Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this one is one that, from many perspectives--and we talked about this a little bit earlier in this debate. Especially when it comes to the alternative justice issue here, we understand the concerns for the victims and need to be a part of that, but this is something prosecutors across the country have opposed. And, in fact, the National District Attorneys Association points out in a letter today: While this approach may work successfully in other types of situations, we lack sufficient information on potential downsides of bringing a batterer into the same room with a victim in order to conflict-resolve what is considered a crime of violence. They go on to say that: A philosophy of putting the ability to consent to this kind of program on a victim's shoulders is misplaced and may result in unintended consequences to the victim, such as safety concerns. The prosecutors are among the people that utilize the beneficial tools of VAWA the most, and they are on the front lines of combating the violence against women. I don't think that we should ignore that. I think when we are looking at this, as I said earlier in this debate today, anyone who does this is a criminal. If they do this to people, stalking, domestic violence, all this, they are criminal actions, and I do not want to take that away from this. The victim should be cared for. The victim should be nurtured. The victim should be able to come forward in that process. But I do not want to take campuses and other places away where it becomes something which law enforcement does not have the primary say so, or you are allowing the campus, Mr. Chairman, to come in and have their own alternative kind of investigative process. And this is something that is of concern. I appreciate the gentleman's concern in how people move through this process, but this is just not the right way to go, especially in this bill. There may be other ways to address this. That is why I would oppose the amendment, because I just feel like we do not need to ever take away the fact that the victims in this are victims of a crime. We never can take that away and would not want to resurface that in any other way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, that is fine. I think the National District Attorneys Association also would agree that this is something that should be studied, but not mandated. And I think the amendment here goes farther than most of us are feeling comfortable with in that regard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Again, not to prolong this, but I think the interesting issue here, Mr. Chairman, is from the understanding there are ways inside VAWA. There are other programs here. And I would just have to say that for those who do not come forward, there are also many other reasons besides the fact of the law enforcement process that we go through here. So what I don't want to have is just because the law enforcement process does require reporting and does require this, we don't want to let the abuser in this situation, or the perpetrator in this situation be allowed to continue because the system is too hard. I would like to see the system be made where the victims can come forward and not take it away to where it would be something that is alternative. So I think in many ways we are probably saying or at least wanting the same things. I want to make it easier for them to report the folks who do this to them, no matter what background they are from or gender they are or anything else and have that ability for law enforcement to do what should be done, and that is, to put these people in jail. I think that is the big difference I have here, and I don't think this is the proper place for it. There may be other ways we can find common ground in this, but not here, especially with what VAWA has the ability to do already inside it. So that is my opposition to this. We want the same thing. The people who perpetrate these crimes need to be prosecuted. I just don't want to see things diverted and an outlet given. It should be better for the victims to be able to come and report this. It is a sad state of occurrence when you don't have the ability or want to come report because they feel the system is too hard. But also, not taking this out of account, there are other reasons why this is not reported, or they don't feel like they can come forward. And I don't think we can deny that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily opposed to it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, again, I do not necessarily oppose the amendment. I think the underlying actual law addresses what you are after here, so, in my mind, it is duplicative and can serve to muddy up, really, some existing law that is already here. So that would be my concern about your amendment. I think it is already covered. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, really, in closing, I would just reiterate the points that I have made. We are looking forward to a bipartisan, bicameral bill that we do believe will come back eventually. The Senate has said this. There are many things, and I think the distinguished majority leader made it very clear. I think it was interesting that he said, why did this become a bill that was not--it should be as bipartisan as it should be. I think it is because of stuff that we did not talk about that had been added into this, which makes it much larger than what the bill actually should be about, and focused on those areas. We can disagree about a lot of things, but I think, in this one, all of us want to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act is reauthorized in a way that does promote the very ideals of the original law, and we would continue to do that. We look forward to a day in which this body can debate that bill. At this time, we cannot, because this bill does not feel like many of our Members may vote for it. They may vote against. But I think, at the end of the day, there will be a better product coming. I am looking forward to that. I appreciate the hard work by both sides, but I do believe there is a better outcome and alternative, a bipartisan, bicameral bill in the future. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend from New York. I have no problem with his amendment. It is already a current, existing order, introduced by President Clinton, and it is also under DOJ guidance. This is currently happening, and I think his wanting to continue this, to put it in this bill, I would have no problem with. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Mr. Chair, I support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I believe the intent of this legislation is commendable, and many of the programs it authorizes are critical. This is a bill that should be and should have broad bipartisan support. It is a bill that should transcend the political games which we see too often in Washington, and we should approach it methodically and wholistically. Unfortunately, instead of good faith collaboration, my colleagues across the aisle have doubled down on partisan politics at the expense of good policy. They have sought, at every turn, to make this bill into a political weapon rather than a critical resource for victims and tools to support law enforcement. I tried to meet with my Democratic colleagues to negotiate a meaningful reauthorization of VAWA. We tried to engage with other Members in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, although our efforts were rebuffed, and we were handed the flawed bill that is before us today. My colleagues across the aisle informed us H.R. 1585 would be the bill. This is particularly unfortunate because this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. There are areas where both sides can agree, areas where we can strengthen existing law. Instead of seeking out those areas and negotiating in good faith, they have decided a highly partisan bill with zero chance of moving forward in the Senate was the best way to approach reauthorizing crucial VAWA programs. Remember, Republicans tried to add a short-term extension of VAWA to the funding bill in February when Congresswoman Lesko offered it as a previous question. Democrats blocked this attempt and refused to include a short-term extension to allow time for meaningful negotiations to take place. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I want to find a solution that helps victims, prevents domestic violence, and strengthens programs that serve vulnerable populations. We stand willing and ready to discuss ways to do that. But I cannot and will not support a bill that undermines and jeopardizes due process; that curtails prosecutorial discretion; that makes it more difficult for victims in rural areas to find housing; that could weaken programs for female victims; that could re-victimize abused women; and that undercuts the Second Amendment rights. This bill contains a large expansion of unemployment insurance benefits, which amounts to a new tax on employers. This bill continues to expand the focus of programs past women and children; and this bill fails to provide a faith-based exemption for grant recipients, which could jeopardize these organizations' ability to provide services for victims. Mr. Chairman, this legislation was referred to seven committees. The bill was rushed to markup at the Judiciary Committee, but at least Judiciary actually had a markup. Even though the rushed markup ended in a party-line vote, that markup is far more than the Democrats gave the other committees of jurisdiction. The Ways and Means Committee is the committee with expertise in unemployment insurance benefits, but if you are on that committee, Democrats denied you the chance to weigh in on that issue at committee, and Americans didn't get to benefit from your expertise there. The Financial Services Committee is the committee with expertise on housing issues. But if you are on that committee, you were shut down as well; this bill moving ahead without the benefit of your consideration. Democrats also denied the Natural Resources, Education and Labor, Veterans' Affairs, and Energy and Commerce Committees the chance to weigh in on a bill with provisions that sit squarely within their jurisdiction. I want to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I want to do it in a way that meets the fundamental goals and intent of the original law, and I want to recognize changes that need to be addressed. Simply put, I want to find a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that Democrats shunned when they rushed this bill to the floor. This bill could actually put women at greater risk in some of the programs it authorizes, and it is not a solution that I can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I understand the gentlewoman's concern here, and I appreciate that concern. A bigger concern I have here is concerning the trend of handling responsibilities on campus and giving those--in a criminal matter and putting them into campus personnel rather than law enforcement. My concern is that these are crimes and they need to be treated as crimes. We need to do everything we possibly can to treat those victims and give them as much support and help as we possibly can, but I don't want to give in to the implication that this should be treated as anything other than a crime, and law enforcement personnel should be involved in all stages. I have seen a concerning trend across the country in trying to treat these differently or even adding in a layer of investigation. This needs to be treated as a crime. I understand the gentlewoman's concern here, and expanding this grant program could result from others in reducing resources that are available for prosecution. So I understand the gentlewoman's concern. I just would oppose this for those reasons and no more that. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I do claim the time in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.