of Chippewa in my State--and you are raped on native land, tribes don't have any authority over that perpetrator if he is a non-Indian, even if he's your husband. The local police in that area don't have any authority. The county sheriff doesn't have any authority. The State trooper can't come in and arrest him. The only person that has any authority over that non-Indiana is some Federal agent in Madison, Wisconsin, 500 miles away, which is why there has been a 67 percent declination of prosecutions of sexual assault.

Susanville Indian Rancheria,

Susanville, CA, February 4, 2013.

Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Susanville

Indian Rancheria to voice our strong support for S. 47, the

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013.

This bill will provide local tribal governments with the

long-needed control to combat acts of domestic violence

against Native women and children on Indian lands regardless

of the status of the offender.

The current justice system in place on Indian lands

handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who

abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court

decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of

consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their

families.

Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5

times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women

will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will

suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to

stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native

women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors

have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of

domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become

emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate,

often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National

Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates

found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered

at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47

will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all

offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.

While the problem of violence against Native women is

longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions

proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited

in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of

domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement

of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that work

or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a serious

relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S.

47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections

to abuse suspects who would be subject to the authority of

tribal courts.

In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous

consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July

27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure

under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47

are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to

misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader

range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required

under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling

that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly

tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns.

Such concerns are unfounded.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar

restoration of tribal government authority through an

amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this

authority, and Native women throughout the United States

desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded

similar access to justice that many others take for granted.

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest

Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based

crimes, made the following statement:

``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have

become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many

respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware

of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations

which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try

non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to

weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191,

211 (1978) (emphasis added).

This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction

on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal

communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come

for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored

measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far

in helping to prevent future acts of violence against Native

women nationwide. Thank you for again including these vital

provisions in your VAWA Reauthorization.

Sincerely,

Mr. Stacy Dixon,

Tribal Chairman.

Madam Speaker, in a letter written by our friend and colleague Tom Cole, a Member of Congress, he says that he does not support the House substitute to VAWA because it does not adequately recognize sovereignty or give them the tools that they need to combat violence against women.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Why I'm Voting Against the House Substitute Amendment to S.

47

Dear Republican Colleague: I want to let you know why I

will vote against the House substitute to S. 47, the Violence

Against Women Act (``VAWA''). While the House substitute to

VAWA has improved tremendously over what this body passed

last Congress, it falls short of giving tribes what they need

to keep their women safe.

Unlike the Senate version, the House substitute fails to

recognize existing tribal sovereignty that is enshrined in

the Constitution by requiring tribes to seek DOJ

certification before exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian

offenders, and waives tribes' sovereign immunity. It doesn't

make sense to force tribes to abdicate part of their

sovereignty to exercise another part of their sovereignty.

Like most Republicans, I believe in moving control away

from the federal government towards local governments. Tribal

governments are local governments, and tribes do a good job

of taking care of tribal citizens when they have the

resources to do so. Tribes do not support the House

substitute to VAWA because it does not adequately recognize

sovereignty or give them the tools they need to combat

violence against Indian women. I trust the tribes to

understand their needs best, and that is why I will vote

against the House substitute and in favor of the Senate VAWA

bill, S. 47.

Sincerely,

Tom Cole,

Member of Congress.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I stand before this body today to talk about the omnibus spending package the Senate will be considering over the next few days. I have some concerns related to this omnibus spending package that relate to a program called PILT. It is an acronym with which most Americans and probably even most Members of Congress are not familiar. It stands for payment in lieu of taxes.

The program was developed to help those States, including my home State of Utah, in which the vast majority of the land is owned by the Federal Government. Beside me is a map of the United States. In red we can see all of the land that is owned by the Federal Government. As we can see by looking at the map, most of the land west of the Rocky Mountains--more than 50 percent, in fact--is owned by the Federal Government. Very little of the land east of the Rocky Mountains is, by contrast, owned by the Federal Government.

Being from a public land State presents some interesting, very significant, very substantial challenges. Among those challenges is the fact that the Federal Government has deemed this land, has legislated this land as being beyond the ability, beyond the authority of States and their political subdivisions--including counties and local taxing jurisdictions--beyond the ability of the States and their subdivisions to tax. So we can't collect property tax revenue from any of that land. As a result, a lot of our communities in public land States are impoverished--at least impoverished relative to what they might otherwise face. They are impoverished relative to what their ability would be to collect revenue through property taxes in public land States.

For that reason, this PILT Program was created to try to offset--at least to some degree--the heavy cost, the disproportionate burden that is placed on the shoulders of public land States and communities.

So each year Congress funds this program, and that program then partially offsets the lack of property tax revenue flowing through these public land States and communities.

Here is the problem I wish to focus on today: The omnibus spending package we are considering this week contains no funding for PILT--no funding whatsoever. This is potentially devastating to public land States, including Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and many other States, especially those throughout the West. The problem is that America's public land States and counties can't wait any longer. This program must be funded, and it must be funded in this bill.

Here is a letter from a commissioner in Piute County, UT. This commissioner states:

PILT not being funded in 2014 will have a devastating

impact on all counties in the West, but it is particularly

devastating to a county the size of Piute. With 74 percent of

Piute County under Federal control, $225,000 of our $1

million budget--almost one-fourth--comes in the form of PILT

payments from the Federal Government. Without this funding,

we will be in the midst of one of the biggest disasters to

hit Piute County in years.

We have been scraping and scraping to try to figure out how

to fund a fourth deputy sheriff in our county and thought we

had it figured out until this $225,000 evaporated from our

county's revenue.

At the present time it is virtually impossible to staff all

of the police, search and rescue, and emergency services we

need. With this cut, it will be impossible.

The Piute County commissioner continues:

We will be forced to abandon services, including all

services on public lands. It will be sad to have our public

lands left without police, search and rescue, and emergency

services. I think it is critical to understand that the loss

of PILT funding cuts clear to the bone and will be

devastating to counties such as Piute.

Now, some argue--some insist when faced with arguments such as these--that this is all OK and we can just wait to make PILT funding available, that we will make it available through another legislative vehicle we will supposedly pass later this year. In fact, some of these same people maintain that we will make it better, we will make it automatic, we will make it mandatory spending when we actually do this later this year.

It is true that between 2008 and 2013 PILT was funded through a mandatory spending mechanism. That has now expired. But it is important to remember that there is nothing mutually exclusive about these ideas; no reason why we can't go ahead and fund PILT now with discretionary spending and then adopt something later to restore the mandatory nature of funding for PILT. We can fund PILT now in this bill, and then we can make it mandatory later. We can and we should. This would give States and counties the certainty they need, the certainty they have been waiting for, the certainty that will allow them, finally, to plan their budgets.

Remember, for many of these counties, such as Piute County, UT, PILT is a substantial portion of their annual revenue stream. It is about one-fourth of the money that Piute County, UT, has to spend every single year.

Importantly, I offered an amendment to last year's budget that would build a deficit-neutral reserve fund to make sure PILT continued to be fully funded. That amendment passed. Unfortunately, the fact that it passed has apparently not been enough to make sure it continued to be funded.

Now we have a major funding bill before us. This spending bill occupies no fewer than 1,582 pages. It spends in excess of $1.1 trillion. Yet PILT still isn't funded.

It is important to point out that even if we do the right thing and even if we fully fund PILT in this program this year, the PILT Program is itself still not adequate. It is still in need of reform. PILT payments are quite insufficient.

PILT was intended to soften the economic impact associated with the Federal Government owning so much of the land in the United States. In the case of Piute County, it is about three-fourths of the land. It is about two-thirds of the land throughout the State of Utah. In some counties in Utah, it is well in excess of 90, sometimes 95 percent of the land in a county. PILT was designed to soften that economic impact. But, regrettably, the Federal Government gives States, through the PILT Program, what amounts to in many instances only pennies on the dollar of what the taxing jurisdictions would receive if they were to tax that land, if they were to collect taxes--even if they were to collect those taxes at the lowest property tax rate, let's say the Greenbelt rate in many counties. We must correct that imbalance.

In the coming days I plan to introduce legislation to begin the process of doing precisely that. After all, it makes no sense to have a program that some would argue is deceptively entitled ``Payment In Lieu of Taxes'' if, in fact, the payment in lieu of taxes doesn't even closely approximate the value that counties would receive if they were actually allowed to tax that land and collect that revenue as taxes.

If an American citizen, a U.S. taxpayer, for example, decided to adopt his or her own PILT Program and on April 15 of each year just sent a check to the IRS saying: These are not my taxes, but this is my payment in lieu of taxes; I am just paying what I feel like paying, that would cause problems. The taxpayer in question would probably end up in prison. In any event, it wouldn't end well for the taxpayer. Yet we have allowed the Federal Government to get away with this over and over, often to the detriment of vulnerable communities, of poor communities, of communities that rely on the Federal Government's unsteady stream of revenue--a stream of revenue that, insufficient as it is already, is now being threatened altogether.

In a sense the problem we face with the Federal Government owning all this land is not new. It is a problem that has been around for a long time. In many respects it was a problem envisioned by some of the Founding Fathers. In fact, we can go all the way back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and see that it was on the minds of some of the Founding Fathers.

On September 5, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention they were discussing the public land-related authorities in the Constitution, including the authority that has now been included in what is often referred to as the enclave clause--article I, section 8, clause 17.

One of the delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, Elbridge Gerry, the delegate from Massachusetts, stood before the Convention and made an astute observation. Mr. Gerry said as follows. He expressed concerns that ``this power''--that is, the power of Congress over Federal public lands--``might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the General Government.''

Then, as now, wise observations often came from the State of Massachusetts. Then, as now, we have a grave risk associated with the fact that when the Federal Government owns this much land, the Federal Government has this much power. It was on the minds of the delegates to the Convention of 1787 that one of the things they needed to protect against was the concentration of too much power in the hands of a few, especially the concentration of too much power within the Federal Government. Each of them had a mission to protect the sovereignty of their respective States. And they understood that if Congress had too much power to simply buy up too much land in any one State-- disproportionately in some States--the Federal Government would have too much influence within that State.

I would ask you, when you look at this map I have in the Chamber, does that look equitable? Does that look like an equitable distribution of Federal land ownership? We have to keep in mind that, just as there are benefits associated with some of our public lands, there are also burdens attached to those benefits. When you look at those burdens, it is difficult to say anything other than that they are disproportionately allocated into a certain region of the United States. They are overwhelmingly located within the Rocky Mountains and areas west of the Rocky Mountains.

So to the extent these benefits benefit everyone in the United States, then the burdens ought to be shared by everyone in the United States as well. Yet they are not. PILT, again, is woefully inadequate as it is. But now Congress is trying to withdraw funding for PILT. Even though some may say: Well, we will fund it later this year, we have no guarantee of that, and we should be funding it right now.

As an interesting side note, in response to Elbridge Gerry's concern on September 5, 1787, the Founding Fathers put a qualifying clause into article I, section 8, clause 17. They said that Congress's plenary legislative jurisdiction over Federal public land lying within a sovereign State's boundaries would exist and could be exercised only if that land--the land in question--was acquired by the consent of the host State's legislature.

Some have suggested that this may well mean that when the Federal Government owns land, when it acquires land within a sovereign State's territorial boundaries, that it owns that land just as any other proprietor would own it; that is, subject to the authority of the State and its political subdivisions to tax and regulate that land, unless or until such time as the host State's legislative body parts with that bundle of sovereign rights relative to that land. In other words, the State retains its taxing power over that land unless or until it voluntarily relinquishes it, gives it up, hands it over to the Federal Government. Yet, in nearly all instances where you see red on this map, that has not occurred.

Many of these States have been content with the fact that they have been receiving PILT funds, however inadequate those PILT funds may be. But now even those are going away. Even if there is a promise that they might be restored later--later this year--they are still inadequate, and we still do not have the promise that is going to occur now. There is still a lot of uncertainty in a lot of parts of the country--in places such as Piute County, UT, and elsewhere within my State and elsewhere within the western United States.

In order to protect against this kind of concern, the kind of concern that the delegate from Massachusetts described on September 5, 1787, Congress adopted a practice, when admitting new States into the Union, of incorporating language into the enabling act for each new State, describing what would happen to public land within the new State's boundaries after statehood. They adopted this practice and this language that would be used each time a new State was admitted into the Union.

That language was included in Utah's statehood enabling legislation-- legislation that was adopted about 18 months before Utah finally came into the Union in January of 1896.

Section 9 of Utah's enabling legislation says that public land located within the State, lying within the State of Utah, ``shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union. . . . '' Adding to that, section 9 of Utah's enabling legislation said that 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of that land would be given to the State and would be held in a trust fund by that State for the benefit of the State's public education system.

So, as I mentioned, Utah was not the first State to have that kind of language in its enabling legislation. Many of the States that were admitted into the Union much earlier than Utah had similar language in their enabling acts. Missouri had such language. North Dakota had such language. We could name State after State after State that had such language.

When you look at Missouri, when you look at North Dakota, and when you look at most of the other States that had language such as that in their enabling acts, you see very little Federal

public land. You see because Congress and the Federal Government honored the promises made to those States. Congress followed through with that commitment. Congress did what it was supposed to do. It sold that land subsequent to statehood. Holding on perhaps to a few parcels here and there that it deemed necessary for one reason or another, it made good on that promise. Those States benefited. The Federal Treasury benefited. The American people benefited.

It is important to remember that what we are talking about here--when you see all this red on the map, representing Federal land ownership-- is not about national parks. National parks represent a very tiny percentage of Federal land ownership. We are not talking about national monuments, which also represents a very tiny percentage of Federal land ownership. What we are talking about in the context of the PILT program are lands that are managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, an agency that is considered obscure, almost unheard of throughout most of the United States, but an agency that operates with a particularly dominant force in States such as mine, where you see a lot of red on the map.

I remember the first time I showed this map to my children, my daughter Eliza, who was about 8 years old at the time, was just barely old enough to understand what I was explaining to her. I told her that the red indicated ownership of land by our national government. And 8- year-old Eliza looked at that portion of the map that represented our State, and she said: Look, dad, they own Utah. I said: You're right, Eliza, they own Utah. They certainly own the overwhelming majority of it.

Some of us have not forgotten this promise made in the statehood enabling acts of most of the States admitted into the Union, and yet Congress seems to be determined to overlook it. I am determined not to let that happen. Some of my friends back in Utah are likewise determined not to let that happen.

A good friend of mine, Representative Ken Ivory, who serves in the Utah State legislature, has done an amazing job educating people throughout Utah and, in fact, across America on this very subject, on what happened with these statehood enabling acts, and why it is that States in the western United States got left behind when it came to promises made long ago by the Federal Government. I commend Representative Ivory for his work on this issue and pledge to continue working with him on this important project.

You see, this is about much more than land. This is about the ability of local communities not only to thrive, but to survive. This is about communities where it is very difficult for people to get jobs. It is very difficult for people, in some instances, even to access their own property, even to access their own farms because it is impossible to get anywhere without crossing Federal public land and in some instances Federal land managers will block access to the only roads they can use to access their own property. This has to stop.

In the meantime, it is vitally important that we focus on the issues at hand, that we focus, at a bare minimum, on promises that the Federal Government has extended in lieu of the other promises. That is not to say we are going to forget about the promises made in the statehood enabling acts. We are not. But, for the moment, my attention remains focused on making sure we fund the PILT Program. It has to be funded. In fact, it has to be funded even more than it has been in the past. It ought to reflect at least a rough equivalent of the amount of money the taxing jurisdiction could collect if it were taxing that land at its lowest rate. And, at a bare minimum, even below that, we have to make sure the program continues to exist. We have to make sure the program is funded at least at its current levels. This is not asking much. But it is necessary that we do this.

The broken PILT Program is, one could argue, just another example of government applying significant and unnecessary weight to the shoulders of hard-working Americans, many of whom are struggling just to get by, many of whom are barely able to keep food on the table for their families, others of whom are able to provide for the day-to-day needs of their families but they are worried about what happens next. They find that whenever they find a little bit of additional income, no sooner have they earned it than they find it has been swallowed up-- swallowed up by increasing taxes, swallowed up by higher prices for goods and for services, and they do not know how to get out of this rut in which they find themselves somewhat trapped. These are the kinds of people who suffer the most as a result of the Federal Government's failed policies relative to its Federal public land.

We have to remember that lifting these weights is not only within the government's power, it is the affirmative obligation of government to lift those weights. In an 1861 address to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln said the ``leading object'' of American government was ``to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.''

Current PILT policy imposes government waste that makes it more difficult for communities to provide important services such as schools, police, and fire departments. It hampers the ability of States to budget, plan, and provide for infrastructure improvements, make needed reforms to their tax systems, and attract new businesses and new jobs.

This policy--and the Federal land management policies that accompany the PILT policy more generously--is broken, and it is imposing a heavy burden on our communities, particularly in rural areas where the Federal Government owns much, most or in some cases nearly all of the land and where needs are at their very greatest.

The program is already broken. The program is already causing millions and millions of Americans to suffer. The program is already severely impeding economic opportunity for Americans, deepening the existing crisis of opportunity that we have in this country, which manifests itself on three different levels: immobility among the poor, insecurity among the middle class, and cronyist privilege at the top.

If you live in one of these States, it might be great if you are one of those people who owns one of the few parcels of land that is not owned by the Federal Government. It is not so great if you live in one of the areas where the Federal Government owns basically everything, where you can do very little anywhere around you without permission from the Federal Government, where your local government is barely able to survive because it lacks a property tax base, and the Federal Government fails to adequately fund PILT and threatens--in this circumstance--to withdraw funding from PILT altogether.

I respectfully implore all of my colleagues to consider the inequities inherent in this map, the inequities inherent in the PILT Program, and, for present purposes, to remember we need to fund PILT.

It has to be reformed, absolutely, and we have to examine our Federal land ownership and management policies more broadly. Today we need to focus on making sure PILT is funded.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam Speaker, during my service in Congress representing Central Washington, I have always voted to renew the Violence Against Women Act. As a husband, a father, and a grandfather, I strongly believe that providing protection for all women against domestic violence is a duty and a priority. Yet I am deeply dismayed by the manner in which the current reauthorization of this legislation (S. 47), which has long been a simple grant program, has been hijacked in order to pursue unrelated political agendas in very harsh politicized terms.

To be blunt, the bill is simply unconstitutional.

The Indian tribal provisions of S. 47 are the first time in the history of our country that Congress will give tribes criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The provisions, found in sections 904 and 905, declare that a tribe's power of self-government includes the ``inherent'' power of that tribe to exercise jurisdiction over all persons, including non-Indians.

As I've said, these provisions are unconstitutional and contradict over two centuries of law.

There are three fundamental principles underlying how Congress may deal with Indian tribes. First, the Indian Commerce Clause, supplemented by the treaty making powers in the Constitution, give Congress what the Supreme Court has said is ``plenary'' power over Indian affairs. Second, tribes are defined by the Indian status of their members. Third, when tribes were brought under the jurisdiction of the United States through actc, treaties, and Executive Orders, they have been recognized for the purpose of self-government over their internal affairs and members. Congress may recognize, or terminate, tribes.

With these principles in mind, it is clear that the Indian tribal provisions of the Senate bill are unconstitutional. The measures put a non-Indian American citizen--on American soil--under the criminal jurisdiction of a political entity to which the individual, because of his

race, may not consent. It violates the founding principle of this Republic, which is a government only at the consent of the governed.

The bill overturns all precedents set by Congress and the Supreme Court through its extension of a unique, self-governing power over internal affairs of a race of people, into a territorial government over everyone. The Supreme Court has long held that because tribes are not parties to the Constitution, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, do not apply to tribes.

In tribal court, an individual only has something called the Indian Civil Rights Act. This provides a set of similar--but not identical-- rights as the Bill of Rights. They may be amended or repealed by mere Act of Congress. Even if the rights were meaningful, however, the Supreme Court in 1978 said these statutory rights are unenforceable in federal court.

Does S. 47 provide a defendant with the right to appeal a tribal judgment and conviction in federal court? No, it does not.

Section 904 of S. 47 openly allows discrimination against an individual based on race, sex, age, or if he's an Indian, who he's related to. Where the person's an American citizen, can be expelled from their home and may not have any right to appeal a claim in an impartial federal court.

As a result, enactment of Section 904 will be the first time that Congress has purposefully removed a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights while on American soil so that a political entity defined according to ethnic ancestry may arrest, try, and punish the citizen.

If these arguments do not sound familiar to all, it will be to those who have studied the pertinent case law and Supreme Court precedent from the 18th century to present.

Beginning in modern times with Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Supreme Court held that tribes lack inherent jurisdiction over non- Indians. Congress cannot recognize and affirm an inherent--that is to say a pre-existing and continuing--power in a tribe when the Supreme Court ruled the tribe never had it.

There's Duro v. Reina, in which the High Court held that Indian tribes lack jurisdiction over non-member Indians.

In the 19th century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Kagama declared there are only two sovereigns in the geographical limits of the United States, and tribes are not one of them.

Case law, statutes, treaties, and historic dealings with Indian tribes support the sole purpose of federal Indian law and policy: to permit a racially defined group of people who were here first to continue their unique way of life according to their own customs, without interference from others.

This is an honorable and morally correct policy, one which I respect and uphold. This is why I cosponsored legislation to exempt tribes from a federal law permitting compulsory union work places on the reservation, and supported exempting tribes from the Department of the Interior's onerous hydraulic fracturing rule, a rule that could devastate the economies of historically impoverished tribes.

For further clarification, let us examine the work of the distinguished former Democrat Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, the late Lloyd Meeds of Washington.

Chairman Meeds wrote that tribal powers ``have over and again been labeled self-government and not sovereignty. It is one thing for the Congress to permit tribal Indians to govern themselves and not be subject to Federal constitutional limitations and general Federal supervision. It is quite another thing for Congress to permit Indian tribes to function as general governmental entities not subject to Federal constitutional limitations or general Federal supervisions.'' (Separate Dissenting Views of Congressman Lloyd Meeds, D-Washington, Vice Chairman of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report, p. 579.)

``[T]he American people have not surrendered to Indians the power of general government; Indians are given only a power of self-government. They have the power to regulate only their members and the property of their members. They have some governmental powers because and to the extent that such powers are appropriate to the Federal policy of allowing Indian peoples to control their own affairs. But there is no Federal policy of allowing Indian peoples to control the liberty and property of non-members. Tribal powers of self-government are limited by their purpose.'' (Ibid, p. 585).

Our Nation has appropriately recognized Indian tribes' right of self- government. Tribal self-government over Indians and their internal affairs is important and should be respected. Yet self-government does not and should not permit Indian tribal actions to trump the Constitution or violate individual rights of non-Indians.

With the precedent being set under S. 47, tribes will return to Congress for more, expanded power over non-Indians. There would be no reason to deny granting such power, especially if the Constitution continues to be viewed as an obstacle to addressing crime.

It is important to be clear about the scope of a tribe's criminal jurisdiction granted under S. 47. It affects non-Indians who live, work, or travel on 56 million acres of U.S. soil that happen to be called Indian Country. In other words, the bill makes 56 million acres of land in our nation ``Constitution-Free Zones'' where Due Process and Equal Protection rights--as interpreted and enforced in U.S. courts--do not exist.

What are these areas? There is a misconception that Indian Country is just tribal trust land. In fact, the term Indian Country has a precise meaning under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Indian Country includes not just land under tribal jurisdiction, but all private lands and rights-of-way within the limits of every Indian reservation under non-Indian jurisdiction. Homes, farms, schools, businesses. Interstate highways, state roads, and secondary roads. All private, non-Indian lands in Indian Country under the Senate bill are Constitution-Free Zones.

There are incorporated non-Indian cities and towns in many reservations and Indian Country, like Wapato and Toppenish on the Yakama Reservation in my district. Take the Puyallup Indian Reservation in Washington state encompassing parts of Tacoma and Fife. With one of the busiest highways in the nation, Interstate 5, crossing the reservation, the ancient reservation is inhabited primarily by non- Indians living and working and going to school on mostly non-Indian land under the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the State. Under the Senate bill, this region is Indian Country on which the tribe may exercise criminal jurisdiction with no Due Process and Equal Protection rights guaranteed to the people living there.

Under a land claim settlement, taxpayers paid $162 million to the tribe in exchange for the tribe ceding most authority over its reservation. However, the ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' language in the Senate bill trumps and overrides the land claim agreement.

Take the Coachella Valley in the State of California, with a number of checker-boarded Indian reservations containing non-Indian populations. Tribes in this Valley will get criminal jurisdiction over residents in towns and cities such as Palm Springs for offenses described in Section 904 of the Senate bill. In tribal court, the residents of the Coachella Valley will not have their Due Process and Equal Protection rights.

Take the Oneida Reservation in New York that encompasses about 300,000 acres, 99 percent of which is non-Indian land with non-Indian towns and farms. Under the Senate bill, the tribe will have full powers to arrest, prosecute, and jail residents of Madison and Oneida counties for the offenses described in this bill, with no Due Process or Equal Protection rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The validity of sections 904 and 905 of S. 47 will eventually come before the Supreme Court. When this happens, it won't be a question of whether these provisions are struck down, but how many other tribal powers will be rolled back, and how many domestic violence offenders will be set free because of the misguided legislation before us.

Some will say that critics of the Senate bill are interested only in the rights of criminal defendants. Then answer these questions: If Congress can justify stripping a citizen of their constitutional rights when accused of a crime, why can't it be justified for other classes of crime, like theft, felony assault, and murder? Why limit the suspension of the Constitution to Indian Country as defined under this bill? Why not create new Indian reservations so there are more Constitution-Free Zones where the Bill of Rights is not an impediment to law and order?

While the House Substitute would delegate criminal jurisdiction to an Indian tribe over non-Indians, it at least guarantees that enforceable constitutional protections are built in so that it might pass muster in Court.

The timing of the consideration of S. 47 is interesting. While proponents say that people have nothing to fear in tribal court, there is at least one tribe in the State of Oklahoma embroiled in litigation over its denial of tribal citizenship to the descendants of the African slaves the tribe's 19th-century members owned. There are also entire families of Indians in California dis-enrolled by their tribe in a dispute over large cash per capita dividends from the tribe's casino, who cannot get a federal court to review their Equal Protection claims.

These cases are merely the latest example of several tribes wielding sovereign immunity to escape any liability for alleged harm caused by possibly depriving individuals--including their own members and ex- members--their constitutional rights.

On the one hand, Indian tribes want criminal jurisdiction over individuals like the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes or the dis- enrolled

Pechangas. On the other hand, they want to forbid these individuals from participating in the tribes' government.

S. 47 makes more U.S. citizens like the disenfranchised Indians in California and the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. It gives tribes the power to put people in jail while denying them a voice in the making of the laws that govern them.

The tribal jurisdictional provisions must be rejected.

Because of the historic policy change the House is poised to make today, it is necessary to elaborate on why the tribal provisions of S. 47 are unconstitutional and contrary to all precedent, if not common sense, in the United States' administration of federal Indian relations.

Inherent Sovereignty

For moral and public policy reasons, Congress rightfully recognizes Indian tribes as possessing powers of self-government over their internal affairs and members. Not being parties to the Constitution, Congress has tolerated--perhaps far too long--the power of a tribe to deprive its members' civil rights guaranteed in our country's supreme law. Because of this, Congress has enacted hundreds of laws since 1789 to protect Indians' unique status encroachment by states. At the same time, Congress has never--until today--allowed a tribe to claim power over a non-Indian.

The scope and nature of a tribe's jurisdiction was delineated in Kagama: ``Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and the people within these limits are under the political control of the Government of the United States or of the States of the Union. There exist within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two.'' (United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 379 (1886)).

Tribal self-government is therefore not a general government power equivalent to that of a state, but a federal policy governed by Congress for the promotion of Indian self-determination and to preserve and advance their way of life.

Tribal Jurisdiction over Individuals

The reason why the tribal provisions of S. 47 should, I believe, be struck down is best described by the Supreme Court.

``The effort by Indian tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, however, is a relatively new phenomenon. And where the effort has been made in the past, it has been held that the jurisdiction did not exist.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

``A tribe's additional authority comes from the consent of its members, and so, in the criminal sphere, membership marks the bounds of tribal authority.'' (Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990)).

``Retained criminal jurisdiction [of tribes] over members is accepted by our precedents and justified by the voluntary character of tribal membership and the concomitant right of participation in a tribal government, the authority of which rests on consent . . . With respect to such internal laws and usages, the tribes are left with broad freedom not enjoyed by any other governmental authority in this country . . . This is all the more reason to reject an extension of tribal authority over those who have not given the consent of the governed that provides a fundamental basis for power within our constitutional system.'' (Ibid).

Proponents of Section 904 of S. 47 argue that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who cannot participate in tribal government is reasonable because it covers only a narrow class of domestic violence crimes, and it includes measures designed to protect a defendant's rights. These do nothing, however, to address the fact this scheme violates the Constitution. As pointed out in dissenting views filed in the Senate last year on these Indian tribal provisions (S. 1925 in the 112th Congress), ``While the present bill's jurisdiction is limited to domestic-violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction were established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well.''

In seeking to repeal Oliphant, advocates of the Senate language repeatedly rejected offers to increase law enforcement resources in Indian Country, including law enforcement personnel, funding, training, certification, cross-deputizing, and other tools for tribes, U.S. Attorneys, and State law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute men who harm Indian women in Indian Country. When the Supreme Court strikes down this bill, how will Indian women be protected given the rejection of law enforcement resources?

This begs a question: since there has been a pressing need to address terrible domestic violence across Indian Country for many years, why did no Member of Congress or U.S. President propose to reverse Oliphant for 33 years? The first such proposal came in 2011, right after the House Democrats lost their majority in a landslide to Republicans, and a year before a presidential election where a political message often called the ``War on Women'' was developed?

Is the proposed reversal of Oliphant a serious attempt to help Indian women who have been victimized? If it were, then Congress would not have let 35 years go by without proposing a jurisdictional change, including spans of time when advocates were in control of the White House and the Congress.

It is abundantly clear the unconstitutional Oliphant reversal is not aimed at helping vulnerable Indian women. It is a political means to an ideological end, one that will ultimately backfire when it is struck down by the High Court, leaving Indian women unprotected because the advocates had rejected offers of increased federal and tribal law enforcement resources in Indian Country.

United States v. Lara

Advocates for inherent tribal power over non-Indians argue the Senate bill is permissible under the United States v. Lara. This reflects a common misunderstanding of Lara.

This case concerned an Act of Congress to reverse Duro v. Reina. In the so-called Duro ``fix'', Congress gave tribes jurisdiction over non- member Indians (i.e. Indian individuals not members of the tribes exercising jurisdiction over them). In Lara, the question before the Court was whether Billy Jo Lara, an Indian man convicted by both a tribal court and a federal court for the same crime, had been twice put in jeopardy. Resolving this hinged on another question, the only one the Court considered: did the tribe's jurisdiction over Lara (authorized by the Duro ``fix'') result from the recognition of ``inherent authority'' or from a federal delegation of power?

A majority of the Court held that the Duro ``fix'' law stemmed from an Act of Congress to recognize the inherent power of the tribe, not to delegate a federal power. As a result, Lara was not put twice in jeopardy because the tribe that convicted him did so as a separate sovereign, not as an agent of the federal government.

Contrary to what tribal advocates have been arguing, the Supreme Court did not find the tribe's jurisdiction over Lara to be constitutional. Why? Because the Court declared it was not facing ``a question dealing with potential constitutional efforts to legislate far more radical changes in tribal status.'' (Majority opinion, U.S. v. Lara) The Court was not considering ``the question whether the Constitution's Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses prohibit tribes from prosecuting a nonmember citizen of the United States'' (Ibid).

The reason why was because, as Anthony Kennedy's separate concurring opinion stresses, ``The proper occasion to test the legitimacy of the tribe's authority, that is, whether Congress had the power to do what it sought to do, was in the first, tribal proceeding. There, however, Lara made no objection to the tribe's authority to try him.'' (Kennedy concurring opinion). In other words, Billy Jo Lara waived any right to challenge the constitutionality of the tribe's criminal jurisdiction over him, a non-member Indian. The Court was reviewing only whether the federal government put him twice in jeopardy.

Kennedy goes out of his way to cast doubt on the constitutionality of Congress recognizing tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians and over non- member Indians. ``[lit should not be doubted that what Congress has attempted to do is subject American citizens to the authority of an extraconstitutional sovereign to which they had not previously been subject.'' (Kennedy concurring opinion).

Those who say the Supreme Court holding in Lara have probably not read it. Perhaps fittingly, Justice Kennedy was the lone dissent in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Oliphant, a dissent ultimately vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court that Kennedy would years later join.

In conclusion, S. 47 denies basic rights, is unconstitutional and will be tied up in court challenges for years.

Mr. President, I wish to spend some time outlining some amendments I have to the Violence Against Women Act, but I also ask unanimous consent to use oversized charts, and even with the size I have, on the one chart, you can barely see it, in terms of the grant programs.

I would also like to comment on the Trafficking Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2012, which is the Leahy amendment. When we first started working on this issue, it was 2001 and $31.8 million, with one or two Federal agencies involved. With this bill, we are going to create eight different agencies with responsibility for this. That is absolutely crazy, and it duplicates exactly what we have done in every other area of the Federal Government, which I will show here in a moment. It shows what we have done in the Justice Department in terms of grants.

Now, we spend $3.9 billion a year out of the Justice Department on 259 different grant programs, many of which--as a matter of fact, the majority of which overlap one another. We have found--and this is not my data, this is GAO data--that we have multiple entities making a claim for a grant in one area, and then they go over and make a claim for the same thing in another area. Guess what. The Justice Department doesn't know that. They have no idea what is going on with their grant programs. They do not do any followup, they do not put in any metrics, and so therefore the $3.9 billion or the $40 billion we have spent on these programs in the last 10 years has been highly ineffective.

These grants are well intended. I don't doubt that. The amendment of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is very well intended. I am not disputing that. But we find that the vast majority of money in that amendment goes overseas for trafficking prevention and protection, not here in our country where it is coming across Interstate 35 and Interstate 40 through my State, coming from the west coast to east and from south to north.

When we find that the vast majority of money will be spent outside the country, especially in light of our present budgetary situation, we ought to reconsider this amendment. We ought to refine it down to one or two agencies, not eight. We ought to put line responsibility and transparency in it, and we ought to put in metrics to make sure the money we are spending is actually going to be measured so we will know whether we have been effective in spending the American taxpayers' dollars.

So I am opposed to the Leahy amendment because although well intended, it is a very wasteful throwing of the mud up against the board and hoping to hit something. It is not organized, it is not well thought out, and it is certainly not efficient in terms of the way the money will be expended.

Let me spend a moment on these three charts. I am going to have two more when GAO issues its release on April 1 of all the duplication in the Federal Government, but I want you to notice something here: the Department of Justice grants, 253 different programs not just run by the Department of Justice but 9 other agencies besides them, spending $3.9 billion a year. Now, one might say: Well, that is OK.

But let's look at the organization because we have this chart, which the Department of Justice doesn't have. So here they are, layer upon layer of administrative costs for all these programs--very well intended, all of them, but highly inefficient.

Now, what are we doing with this bill? We are going to add more to it. We are not going to add a lot of metrics to see if what we are doing actually works.

The other thing we are doing with this bill is we have an authorization that is far greater than the amount of money we are ever going to spend on it. Now, why would we do that? Is it political? Could it possibly be political, that we are going to authorize way above what we know is ever going to be spent? Yes, it is. We know we are not going to spend what is authorized in this bill.

Authorizations ought to be what we intend to be spent, not how we intend to soothe someone with what we say we are going to spend, yet knowing full well we will never spend the money. It is a very shameful sleight of hand because these are important issues. As a practicing physician, having delivered over 4,000 babies, I have seen violence against women in lots of ways. I have done a lot of counseling, spent a lot of time there. And any dollar we take from the American taxpayer, we ought to make sure it actually does something very positive.

I have several amendments to this bill. I didn't get all the amendments I wanted. One was denied, and I will explain to the American public what it was. It was to eliminate $200 million in expenditures for campaign conventions for the Democrats and Republicans. It passed here with 94 votes, but they wouldn't allow it to be voted on here. It passed the House. So here is a way to take $200 million and let the parties run their own conventions rather than the American taxpayers paying for the parties. But that wasn't allowed.

So we haven't moved forward yet in the Senate, where people can actually offer what they think will be good-government amendments that will save this government money and do what the vast majority of the American people want us to do.

Just look at this chart. And I want to add one other thing. There is only one agency of the Federal Government that, at the end of the year, if it doesn't spend its money, doesn't get to keep it. Guess what department that is. It is the Department of Justice.

We have set them aside. So even though we don't have good controls on the grants, we don't have oversight. We haven't eliminated the duplication which the GAO says is tremendous in terms of its goals. We had an opportunity to do that on this bill. We didn't do it. At the end of the year, whatever they don't spend they get to spend where they want to spend outside of the appropriations process of Congress. It is time we change that. It is time we know where every dollar is going.

Now, I admit this is a dizzying poster, but it equates well the lack of certainty, intelligence, and planning of Congress. Congress created that.

Think about that: 250-plus different grant programs, most of them overlapping and doing the same thing, with

multiple grantees hitting multiple grants. Since we don't oversight them, and the agency doesn't oversight them, and they don't know whether the money has been spent on what it was supposed to be spent, we have no idea if we are accomplishing something good other than appropriating money to go to grants that go to the cities.

The other problem I have with this bill is that there is a federalism concern. One of the reasons we have been running trillion-dollar deficits, one of the reasons we are close to $17 trillion in debt, one of the reasons we have $86 trillion in unfunded liability--and if we used generally accepted accounting principles and measured our debt like every other country, we would be at about 120 percent of our GDP, and we would be in excess of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And one of the reasons is because we step all over the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

If we were to take this act and look at it, 98 percent of it is for State violations of laws. Nobody will dispute that. Where in the Constitution does it give us the right to go down to the State level and direct and mandate how States are going to respond to their own tort and civil laws? Whether it is the Presiding Officer's Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of Oklahoma, what gives us that right?

I am for fixing these problems, but there is a bigger problem about to swallow our country, and we continue to blindly follow our hearts rather than putting a measure of common sense with our desire to do well. So I have a couple of amendments.

Amendment No. 15

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 15.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, one of the things the VAWA legislation fails to do is to address the duplication and overlap within the very grant programs and nongrant programs of VAWA operated by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. It doesn't address those.

At the beginning of every Congress, I send to each and every Senator information outlining the criteria that I would use--seven others joined me last year--in terms of determining legislation. Last Congress we sent this out, and what I will tell you is that this legislation significantly violates one of the principles that we have to do for us to get out of the hole; that is, to eliminate duplication and consolidate what is in front of us.

So this legislation does do some small consolidation. I will readily and freely admit it hasn't come close to eliminating all the duplication. There are several VAWA grant programs that are so broad that they duplicate one another, providing multiple opportunities, as I said before, to double-dip into Federal programs. They also duplicate significant programs with Health and Human Services. So you can get a grant at Health and Human Services and you can get a grant at the Justice Department. So the whole proposal of this amendment is to force the Department of Justice to make recommendations on what is duplicated, what is effective, and capture those savings to more quickly address the deficits we have in terms of DNA collection and identification.

We have hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence that could significantly change both the cost and the time period in which we address both violent crime and nonviolent crime. According to the GAO, we wasted billions of dollars over the last 10 years in these grant programs. So what this amendment says is we are going to put it to the Justice Department--they know where they are--to come forward, save this money, and let's direct this money to clean up the CODIS system, the DNA backlog, and bring it forward and infuse that money into both technology and catch-up so we are timely.

Why is this important? It is important for a lot of reasons. Sitting in those hundreds of thousands of cases is the very clue to solving hundreds of thousands of cases and others that we don't even know may be connected.

The second reason it is important is there are people sitting in prison today who are innocent, and that data collection and DNA input could clear them of a wrongful conviction.

So what this is asking the Justice Department to do is to identify every program. By the way--and most people don't know--there is only one Federal agency that actually knows every program they have. That is the Department of Education. Go call anybody at the Justice Department and nobody over there can tell you. We know, because we have studied it, but they don't know. They can't even publish all their programs. They don't put it out.

Consolidate unnecessary duplication and apply the savings toward resolving rape cases and DNA data cases and with the remainder that is left over to go to reducing the debt. It is simple. Nobody in America except the Federal Government would run programs like this. Nobody would blindly create more programs rather than make the ones they have work now, except that is what we are doing.

So this is simple, straightforward math. I don't expect it to pass. We have only had one amendment pass in the Senate in the last 2 years trying to eliminate duplication, and therein lies the problem. We are afraid to do what is best because we would rather protect a constituency of one of these small grant programs than fix them all and still solve the general intent of why we put the money out there in the first place. We are conflicted.

So when GAO, at the end of March this year finishes the review of the Federal Government--which we had to mandate by an amendment that I put into law--we are going to see in excess of $200 billion a year in duplicative costs that shouldn't be there.

I want you to think for a minute. If you look at every one of these grant programs, every one has an administrator. Every one has a staff. Every one has grant approval people. Most of them have grant investigators--most don't. Some have fund managers--most don't. So each one of these has a bureaucracy. And when the vast majority is duplicating one another, we are saying we are well intended, but we are spending money on the process, not on the problem. The intent of this amendment is to strike that balance between truly getting to the solution to a problem and at the same time solving another problem, which is the CODIS and the rape backlog.

In the bill--and I am thankful that the Cornyn amendment is there. The grant system previous to the Cornyn amendment said the vast majority of the money had to be spent on why you can't get the DNA data up rather than working on the backlog. What this will do is force us to get caught up. This creates $600 million of savings over a period of time that will then be applied to solving this problem once and for all. But there is great savings to come from that because what it means is we are not going to double-pay for things that we intended to solve.

I get dizzy looking at these charts. I have one for every branch of the Federal Government now. We actually know what is going on. Actually, we know what is not going on because we know what Congress intended, and we also know what isn't happening with the dollars that are coming from that.

Amendment No. 13

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up amendment No. 13.

This is an amendment that is critical to my home State of Oklahoma and every State that has Native American tribes.

Oklahoma now has the largest number of Native Americans of any State. I believe we are at 36 recognized Federal tribes in Oklahoma. Inside this bill is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights of American citizens who are not tribal members because what we have allowed is for tribal courts to try U.S. citizens in their courts--for very good reasons--in terms of sexual assault, assault, abuse, and other items. The reason we are doing that is because either U.S. attorneys or the U.S. Justice Department has not effectively carried out their charge to represent

the Native American people in terms of prosecuting people who might have performed those acts.

What we have done with this solution is to trample on the Bill of Rights of every American who is not a Native American. I have no doubt--I am 100 percent certain--that this portion of the bill is going to be thrown out by the first Federal judge that hears it.

You cannot take away the rights of U.S. citizens under the Bill of Rights at any time, any place, any way domestically. What this bill does is totally eliminate the Bill of Rights for U.S. citizens in tribal courts. Most would not understand that most tribal courts don't recognize our Bill of Rights. Some do but the vast majority do not.

So are you guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen? Are those rights enshrined in the Constitution and the statutes of this government and this Republic? Can we, as a Senate, forget about that and pass a law that says all of a sudden we are going to violate those rights because we are going to put people under the jurisdiction of a sovereign nation that does not recognize those rights?

This is simply an amendment to strike that section of the bill. I don't expect it to pass--which, again, tells us part of the disease that is in Washington: We pay lipservice to the Constitution rather than to believe its truths and rely on its guarantees of individual liberty and justice.

Amendment No. 16

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I believe it is amendment No. 16.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is a perfecting amendment from the last Violence Against Women Act, which I coauthored with Senator Biden--then-Senator Biden--and Senator Specter.

When a woman is raped, right now in our country she gets raped two, three, four times through our justice system. Let me explain that to you. We have deadly diseases that are sexually transmitted--HIV, sometimes chlamydia. Now we have untreatable strains of gonorrhea. So a woman is raped and, under most State laws, she doesn't have any right, once an indictment has been placed against a defendant, to have them tested. By not having them tested what we do is we make the woman go through testing again and again and again, especially in light of HIV. So they are the ones who have to be tested because they cannot know that the accused perpetrator of their rape is not carrying HIV, is not carrying gonorrhea, is not carrying syphilis, is not carrying chlamydia, because they cannot be tested. What we do is we put them through that trauma once a month for months because the perpetrator, or at least the accused perpetrator, has the right not to be tested in this country.

We put a provision in the last bill that says you will lose 5 percent of your grant money if you do not institute these changes at a State level so that the woman who has been raped has at least an equal footing to know whether her health, other than her psychological, emotional, physical health, because of what occurred during the act, will continue to be deteriorating. Guess what. The vast majority of the States said we will do what we want and we will not take that additional 5 percent.

All this amendment does is it puts some real teeth in it. If you are going to say that somebody who has been indicted for rape has more of a right to not be tested than the woman who was raped, and she has to continually be tested to know whether she might have an outcome that is adverse for her long-term health, what this amendment says is it is going to be 20 percent.

I do not expect this amendment to pass either, because if we are really against violence against women, what we will do is start putting some of the consequences of that on the men who actually caused the violence. Being tested for HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis is not a hard test. It is what a prudent man would do.

Some people say don't worry about it, just treat them. They obviously are not aware of the side effects of all these medicines that we would use to blast this, the treatment for all these diseases. Not knowing and then sometimes covering up, what most people do not realize is that two or three of these diseases actually will affect the long-term fertility of the woman. But we have decided, at least the States have that are taking this grant money, that the rights of the indicted perpetrator are greater than those of the victim who has been raped.

It should not be. I have cared for those women. I have walked with them emotionally for years afterwards, wondering if the HIV infection was going to show up, never knowing for sure.

Here is the other thing that happens. We get all these plea deals of rapists and here is the plea that they cop: If you give me X lower sentence, I will submit to testing. So all of a sudden the person who perpetrated this ghastly, cowardly crime negotiates a much lighter sentence so that the woman can have some peace of mind and not have a question mark for the next 4 or 5 years. We need to fix that, and 5 percent obviously did not do it. Twenty percent will.

I got up very early this morning to get here today to be able to offer these amendments. I hope my colleagues are able to get in. I know the airplanes are backed up coming into Washington. But thinking about the real purpose, to stop violence against women--if you want to stop it, you have to make it effective. You have to spend every dollar as though it is the last dollar, and you have to measure every dollar. You have to quit having the waste in the Justice Department and the grants that are associated with them. You have to have every grantee know that if they get a grant from the Federal Government under one of these programs, they are going to be checked, they are going to be measured against performance, and if they do not perform they are going to send the money back.

We can do a lot better than we are doing with this bill. These are improving amendments. My hope is, my prayer is, that some of them will pass because they really will have a positive impact on both women and our freedom.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.