[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8401-H8405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3402, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
    APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2009

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 462

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 462 is a structured rule. It provides 1 
hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the 
amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order 
printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole.
  It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the 
report, and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 462 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2009.

[[Page H8402]]

  First, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Additionally, I want to commend 
the full committee for all their hard work and time involved in the 
completion of this important authorizing legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect, and they demand, that 
Congress uphold its obligation to ensure that their money is spent both 
wisely and effectively, and some of the most important expenditures 
made on behalf of the American people are included in this legislation 
we are considering today. Without question, the Department of Justice 
is charged with the responsibility to enforce and to uphold the 
Constitution and statutes of this great country. All Americans benefit 
from an effective and a fully funded law enforcement apparatus at the 
Federal level, at the State level, and especially at the local level.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 would authorize appropriations to fund the 
agencies under the Department of Justice, including the FBI; the DEA, 
Drug Enforcement Administration; the United States Attorneys; and the 
Bureau of Prisons. This bill authorizes $59 billion for these four 
agencies through 2010. Additionally, this legislation will reauthorize, 
strengthen, and implement new programs in the Violence Against Women 
Act, many of which are slated to expire September 30 of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 also would build upon many of the reforms 
instituted by the administration to improve the Department of Justice's 
Office of Justice Programs, OJP, and Community-Oriented Policing 
Services, the COPS program. This bill would merge the current Byrne 
grant program with the local law enforcement block grant programs into 
one new Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. By 
merging these two programs, States and local law enforcement will be 
able to more easily apply for and access vital funding.
  Mr. Speaker, this streamlined process will improve flexibility for 
our State and our local governments. A one-size-fits-all mentality is 
not an acceptable solution for funding individual communities and law 
enforcement entities that have specialized and diverse needs. A certain 
degree of deference must be given to State and local law enforcement as 
they work to combat individual threats to and problems in their own 
communities.
  However, H.R. 3402 also ratifies our need for continuing oversight of 
Federal dollars by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment, and 
Management that will ensure that the Office of Justice program runs 
efficiently and applies the money responsibly and effectively. This 
oversight office will be focused on results, and it will follow the 
trail of these funds so they can reach their intended target and 
achieve their full potential.
  Mr. Speaker, this authorization would also permanently authorize an 
Office of Weed and Seed Strategies. This office would replace the 
current Executive Office of Weed and Seed created by the first Bush 
administration in 1991 as a community-based, multiagency approach to 
blend law enforcement, crime prevention, and neighborhood restoration 
strategies to strengthen our communities.

                              {time}  1145

  With respect to the programs created by the Violence Against Women 
Act, H.R. 3402 will reauthorize and strengthen various court programs, 
including the STOP grant program which brings police and prosecutors 
into a collaborative process with victim services that aims to prevent 
and punish violence committed against women.
  As the proud parent of three daughters and the proud grandparent of 
two granddaughters, I fully recognize the need to give law enforcement 
every tool available to prevent domestic violence and to protect 
America's wives, mothers, daughters and granddaughters.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 makes significant improvements to these 
programs. For instance, this legislation assures gender equality by 
requiring gender neutrality in any grant or activities that assist 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault 
or human trafficking. Additionally, H.R. 3402 includes provisions to 
strengthen the privacy rights of victims, to allow for a more vigorous 
prosecution of cyberstalking and to double, let me repeat, double the 
penalty for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders.
  The bill not only strengthens the ability of law enforcement but it 
also provides victims with additional tools in the fight against 
domestic violence, including access to trained attorneys and to lay 
advocacy services.
  H.R. 3402 would also create two new programs focused on children and 
youth who are victims of or witnesses to domestic violence. Clearly our 
children do not have to be physically abused to become victims of 
domestic violence. Exposure to these types of heinous acts can be 
enough to scar the life of a child forever, and this reality must be, 
and it is, addressed by this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today as this House considers the rule and the 
underlying legislation and a number of amendments, I would like to 
encourage my colleagues to keep this thoughtful debate focused on the 
topic at hand. Funding the Department of Justice and protecting victims 
of domestic violence are commonsense priorities on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. 
I ask my colleagues to support it and, of course, the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, rarely in the last decade has the Committee on the 
Judiciary's majority been interested in working in a bipartisan 
fashion. So I am pleasantly surprised that cooperation and consultation 
won out over partisanship and ideology during the drafting of the 
underlying legislation. At the same time, however, as the underlying 
legislation comes to the floor under the blanket of inclusiveness, it 
is disappointing that the rule providing for its consideration is again 
restrictive.
  Under this rule, all but a few select amendments are blocked from 
being presented to the body. All but a select few are blocked from 
offering amendments that would strengthen and improve the Violence 
Against Women Act. All but a select few are blocked from offering 
amendments that would place more law enforcement on the street and help 
reduce crime. All but a select few are blocked from making a good bill 
even better.
  Forty-six amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules 
yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker: 15 by Republicans, 23 by Democrats, and 
eight bipartisan. Nevertheless, under this rule the House will have the 
opportunity to consider only 12 of them, that is, of the 46 amendments 
offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday, barely one out of every 
four is actually made in order under this rule. That is not democracy. 
It is autocracy. And it is just not right, no matter how 
noncontroversial a bill may be.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is supported on both sides of 
the aisle. It is largely similar to legislation which passed 
overwhelmingly in the 108th Congress, and I plan to support it. I am 
pleased that the bill increases funding for the Department of Justice 
Inspector General and the COPS program well beyond the President's 
short-sighted budget request. The bill merges the Byrne Grant program 
with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program authorizing $1.1 
billion for the program in fiscal year 2006 and an unspecified amount 
through 2009. It also extends the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant 
program to assist State and local law enforcement to upgrade and 
purchase new life-saving vests.
  I am equally pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary included in 
the bill a provision authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff). This provision requires the Department of Justice to report to 
Congress annually on the number of detainees suspected of terrorism in 
the United States and those that the United States is holding and 
whether they will be treated as enemy combatants or criminal 
defendants.

[[Page H8403]]

  Mr. Speaker, as a beacon of freedom, the United States has a 
responsibility to maintain a justice system that is transparent, fair, 
and respected throughout the world. The Schiff provision goes a long 
way towards restoring the respect that America once commanded regarding 
the treatment of prisoners of war. It is my hope and expectation that 
this provision will be included in the conference report that is 
ultimately sent to the President for his signature.
  Finally, the underlying legislation reauthorizes the Violence Against 
Women Act, which is set to expire in a few days. First signed into law 
in 1994 by President Clinton, the Violence Against Women Act provides 
significant protections to women, children, and families who are 
victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and abuse, stalking, and 
sex trafficking.
  Under the act, women and children who are victims of these heinous 
crimes are provided with access to legal aid, social services, 
counseling, and most importantly, protection under Federal law. The 
underlying legislation reauthorizes and expands critical programs 
already in existence under current law while also creating new programs 
that improve our efforts to protect women and children from the sick 
and twisted.
  Mr. Speaker, as I briefly mentioned, the underlying legislation is a 
good bill, and I will support it. Nevertheless, it is disappointing 
that Members of this body are being blocked from making this good bill 
even better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the amendments that were made in order, in 
fact, there are 12. Many of the amendments that were authored were non-
germane; but in any regard, 12 amendments under this structured rule 
were made in order. And certainly in the interest of being fair and 
balanced, six Democratic amendments and six Republican amendments are 
those we will consider later on this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. It is great to be speaking on a rule once again.
  Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Act is one of the great 
legislative success stories of the last 10 years, and today the House 
of Representatives has the opportunity and the duty to strengthen and 
improve current law to further protect women across the country from 
exploitation and abuse.
  Since 1994, VAWA, as we affectionately refer to it, has been an 
invaluable tool in the law enforcement arsenal as well as a crucial 
resource for victims. I know, Mr. Speaker, because I was on the bench 
before its passage. So whether it is obtaining a protection order, 
talking to an advocate or prosecutor, or just making our streets safer 
for women, we have seen monumental changes in how we protect the 
vulnerable from violence.
  Since 1995, States have passed more than 600 laws to combat domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. All States have passed laws 
making stalking a crime. And since 1996, the National Domestic Violence 
Hotline has answered over 1 million calls for help. But even though 
tremendous progress has been made in addressing the dark and 
devastating issues of sexual assault, incest, rape, and other forms of 
violence against women and children, crime continues.
  Let us never forget, Mr. Speaker, that children in homes where 
domestic violence is present are more apt to grow up to be abusers 
themselves or more likely to remain in a relationship when they are 
abused. It is a cyclical problem, and it needs to be intercepted, and 
it needs to be stopped.
  Today's reauthorization measure extends core programs and makes 
improvements to enhance our ability to combat domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It also seeks to combat the 
problem of violence against our youth on campuses by allowing funds to 
be used for innovative antiviolence programs on college campuses all 
across America. And for the first time we have a law that addresses 
cyberstalking and the horrid abuses of the Internet.
  By persevering in this fight, we will see justice not only by 
stopping those who prey on the defenseless but also by assisting and 
empowering those in need.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and the bipartisan legislation underlying it so that 
women and children across America can live in a safer and more secure 
world.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his leadership.
  I rise in strong support for the underlying bill. The Violence 
Against Women Act, enacted in 1994, was a milestone in this country. It 
moved violence, the unspoken crime against women, out of the closets, 
out of the back doors and into the national agenda of this country with 
protections, with grants, with information to the police, the 
prosecutors; and it has helped women, children, and families in this 
country.
  Yet, I rise in strong opposition to this rule; and while I support 
the bill, this restrictive rule has blocked debate on a number of very 
important amendments that would have made the Violence Against Women 
Act an even stronger and better piece of legislation, including two 
that I offered to help rape victims merely get information that they 
could use to prevent the need for an abortion and to prevent an 
unwanted pregnancy.
  The first of my amendments would have required the Department of 
Justice's first ever medical guidelines for treating sexual assault 
victims, those women that have been raped, the National Protocol For 
Sexual Assault Medical Examinations. It merely asked them to include a 
recommendation that those women that have been victimized be offered 
information about emergency contraception in order to prevent 
pregnancy. EC is not an abortion; it is pregnancy prevention. And where 
this woman has been victimized, depriving her of this information 
victimizes her twice.

                              {time}  1200

  The second would simply ask the Attorney General to explain in a 
report to Congress and to the American people why emergency 
contraception was not included in the protocol.
  Last year, after the Justice Department issued the protocol, reports 
indicated that information on the option of EC, or emergency 
contraception, to prevent pregnancy had been included, was supported in 
early drafts, but it was removed, without explanation, from the final 
version. By removing references to EC from the national protocol, the 
administration makes it clear that they would rather make rape victims 
decide between having an abortion or carrying their rapist's baby to 
term than offering women important knowledge and information to decide 
if emergency contraception is right for them. I find it unconscionable 
that they will not allow this information to be included.
  The Justice Department's inclusion of EC in a national protocol 
absolutely runs counter, not only to the consensus in this country, but 
the consensus of most of the Nation's and the world's top organizations 
and scientists. The American College of Emergency Physicians includes 
it. The American College of Gynecology explicitly recommends it, and I 
must say that at least 101 countries around the world make EC 
available, and 39 of those even offer it over the counter.
  So let me say that 101 nations cannot be wrong. This country is 
counter to world opinion. This is information that would help women 
that have been victims of rape, and I regret to say that they denied 
even a discussion of it on this floor with the amendments.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule because of these two amendments that 
are common sense, would help women, were excluded and many others that 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) mentioned.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In regard to the amendment the gentlewoman from New York is 
referencing, in the jurisdiction of the

[[Page H8404]]

Committee on the Judiciary, it was ruled nongermane to this bill. There 
are other committees certainly that would have jurisdiction over that 
and need an opportunity to look at that very closely.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for saying that 
this important issue should be looked at. I point out that this is 
information that 101 countries offer and is not part of our protocol.
  My office and I talked to the appropriate people and to the 
parliamentarians, and it was germane. It was germane to the bill. It 
was germane to the bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's comments.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), 
a leader in this field and for a number of years in the California 
legislature and ambassadorial ranks.
  Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that the amendment I wished 
to offer to this bill has been ruled out of order by the Committee on 
Rules. By refusing to permit this amendment to even be debated, the 
House Republican leadership is dismissing the concerns of Americans, 
not only in my hometown, but in hometowns across America who believe 
that we should put all options on the table to fight violent gangs.
  Gang violence and gang activities are just not limited to inner city 
areas. Today, we will find some of the most violent and well-organized 
youth gangs in our Nation's richest suburbs and areas right around here 
in Arlington and Fairfax County, two of the most affluent counties in 
the U.S. Local law enforcement officials are dealing with a host of 
gangs, and according to the FBI, northern Virginia is one of the 
hottest regions in the Nation for gang activities.
  Despite the growing threat of organized gang violence to our national 
welfare, I know of no Federal Government report that contains a 
comprehensive listing and description of gangs, as well as an 
assessment of the demographic characteristics of those gangs that is 
prepared on an annual basis.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that the report my legislation would have 
mandated could have been widely used by local, State and Federal law 
enforcement officials. It would be the first Federal report prepared on 
an annual basis to provide a comprehensive overview of gang activity in 
the United States. The report will also make available important 
information on gang activities in schools. It would have been an annual 
benchmark used by policy-makers, as well as Members of Congress to 
assess the success or failure of anti-gang activities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Regarding the gentlewoman from California, I want to point out to her 
that this very issue was addressed in the gang bill that was passed 
earlier this year. In fact, H.R. 1279, the comprehensive gang violence 
prevention bill, authorized $20 million to provide assistance to State 
and local prosecutors to fund technology and other equipment to track 
gang members and maintain information about their crimes. In fact, if I 
recall correctly, it was the gentlewoman from California's amendment on 
the floor on that very bill that was accepted and included in H.R. 
1279.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this 
is a good bill and I plan to support it, but a good bill could have 
been made better had amendments of Members in this body on both sides 
been made in order.
  We are not the workaholic Congress around here, and we have the time 
to undertake to do things that are critical for the American public. I 
am absolutely convinced that we could have allowed most, if not all, of 
the amendments that were included.
  I have said on other occasions that my colleagues in the majority 
were championed by some of the best skilled legislators in 1992 and 
1994. One of them, a deceased Member, former chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, a good friend of mine that I traveled actively with and 
dearly miss him, was Gerald Solomon. Others of course, former Speaker 
Gingrich and the distinguished Robert Walker. I saw them on this floor 
repeatedly saying that the big problem that existed with Democrats at 
that time was that they were operating on closed and restrictive rules.
  I guess what changed here is the majority, and there are some who 
still have not got it, and that is, that people in this body represent 
all of the people in America. Until such time as we open all of the 
rules to Members who are desirous of offering germane amendments, we 
will be having restrictive and closed rules and shutting out, blocking 
out a part of the individuals who represent upwards of 600,000 to 
800,000 people each.
  I find that anathema, particularly in light of the instruction that 
came from those in the majority. I remember so vividly hearing on the 
radio people talking about closed rules and open rules, and people did 
not even know what a closed rule and an open rule was, but the mantra 
was that the rules were closed. Open them up, so that the American 
public can have a transparent Congress that allows for the flow of 
legislation to be debated on this floor and that the will of the House 
then should prevail.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, I had an 
opportunity to speak with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) 
regarding her concerns and her amendment, and what we have committed to 
her and the Committee on the Judiciary has made a commitment that they 
will work with her in regard to the language of her amendment as the 
gang bill goes to conference which really is a more appropriate vehicle 
to modify that language, and we do make that commitment to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to my 
colleagues for a productive discussion on this rule.
  H. Res. 462 is a good rule. It balances very well the laborious work 
of the Committee on the Judiciary with the amendment process on the 
floor. Multiple Members will have an opportunity to discuss their 
amendments and receive a vote, and I look forward to the further 
consideration of this legislation.
  From the FBI to the DEA, to the United States attorneys to the Bureau 
of Prisons, H.R. 3402 authorizes critical funding for the Department of 
Justice, allowing it to continue its fight to uphold the laws of our 
land and to keep our citizens safe.
  Additionally, this bill will strengthen many of the programs already 
available under the office of justice programs that aid State and local 
law enforcement on the ground as they work to protect their individual 
communities.
  This Act streamlines many of the request processes and, thereby, 
facilitates local officials and law enforcement in accessing the funds 
made available by these programs.
  Mr. Speaker, through the reauthorization of the provisions of the 
Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 creates stiffer penalty for 
abusers, and it gives more rights to the victims of domestic violence.
  For the sake of law enforcement and victims across this great 
country, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, thanks to the passage of the 
Violence Against Woman Act in 1994, domestic violence is recognized as 
a crime committed by the abuser, and not the fault of the victim.
  However, neither our federal laws nor the laws of many of our states 
offer victims of domestic violence some of the protections they need to 
leave their abuser.
  Congressman Poe and I had three amendments to address these critical 
issues.
  The Violence Against Women Act made it possible for victims of 
domestic violence to get protective orders and move to safe shelters.
  Yet victims who take time off from work to attend to such matters are 
often fired or demoted.

[[Page H8405]]

  One of our amendments would have allowed a victim of domestic 
violence to take time off from work, without pay, and without penalty, 
to make necessary court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get 
help with safety planning.
  Our second amendment would have allowed states to provide 
unemployment benefits to victims who are fired due to circumstances 
stemming from domestic violence.
  This would help victims who find themselves with the unconscionable 
choice of returning to an abusive home or becoming homeless.
  Finally, victims of domestic violence report rampant insurance 
discrimination based on their status as a victim of domestic assault.
  Insurance providers frequently use information about the abuse 
history of an applicant--including medical, police, and court records--
to deny health coverage.
  And our third amendment would prohibit insurance providers from 
basing coverage decisions on a victim's history of abuse.
  Unfortunately, because the Republican leadership has decided on a 
restrictive approach to reauthorizing VAWA Congressman Poe and I have 
been prevented from presenting these amendments.
  For that reason, I oppose the rule, and will work with Congressman 
Poe to include these amendments in the final version of the House bill 
in order to help victims of domestic abuse successfully and safely 
escape their abuser.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________