2013: Schweikert Voted Against A Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act That Included Protections For Immigrants, LGBT Populations And Native Americans. In February 2013, Schweikert voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which, according to Politico, "include[d] protections for illegal immigrants, Native Americans and people in same-sex relationships." According to The Washington Post, "First authorized in 1994, the bill provides $660 million over the next five years for programs that provide legal assistance, transitional housing, counseling and support hotlines to victims of rape and domestic abuse." The House passed the measure, which had already passed the Senate, by a vote of 286 to 138. The president signed the bill into law on March 7, 2013. [House Vote 55, 2/28/13; Politico, 3/7/13; The Washington Post, 3/7/13; Public Law 113-4, 3/7/13; Congressional Actions, S. 47]
House GOP Permitted Vote On The Senate's VAWA Reauthorization Bill After A Republican Substitute Version Of The Bill Was Rejected; Doing So Allowed Members To Vote For VAWA But Not For The Senate's Version. According to Politico, "The Violence Against Women Act is finally headed to President Barack Obama's desk for his signature. The House voted Thursday to accept the bipartisan Senate bill, 286-138. Eighty-seven Republicans joined 199 Democrats to support the bill. No Democrats opposed it. After months of delay, GOP leaders allowed the bill to come to the floor only after a Republican substitute version of the legislation --- set up as an amendment to the Senate's bipartisan bill --- failed, 166-257. The House amendment was expected to fail, but allowed members to vote for a version of VAWA while not supporting the Senate bill." [Politico, 2/28/13]
Boehner Broke The "Hastert Rule" By Bringing Senate's Version of VAWA Reauthorization Up For A Vote; 138 House Republicans, A Majority, Voted Against The Measure. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Senate passed the bill Feb. 12, 2013, in a 78-22 vote, with all 22 'no' votes coming from male Republicans. Meanwhile, every female senator voted for the bill. Despite objections from some Republicans about the immigrant and tribal courts provisions, the House passed the Senate version of the legislation on Feb. 28, 2013, by 286-138. All of the 138 'no' votes were from Republicans, meaning that Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, had to break the so-called 'Hastert rule' by relying on Democratic votes to pass the measure." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/6/13]
The 2013 Reauthorization Of VAWA Went Further Than Prior Versions By "Offering Protections For Gay, Bisexual Or Transgender Victims Of Domestic Abuse, As Well As Allowing American Indian Women Who Are Assaulted On Reservations By Non-Indians To Take Their Case To Tribal Courts, Which Otherwise Would Not Have Jurisdiction Over Assailants Who Do Not Live On Tribal Land." According to The New York Times, "The House on Thursday gave final approval to a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, sending a bipartisan Senate measure to President Obama after a House plan endorsed by conservatives was defeated. [...] The newly passed legislation creates and expands federal programs to assist local communities with law enforcement and aiding victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Most notably, the bill goes further by offering protections for gay, bisexual or transgender victims of domestic abuse, as well as allowing American Indian women who are assaulted on reservations by non-Indians to take their case to tribal courts, which otherwise would not have jurisdiction over assailants who do not live on tribal land. (The failed House bill offered the same provision, but also offered non-Indian defendants the possibility to take their case to a federal court)." [The New York Times, 3/1/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against The House Republican Version Of The 2013 Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act. In February 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "reauthorize[d] for five years federal grant programs that provide funds to states, law enforcement and nonprofit organizations for services provided to victims of violence and for the prosecution of offenders. It [would have] g[iven] American Indian tribal courts additional authority over non-tribal domestic violence offenders and allow[ed] accused individuals to appeal to have their proceedings moved from tribal courts to a U.S. District Court. It also [would have] require[d] immigrant spouses subject to abuse -- and who seek U visas given to crime victims willing to help law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of the crime -- to comply with 'any reasonable request' for assistance made by law enforcement regarding their case." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 166 to 257. [House Vote 54, 2/28/13; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 23; Congressional Actions, S. 47]
House Republicans' Version Of Bill Eliminated Senate Provisions That Gave Tribal Authorities Jurisdiction To Prosecute Cases On Indian Reservations. According to CNN, "The Republican proposal deleted provisions from the Senate measure that gave tribal authorities jurisdiction to prosecute cases on Indian reservations [. . .] For example, one in three native women will be raped in their lifetime, according to the Indian Law Resource Center. Three in five will be physically assaulted, and native women also are killed at a rate 10 times the national average, the center said. The National Congress of American Indians addressed the issue in a December 20 letter to Cantor. It described situations in which beatings and rapes by non-native men were declined for prosecution at a federal level and returned to a tribal court as a misdemeanor. Federal law currently prohibits tribal courts from imposing a jail sentence of more than a year, so they generally do not prosecute felonies. In many instances, such cases are dismissed altogether and a defendant can walk free until a grand jury indictment can be obtained. 'The federal criminal justice system is simply not equipped to handle local crimes, and this is the primary reason that tribes seek local control over these crimes that are plaguing our communities,' the letter said." [CNN, 2/28/13]
Republicans Said Provisions Related To Tribal Jurisdiction Could Be Subject To Court Challenge. According to CNN, "In debate before Thursday's votes, Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, said the Senate version includes legal precedents of expanded sovereignty that could be subject to court challenge. 'Please consider the damage we have done if a court overturns this act and its protection all because we wanted a good slogan instead of a good law,' Cramer said." [CNN, 2/28/13]
House Republicans' Version Of Bill Eliminated Senate Provisions That Targeted Discrimination Of LGBT Discrimination. According to CNN, "The Republican proposal deleted provisions from the Senate measure that [. . .] specifically targeted discrimination of LGBT victims. [. . .] Those in the LGBT community are another high-risk group that will be affected by the Violence Against Women Act. They experience violence at the same rate as heterosexuals but are less likely to report it. When they do, many are denied services. About 45% of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter and nearly 55% of those who sought protection orders were denied them, according to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women." [CNN, 2/28/13]
House Republicans' Version Of Bill Eliminated Senate Provisions That Allowed Undocumented Immigrant Survivors Of Domestic Violence To Seek Legal Status. According to CNN, "The Republican proposal deleted provisions from the Senate measure that [. . .] allowed undocumented immigrant survivors of domestic violence to seek legal status. [. . .] On undocumented immigrants, Human Rights Watch has found that immigrant farm workers are especially at risk for domestic abuse and argued provisions in the Senate bill 'would go some way toward fixing the problem.'" [CNN, 2/28/13]
House Republicans Had Previously Refused To Compromise With Senate On VAWA Reauthorization. According to CNN, "Last year, the House and Senate were unable to compromise on another extension of the act, with Republicans opposing Democratic attempts to specify inclusion of Native Americans, undocumented immigrants and lesbian, transgender and bisexual women." [CNN, 2/28/13]
Supporters Said Republicans' Version Of VAWA Said Focused On Protecting Women And Respecting Constitution, Rather Than Engaging In "Divisive, Political Rancor." According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) said, "I remain convinced that the House amendment is the strongest reauthorization of VAWA and the one that should be sent to the President's desk. It's a responsible bill that protects all victims of domestic violence . It's a bill that holds offenders fully accountable for their crimes. It is a bill that respects the Constitution. It puts the focus on the victim, where it should be. It provides the necessary services and resources to victims while at the same time strengthening investigations and prosecutions to lock away offenders for a longer period of time. What it does not do is engage in the type of divisive, political rancor that many have tried to leverage or exploit. Republicans want to reauthorize a bill that protects women , not promotes partisanship." [Congressional Record, 2/28/13]
Opponents Said Bipartisan Senate Version Of VAWA Was Stronger Than House Republicans' Version. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said, "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." [Congressional Record, 2/28/13]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2019 Defense, Labor, HHS, Education Conference Report Appropriations Bill And Continuing Resolution Which Also Extended The Violence Against Women Act Through December 7, 2018. In September 2018, Schweikert voted for an FY 2019 appropriations bill and continuing resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement provides FY 2019 appropriations for two annual spending measures --- Defense and Labor-HHS-Education --- as well as a continuing resolution to keep all federal departments and agencies operating through Dec. 7 if they don't have full-year appropriations enacted. Together, the two spending bills provide a total of $784.5 billion in discretionary spending subject to budget caps, 63% of the $1.244 trillion limit for FY 2019. It provides $674.4 billion in net discretionary funding for the Defense Department ($19.8 billion more than FY 2018 but $1.1 billion less than requested), including $606.5 billion in base discretionary funding ($17.0 billion more than FY 2018) and $67.9 billion in OCO funding. For Labor-HHS-Education it provides $180 billion in discretionary spending, including $178.1 billion subject to budget caps and $1.9 billion in program integrity funding --- $977 million more than comparable FY 2018 funding and $10.7 billion more than requested." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 361 to 61. The president later signed the bill into law. [House Vote 405, 9/26/18; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6157]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Reauthorizing The Violence Against Women Act. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against legislation reauthorizing VAWA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill reauthorizes through FY 2024 programs enacted under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and it modifies the programs to further help state and local governments improve strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to strengthen victim services. It makes it a crime for police officers to sexually assault those under arrest; it increases prison sentences for those who stalk minors and applies domestic violence penalties against those who commit violence against a current or former dating partner; it allows the victims of domestic violence to terminate a housing lease without penalty and requires federal housing officials to provide emergency transfers to different housing units if an individual believes he or she is threatened with imminent harm or a sexual assault recently occurred on the property; and it prohibits individuals from begin denied unemployment benefits solely because they lost or left their job due to domestic violence, sexual assault or other harassment. The measure also expands existing prohibitions on the ability of individuals to purchase firearms if they have been convicted of domestic violence by including those who abused dating partners as well as individuals subject to temporary court restraining orders, and it allows certain VAWA grant monies to be used toward efforts to recover and store firearms from individuals convicted of domestic violence." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 263 to 158. [House Vote 156, 4/4/19; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1585]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Providing Funding For Programs Under The Violence Against Women Act Annually Through FY 2026, Including $222 Million For Justice Department STOP Grants, $110 Million For Rape Prevention And Education Grants, $75 Million For Legal Services To Survivors, $60 Million To States, $50 Million For Support In Rural Communities, $45 Million For Grants Focused On Teen Dating, And $40 Million For Culturally Specific Victim Services. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize or reauthorize programs enacted under VAWA, including $222 million for Justice Department STOP grants to support state and local law enforcement and victim services in response to violent crimes against women; $110 million for Health and Human Services Department rape prevention and education grants; $75 million for legal services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking or sexual assault; $60 million for states to support sexual assault services; $50 million to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in rural communities; $45 million for Justice Department SMART violence prevention grants focused on teen dating, children exposed to violence at home and men as role models; $40 million to support culturally specific victim services." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 244-172. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 86, 3/17/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620]
The Creation Of "Culturally Specific Victim Services Programs" Would Direct Funds For Organizations In Certain Communities Or To Tackle Harmful Practices Targeted Towards Women Such As Female Genital Mutilation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "New provisions in this year's bill, sponsored by Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, would create a $40 million dedicated fund for 'culturally specific victim services programs' for organizations in specific communities or to combat practices like female genital mutilation." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21]
The Bill Would Have Funded Programs Related To Cybercrimes, Crimes On College Campuses, Violence Against People With Disabilities, And Violence Against People Over The Age Of 50. According to Congressional Quarterly, "funding for programs related to law enforcement response to cybercrimes against individuals, violent crimes on college campuses, violence against deaf individuals and individuals with disabilities, and abuse of individuals age 50 or older." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21]
The Bill Would Have Expanded Tribal Authorities' Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed By Non-Natives Within Their Jurisdiction And Authorized $7 Million Through FY 2026 To Aid Tribal Governments With Law Enforcement Tasks. According to Congressional Quarterly, "expand the jurisdiction of tribal authorities over crimes by non-Indians in tribal jurisdiction and authorize $7 million annually through fiscal 2026 to assist tribal governments with law enforcement activities." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Authorize $1 Million In FY 2022 To Develop Domestic Violence Training, $8 Million Annually Through FY 2026 To Implement Training For Unemployment Personnel, And $1 Million In FY 2022 And $5 Million Annually Through FY 2026 For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Employees. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify requirements and increase funding authorized for new programs to require domestic violence training for unemployment compensation personnel and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program personnel, including to authorize including $1 million in fiscal 2022 for grants to develop a training program for unemployment personnel and $8 million annually through fiscal 2026 for program implementation, as well as $1 million in fiscal 2022 and $5 million annually through fiscal 2026 for a similar program for TANF personnel." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204, thus automatically adopting the manager's amendment. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Increase Victim Service Organization Grants By $8 Million Annually To Help Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Survivors In Underserved Communities, And The Justice Department Would Use The Grants For Law Enforcement And Legal Personnel Trainings. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase from $2 million to $10 million the amount authorized annually for grants to victim service organizations to assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking in underserved populations, and it would require the Justice Department to provide such grants for activities to strengthen the response of criminal and civil justice interventions by providing population-specific training for law enforcement and legal personnel." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204, thus automatically adopting the manager's amendment. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Authorize $1 Million In FY 2022 To Develop Domestic Violence Training, $8 Million Annually Through FY 2026 To Implement Training For Unemployment Personnel, And $1 Million In FY 2022 And $5 Million Annually Through FY 2026 For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Employees. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify requirements and increase funding authorized for new programs to require domestic violence training for unemployment compensation personnel and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program personnel, including to authorize including $1 million in fiscal 2022 for grants to develop a training program for unemployment personnel and $8 million annually through fiscal 2026 for program implementation, as well as $1 million in fiscal 2022 and $5 million annually through fiscal 2026 for a similar program for TANF personnel." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Increase Victim Service Organization Grants By $8 Million Annually To Help Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Survivors In Underserved Communities, And The Justice Department Would Use The Grants For Law Enforcement And Legal Personnel Trainings. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase from $2 million to $10 million the amount authorized annually for grants to victim service organizations to assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking in underserved populations, and it would require the Justice Department to provide such grants for activities to strengthen the response of criminal and civil justice interventions by providing population-specific training for law enforcement and legal personnel." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing Another Government Shutdown And Providing $498 Million For The Office On Violence Against Women. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2019 consolidated appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This Conference Summary describes the agreement on H J Res 31, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, which provides detailed, full-year funding for all seven remaining FY 2019 spending bills ---thereby completing the FY 2019 appropriations process. The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 300 to 128. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 87, 2/14/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 31]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $492 Million For The Office On Violence Against Women. In March 2018, Schweikert voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Increasing Funding For Programs Aimed At Preventing And Prosecuting Violence Against Women, As Well As For The COPS Program. In May 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] increase[d] by $1 million each, funds provided in the [underlying appropriations] bill for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution programs, grants to combat violence against women, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance and grants to address backlogs of sexual assault kits. It would [have] increase[d] by $3 million each, funds provided in the bill for Community Oriented Policing Services and for hiring under this program." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 185 to 220. [House Vote 268, 5/30/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/30/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4660]
Motion's Author Argued That It Would Provide Needed Funding Increases For Violence Against Women Programs, Rape Kit Backlog Processing, And The COPS Program, Which She Said The Bill "Slashed Deeply." According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) said, "Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward and simple. It would increase funding for three critical priorities: first, our chronically underfunded Violence Against Women Act programs; second, for grants to process the backlog on rape kits; and, third, for our Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, grants program, which was slashed deeply in the appropriations bill before us tonight. Now, given the limited time that I have and the late hour that I have to discuss all these issues, I just want to focus my remarks on one of the Nation's staggering backlogs that we haven't talked about. [...] The overwhelmingly scourge of backlogged kits require nothing less than a national commitment, Mr. Speaker, including a dedicated response from the United States Congress. I am pleased that the bill before us tonight fulfills the request from the Obama administration to provide funding for a new grant program to inventory and test rape kits, develop units to pursue new investigative leads, and offer support to victims during the process. The new investment through this bipartisan bill is an important first step. However, through simple addition, we can tally the pending cost of clearing the backlog." [Congressional Record, 5/29/14]
Motion Opponent Argued The Bill, As Amended On The House Floor, Already Contained More Funding Than The Administration Requested For Victims Of Violence, For Processing The Backlog Of Sexual Assault Kits, And For DNA Programs. According to the Congressional Record, House Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) said, "This is also a landmark bill for reducing violence against women. It strengthens services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by funding above the current level and above the President's request for these programs. In addition, it increases funding for victim assistance and programs that will address human trafficking. After amendments, the bill includes $41 million for the Community Response Teams to address the sexual assault kit backlog program. This is $6 million -- 17 percent -- above the President's request. The bill also includes $125 million for core DNA programs, including the Debbie Smith program. This is $25 million above the President's request. Moreover, we do all this while staying within our allocation for this bill--$400 million less than last year. Making commonsense reductions and eliminating waste wherever possible helps make a more efficient government that won't create undue doubt about the fiscal future of the Nation. [Congressional Record, 5/29/14]
While The Underlying Bill Initially Cut The COPS Program's Funding By 55 Percent, Those Cuts Had Already Been Restored By An Earlier Amendment That Increased Funding For the Program By $110 Million. According to Congressional Quarterly, as reported to the House, the underlying bill's Justice Department funding included "$2.2 billion for state and local law enforcement and crime prevention grant programs and other activities, $82 million (4%) less than current funding and $60 million (3%) less than requested. This amount includes a 2% increase for programs addressing violence against women, but it cuts Juvenile Justice grant programs by 12% and the COPS program by55%." According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, one of the amendments that the House agreed to "increased by $110 million the amount provided for the Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, offset by an equal reduction to Census Bureau periodic censuses and programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/23/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against A Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act That Included Protections For Immigrants, LGBT Populations And Native Americans. In February 2013, Schweikert voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which, according to Politico, "include[d] protections for illegal immigrants, Native Americans and people in same-sex relationships." According to The Washington Post, "First authorized in 1994, the bill provides $660 million over the next five years for programs that provide legal assistance, transitional housing, counseling and support hotlines to victims of rape and domestic abuse." The House passed the measure, which had already passed the Senate, by a vote of 286 to 138. The president signed the bill into law on March 7, 2013. [House Vote 55, 2/28/13; Politico, 3/7/13; The Washington Post, 3/7/13; Public Law 113-4, 3/7/13; Congressional Actions, S. 47]
House GOP Permitted Vote On The Senate's VAWA Reauthorization Bill After A Republican Substitute Version Of The Bill Was Rejected; Doing So Allowed Members To Vote For VAWA But Not For The Senate's Version. According to Politico, "The Violence Against Women Act is finally headed to President Barack Obama's desk for his signature. The House voted Thursday to accept the bipartisan Senate bill, 286-138. Eighty-seven Republicans joined 199 Democrats to support the bill. No Democrats opposed it. After months of delay, GOP leaders allowed the bill to come to the floor only after a Republican substitute version of the legislation --- set up as an amendment to the Senate's bipartisan bill --- failed, 166-257. The House amendment was expected to fail, but allowed members to vote for a version of VAWA while not supporting the Senate bill." [Politico, 2/28/13]
Boehner Broke The "Hastert Rule" By Bringing Senate's Version of VAWA Reauthorization Up For A Vote; 138 House Republicans, A Majority, Voted Against The Measure. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Senate passed the bill Feb. 12, 2013, in a 78-22 vote, with all 22 'no' votes coming from male Republicans. Meanwhile, every female senator voted for the bill. Despite objections from some Republicans about the immigrant and tribal courts provisions, the House passed the Senate version of the legislation on Feb. 28, 2013, by 286-138. All of the 138 'no' votes were from Republicans, meaning that Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, had to break the so-called 'Hastert rule' by relying on Democratic votes to pass the measure." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/6/13]
The Bill Included New Provisions To Give Indian Tribes Criminal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians Who Engage In Intimate Partner Violence On Tribal Land. According to Navajo Times, "The 218-page bill, which heads next to the House or Representatives, keeps intact language that provides groundbreaking protective measures for American Indian women. Under the act, tribes would have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit acts of violence against women on tribal land. 'It's very exciting,' said Brian Quint, government and legislative affairs associate for the Navajo Nation Washington Office. 'Tribes currently have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. This is an exciting affirmation that tribal governments can govern their territory.'" [Navajo Times, 2/14/13]
VAWA Would Allow Criminal Jurisdiction Over A Non-Indian Only If The Defendant Had Ties To The Tribe And The Tribal Courts Guaranteed Certain Rights. According to Navajo Times, "The bill allows tribal jurisdiction in very specific circumstances, [Clara] Pratte [executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office] said. Defendants would need to have ties to the tribe and prosecuting tribal courts would have to guarantee certain rights to defendants." [Navajo Times, 2/14/13]
Although VAWA Authorized Tribal Courts To Exercise Jurisdiction Over Non-Indian Defendants, The Jurisdiction Is Not Compulsory. According to Navajo Times, "It is also important to note that the bill authorizes tribal courts to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants, but it doesn't require it, [Brian] Quint [government and legislative affairs associate for the Navajo Nation Washington Office] said. 'It's hard to say a tribe is a distinct, sovereign entity, and then deprive it of self-government,' he said. 'This act is a step toward recognizing tribes as entities with rights and authorities of their own.'" [Navajo Times, 2/14/13]
The Department Of Justice Reported That Native American Women Are More Likely Than Non-Indian Women To Be Raped Or Assaulted Yet Many Cases Were Not Prosecuted Because Of Jurisdictional Problems. According to Navajo Times, "American Indian women are two and a half times more likely to be raped, according to a 2000 Department of Justice Report. One in three will be assaulted in her lifetime and three out of five will encounter domestic violence. Yet tribal courts lack jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators, so victims must turn to the United States attorneys, who decline 67 percent of cases referred to them. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) spoke out Monday against the Republican proposal to eliminate tribal provisions from the bill. 'Less than 50 percent of the domestic violence cases in Indian Country are prosecuted because of a gap in our legal system,' she said on the Senate floor. 'This is about the life or death of women who need a better system to help prosecute those who are committing serious crimes against them.'" [Navajo Times, 2/14/13]
Opponents Of The Protections For Native American Women Argued That The Civil Liberties Of Non-Indians Were At Risk Because Tribal Courts Were Not Bound By The US Constitution And Because The Courts Lack Resources. According to Navajo Times, "The vote comes despite Republican concerns that approving tribal provisions would endanger civil liberties of non-Indian defendants because tribal courts are not bound by the U.S. Constitution. House Republicans are drafting their own version of the bill and contesting the rights of tribes to prosecute non-Indians on tribal land, where incidents of sexual assault and domestic violence run rampant -- and largely unchecked. Republicans claim tribal courts lack the resources for the job and will deprive defendants of their rights, said Clara Pratte, executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office. 'There is a sense that not all tribal courts are created equal,' she said. 'There are questions about how courts will ensure that non-Natives are treated fairly.'" [Navajo Times, 2/14/13]
Republicans In The House Argued That Giving Tribal Courts Authority Over Non-Native Americans Was Unconstitutional. According to The Washington Post, "The measure also gives tribal courts greater authority to prosecute non-Native American men who are accused of crimes on Indian reservations, a provision that many House Republicans consider unconstitutional" [The Washington Post, 2/28/13]
Republicans Offered Their Own Version Of VAWA That Attempted To Compromise On Indian Reservations But The Measure Failed Amid Criticism That The GOP Bill Did Not Adequately Acknowledge Native American Sovereignty. According to The Washington Post, "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) helped craft a GOP version of the measure that did not mention same-sex couples and attempted a compromise on the issue of Indian reservations. But his proposal was defeated Thursday on a vote of 166 to 257, crumbling under opposition from unified Democrats and a bloc of Republicans, some of whom said the GOP bill did not adequately acknowledge the sovereignty of Indian tribes." [The Washington Post, 2/28/13]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Expanding And Reauthorizing Through FY 2027 Programs Under The Violence Against Women Act, Including $222 Million Annually For Justice Department STOP Grants And $100 Million For Rape Prevention And Education Grants. In March 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the second portion of the Fiscal 2022 Omnibus Appropriations, which would "expand and reauthorize through fiscal 2027 programs enacted under the Violence Against Women Act, including authorizing $222 million annually for Justice Department STOP grants to support state and local law enforcement response and victim services related to violent crimes against women and $100 million for Health and Human Services Department rape prevention and education grants." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment with a House amendment. The bill was divided and this vote was the second portion of the bill. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 260-171. After resolving differences, the bill was sent to the President and became law. [House Vote 66, 3/9/22; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2471]
The Bill Renewed The Violence Against Women Act By Raising Funds For Prevention And Prosecution Programs And Aiming To Combat The Backlog Of Unprocessed Rape Kits. According to CNN, "The bill renews the Violence Against Women Act, which expired in 2018, by increasing funding for its prevention and prosecution programs, as well as efforts to reduce the backlog of unprocessed rape kits, according to a fact sheet." [CNN, 3/9/22]
The Bill Extended Programs Under The Violence Against Women Act For Five Years And Modified The Programs To Father Support State And Local Governments Combat Violent Crimes Aimed At Women And Strengthen Their Victim Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Extends for five years, through FY 2027, programs enacted under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and modifies the programs to further help state and local governments improve strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to strengthen victim services." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/22]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Reauthorizing The Violence Against Women Act Through FY 2026 Which Would Expand Numerous Programs And Policies In Order To Assist Survivors Of Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence And Sex Trafficking. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reauthorize programs enacted under the Violence Against Women Act through fiscal 2026. It would also expand a number of these programs and other programs and policies aimed at addressing and assisting victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence, stalking and sex trafficking." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 244-172. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 86, 3/17/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620]
Some Republicans Were Opposed To Including Psychological And Economic Abuse To The Definition Of Domestic Violence And Disagreed With "The Lack Of Faith-Based Exemptions For Some Program Providers." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans take issue with the expansion of the definition of domestic violence to include psychological and economic abuse, in addition to physical violence, and the lack of faith-based exemptions for some program providers." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21]
The Violence Against Women Act Lapsed In Late 2018 After Congress Failed To Reauthorize It Due To Partisan Issues Regarding Firearms And Transgender Rights, But Congress Has Been Able To Fund Related Programs Without The Reauthorization. According to NPR, "The law was last reauthorized in 2013, but it lapsed at the end of 2018 after Congress failed to act due to partisan disputes over guns and transgender issues. The lapse has had little practical effect because Congress continues to fund related programs despite the lack of authorization." [NPR, 3/17/21]
2021: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Reduce The Reauthorization Of Funding For Four Fiscal Years Of The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. In March 2021, Schweikert voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "replace the bill's provisions with language to reauthorize funding for programs and activities under the Violence Against Women Act through fiscal 2022." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177-249. [House Vote 85, 3/17/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 32; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment (H J Res 17), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (HR 1620) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the five measures; make in order floor consideration of 41 amendments to HR 1620; and provide for automatic adoption of a Nadler, D-N.Y., manager's amendment to HR 1620." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 233) that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment (H J Res 17), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (HR 1620) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the five measures; make in order floor consideration of 41 amendments to HR 1620; and provide for automatic adoption of a Nadler, D-N.Y., manager's amendment to HR 1620." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1620; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing Funding For Training Campus Personnel To Use Victim-Centered, Trauma-Informed Interview Techniques That Is Focused On The Victim's Experience. In April 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "allow[ed] grant funding to be used for training campus personnel to use victim-centered, trauma-informed interview techniques, focused on the experience of the victim, and informed by evidence based research on the neurobiology of trauma in addressing victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence or stalking." The underlying legislation reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 258 to 173. The House later passed the underlying bill. [House Vote 149, 4/3/19; Congressional Quarterly, 4/3/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 123; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1585]