Ratcliffe Opening Statement on VAWA Markup
Collins for the opportunity to discuss and mark up this piece of legislation to
move forward with the important conversation about the Violence Against
Women Act and how to best serve and protect survivors and victims of
domestic violence around the country. Last week, the Crime Subcommittee had
the chance to examine VAWA and hear from four different witnesses with varied
backgrounds. And our job was to listen and to learn from different
perspectives at that hearing and at markups like this one, whether it's
from witnesses or from fellow members. And it is normal and to be expected to
hear opinions that are different from one's own in Congress. It is not
appropriate, however, to shout down those with whom we disagree. Yet, in the span
of one week, Democrats have introduced a Violence Against Women Act
reauthorization that is not designed to prosecute and hold accountable abusers.
One that is not designed to further the mitigation, the reduction, or the
prevention of domestic violence against women. Instead, this bill is a Democratic
wish list of campaign promises. It is not a good faith effort to pass a
bipartisan and non-controversial reauthorization. It is instead
discrimination against faith-based providers and religious organizations
which serve survivors of domestic violence. It is instead an expansion of
VAWA protection beyond women and girls to include men. And I can tell you what
is not in this bill, what is missing from this bill. This bill clearly and tragically
reduces the ability of prosecutors and judges to hold domestic abusers
accountable. Providing VAWA grant dollars for the development and
implementation of a, quote, alternative justice response, end quote, is a
foolish and misguided proposal that will actually harm survivors and
victims of domestic violence. Because just what is an alternate justice
response? Well, it is a process that involves the abusers and those they
have harmed, the victims, sitting in a room and hoping that the abuser will
take responsibility for his actions. And to what end? Because none of the
information used during these sessions can be used for any law enforcement
purposes without the express permission of all participants, including the
abuser. So to be clear, what this means is that when a victim traumatized
after being battered again and again, feels this alternative justice
response is the best approach for a variety of reasons to keep a roof over
her head, to keep her Children safe, to find a safe harbor free from violence
and abuse and engages in this process. And if by chance the process results in
her abuser admitting to abusing her, to harming her, to despising her or her
Children, then what? This bill clearly states that, quote, information
disclosed during such process may not be used for any other law enforcement
purpose, including impeachment or prosecution, end quote.
As a federal prosecutor, I see this alternative justice response approach
for what it is a mockery of survivors and victims of domestic violence. They
get out of jail free card for abusers. As a nation, we should be vigilant in
putting abusers behind bars and ensuring that women and Children are
kept safe. As a member of this Judiciary Committee, I wonder what kind
of message this bill actually sense. There are some things that are more
important than politics and protecting women who need protection from violence
should and not should not and cannot be a partisan issue subject to the whims
of special interest groups. But I fear this bill is more of the same from the
majority. Instead of a partisan bill, we should strive to work on a bipartisan
and bicameral basis to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. We should
offer a bill that truly serves women that speaks for all of the women who
have survived abuse and violence and speaks also for those victims who were
not so fortunate. I yield back