Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Blumenthal and so many others who have come to the floor to speak on this critical issue.
Today the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act are on the Senate floor to give Speaker Boehner and the Republicans another chance to do what is right. It is another chance to stop the delay. It is another chance to provide peace of mind to 30 million women whose protections are at risk, and it is another chance to pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate, Violence Against Women Act bill.
The bipartisan Senate bill passed almost 100 days ago by a vote of 68 to 31. Fifteen of our Republican colleagues on the floor--I will repeat that--15 Republicans joined us that day, and they did so because they know the history of this bill. They know every time the Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address the women who have not been protected. They know domestic violence protections for all women should not be a Democratic or Republican issue.
But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support today for a bill that should not be controversial. Just as we did last week, just as we are doing today, and just as we will do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in Washington, DC, and back home in our States because we are not going to back down--not while there are thousands of women in the country who are excluded from the current law.
The numbers are staggering. One in three Native Americans will be raped in their lifetime. Two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.
Those shocking statistics are not just isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they are eligible. Why? Because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.
This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America affected by violence. Where a person lives, their immigration status, or who they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice.
Last week, the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to the heart of where we are. It began by saying:
House Republicans have to decide which is more important: protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some of their party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.
The editorial also made the point that it doesn't have to be this way. It pointed out:
In May, fifteen Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill.
It ended with what we all know it will take to move this bill forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. The effort that was started in the Senate last week--an effort that will continue for as long as it takes--is a call for the very same--leadership.
It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats and end the delay because, frankly, it is taking a toll.
Every moment the House continues to delay is another moment that 30 million vulnerable women are without the protections they deserve in this country.
The women this bill protects have seen their lives destroyed by the cowardice of those who claimed to care for them. We have a chance now to stand for them where others have not. But the only way we can help protect these women is to prove that we as a nation have the courage to do so--the courage to show them that discrimination has no place in our domestic violence laws. To do that, we need to pass the Senate's inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I have a question, and I want to make sure everyone listening to this debate gets what is about to happen.
Is it not true that the Senate passed the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act with well more than 60 votes?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator from California is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Is it not correct that the House passed its version and left out 30 million Americans?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. In fact, those 30 million Americans would be covered under the Senate bill. We made sure that Native American women are covered, and we put in important provisions to make sure campus violence is covered, and those provisions have been left out of the House bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. And the immigrant women, as the Senator has discussed, which Senator Blumenthal pointed out, are the most vulnerable because they are so afraid of their status, they are very scared to report that someone is raping them, beating them, or harming them every single day; is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. We cannot even imagine what it is like to have somebody hold that kind of power over you and use it to beat you day in and day out. We cover those women in this bill so that they have the protections they ought to have as human beings.
Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the 30 million people we cover--which the House leaves out--include college students, enhanced protections for them on campus; the LGBT community; Native American communities; and undocumented immigrants; is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. As my friend pointed out, is it not true that when you look at rates of violence against these particular people in our communities, they are higher than the population at large?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the House bill--their version of the Violence Against Women Act left out the most vulnerable people who are the most susceptible to violence?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. That is why we have work to do, in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, to make sure in this country, America, we do not discriminate against women when it comes to violence.
Mrs. BOXER. I have two more points, and then I will yield to my friend so she can make the unanimous consent request.
Isn't it also true that the excuse Speaker Boehner is giving as to why he will not take up and pass the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, isn't it true that the excuse is that there is a technical problem, which he calls a blue slip, in the Senate bill? And isn't it true that my friend today is going to ask unanimous consent to correct that problem so that we can send this inclusive bill over to Speaker Boehner?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. It seems to me such a simple procedure to do, which we have done many times in the Senate, to just by unanimous consent send the Speaker back the bill so he can't put a piece of blue paper in front of us and say that stands between women and the protections we are trying to pass for them today.
Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I hope, when my friend makes the unanimous consent request, to take the very same text of the Violence Against Women Act, which passed this body with well over 60 votes, and put it into a bill that would overcome the technical problem and enable us to send it back to the House. It is my strong hope that the Republican leadership will not object. If they do, let the whole country understand what they are objecting to: a way to fix this technical problem so that Speaker Boehner and the Republicans can pass the Senate bipartisan Violence Against Women Act and include the 30 million people who have been left out.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California and say that she is absolutely correct. What I am about to do is to ask consent to do what we have done on many pieces of legislation, including the jobs and Transportation bills the Senator from California was able to pass, and the Senate overcame that technicality through a motion on the floor.
We have done it time and time again on bills like that. It seems to me that on a bill like this, which is affecting so many women and their right to protect themselves and the ability to get help in their communities, there should not be a technicality between them and our passing protections for them in this country.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 9
Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the language of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, as passed in the Senate on April 26 by a vote of 68 to 31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, rather than doing the usual thing and reserving the right to object, I will object, and then I would appreciate the courtesy, before I offer a parallel UC, to make my remarks.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, has the Senator from Iowa objected to my request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard. The Senator from Iowa----
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has objected. I just have to say that it is stunning to me that the Senator has objected to a simple procedure that we have done many times on Transportation bills and FAA bills and, sadly, now there is an inability to provide protections for the women we have been talking about.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the passion of the Senator from Iowa on behalf of the Republican majority and Speaker Boehner, and, frankly, I have to say it is offensive to say that the issue of violence against women is about politics. This is about women who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, and women being able to get the protection they need in this country that has provided protection for a very long time, to make sure women who are immigrants, women who live in a tribe, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are on college campuses get the protection this legislation supports. This is not about politics, this is about violence and this country standing up and saying we are going to protect them.
Make no mistake about it, what the Republicans are saying is that they want to move this bill to conference so they can strip out those provisions. Well, they have crossed a line--a line that in the history of this nonpolitical, bipartisan bill has been so deeply important to so many of us. They made this bill about politics just now. I find that offensive.
What they want is to take the Senate's bipartisan-passed bill, supported by both Republicans and Democrats here, send it to conference, and then pick it apart. They want to take it to conference so they can have a discussion about which women in this country deserve protection and which do not. They want to pit one group of women against another. This is not a game. It is not politics. And it certainly is not a game I am going to play. The new protections in this bill have been supported by Republicans and Democrats, groups across this country, and millions of Americans. They are not bartering chips, and it is not about politics.
The objection of the Senator on behalf of the Republicans raises issues that really are nothing more than a smokescreen. They do not want to be out in front saying they are willing to discriminate against certain women.
They would rather hide behind these procedural objections. But I would remind all our colleagues that these procedural objections they are out here talking about--the politics--have been routinely overcome here in the Senate. Just as I said a few minutes ago, the transportation and jobs bill we passed a month ago, the blue slip issue was overcome. The FAA reauthorization last year funding our Nation's airports--overcome. The Food Safety Act--overcome. The Travel Promotion Act. All those had blue slip issues, and all of them were overcome, and there was a reason why--leadership and the will to do the right thing.
So let me make it abundantly clear. This is not about politics. It is about protecting women in this country. It is about making sure we do what is right for so many women who are looking to Congress to put in place the protections they deserve.
So the ball is in the Speaker's court now. He is going to have to talk to women across the country about why their protections are at risk because of politics. But I want everyone to be clear: We are not going to compromise on the issues that are so important to so many women and throw them under the bus. That is not what we have fought for year after year on bipartisan legislation when we passed the Violence Against Women Act before. It is inclusive, it is bipartisan, and it is above ideology and partisan games. It is a bill that makes sure that no matter who you are or where you live or whom you love, you are protected in this great country in which we live.
Politics has no place in this. I would agree with the Senator from Iowa. Who is playing politics? We will leave it up for those who are watching. What I have asked is that the Senate do what we have done many times on many bills--move this bill to the House in a bipartisan way and pass it, and then politics won't matter, women will be covered.
I hope our Senate colleagues who have objected and the Speaker will reconsider. They can easily pass this bill today or next month, put it in place, and women in this country can say the leaders of this country are fighting for them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source