S. 1925 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee represents the VAWA reauthorization legislation endorsed by over 300 national organizations.  Supporters include law enforcement, religious, education, legal, and service professionals across the nation, because it is the only version of VAWA that protects all victims.

Over two years ago, more than 2,000 advocates responded to surveys and national conference calls to name the most pressing issues facing victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Local programs, state and federal grant administrators, national resource centers, and others weighed in about the needs of victims, whether there were barriers to full implementation of VAWA, and whether other changes would improve the effectiveness of the bill. Twenty-two issue committees were convened to work through the responses and prioritize the most important issues for victims from all walks of life including:

·       Lack of services available to LGBTQ victims;

·       Barriers to services for undocumented victims; and

·       Continuing high levels of violence against Native American and Native Alaskan women.

After gathering this information in 2009 and 2010, advocates began consulting with members of Congress and the Administration about the problems and issues to be addressed. In the Senate, legislation was drafted in consultation with the federal agencies charged with implementing its provisions.

The resulting legislation, S. 1925, built upon the past successes of VAWA, increasing its effectiveness and reaching more victims, while decreasing the total amount of federal funding by 20%, eliminating 13 programs and streamlining another ten programs into three.

Other versions of VAWA, including the substitute amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Cornyn in the Senate Judiciary Committee fail victims in a number of remarkable ways including:

1. Massive reductions in authorization levels. For example, freezing the Sexual Assault Services Program at FY11 appropriations levels would mean Iowa could never hope to have more than $240,000 statewide, while the entire state of Texas would be capped under $500,000 for sexual assault services;
2. Eliminating services and protections from violence for communities of color;
3. Eliminating protections from sexual and domestic violence for LGBTQ communities;
4. Impeding the prosecution of serious crime and making it less likely that immigrant victims will come forward by making the U visa certification process more onerous;
5. Stripping historic provisions to improve the ability of tribal governments to hold offenders accountable;
6. Decreasing the age in the definition of youth from 24 to 20 taking away the ability of advocates to serve the population most at risk of dating violence;
7. Eliminating the Engaging Men Program that helps men and boys become anti-violence advocates; 
8. Greatly reducing the ability of middle schools, high schools and colleges to do prevention education with young people; and
9. Stripping the Office on Violence Against Women of its authority, which actually decreases accountability and increases cost.