Senator Scott reply re: VAWA and my Response

I just received a response to my letter to Senator Scott re:his vote on VAWA (See earlier post).  Following are several points he made: 

"Like you, I believe that domestic abuse is a serious problem in our nation and must be addressed. However, I voted against S. 47 due to concerns with certain provisions of the legislation and accountability issues that were not adequately addressed. As you may know, a recent Government Accountability Office Duplication Report found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) administers more than 250 grant programs to provide crime prevention, law enforcement, and victims' services, totaling approximately $30 billion since 2005. In light of this study, I believe that greater accountability measures are needed to ensure that grant funds reach their intended recipients—victims. Furthermore, I was concerned with the constitutionality of a provision of S. 47 that granted tribal governments' unprecedented civil and criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders on tribal lands."

He goes on to say: 

"While I did not support S. 47, I did however vote in favor of a substitute amendment ... that authorized the same level of funding for VAWA. The amendment also incorporated gender neutral language to ensure an all-inclusive, victim-centered bill and required the DOJ to audit at least 10% of the grantees each year to establish greater accountability."
 

Here's my reply which I will be sending my snail mail.

Dear Senator Scott, 

Thank you for your response to my letter of February 26th re: the Violence Against Women Act. I have a few comments about your concerns on this issue.

With reference to the GAO's report on duplication of funding in the Justice Department, that department, in response to the report, stated, "using funding from multiple grant programs may be necessary to fully implement law enforcement projects in light of limited local and federal resources." (GAO-12-342SP)
 

"Using funding from multiple grant programs" certainly could be warranted in South Carolina. This state, as I'm sure you are aware, has an abysmal record on domestic violence, being number two in the country for the number of women murdered by men.

But in any case, voting against the reauthorization of VAWA based on a possible overlap in funding victim services' programs seems like "throwing out the baby with the bath water." If you believe there is overlap in funding, then attack that problem; in voting against the VAWA reauthorization you were not necessarily cutting out duplicated funding.

As to your concern about the constitutionality of S.47, it is not clear what provision you are referring to. I would direct you to the following site: http://4vawa.org/pages/tribal-provision-of-s-1925-myths-v-facts, which appears to answer many of the "questions" about this bill. 

Frankly, Senator Scott, I don't think either of the above two "concerns" of yours are what decided your vote. I think your issue was with the persons who were protected under the bill.

You state that you supported the House version of the bill which included "gender neutral" language. This bill in fact removed the LBGT community from the protections under the Act. It specifically deleted "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program.

Apparently you do not think that this specific community deserves equal protection under the law. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

As a man who touts his Christianity at every opportunity, you should be well aware that Christians are enjoined to "love one another," and no mention is made in that simple statement about gender identity or sexual orientation.

I do not think, Senator Scott, that you serve my interests, the interests of women or the interests of anybody in this community.

Sincerely,

I'm still waiting on a reply from Senator Graham to my original letter.

Stay tuned.