Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Motion to Proceed to the Violence Against Women Act
Monday, February 4, 2013
Mr. President, I will support the motion to proceed to the Violence Against Women Act. I expect that many of my Republican colleagues will also vote to proceed to the bill.
Mr. President, there has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes men, has been beneficial to our country.
There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in this bill.
I favor proceeding to the bill, offering limited amendments, having the Senate vote, allowing the other body to work its will, resolving differences between the bills, and then passing a compromise reauthorization bill through both houses.
The process on VAWA in the 112th Congress was very disappointing.
Previously, VAWA was reauthorized unanimously. Something similar could have happened again. But it didn’t. New provisions were forced into the bill. Some were controversial. Some raised serious constitutional concerns. But those on the other side insisted on these provisions without any change and refused to compromise.
It appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need.
Last Congress, both the Republican leader and myself offered that the Senate consent to striking a provision that violated the Constitution’s Origination Clause and then proceeding to conference. The majority spurned those efforts on both occasions.
Yet today, this majority has removed the provision that raised the blue slip problem with the House. It does this only a few months after the majority refused to drop it and proceed to conference. The willingness of the majority today to eliminate that unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill last year. That is a terrible disappointment.
It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is, various groups will be excluded from protections under the law.
Current law protects all victims. Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every member of the Senate who was a member of this body when the Violence Against Women Act last was reauthorized voted for that bill. Neither Vice President Biden nor any other senator passed a discriminatory bill then. It is not the case that unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists without any compromise whatsoever that any groups will be excluded.
Mr. President, the key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts. That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts.
We should focus on providing needed services to Native American women. S. 47 makes political statements and expounds on Native American sovereignty. It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women, while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens.
Even the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions with the tribal provisions in this bill.
Negotiations are continuing and I’m confident that if we can reach agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured, allowing a bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. If we’re unable to reach agreement in the next couple of days, then I intend to offer a substitute that is much more likely to be accepted by the House and become law.
In the meantime, I will vote for the motion to proceed and ask my colleagues to do so as well.
-30-