[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2726-H2744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4970, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
4310, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 656 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 656
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. 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. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013,
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 chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. After general debate, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further
consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant
to a subsequent order of the House.
Point of Order
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 656
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of
section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Following debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration as
the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some unfunded
mandates in the underlying bill, H.R. 4970; rather, I am here today
because this is the only opportunity to voice opposition to this bill,
given the strict, closed terms of our debate today.
It is baffling to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would be so shut out of
today's debate and that House Republicans would so completely abandon
any pretense of bipartisanship on a bill like the Violence Against
Women Act. This bill has always been a bipartisan effort, and I would
argue that on an issue like this, it is incredibly important to have a
well-rounded discussion.
We obviously disagree about the key elements that are critical to
include in a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Well, why not
allow us to have a healthy debate? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, why
not allow us our chance to try to improve the legislation before us?
Our allies in the domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy
community have literally spent years compiling input and data from
service providers, law enforcement, and victims themselves about what
we must do to update VAWA in a reauthorization. And I am here to be a
voice of protest because their input is invaluable; yet, for the very
first time, their input has been cast aside.
Last night I offered a substitute, along with Representative Conyers
and Representative Lofgren, that would have allowed us to consider the
Senate-passed version of the Violence Against Women Act, a version
which I proudly introduced in March here in this House of
Representatives. This legislation was passed in the Senate with sound
bipartisan support and includes the improvements that have been
endorsed by a broad array of individuals and organizations, including
law enforcement agencies.
But, unfortunately, today we will not be allowed to vote on the
Senate bill. We will have to vote on the Adams bill, which is now
officially opposed by over 325 organizations. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you
heard it right--325 organizations.
I would like to share my time with my colleagues who are here with me
today and would like for their voices to be heard. So, Mr. Speaker,
with your permission, I am going to yield to a number of Members for
unanimous consent, the first of whom is Ms. Yvette Clarke from
Brooklyn, New York.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in
opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for violence
against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement
opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2012 (VAWA). This egregious bill is another example of this
Republican-led Congress waging political warfare on women.
H.R. 4970 would roll back years of progress and bipartisan commitment
on the part of Congress to protect vulnerable immigrant victims of
domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, other serious crimes, and
trafficking. Choosing one type of victim over the other.
Mr. Speaker, this will greatly impact areas with heavy concentrations
of immigrants, which includes my district and other residents of New
York City. Historically, NYC has been the beacon of immigration. Many
in Congress, including Republicans, can trace their ancestry back to
the immigrant population of NYC.
These new punitive measures within H.R. 4970 that hinder abused
immigrants' ability to seek justice against their abusers, are a grave
set of circumstances that will have future implications on the safety
and security of our country.
[[Page H2727]]
It will jeopardize community relations with law enforcement, force
those on a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship into the
shadows, and threaten the moral fabric that binds civil society.
As the majority continues to pride itself as being the defenders of
small government, fiscal responsibility, and moral authority, I am
appalled at how almost every action taken in this 112th Congress has
been to the contrary of their platform.
Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in that movie Groundhog Day, every day
it is the same attacks over and over again. Are we running out of
options? Are we so scared of tackling the real issues in this country
like job creation, that we will continue to debate the same egregious
legislative measures that curtail the rights and freedoms of women and
cut off access to it for immigrants?
Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense that a nation of immigrants, built on
the backs of immigrants, would not provide protection to immigrants.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to confine
their unanimous-consent requests to a simple, declarative statement of
the Member's attitude toward the measure. Further embellishments will
result in a deduction of time from the yielding Member.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. MOORE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Ms. MOORE. The declarative statement that you referred to, am I not
correct, Mr. Speaker, that that could also include a sentence, a
complete sentence?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will only deduct time for
embellishments.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the Chair.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks
in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for
violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill
that actually protects victims.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider a bill entitled
the ``Violence Against Women Act.'' This bill, however, does very
little to stop violence or protect women.
Instead of continuing the tradition of coming together in a bi-
partisan manner to pass this important reauthorization and achieve
something we all should be able to agree on, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have turned the Violence Against Women Act into a
partisan messaging platform.
VAWA should protect every victim from their abuser, regardless of
their immigration status. Instead, this bill endangers immigrants by
punishing victims who cooperate with law enforcement.
VAWA should protect every victim, regardless of their sexual
orientation or the gender of their abuser. Instead, this bill endangers
LGBTQ victims by including ``gender-neutral'' language that ignores the
reality that people are being underserved because of their sexual
orientation.
VAWA should protect every victim, regardless of their Tribal
affiliation. Instead, this bill endangers Native victims who are abused
by non-Native Americans and leaves tribal courts without proper
authority to protect victims and create safe communities.
Because the so-called ``Violence Against Women Act'' does none of
these things, I stand in firm opposition to this bill.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
submit my remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens
protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan
Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed by the
direction the House Majority has taken with this version of the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation that has dramatically reduced
violence against women and provided states and local communities with
additional resources to address crimes against women.
As such, VAWA reauthorization has in past Congresses gained
overwhelming bipartisan support. No matter what side of the aisle we're
on, members of Congress have long understood the need to strengthen
protections for victims of abuse. Just last month, the Senate passed
its own version of VAWA, which garnered a bipartisan vote of 68 31.
And yet here we are today debating a partisan bill that weakens
critical protections and fails to protect underserved communities like
LGBT victims and Native American women.
A diverse coalition of 164 immigration, faith, labor, civil rights,
human rights, and community groups have come together in strong
opposition to H.R. 4970, even with the manager's amendments. Their
message is clear: H.R. 4970 will set us back years in fighting domestic
violence.
At a time when we need to modernize the VAWA to build upon our
efforts, this bill would instead roll back existing protections.
This bill would make it much harder for battered immigrant women to
leave their abusive relationship by adding unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy.
Strong immigrant victim protections have helped countless women,
including Maria, who's husband physically abused her and threatened to
kill her two children. Without his knowledge, she started a VAWA self-
petition process, meeting with an attorney at the Laundromat on her
usual laundry day and hiding her paperwork. Repealing immigrant
protections and adding red-tape and onerous requirements will endanger
the safety of battered immigrants like Maria.
H.R. 4970 would also weaken the U visa program, which has encouraged
immigrant victims of crime to report and help prosecute serious
criminal activity.
Current law allows U visa recipients to apply to become permanent
residents. This bill removes the opportunity of most victims to apply
to become permanent residents, thereby discouraging victims from
cooperating with local law enforcement as it could lead to deportation.
Strong protections in this area have helped countless immigrant women
escape the cycle of domestic abuse and rebuild their lives.
Now, we should have a conversation about how to update VAWA so that
MORE women can be served.
We've learned in the past years that lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender victims experience domestic violence at the same rate as
the general population. Yet, they do not receive the same protections
and services they need because of discrimination and lack of training
by law enforcement and service providers.
The Senate bill includes important provisions that ensure that
services to LGBT victims are explicitly included in VAWA grant
problems, as well as bans discrimination against victims based on their
sexual orientation.
We have to ask the question as to why these key measures were not
included in this regressive bill brought by the House majority.
As a mother and a grandmother, I can not stand by as we roll back
decades of progress in protecting women from emotional, physical and
sexual abuse.
It is time that we stop playing politics, reject this partisan
proposal, and move forward with a bipartisan bill that ensures that all
victims of violence are protected.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my
remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for
violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my
remarks in opposition to a bill that weakens protections for violence
against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, when the Violence Against Women Act was
first passed, it was to prevent and raise awareness of domestic
violence, and to create programs that help victims exit dangerous
situations. Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today runs counter
to these goals. It eliminates critical protections to help immigrant
[[Page H2728]]
women and it fails to extend the protections of VAWA to other
populations that need them desperately. I support the Senate's
bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, which builds on past progress by
providing battered Native American women with recourse against their
abusers and ensures that anyone who experiences domestic abuse has
access to VAWA resources, including those in same-sex relationships. I
urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4970 and ensure that the
reauthorization of VAWA helps all victims of domestic abuse.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks
in opposition to the Republican bill that weakens protections for
violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Today, I stand with my Democratic colleagues and victims
of domestic violence across our Nation in strong opposition to the H.R.
4970, the House Republican alternative to Violence Against Women
Reauthorization bill. This bill severely undermines vital protections
available to victims of violence and places these victims in danger of
continued abuse.
Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of
protecting survivors of domestic violence. Each year across this
Nation, thousands of women, children, and men who fall victim to
domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence
and stalking no longer have to live in fear because of important victim
protections under this law. This Republican alternative bill threatens
to dismantle this progress by deliberately placing domestic violence
victims from LGBT, immigrant, tribal and other marginalized communities
in harm's way.
While my Republican colleagues may think many of these discarded
provisions are unnecessary, there is ample proof that they are sadly
mistaken. Just last year, cases of LGBT domestic violence had increased
by 38 percent. Of those who sought help, 44 percent of LGBT victims
were turned away from traditional shelters. As for Tribal victims,
Native American women face the highest rate of domestic violence in the
U.S.--three and a half times higher than the national average. Proposed
changes to current VAWA protections for immigrant survivors create an
even larger obstacle for immigrant victims seeking to report crimes and
increase the danger to immigrant victims by eliminating important
confidentiality protections. These changes threaten to undermine
current anti-fraud protections in place while rolling back decades of
Congress's progress and commitments towards the protection of
vulnerable immigrant victims.
Let's be clear, VAWA should not be used as a vehicle to pass
immigration policy measures that are not germane to its purpose. VAWA
has always been focused on protecting victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, stalking and trafficking and this should not change. In
just one day, over 5,363 victims and their children receive services at
domestic violence programs in California. On that same day, however,
over 924 requests for services go unmet, largely due to lack of
resources. This alone is proof that we need to expand the VAWA's
programs and services and not eliminate them.
{time} 1240
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I join the United States Conference of
Mayors and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination in opposition
to the bill, and I ask unanimous consent to submit their letters for
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Office of the Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of the nation's mayors, we strongly urge the House of
Representatives to support the protections for victims of
domestic violence included in S. 1925, the bipartisan Senate
bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Since 1994, this landmark law has provided a comprehensive,
coordinated, and community-based approach toward reducing
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms
of violence. VAWA's programs and services have provided
lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims and
significantly strengthened the ability of the criminal
justice system to hold violent perpetrators accountable. Over
the past two decades, these efforts have helped dramatically
reduce the incidence and impact of violence against women,
including an over 50 percent decline in the annual rate of
domestic violence.
Despite considerable progress in addressing the epidemic of
violence against women, we recognize that much more needs to
be done and that this reauthorization presents an opportunity
for the Congress to strengthen our national commitment to
tackling the challenges that remain. Like the 2000 and 2005
reauthorizations, we believe that the bipartisan Senate
reauthorization does just that by expanding services and
assistance to those communities who experience the highest
rates of violence or who have the greatest difficulty
accessing services.
We believe that it is essential that VAWA's vital services
be provided to all victims regardless of group status and for
that reason we strongly support the establishment of a
uniform nondiscrimination provision for VAWA grant programs
included in S. 1925. By replacing and clarifying the current
patchwork of protections, the nondiscrimination provision
will help ensure that victims are not denied services on the
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation, or disability. This measure is
needed in part to address the significant obstacles that
lesbian, gay, and transgendered communities have faced in
accessing services in recent years. Despite the fact that
they experience domestic violence at the same rate as the
general population, 45 percent of lesbian, gay, and
transgendered victims are reportedly turned away when they
seek help from domestic violence shelters. This type of
discrimination is simply unacceptable.
Since its first passage, VAWA has sought to protect
immigrant victims whose non-citizen status can make them
especially vulnerable to crimes of domestic and sexual
violence. We are greatly concerned by a provision included in
the VAWA reauthorization proposed by the House of
Representatives, H.R. 4970, which would roll back
confidentiality protections that enable undocumented women to
safely come forward and report violent crimes. Rather than
reducing the outlets for these victims, VAWA reauthorization
should provide additional ways for law enforcement to work
with these victims to investigate and prosecute serious
crimes. The Senate version includes a provision that would
allow the Department of Homeland Security to draw from a pool
of previously authorized but never used U visas so that law
enforcement officers have the tools to work with victims and
bring violent offenders to justice.
The House bill, unlike the Senate version, also does not
address the continuing challenge of violence in tribal
communities. A recent study by the Center for Disease Control
found that 46 percent of Native American women have
experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an
intimate partner in their lifetime. As with immigrant
victims, VAWA has aimed to address the terribly high rates of
violence against women in tribal communities. Although some
progress has been made, we believe the continuing high rates
of violence on tribal lands require far greater attention.
This reauthorization provides an opportunity to strengthen
federal law enforcement tools and to expand the capacity of
tribal governments to investigate and prosecute these crimes.
As mayors, we have seen the tremendous impact of the
Violence Against Women Act in our communities. The lifesaving
programs supported in the legislation should be quickly
reauthorized to ensure the continuation and access of vital
services for victims. We believe that these Senate provisions
will help us better address continuing problems and remaining
unmet needs, and strongly urge the House take up and pass the
bipartisan Senate bill, S. 1925.
Sincerely,
Antonio R. Villaragosa, Mayor of Los Angeles, CA President;
Annise D. Parker, Mayor of Houston, TX Chair, Criminal &
Social Justice Committee; Mark Stodola, Mayor of Little Rock,
AR; Wayne Powell, Mayor of Manhattan Beach, CA; Jerry
Sanders, Mayor of San Diego, CA; Helene Schneider, Mayor of
Santa Barbara, CA; Bill Finch, Mayor of Bridgeport, CT; James
Baker, Mayor of Wilmington, DE.
Michael A. Nutter, Mayor of Philadelphia, PA, Vice
President; Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, MA, Past
President; Patrick Hays, Mayor of North Little Rock, AR; Mary
Ann Lutz, Mayor of Monrovia, CA; Ed Lee, Mayor of San
Francisco, CA; Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor of West
Sacramento, CA; Pedro Segarra, Mayor of Hartford, CT; Susan
Whelchel, Mayor of Boca Raton, FL.
Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, NY; Tom Cochran,
CEO and Executive Director; Greg Stanton, Mayor of Phoenix,
AZ; Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, CA; Jan Marx, Mayor
of San Luis Obispo, CA; Michael Hancock, Mayor of Denver, CO;
Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of Washington, DC; Marilyn Gerber,
Mayor of Coconut Creek, FL.
Patricia Gerard, Mayor of Largo, FL, Michael Ryan, Mayor of
Sunrise, FL, Judy Abruscato, Mayor of Wheeling, IL, Harvey
Johnson, Jr., Mayor of Jackson, MS; William Bell, Mayor of
Durham, NC; Ken Miyagishima, Mayor of Las Cruces, NM; William
Moehle, Mayor of Brighton, NY.
[[Page H2729]]
Michael Coleman, Mayor of Columbus, OH; Vaughn Spencer,
Mayor of Reading, PA; Angel Taveras, Mayor of Providence, RI;
Raul Salinas, Mayor of Laredo, TX; Michael McGinn, Mayor
Seattle, WA; Dan Devine, Mayor of West Allis, WI; Lori
Mosely, Mayor of Miramar, FL.
Shawn Connors, Pecatonica, IL; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake,
Mayor of Baltimore, MD; John Engen, Mayor of Missoula, MT;
Antonia Ricigliano, Mayor of Edison, NJ; Gerald Jennings,
Mayor of Albany, NY; Paul Dyster, Mayor of Niagara Falls, NY;
Sam Adams, Mayor of Portland, OR.
Thomas Leighton, Mayor of Wilkes-Barre, PA; Stephen Wukela,
Mayor of Florence, SC; Deloris Prince, Mayor of Port Arthur,
TX; Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee, WI; Andre Pierre, Mayor
of North Miami, FL; Robert Sanonjian, Mayor of Waukegan, IL;
William Wild, Mayor of Westland, MI; Anthony Foxx, Mayor of
Charlotte, NC.
Susan Cohen, Mayor of Manalapan, NJ; Matthew Ryan, Mayor of
Binghamton, NY; Stephanie Miner, Mayor of Syracuse, NY; Ed
Pawlowski, Mayor of Allentown, PA; Victor Ortiz, Mayor of
Gurabo, PR; AC Wharton, Mayor of Memphis, TN; John Marchione,
Mayor of Redmond, WA; John Dickert, Mayor of Racine, WI.
____
The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2012.
Re Vote No on the Adams Amendment (#1). Reject Federally
Funded Employment Discrimination.
Dear Representative: The undersigned religious, education,
civil rights, labor, and women's organizations write to voice
our opposition to the language of the Adams Amendment
(Amendment #1) to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2012. We oppose the Adams Amendment
insofar as it would alter the nondiscrimination clause in the
base bill to remove protections that bar federally funded
religious discrimination. We urge you to Vote NO on the Adams
Amendment, as government funds should not be used to
underwrite employment discrimination within government-funded
projects and activities.
We appreciate the important role religiously affiliated
institutions historically have played in addressing many of
our nation's most pressing social needs, as a complement to
government-funded programs. Indeed, many of us are directly
involved in this work. We also recognize that the separation
of church and state is the linchpin of religious freedom. In
our view, effective government collaboration with faith-based
groups does not require the sanctioning of federally funded
religious discrimination.
In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, religious organizations may prefer co-religionists in
hiring when using their own private funds. The Adams
Amendment, however, would permit religious organizations to
take VAWA funds and use those funds to discriminate against a
qualified individual based on nothing more than his or her
religious beliefs. VAWA should protect against taxpayer
dollars being used to underwrite jobs where religion is a
factor in hiring decisions.
Adopting the language in the Adams Amendment would be
inconsistent with the longstanding principle that federal
dollars must not be used to discriminate. Accordingly, we
urge you to vote No.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers in Action, American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee (ADC), American Association of
University Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), American Humanist Association, American Jewish
Committee, Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty.
Catholics for Choice, Center for Inquiry, Council for
Secular Humanism, Disciples Justice Action Network, Equal
Partners in Faith, Family Equality Council, Feminist
Majority, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Hindu American
Foundation, Human Rights Campaign.
Institute for Science and Human Values, Interfaith
Alliance, Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Council
for Public Affairs, Jewish Women International, Lambda Legal,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Legal Momentum
NAACP.
National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Jewish Women,
National Education Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force Action Fund, National Partnership for Women & Families,
National Organization for Women, Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National People For the
American Way.
Secular Coalition for America, Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), The Sikh Coalition,
Transgender Law Center, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian
Universalist Association of Congregations, United Church of
Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Methodist
Church, General Board of Church and Society, Women of Reform
Judaism.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my
remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for
violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
There was no objection.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my
remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for
violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res.
656, Rule Providing Consideration of H.R. 4970, Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act. Reporting a closed rule for the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act is another example of shutting Democrats out
of the legislation process by ruling out any opportunity for Democrats
to offer much needed Amendments.
The House version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
unfortunately omits improvements contained in the Senate version of the
bill. What is worse is that the House version in its current form
removes existing protections for immigrant women, and puts them at
greater risk of domestic and sexual abuse, and it does not provide
adequate and equal protection for tribal women and the LGBT community.
For nearly two decades now, Democrats have firmly supported the
Violence Against Women Act and the critical assistance it has provided
for women, men, and children, and have worked with Republicans to
ensure its reauthorization twice in the past. Unfortunately, since
Republicans have taken over the House, bipartisanship and compromise
have fallen out of fashion. Republicans have continually played
partisan politics and refused to compromise in an effort to move this
country forward, and here we are again with another clear example of
that.
Reporting a closed rule for consideration of Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act is a full-fledged promotion of the Republican
attack against women and approval of legislation that is intended to
silence the cries of millions of women around our country.
Violence Against Women Act has never been and should never be a
partisan issue. It is astonishing how the Republican majority has lost
sight of our purpose as lawmakers. We have been trusted with the
responsibility of protecting society and ensuring justice to victims.
Democrats and Republicans have always worked together to reauthorize
Violence Against Women Act since its original passage in 1994. But that
is not the case today.
This rule completely shuts out Democrats and does not allow for the
possibility of a bipartisan consensus. I cannot support a rule making
in order a bill that strips immigrant women, tribal women and the LGBT
community of vital protections as this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand with me in opposition to
this rule.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ladies who are submitting
their statements for the Record.
The Members who join me today are just a few of the many people who
would like to be here to offer their suggestions for improving the bill
and to highlight the stories of women, men, and children in their
district and communities who have experienced atrocious violence. There
are lessons to be learned from their stories, and it is unwise and
unkind of us to turn a blind eye.
I'm thinking of Rosalind in Milwaukee, who was killed by her
girlfriend, Malika, and her family had concerns about her over-
possessiveness. But, of course, this is an LGBT relationship, and an
order for protection may have been ignored without these provisions.
I think of another person in my district, Diane's story, 26 years
old, married to a non-Indian, beaten. Over a hundred incidences--
slapped, kicked, punched, and living in terror. She called for help
several times but no one ever came to her rescue. She was living on a
tribal land.
The Violence Against Women Act has been a lifeline for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. It has allowed us to hold
perpetrators accountable and to pave pathways out of violence for
victims--all women. And since VAWA passed in 1994, domestic violence
has dropped by more than half. We must not turn back, Mr. Speaker. We
must not weaken or repeal some of VAWA's lifesaving protections.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
point of
[[Page H2730]]
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is: Should the House now
consider H. Res. 656? Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or
UMRA, excludes from the application of that act any legislative
provision that establishes or enforces statutory rights prohibiting
discrimination.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that while they have not
reviewed a provision in section 3 of H.R. 4970 for intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates, since that provision prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or
disability, other provisions of H.R. 4970 would impose no
intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
CBO goes on to say the bill would impose private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA on brokers of international marriage and certain
supervisors over persons under official control of the United States.
However, CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would fall well
below the annual threshold established in UMRA: $146 million in 2012,
adjusted annually for inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory. In order to
allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge
Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do appreciate the woman walking us through the protocols for the
unfunded mandates. And I would submit to her that the National Network
to End Domestic Violence, who does a point-in-time counting of domestic
violence services nationwide, would indicate that it costs not only
personal anguish, but there are costs in society, actual fiscal costs,
to not protecting women who are suffering in violent situations.
Right in my own State of Wisconsin, 714,000 women have been
assaulted, raped, or stalked by an intimate partner. This number
actually exceeds the population of the entire city of Milwaukee.
Imagine the cost to employers when people don't show up at work.
Imagine the cost in emergency rooms when people show up battered and
bruised and broken and have no health insurance.
Approximately half a million of these women were fearful or concerned
for their safety. Two hundred and eighty thousand Wisconsin women, 12.7
percent of our population, have been stalked in their lifetime. Imagine
the cost of additional police work when these women call the police and
nothing has been done in terms of making arrests and asking for
accountability.
A study of childhood exposure to violence in Milwaukee has found that
16 percent of Wisconsin adults report having experienced recurring
violence between adults in their childhood. Imagine the loss of
productivity at schools. There's often a lot of talk about kids being
inattentive in school and not being able to pass and succeed in school.
Next to hunger, imagine the cost of witnessing and experiencing
violence in the home as a cost to society.
I would now like to yield to the gentlelady for a question.
There were several amendments that were introduced in the Rules
Committee last evening, and I was wondering if you were aware of any
amendments that were adopted after we left the Rules Committee last
evening. I know there had been a hearing. I was wondering if any of the
amendments that Democrats had introduced were adopted.
Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
None of the amendments were made in order except the manager's
amendment, which brings the bill closer to the Senate version of the
bill.
Ms. MOORE. The manager's amendment, thankfully, was adopted, because
the manager's amendment did have one little piece in there that helps
out immigrant women. But there are 325 groups and organizations,
everything from national women organizations to evangelical women and
the bishops, that oppose even the manager's amendment because they say
that not only are there just simply rollbacks to the Violence Against
Women Act, but it actually puts immigrant women in danger, as the
balance is tipped from current law in favor of these batterers, sexual
assaulters, abusers, and killers.
I would like to yield to the gentlelady for one more question.
Will this body ever have an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan
bill from the Senate that passed 68 31? Will this body ever have the
opportunity? Will that bill ever be before us?
{time} 1250
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I cannot assume what this body will do in the
future. I am one member of the Rules Committee and the Education
Committee. I do not have control over that, and I don't believe anybody
can predict the future.
Ms. MOORE. Representative Foxx, just a follow-up, you are a member, a
very senior member, of the Rules Committee, and so I was wondering if
the rule is structured in a way that will ever allow to have before us,
after we vote on this version, the Adams version of the VAWA bill? Will
there be a pathway toward voting on the Senate bill as you understand
it?
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's question is a
question for the rule and is not relevant to the point of order which
she has raised.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the Speaker and I thank the gentlelady.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it really pains me to see my colleagues across the aisle
make the kind of accusations that they make about Republicans being
unconcerned about the issue of violence against women. How could they
possibly accuse us of not being concerned about that issue? All
Republicans are concerned about violence against anyone. Violence, we
are very concerned about that. I personally won't even watch any kind
of movie that has any kind of violence in it because I can't stand to
see violence perpetrated on another human being. So Republican men and
women both abhor violence against women.
But what we have done in the legislation that we are proposing is we
are asking for increased accountability and to see that more services
are directly offered to women who have violence perpetrated against
them. In fact, I would say that we are more concerned about violence
for women because we want to see those women served better and we want
to see the money spent better.
Mr. Speaker, helping victims of abuse and domestic violence is not a
Republican or Democrat issue. I have been pleased to work with
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez on H.R. 196, Simplifying the Ambiguous
Law Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe, or STALKERS, Act which she has
championed for the last two Congresses. The Democrats wouldn't bring
this bill up when they were in control of the House.
The STALKERS Act updates the Federal stalking statute to include
electronic surveillance and other means of cyber-stalking to ensure
that potential stalking victims are protected as technology changes. In
addition, the STALKERS Act increases criminal penalties by 5 years for
offenders who have violated a protective order or whose victims are
under the age of 18 or elderly.
Congresswoman Sanchez and I worked together regardless of which party
was in charge of the House, and I'm pleased that legislation with the
original cosponsor, who's a Democrat, has been included in the VAWA
reauthorization bill that the House will vote on today. The VAWA
reauthorization bill also adds stalking as an allowable grant purpose
to continue the work of protecting these victims.
As we all know, law enforcement and prosecutors must have the
resources they need to pursue violent criminals, and I hope my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for H.R.
4970 after voting for this rule providing for its consideration, or the
rule we will consider in just a few minutes.
I'm not going to impugn the character of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. We all want to stop violence against women. That's
why Republicans have brought forth this bill. Again, the STALKERS Act
could have
[[Page H2731]]
been brought forward under Democrat control of the House. It was not,
and I'm very disappointed. But I'm proud of Republicans, that we're
doing it and we're strengthening the Violence Against Women Act, not
weakening the act.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 183, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 253]
YEAS--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Burton (IN)
Cassidy
Chandler
Filner
King (IA)
Labrador
Pitts
Slaughter
{time} 1318
Messrs. COHEN, CLEAVER, Ms. FUDGE, and Mr. RICHMOND changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. McCAUL, WEBSTER, and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 253, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
{time} 1320
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hartzler). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 656 provides for a closed
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4970, the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act, and general debate for H.R. 4310, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
As an original cosponsor of the underlying bill, I am proud to stand
with my Republican colleagues in support of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act, otherwise known as VAWA.
The House Judiciary Committee-passed version of VAWA before us today
is a commonsense proposal to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are
used responsibly and efficiently while also improving access to
services for victims. With this bill, we have also worked to add
accountability requirements to conduct the necessary oversight of VAWA
grant recipients and programs. Our goal is to ensure that more money is
spent on direct services and less on administrative bureaucracy.
I commend Representative Adams on authoring this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bills: H.R. 4970, the Cantor-Adams bill, and H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act.
Before we discuss the unprecedented rule for the Cantor-Adams bill,
which has really turned what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue
into a political football--to the detriment of women across our
country--I would like to say a few words about the National Defense
Authorization Act, which is also included in this rule.
[[Page H2732]]
I am really dismayed that the Defense authorization bill that House
Republicans have brought before us undermines the bipartisan agreement
which was reached just last summer. The bill funds defense spending at
$8 billion over the levels set in the Budget Control Act and $3 billion
over the President's budget request--again, more deficit spending in
this Republican bill before us under this rule.
As our deficit spirals out of control, we need to tighten our belt
and balance our budget. Instead, this bill doubles down on 10 years of
ballooning defense budgets, which have played a major role in our
deficit. This bill continues to kick the can down the road toward
balancing our budget and leaves an only bigger hole that the Republican
tax-and-spend policies continue to dig, putting our Nation deeper and
deeper into debt.
Additionally, this bill ties the hands of our military and law
enforcement by requiring in statute to keep military detainees in
Guantanamo, handcuffing any President, Democrat or Republican, and
preventing him from coming up with a plan for what to do with these
individuals. This bill panders to our fears by insisting that the
detainees remain in Guantanamo interminably. It tries to tell generals
how to do their jobs and sets a timetable for troop levels in
Afghanistan rather than does our normal civilian process.
Finally, I am disappointed by the political posturing included in the
bill. The NDAA used to focus solely on setting defense policy and
protecting our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to
use this bill to also push political wedge issues. There is language in
this bill prohibiting the use of military facilities to conduct same-
sex marriages even in States that allow same-sex marriages. It even
prevents gay and lesbian chaplains from marrying members of the
military to other members of the military.
Further, I am deeply disturbed that, in a bill that governs our
national security, language was included that would increase our
dependence on foreign oil and that would undermine our long-term energy
security interest. This bill's exemption of the Department of Defense
from complying with section 526 of the 2007 energy bill hurts water and
recreational interests in my State and harms research and development
and investment in renewable energy.
Now, sadly, as disappointing as it is to see political posturing in
the Defense authorization bill under this rule, it is truly horrifying
to see the political posturing in the provisions of the Violence
Against Women Act, which under this House version would likely lead to
more violence against women. The Violence Against Women Act has a long
bipartisan history. Both sides have traditionally sought to protect all
victims of domestic violence, not just some. Sadly, this bill before us
undoes much of the work that previous Congresses have done and
accomplished on this issue for no reason when we have a bipartisan
Senate version of the bill that protects all women from the abuse of
partners.
Why would we exclude certain women in this country? If a woman is in
a lesbian relationship, should she not be protected if she is a victim
of domestic abuse? If a woman doesn't have the documentation to be in
this country and is here illegally, should she not be protected under
this law?
VAWA protects women who are actually convicted of other crimes. If a
woman stole a car and served time, was convicted of that crime, she is
still protected from domestic abuse under VAWA. Yet nonviolent
offenders of our civil code, like undocumented immigrants, would no
longer be protected because they would effectively face deportation
after 4 years for testifying against the perpetrators of their abuse,
making it much less likely that they would bring the perpetrators to
justice and end the vicious cycle of domestic abuse in their families.
The majority in the House has offered no explanation for their
refusal to allow us to take up the Senate bipartisan bill. My colleague
Virginia Foxx was noncommittal in her response about whether we would
be taking up the Senate bipartisan bill. If she doesn't know the
answer--and I certainly take her on her word--I would hope that
somebody on the other side would come to the floor and say, Can we take
up this Senate bipartisan bill? And if not, why not? And if so, when?
It passed the Senate with 68 votes, Republicans and Democrats. This
is the time to stand up and see if our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle are serious about responding to the insidious domestic violence
crimes that occur every day throughout this country. Frankly, that
could start by the defeat of this bill, allowing for an open process in
considering this bill on the floor of the House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The Violence Against Women Act is an important tool for preventing
domestic violence and sexual assault and for supporting the victims of
these crimes. There is broad bipartisan agreement that this essential
legislation must be renewed.
While the House bill protects the victims of domestic violence and
improves services and education to prevent and address these crimes on
college campuses, our legislation also goes beyond the Senate bill by
ensuring that taxpayer resources help victims--not Washington
bureaucrats--by limiting administrative expenses, requiring annual
audits and combating fraud.
While the House legislation takes enormous strides in protecting the
victims of these truly horrific crimes, the legislation also takes
great care to ensure the funds allocated by this bill are treated with
the responsibility and care the victims and taxpayers deserve:
H.R. 4970 requires VAWA audits be performed by the Department of
Justice and that the Attorney General improves the coordination between
the grant-making offices to reduce duplication and overlap in funding.
H.R. 4970 prohibits the award of grant funds to nonprofit organizations
that hold money in offshore accounts in order to avoid paying their
Federal taxes, and it limits the use of funds for salaries and
administrative expenses to 5 percent of funds authorized under the act.
{time} 1330
The Violence Against Women Act has bipartisan support in both the
House and Senate, and any attempt to exploit this important law as a
partisan political issue is contemptible.
I encourage my colleagues in the House to vote in support of this
legislation today to protect the victims of violent crime and support
the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, for nearly two decades, Congress has
repeatedly reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act on a near
unanimous and bipartisan basis.
Since the act became law, incidents of domestic violence have dropped
by more than 60 percent and the reporting rate of domestic violence has
risen by 51 percent.
The 2012 reauthorization is a chance for Congress to reaffirm its
commitment to the protection of women across this Nation. That is why
it's particularly disheartening to see such a vital piece of
legislation fall victim to putting politics ahead of people.
What are the facts? Tonight, an American woman will join the one in
four women who have been the victims of severe physical domestic
violence. To her, this reauthorization is more than just a bill; it's
security. The bill is security for the one in six women who have been
raped in their lifetime. It's security for the mothers, daughters, and
sisters across this Nation, and its security for the selfless
individuals who tirelessly work to bring aid.
Now is not the time to take a step back, to abandon these victims.
This Congress must expand its efforts and ensure that all victims are
assisted, no matter what their race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Too many in this body have chosen to fight against these protections.
They want to fight efforts to extend LGBT individuals equal protection,
even though they're less likely to receive protective orders, more
likely to be turned away, and because of this are less likely to report
their attack to the police. They deserve equal protection, and there's
a bipartisan bill that does just that, but it's falling victim to
election-year politics.
[[Page H2733]]
In America, we have to combat the abuse of women in our own society--
no matter their country of origin--if we're going to continue to have
the moral authority to advocate for the rights of people abroad. There
is also a bipartisan bill that would continue to protect immigrant
survivors by granting them special visas and by preventing retribution
from their attackers, yet there are some in this body who would also
deny these women protection.
These days, bipartisan compromise is hard to come by, no matter how
hard some of us try. We are rarely handed an opportunity where there is
such universal agreement. VAWA has a proud history of bipartisan
support. Let's continue that tradition, put politics aside, and pass a
bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill that protects all victims.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North
Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my colleague from North Carolina.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill
and call for the passage of H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2012. Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has
helped many women escape abuse and enabled them to seek help through
its victim services program.
We're here today debating something that is a good policy and common
sense and should be supported in the same bipartisan manner that we
have seen throughout the two decades since its inception. Violence
against women does not occur along party lines, and neither should
reauthorization of these programs. We must work together in a
bipartisan manner to protect women from domestic violence, rape, and
stalking. Partisan posturing should not be placed above the urgent
needs of these victims.
The House's reauthorization makes several key improvements to the
Senate bill and nearly doubles the resources for eliminating the
backlog of unprocessed rape evidence kits, while cracking down on the
fraud identified in the immigration program. This bill also brings
great accountability to the grant administration by ensuring that
funding is spent on the victims, not Washington bureaucrats. The
House's reauthorization of VAWA is and always will be about the victims
of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
I am proud to support this bill and will continue to fight and
protect women and victims of abuse through commonsense legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and urge a ``no''
vote on the flawed Violence Against Women Act that my Republican
colleagues will bring to the floor.
They had an opportunity to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the
floor, but chose not to do so. That's a shame, because the Violence
Against Women Act has been a bipartisan and noncontroversial effort for
almost 20 years now. The update passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis
just last month.
Why does everything have to be a partisan fight here on the floor of
the House? Over the past year, my Republican colleagues here in the
House have blocked an important jobs package; they have stalled the
adoption of the national transportation and infrastructure bill;
they've dragged their feet on help for students and the impending
increase to the student loan rate; and now they have turned what has
been a bipartisan effort to protect the victims of domestic violence
into a senseless political fight. Republicans would not even allow
debate on amendments so that we could improve their flawed bill. And
this is serious, because in my home State of Florida, there were over
113,000 crimes of domestic violence reported in 2010. If the Republican
bill were to pass, more domestic violence crimes would go unreported,
more abusers would be free, and more victims would be harmed.
This bill works in opposition to the very purpose of the legislation
to protect all victims of domestic violence. Not just some victims, but
all victims. Advocates across the country who are on the front lines in
aiding women and victims every day have announced their opposition.
Please defeat this rule so we can call up the bipartisan and improved
version from the Senate.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for her leadership on the rule.
I also want to thank Congresswoman Sandy Adams from Florida for her
leadership on the issue. I think it is so instructive to all of us as
women of the House that we have had a female law enforcement officer
who has been a leader in domestic violence policy in addressing this
issue to help walk us through what works, what doesn't, and where we
need to tweak this.
Many Members of this House, and many women are like me. They've
worked on establishing domestic violence and child advocacy centers.
And to hear from Congresswoman Adams the specifics--to bring more
accountability to bear and to make certain that funding gets to the
victims has been her priority, and a job well-done on that.
Some of the stats indeed tell us why we need to do this. In
Tennessee, where I'm from, 52.1 percent of all crimes against persons
are domestic violence.
Madam Speaker, I urge support for the rule.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying
bill that will actually roll back protections for women across this
Nation.
The Violence Against Women Act is a vital piece of legislation to be
sure. It established a comprehensive response to prevent relationship
violence, sexual assault, and stalking; to support survivors; and to
hold perpetrators accountable. It is also a symbol that relationship
violence and sexual assault is real and that it is unacceptable.
For the past 20 years, this law has been a shining symbol that
Congress can put aside its petty differences and we can come together
to do what is right for violence victims and survivors.
{time} 1340
Now the bill before us tarnishes that symbol.
H.R. 4970 marks a backsliding in violence protections, leaving more
women out in the cold without legal resources or social supports, just
when they need it most.
And the issues are not just for immigrants or the LGBT community--
although the way the bill before us ignores their pain is shameful--but
also for women on college campuses, those in need of safe housing,
tribal women. And that is why hundreds of groups across the country--
service providers, law enforcement, health care workers--have come out
against this bill.
Now we could address the problems in this bill if we were allowed an
opportunity to vote on the Moore-Conyers amendment, which I
cosponsored. The Moore-Conyers amendment mirrors the recently passed
bipartisan Senate bill. But the House leadership unilaterally decided
to block it from even coming to a vote. The majority has, once again,
put rigid ideology over commonsense compromise, and this time at the
expense of violence survivors and their families.
Reauthorization is critical for the Violence Against Women Act, but
it needs to be done right. I urge the majority to drop the partisan
politics, join a bipartisan coalition, and support these survivors.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr.
Nugent from Florida, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. NUGENT. I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, Dr. Foxx, for
allowing me to speak on this issue not only for women but for all
Americans. I also want to thank my Florida colleague Sandy Adams for
her leadership shown on this issue.
I spent my entire career as a law enforcement officer, 36 years, and
the last 10 years as a sheriff. When you are a cop, you usually don't
get to see people in the best light. Getting called to somebody's house
or somebody coming to your office isn't typically something that is a
highlight of their day. It's because they are in need of help.
Throughout my entire career, I saw some of the worst that man has to
[[Page H2734]]
offer, and no small part of that was domestic violence. During my four
decades as a cop and sheriff, I saw the results of domestic violence:
battered partners, both men and women; children either physically or
emotionally hurt in the crossfire between their fighting parents;
victims who were suffering, scared, intimidated, and didn't know where
to go for justice.
If you will look at the State of Florida and what it did with regards
to domestic violence, it's clear that it was not just about a husband
and wife. It's about those folks that live within a home. It's about
their relationship within that home as it affects their children, as it
affects each other. It doesn't specifically say that it has to be a man
or a woman. It doesn't identify that. It talks about a relationship--
not a casual relationship, but a relationship where they're intimate
with each other, they spend time with each other, they're sexually
active with each other. It doesn't say that it has to be a man and a
woman. It says, these individuals have certain rights under domestic
violence law and also the ability to get an injunction for protection.
I have seen abusers on both sides. I have seen those who were
married, those who were boyfriend and girlfriend, and those who were
boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend commit atrocious
crimes on each other. It had nothing to do with marriage. It had
everything to do with the relationships that they had within their
homes.
So as we move forward, those on the other side of the aisle want to
add something to this piece of legislation that's already covered. It
already covers those relationships. If you start defining a particular
relationship, what if you leave one out? In here, it is very broad and
allows us, in law enforcement, to be very protective of those that need
protection. Whether it's stalking, intimidation, voyeurism, it doesn't
matter. And oftentimes, women are the victims of domestic violence, but
a man can just as easily be a victim of domestic violence, and I have
seen that, too.
The Violence Against Women Act protects and prevents all types of
intimate partner crime regardless of the gender of either the criminal
or the victim. This legislation funds the programs that not only help
men and women who have been hurt, but it also helps law enforcement
prevent these crimes from ever happening.
I have heard a number of my colleagues talk about what isn't in the
bill. They say, for example, it doesn't include ``sexual orientation''
as one of the protected classes. The Violence Against Women Act is and
always has been gender-neutral. That's the beauty of this piece of
legislation. It's gender-neutral.
Under the ``real'' VAWA, as some people call it, domestic violence is
interpreted as intimate partner violence. It legally includes felony or
misdemeanor crimes committed by spouses or ex-spouses, boyfriends or
girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends.
Now I'm not going to say this House legislation is perfect, but it
makes significant improvements to streamline our Nation's domestic
violence programs. In fact, the exact same funding authorization levels
in the Senate bill is included in this bill, $680 million in funding
per year for the next 5 years. Moreover, the manager's amendment brings
the House even more in line with the Senate's authorization.
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this week is National Police
Week, and we certainly know about domestic violence. The men and women
that worked for me, as a sheriff, knew about it. Sandy Adams, a former
cop, introduced this legislation. And we've seen firsthand what
domestic violence does to our families.
By passing this legislation, we get a step closer to making sure
these victims receive the services they need. That's why I am
encouraging my colleagues to support the rule, support this
legislation, and let it get to conference with the Senate so we can
bring these services to the men and women who need it the most.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. When one out of four women will experience domestic
violence in their lifetimes, it is unconscionable that the majority
would try to roll back the protections in the Violence Against Women
Act.
Since the act first passed in 1994, it has changed the landscape for
American women. Domestic violence has dropped by over 50 percent. And
in a historical bipartisan fashion, the Senate passed a bill that
modernizes the act for our times. It consolidates programs, takes
additional steps to reach victims of domestic violence.
Madam Speaker, 200 national organizations, 500 State and local
organizations, including the National District Attorneys Association,
the National Sheriffs' Association--my colleague who just spoke is a
former sheriff, but his association is supporting the Senate bill and
not this House bill--and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association all support the Senate bill. And our colleague from
Wisconsin, Congresswoman Moore, has put forward legislation that
mirrors that bipartisan approach. But instead of moving that bipartisan
bill forward, the majority has put forward an alternative bill that, in
fact, risks the lives and the health of women.
The Department of Justice estimates that one out of every three
Native American women will be raped and two out of five will be victims
of domestic violence. The majority's bill removes the provisions that
are essential to ensuring that Indian women have access to the act. The
Senate bill and Congresswoman Moore's bill strengthen protections in
the act for immigrant women; yet the majority's bill would endanger the
safety of immigrants.
In 2010, nearly half of lesbian and gay survivors were turned away
from domestic violence shelters or denied services because of their
sexual orientation. The majority's bill would continue to deny those
individuals the community protections afforded by the act.
We are talking about women's lives. This is no place for partisan
games. The rule before us would roll back the central protections that
have made a difference for so many women in this Nation.
I urge the majority to bring Congresswoman Moore's bill to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
{time} 1350
Domestic violence is an all-too-common reality, occurring most
everywhere here in the United States, and one that deeply impacts all
involved. In Ohio alone, there were reportedly 70,717 calls in 2010 for
domestic violence incidents. While not all of these resulted in
criminal charges, it is vitally important that law enforcement have the
knowledge and resources necessary to appropriately respond and
investigate domestic violence calls. It is also crucial that all
victims of domestic violence have access to the help they need to get
out of a harmful situation and overcome not only physical abuse but the
emotional scars that deeply impact the lives of victims.
I am confident that H.R. 4970 would play an integral role in
alleviating domestic violence in our communities by providing more than
$680 million for funding per year to help prevent domestic violence and
protect victims of abuse. This legislation would also increase
resources for sexual assault investigations, prosecutions, and victim
services, in addition to strengthening penalties for abusers.
Importantly, this legislation also seeks to promote awareness for the
prevention of violence by funding State prevention education programs
and enhancements for campus programs.
As a son, a husband, a brother to two sisters, a father of two grown
women, and a grandfather of four little girls, I understand the
importance of preventing domestic violence against women and also
ensuring that all women have the necessary resources and protection
should they ever be in need.
The number of occurrences of domestic violence, physical violence,
and stalking within the United States is
[[Page H2735]]
staggering and simply unacceptable. It is my hope that this
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act will have an
immediate impact on reducing domestic violence and improving services
for its victims.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I urge a ``no'' vote. This bill is but one more assault
on what has become, sadly but surely, known as the war against women.
A government has no greater responsibility than to keep its citizens
safe, but in its current form, this bill says there are some we will
not help. We will not protect Native Americans, LGBT people, and
immigrant people.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not extend the
protections of this bill to tribal residents. Why? Do they not suffer
when they are assaulted? This bill, in its current form, would not
protect people from discrimination in the LGBT community. Why? Do they
not bleed when they are struck? And this bill, in its current form,
eliminates the path to citizenship for some visa holders who have been
victims of sex trafficking, torture, and rape. Why? Do they not bruise
and bleed when they are beaten and battered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.
There is an indifference to the suffering of some--just some--in this
bill that is as chilling and callous as anything I have ever seen in
this Chamber in modern times.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. I rise this afternoon in support of the rule and the
underlying bill in H.R. 4970. I am so pleased to stand here with my
colleagues in support of this rule.
This is a particularly meaningful bill for me because, in 1994, when
I graduated from law school, I became aware of a program that the
Women's Bar Association had. That was 1994, and that's when the
original VAWA was enacted. The program was that we could do pro bono
work and work in our domestic violence shelter. For all of these many
years, I have been involved in domestic violence. So it's particularly
meaningful to me that the time when I first got involved in this--and
it was thanks to a very courageous law school professor I had--that we
now are reauthorizing VAWA that was originally from 1994.
Madam Speaker, I just become so distressed when I hear the
allegations that there is a war on women. When we sat down and we began
discussing VAWA, we sat down with the understanding that Americans
deserve equal protection under the law. We are not going to single out.
We are not going to distinguish one victim from another. Any person who
is a victim of domestic violence is a victim of domestic violence.
Beyond that, it should be of no concern.
However, I will say this--and my colleague Sandy Adams has done such
a magnificent job with this--when we began to have concerns after we
dropped this bill last week, we went back to the table. We heard from
Members who have large Native American populations in their districts
and Members who are Native Americans with regard to the issue. We heard
with regard to the illegal alien issue. We went back to the table and
came forth with a manager's amendment to begin to address those issues.
That's the right thing to do. That's what domestic violence victims
should expect from this House--sit down, figure this out, and make sure
we go forward with what is in the best interest of the victims. And
that's what the House of Representatives did.
I strongly support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Let me give one example of how important this legislation is and how
this bill before us would eliminate important provisions to protect
women from abuse.
Several years ago, a teenage girl from Trenton came to my office for
help. She'd been abused by her parents and abandoned by them. When she
came to my office, she was living in a shelter participating in a
transitional living program that required part-time employment. She had
come to the United States legally, but she needed help. Because of
VAWA, I was able to show her how she could secure her permanent
resident status and work authorization. After I helped her get work
authorization and permanent resident status, she got her life back on
track. VAWA made that possible.
This bill would remove essential provisions of VAWA that allow
victims of abuse to petition for permanent residency by themselves; and
by removing those provisions, this bill would leave this girl and
countless other victims of domestic abuse with no help, no support, and
potentially at the mercy of their abusers.
Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of
the underlying bill, the Violence Against Women Act.
Madam Speaker, for several years, I had the great honor to serve on
the board of my local domestic violence safe house. And I call it a
safe house. We didn't call it a shelter. We called it a safe house. So
I have personally seen women and children who so desperately needed
that safe haven to escape from a cycle of violence. Throughout my
service here in Congress, I consistently fought to make certain that
support is there for all of the safe houses across my district.
Those women and all those victims of domestic violence, who far too
often suffer in silence, need to know that they are not alone and that
there are people who care. Today, this House is doing what we need to
do, by taking a stand in defense of those who face the danger of
domestic violence, by passing this reauthorization.
I certainly applaud the author of the bill, Sandy Adams from Florida.
She's kept politics away from crafting this bill. Instead, she's really
focused squarely on protecting the victims of domestic violence.
The bill that we are debating here today produces funding at the same
level as what was passed by the Senate, but I think it allocates that
funding in a way that better supports the victims of domestic violence.
For instance, this bill doesn't make any special carve-outs for any
particular victim group, because it protects everybody equally. It also
includes outstanding revisions developed by listening to those involved
in protecting victims from across the Nation.
It strengthens penalties for sexual assault and abuse. It improves
Federal stalking laws. It helps young women in college by working to
prevent violence on our campuses through improved education programs.
And it dramatically improves emergency and transitional housing
services.
As well, the Senate bill mirrors current law, which only mandates 40
percent of the funding in the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 to address a backlog of rape testing kits which are required,
quite frankly, to successfully prosecute rape cases. Our bill mandates
that 75 percent of the funding be used for that purpose so that we can
eliminate the backlog that exists and put rapists where they belong,
and that's in prison.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me today in
standing up for women in need and all victims of violence by supporting
this outstanding legislation.
{time} 1400
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, we need to work together to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act; but, unfortunately, H.R.
4970 is seriously flawed and should not pass.
Among its many flaws, it harms immigrant women and fails to protect
the LGBT community. It also creates new
[[Page H2736]]
mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums have been studied
extensively, and they've been found to be ineffective in addressing
crime, while at the same time they distort the rational sentencing
systems, they discriminate against minorities, and they often violate
common sense.
Mandatory minimums can be particularly harmful in domestic relations
cases, domestic violence cases where the victim and the abuser have a
prior relationship, and where the victim of abuse may be less likely to
report the abuse knowing that, if convicted, the abuser is certain to
go to prison for 5 or 10 years without parole. That's why many
organizations dedicated to ending domestic violence and working hard
for the reauthorization of VAWA are opposed to the mandatory minimum
provisions in the rule.
On top of these problems in the reported bill, the Rules Committee
adopted a manager's amendment that, among other problems, deletes
protections against discrimination in hiring by religious organizations
using VAWA funds.
Since the 1960s, we have had, as a Federal policy, a prohibition
against discrimination based on religion when using Federal funds. The
1964 Civil Rights Act had an exemption for churches and other religious
organizations using their own funds to be able to consider religion in
hiring. However, the manager's amendment specifically allows those
groups to discriminate based on religion with Federal funds. We should
not pass a bill that allows a person applying for a job paid for with
Federal funds to be discriminated against based on religion.
Madam Speaker, we must work hard to reauthorize VAWA; but,
unfortunately, H.R. 4970 in its current form is not the version of VAWA
we should pass, and the rule does not allow amendments to improve the
bill. So I urge defeat of this rule.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to our
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I rise also to support the rule and to
support the Violence Against Women Act. This bill will support programs
and organizations that help assist the victims of domestic abuse,
stalking, and sexual assault. And it does so in a way that includes
much-needed accountability measures so we can be sure that more of the
funds go to the victims who need it rather than to Washington
bureaucrats.
When I was practicing law, I represented some victims of domestic
violence, including men, women, and children, when I was doing guardian
ad litem work. And I, further, had a law office bookkeeper who was
murdered by her husband while she was working for us. It was traumatic
for the entire office.
On Indian reservations in my State and in communities where there is
a hidden element of domestic abuse that you see every Friday morning in
the courtroom when they have stacked settings for these types of cases,
you see things you wouldn't even believe are going on in your own
communities. That's why it's so important we have a bill that is
efficient and gets the money to those victims, not to bureaucrats in
Washington. That's why I support this rule. That's why I support the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule
and the underlying bill that rolls back protections for domestic
violence victims and survivors, and I include three letters
representing hundreds of organizations--law enforcement organizations,
advocacy organizations around the country--in opposition to the rule.
Before coming to Congress, I founded and was the first executive
director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I've trained
thousands of police officers and judges, held victims' hands in courts.
I've done intake in shelters and held their children in emergency rooms
and answered calls on hotlines.
This bill, the underlying bill and the rule, do great damage to the
work that we've done across the aisle as advocates and leaders of good
will to protect the interests of battered women of domestic violence,
victims and survivors.
Since the passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been a
bipartisan piece of legislation. It has revolutionized the way violent
crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented. Never would I have
imagined that, when working on this 18 years ago, that we'd be in this
Congress rolling back the protections that have been expanded to
protect women, victims, survivors across this country and their
children. It really is a sad day in this Congress. We should be ashamed
of what we're doing.
We should make sure that we expand protections for women, for
immigrant women, for lesbian and gay men and women, and to make sure
that we pass a rule that truly is bipartisan in this Congress that
reflects the values and the needs and the spirit of the 1994 law.
May 15, 2012.
Re: Update--Manager's amendments to VAWA (H.R. 4970) do not
fix critical problems. H.R. 4970 eliminates protections
for battered immigrants; harms victims.
House of Representatives.
Dear Member of Congress: As a diverse coalition of
immigration, faith, labor, civil rights, human rights and
community organizations serving and advocating on behalf of
immigrant victims of domestic violence, human trafficking,
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, we urge you to
oppose H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2012 (VAWA) (Adams, R FL) when it comes to the House
floor.
The amendments offered by Representative Adams (``manager's
package'') that will be considered by the Rules Committee
today are inadequate and do not correct the major problems
with H.R. 4970. With the manager's package. H.R. 4970 will
still roll back existing protections for battered immigrants
that were created with bi-partisan congressional support.
Enacted in 1994 and reauthorized twice in 2000 and 2005,
VAWA has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common
purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. When VAWA was conceived, Congress
recognized that the noncitizen status of battered immigrants
can make them particularly vulnerable. Abusers often exploit
their victims' undocumented status, leaving the victim afraid
to report the abuse to law enforcement and making them
fearful of assisting with the prosecution of these crimes.
As modified, H.R. 4970 effectively eradicates protections
created by VAWA that have been available for almost twenty
years to immigrant victims of violence. The bill establishes
an extremely onerous adjudication process for victims to
receive protection that is not required in other areas of the
law. Finally, it wastes government resources when allegations
of fraud have not been substantiated.
H.R. 4970 eliminates protections for crime victims offered by
the U visa.
Deters immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying
nearly all U visa recipients the protections offered by
lawful permanent resident status. By offering only temporary
relief, H.R. 4970 will eliminate an important incentive for
victims to report crimes and silence victims who fear
deportation. A victim could be deported and be forced to
leave her children behind with an abuser if he has legal
status but she does not.
Endangers crime victims by making it extremely difficult
for them to obtain U visa protection. H.R. 4970 needlessly
requires that an investigation or prosecution is being
actively pursued. Current law already requires that law
enforcement certify that the victim has been or is likely to
be helpful to an investigation or prosecution.
H.R. 4970 requires that the victim help identify the
perpetrator. Many sexual assault victims never get a good
look at the perpetrator.
H.R. 4970 denies battered immigrants the protections of
``self-petitioning.''
Gives perpetrators tools to interfere with a victim's
immigration case.
Forces every VAWA self-petitioner to participate in two
face-to-face interviews with DHS officials, subjecting them
to unnecessary additional screening that can be dangerous for
victims who may have to account for their every movement to
the abuser.
Requires untrained local field office staff conduct in-
person interviews with victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault. Long delays to secure initial interviews at
local offices will put victims trying to leave abusive
relationship at greater risk.
Endangers the safety of battered immigrants by suspending
adjudication of their case if there is an open criminal
investigation or prosecution of the perpetrator.
H.R. 4970 requires DHS officials to conduct expensive and
time consuming reviews of the victims' cases that are not
required in other areas of law. These wasteful reviews are
motivated by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and abuse within
VAWA programs.
H.R. 4970 endangers victims, and undoes years of bipartisan
progress made in previous VAWA bills by taking us to a time
before 1994 when abusers were allowed to use immigration
status as a tool for further abuse. When H.R. 4970 is brought
to the floor of the
[[Page H2737]]
House of Representatives, we urge you to vote NO. This bill
goes against the core of VAWA by eliminating protections for
victims and placing victims in danger.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mony
Ruiz-Velasco, National Immigrant Justice Center, or Grace
Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Sincerely,
America's Voice Education Fund; American Civil Liberties
Union; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American
Jewish Committee; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Asian
American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for
Advancing Justice; Asian Pacific Islander Institute on
Domestic Violence; ASISTA; Benjamin N. Cardozo Human Rights
and Genocide Law Clinic; Break the Cycle; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza:
National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and
Communities; Centro Legal de la Raza; Church World
Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; Disciples Home
Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Human Rights Defense Center;
Hutto Visitation Program.
Immigrant Rights Clinic at Rutgers School of Law;
Immigration Equality; Immigration Law Center of Minnesota;
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American
Community; International Institute of Buffalo; International
Organization for Adolescents; Jesuit Social Research
Institute/Loyola University New Orleans; Jewish Council for
Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Women
International; Kids in Need of Defense; Legal Aid Justice
Center; Legal Services of New Jersey; Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Service; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee
Advocacy Coalition.
National Center for Victims of Crime; National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of Anti-
Violence Programs (NCAVP); National Council of Jewish Women;
National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration
Forum; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration
Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Organization
for Women; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending
Sexual Assault; National Network to End Domestic Violence;
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; Northwest
Immigrant Rights Project; Physicians for Human Rights;
Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project; Rabbis
for Human Rights-North America; Rocky Mountain Immigrant
Advocacy Network; South Asian Americans Leading Together
(SAALT).
Texans United for Families; Tahirih Justice Center; The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Reformed
Church of Highland Park, NJ; The Young Center for Immigrant
Children's Rights at the University of Chicago; Vermont
Immigration and Asylum Advocates; VIDA Legal Assistance,
Inc.; Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance;
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Women
of Color Network; Women's Refugee Commission; Who Is My
Neighbor? Inc.
____
May 14, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eric Cantor,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader Pelosi, Majority
Leader Cantor, and Minority Whip Hoyer: We, the undersigned
organizations, represent millions of victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and
the professionals who serve them, throughout the United
States and territories. We would like to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 4970, the bill introduced by Rep. Sandy
Adams (R FL) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA).
As you know, Congress has recognized the severity of
violence against women and our need for a national strategy
since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in
1994. Over the last 18 years, this landmark federal law's
comprehensive approach to violence against women has had
dramatic results. VAWA funds are used to:
Train over 500,000 law enforcement personnel every year,
Support sexual assault services in every state; when
victims receive advocate-assisted services following
assaults, rape survivors are 59 percent more likely to have
police reports taken than survivors without advocates whose
reports are only taken 41 percent of the time, and
Support programs that reduce domestic violence homicides;
as an example, between 1993 and 2007, the rate of intimate
partner homicides of females decreased by 35 percent and the
rate of intimate partner homicides of males decreased 46
percent.
We all support a strong, bipartisan VAWA reauthorization
bill similar to what the Senate passed last month, which
would continue the life-saving protections and services
needed by victims and their families. Again, H.R. 4970, which
recently passed out of the House Judiciary Committee by a
near party-line vote, would be a rollback of years of
progress and likely increase the number of women and children
who could be hurt. While we respect Congresswoman Adams'
personal commitment to the issue of violence against women
and girls, we must oppose her harmful bill. H.R. 4970 is
genuinely dangerous for immigrant women and their families.
It includes damaging provisions that create obstacles for
immigrant victims to report crimes, increases danger for
immigrant victims by eliminating important confidentiality
protections, and undermines effective anti-fraud protections
that exist in current law.
While embracing many elements of the bipartisan
reauthorization that recently passed the Senate, the bill
excludes key improvements that were included in the Senate
reauthorization. It expressly rejects protections for men and
women who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and
eliminates strong protections and justice for women and
children who are beaten or abused on Tribal lands by
perpetrators who are not members of a particular tribe. And
it removes a key requirement that would more easily allow
victims to move from one subsidized housing program to
another in order to avoid an abuser and drops an important
provision that would tackle the violence that occurs on our
nation's college campuses.
We respectfully request that you reconsider advancing this
legislation and instead focus on developing a bipartisan bill
modeled after H.R. 4271, the companion bill to the Senate-
passed version of VAWA.
Thank you for your past efforts to prevent and respond to
violence against women and children. We look forward to
working with you to craft a bill that works to protect all
victims and directs resources to this urgent task in the most
effective way possible.
Sincerely,
9to5, National Association of Working Women; A New Hope
Center, Inc.; Advocates for Youth; African Services
Committee; Akiak Native Community; Alianza--National Latino
Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence; AAUW;
American Federation of Teachers; American Red Cross Rape
Crisis Services; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Amnesty
International USA; Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on
Domestic Violence; ASISTA Immigration Assistance; Association
of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies; Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); Battered Women's
Legal Advocacy Project; Black Women's Health Imperative;
Break the Cycle; Business and Professional Women's
Foundation.
Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy
Families and Communities; Center for Legal and Social
Justice; Charging Buffalo Society; Children's Civil Rights
Union; Coalition of Labor Union Women; Coalition on Human
Needs; Compass Rape Crisis & Counseling Center; Covenant
House International; Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons;
Domestic Violence Alternatives/Sexual Assault Center;
Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; End
Violence Against Women International; Enlace Comunitario;
Farmworker Justice; Feminist Majority Foundation; Forensic
Healthcare Consulting; Friends Committee on National
Legislation; Futures Without Violence, formerly Family
Violence Prevention Fund; Global Workers Justice Alliance.
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America,
Inc.; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Holistic Living
Project; Human Rights Campaign; Immigrant Ability; INCourage,
Advocacy Beyond Purpose; Indian Law Resource Center;
Indigenous Women's Justice Institute; International Institute
of Buffalo; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish
Federations of North America; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish
Women International; Joint Action Committee for Political
Affairs (JACPAC); Justice & Mercy Legal Aid Clinic.
L.U.N.A; La Casa de las Madres; La Esperanza; La Mariposa
Enterprises; Latin American Association; Latinas Unidas Por
Un Nuevo Amanecer; Legal Momentum; Manavi; Media Equity
Collaborative; Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington
Office; Mental Health America of Licking County; MESA; Mosaic
Family Services; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence;
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF);
National Association of Human Rights Workers; National
Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators; National
Center for Transgender Equality; National Center for Victims
of Crime; National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life; National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of
100 Black Women, Inc.; National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs; National Congress of American Indians; National
Council of Jewish Women; National Council of Women's
Organizations; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National
Education Association; National Employment Law Project;
National Health Care for the Homeless Council; National
Immigration Project of the National
[[Page H2738]]
Lawyers Guild; National Latina Institute for Reproductive
Health; National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty;
National Legal Aid & Defender Association; National Low
Income Housing Coalition; National Network to End Domestic
Violence; National Organization for Men Against Sexism
(NOMAS); National Organization for Women.
National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual
Assault; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence;
National Women's Conference Committee; National Women's
Health Network; National Women's Law Center; Native Women's
Coalition; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;
Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project; Planned Parenthood
Federation of America; Rape Victim Advocates;
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Redwood Justice
Fund; Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.; Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice; Rural Women's Health Project; Sargent
Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Share Time Wisely
Consulting Services; Sisters of Mercy Institute Justice Team;
Stop Abuse Campaign.
Tahirih Justice Center; The Domestic Violence Action
Center; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
The Legal Project; The NAACP; Time To Tell; Tiyospaye Winyan
Maka; Turning Anger into Change; UNANIMA International;
UnidosNow; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; United
Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church & Society; United
South and Eastern Tribes; Uniting Three Fires Against
Violence; UNO Immigration Ministry; Urban Justice Center.
Vera House, Inc.; Victim Rights Law Center; Victims
Services of Behavioral Connections; VOICE MALE Magazine;
Volunteer Legal Services Hawaii; Wider Opportunities for
Women; Women Against Abuse; Women for Genuine Security; Women
in Federal Law Enforcement, Inc.; Women of Color Network;
Women of Reform Judaism; Women's Law Project; YWCA USA.
Organizations and Individuals Opposed to H.R. 4970 or to Key Provisions
in the Bill
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Advocates for
Human Rights; African Services Committee; Alachua County
Victim Services and Rape Crisis Center; Alaska Federation of
Natives; American Bar Association; American Civil Liberties
Union; American Federation of Labor; American Immigration
Lawyers Association; Americans for Immigrant Justice;
America's Voice Education Fund; Anindita Dasgupta, MA.
Doctoral Candidate at the University of California, San
Diego; Anita Raj, Ph.D. Professor of Medicine and Global
Public Health at the University of California, San Diego;
Artemis Justice Center; ASHA for Women; Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund; Asian & Pacific Islander
Institute on Domestic Violence.
Boston University Civil Litigation Program; Break the
Cycle; Campaign for Community Change; Canal Alliance; Captain
Maria Alvarenga Watkins, (Retired) Metropolitan Police
Department, Washington, D.C.; Casa de Esperanza: National
Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities Casa
Esperanza; Central American Resource Center; Chief Brian
Kyes, Chelsea Police Department, Massachusetts; Chief Pete
Helein, Appleton Wisconsin Police Department; Christian
Community Development Association; Church World Service;
Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice; Colorado
Coalition Against Sexual Assault; Community Action and Human
Services Department; Community Immigration Law Center;
Connecticut Legal Services Inc.; Cris M. Sullivan, Ph.D.,
Professor, Ecological/Community Psychology, Associate Chair,
Psychology Department.
Detective Sergeant Robert Mahoney, Peabody Police
Department, Massachusetts; Detective Shelli Sonnenberg, Boise
Police Department, Idaho; Detective Stacey Ivie, Alexandria
Police Department, Virginia; Domestic Violence in the African
American Community; DREAM Activist Virginia; Education Not
Deportation Project of the United We Dream Network; El
Rescate Legal Services, Inc.; Empire Justice Center; Enlace
Comunitario; Esperanza; Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America; Evan Stark, Ph.D., MA, MSW, Professor and Director
of Public Health, School of Public Affairs and
Administration, Rutgers University-Newark & Chair, Department
of Urban Health Administration, UMDNJ--School of Public
Health; FaithAction International House; Families for
Freedom; Families Against Mandatory Minimums; Feminist
Majority; Florida Coastal Immigrant Rights Clinic; Franciscan
Action Network; Fuerza Latina; Futures Without Violence.
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; Giselle Hass,
PsyD, Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law
Center, Center for Applied Legal Studies; Hebrew Immigrant
Aid Society; Helene Berman, RN, Ph.D., President of the
Nursing Network on Violence Against Women International;
Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights Initiative of North
Texas; Human Rights Watch; Immigrant Defense Project;
Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota; Immigration Equality;
inMotion, Inc.; InterCultural Advocacy Institute; Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona; International Institute of the Bay
Area; Intimate Partner Violence Assistance Clinic
University of Florida, Levin College of Law.
Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D., RN, FAAN, Anna D. Wolf Chair,
The Johns Hopkins; University School of Nursing and National
Director, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Nurse Faculty
Scholars; Jay G. Silverman, Ph.D. Professor of Medicine and
Global Health; Division of Global Public Health Senior
Fellow, Center on Global Justice University of California at
San Diego, School of Medicine Adjunct Associate; Professor of
Society, Human Development and Health Harvard School of
Public Health; Jewish Women International; Just Neighbors;
Justice For Our Neighbors-Southeastern Michigan; Kentucky
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; La Fe Multi-
Ethnic Ministries, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA; La
Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians; Latin American Coalition;
LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Leadership Conference of Women
Religious; Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar
Association, Inc.; Legal Momentum; Leslye E. Orloff, J.D.
Director, National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project,
American University Washington College of Law; Lieutenant
Carole Germano, Danvers Police Department, Massachusetts;
Lutheran immigration and Refugee Service.
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition;
Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychiatry,
Georgetown University; Medical Center Mennonite Central
Committee U.S.; Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women;
Mountain Crisis Services; Muslim Public Affairs Council;
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence; NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Alliance
to End Sexual Violence; National Asian Pacific American
Women's Forum; National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers; National Association of Evangelicals; National
Association of Federal Defenders; National Center for
Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs;
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; National
Congress of American Indians; National Congress of American
Indians Task Force on Violence Against Women; National
Council of Jewish Women; National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges.
National Council of La Raza; National Council of Negro
Women, Inc.; National Employment Law Project; National
Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; National Immigrant
Justice Center; National Immigration Forum; National
Immigration Law Center; National Immigration Project of the
National Lawyers Guild; National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health; National Latino Evangelical Coalition;
National Legal Aid & Defender Association; National Network
to End Domestic Violence; National Organization for Women
Foundation; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending
Sexual Assault; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
and the Women of Color Network; National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; Nawal Ammar, PhD,
Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Social Science and
Humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of
Technology; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice
Lobby; New Sanctuary Coalition of NYC; NewBridges Immigrant
Resource Center; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
Officer Michael LaRiviere, Salem Police Department,
Massachusetts; Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project;
Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center; Political Asylum
Immigration Representation Project; Public Justice Center;
Rachael Rodriguez, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the School
of Nursing at Edgewood College; Rainbow Services, Ltd.;
Refiigio del Rio Grande; Rhonda Giger, Prosecutor--City of
Bothell, WA; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network;
Ross Silverman LLP; Rural Women's Health Project; Sargent
Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Sergeant Inspector
Antonio Flores, San Francisco Police Department,
California; Service Employees International Union; Sisters
of Mercy of the Americas; Sisters of St. Francis of
Philadelphia; Sojourners; South Asian Americans Leading
Together; Stephanie J. Nawyn, Ph.D., Department of
Sociology, Michigan State University; Supervising Deputy
Sheriff Marcus Bruning, St. Louis County Sheriff's Office,
Missouri.
Tahirih Justice Center; Tapestri, Inc; The Bridge to Hope;
The Episcopal Church; The Immigrant Legal Resource Center;
The Kansas/Missouri Dream Alliance; The Leadership Conference
for Civil and Human Rights; The Sentencing Project; The
Violence Intervention Program; The William Kellibrew
Foundation; TN Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence;
UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic; Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations; United Methodist Church; United
Migrant Opportunity Services; UnitedWomen.org; U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
VIDA Legal Assistance, Inc.; Virginia Organizing; Virginia
Sexual & Domestic Violence Action Alliance; Voces Unidas for
Justice; Voices of Men; Washington Immigration Defense Group;
Washington State Coalition Against; Willow Creek Community
Church; Women of Color Network; Women's Refugee Commission;
Worker Justice Center of New York; World Evangelical
Alliance; World Relief; YWCA USA.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
[[Page H2739]]
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in this closed rule for VAWA. I am
concerned that the bill, even with the changes made in the manager's
amendment, doesn't reflect everything that we've learned over the past
5 years in terms of what works best for victims or prosecutors.
Over the past several months, I sat down with advocates in my
district to go section by section through the Senate reauthorization
and discussed what works and what doesn't work. They strongly support
provisions that would clarify equal treatment for LGBT individuals,
bolster enforcement on Native American reservations, and ensure that
victims aren't deported simply for reporting domestic abuse. I see no
reason to exclude these provisions from a House bill. Our victim
service providers on the front lines really just want to know who they
can help and that they can help everyone who comes through the front
door.
Last night, I offered an amendment that would have modernized the
bill's definitions to reflect the input of victim service providers,
including special protections for immigrant victims, and clarified that
LGBT individuals can be served by VAWA.
I previously worked on the authorization of VAWA, which incorporated
good ideas. That authorization was never a partisan issue, and it
shouldn't be now.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in this closed rule for H.R. 4970,
the Violence Against Women Act of 2012 (VAWA).
I am concerned that the bill, even with changes made in the manager's
amendment, doesn't reflect everything we've learned over the last 5
years in terms of what works best for victims or prosecutors.
Over the past several months, I've sat down with advocates in my
district to go section-by-section through the Senate reauthorization
and discuss what works and what doesn't. They strongly support
provisions that would clarify equal treatment for LGBT individuals,
bolster enforcement on Native American reservations, and ensure that
victims aren't deported simply for reporting domestic abuse. I see no
reason to exclude those provisions from a House bill.
Last night, I offered an amendment that would have modernized the
bill's definitions to reflect the input of victim service providers,
including specific protections for immigrant victims, and clarified
that LGBT individuals can be served by VAWA programs in all States.
This amendment was rejected.
Let me be clear--no one is suggesting any special class of treatment.
This reauthorization should simply clarify the law to reflect what
everyone knows about modern society--that anyone can be a victim of
domestic violence. It can happen in a same-sex household, on a college
campus, or a Native American reservation, and our victim service
providers on the front lines just want to know that they can help
anyone who comes through the door.
Madam Speaker, we don't need a perfect bill. We need a bill that can
provide a solid foundation on which to begin conference negotiations
with the Senate. H.R. 4970 fails on this count.
I worked on the previous reauthorizations of VAWA, in 2000 and 2005,
which incorporated good ideas from both sides of the aisle. That
reauthorization was never a partisan issue then, and it shouldn't be
now.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. For so many, this Violence Against Women Act vote is
literally a matter of life and death.
One immigrant was abused by her husband, who was a special agent for
the Homeland Security Department. He threatened her that she would be
deported and separated from her daughter. She sought help anyway at the
excellent San Antonio Family Violence Prevention Services, through
which she was provided a special visa allowing her to remain here
safely.
Another woman in Austin found death. So fearful of being deported,
she was eventually killed in broad daylight in front of her two little
children.
We have a 2-year backlog for this visa. It is a visa that could help
many. It is a visa that was approved almost unanimously in a previous
Congress.
Instead of focusing on a victim's visa status, we should be focused
on the fight against domestic violence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. Instead of focusing on discriminating against some in
our community, we should be focused on ensuring that all victims of
violence everywhere receive the care and services they need. Let's move
forward in that struggle, not take another giant Republican step
backward.
Ms. FOXX. I would like to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Missouri, Congresswoman Hartzler.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4970 reauthorizes the Violence
Against Women Act for another 5 years, providing important funding for
fighting domestic violence and abuse.
When Congress reauthorizes any bill, we must make sure that the bill
directs resources towards those it is intended to help and makes the
best possible use of taxpayer money. That's what we've done in H.R.
4970 by strengthening accountability and transparency in grant
administration to ensure that these dollars go to help the victims, not
entrenched government bureaucrats.
I've been a long supporter of the domestic violence shelter in my own
hometown. Hope Haven plays an essential role in aiding victims and
providing tools for recovery. I've seen the vital work that they do and
know that dozens of other organizations like it will benefit from the
bill's passage.
This is a bipartisan bill. It's a reauthorization of long-standing
provisions that aid women, and I'm hopeful that my colleagues will join
me in supporting its worthwhile efforts.
{time} 1410
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I want to make
sure that the time is not begun until the gentlelady begins.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. POLIS. Thank you.
I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for
1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I
sadly rise in opposition to the rule.
I really cry out to ask the question: Who should refuse to help a
victim of domestic violence? Who has the right to deny a victim--Native
American, immigrant, LGBT community; who has that right?
It is obvious that this legislation is not bipartisan, and it is
obvious that there is still a divide. It is obvious that the groups who
obviously work with these victims--many whom I have the opportunity of
seeing through the eyes of the Houston Area Women's Center--realize
that no provider wants to pick and choose.
It is clear that the underlying bill does not work. The Senate bill
is what answers the question of these victims who now have been harmed,
because what you're saying to an immigrant who is here on a visa, you
are saying to them that they have no relief.
I believe this bill will not work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlelady.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It really is a question as to whether or
not the new included funding for rape kits will actually be able to go
to providers and solve the problems of rape kits in places around the
Nation.
We need to do this in a bipartisan way. Who will say ``no'' to a
victim because they are Native American, they are immigrant, or they
are LGBT. Who will say ``no?''
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, this bill takes steps backwards from
offering full protections for women and children who suffer unspeakable
abuse.
I'm not questioning the intentions, Madam Speaker, of those on the
other side; that's not my purpose here. But who are we excluding today?
You're either a unifier on the floor or you are a divider. Instead of
passing the bipartisan Senate bill that provides protections for women
who are victims of abuse, the majority has decided instead to turn
women's safety and security into a political fight. It shouldn't be.
According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey, an average of 24 people per minute
[[Page H2740]]
are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate
partner.
The Violence Against Women Act makes great strides. It shouldn't
matter if a woman is an immigrant or a member of the LGBT community.
I'm against this rule. I'm against the bill. I hope we can come
together on a final resolution of this.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. This bill also authorizes a total of $642 billion for
defense programs, including $88.5 billion to continue the Afghanistan
war, on top of the more than $1.3 trillion we've spent thus far.
It contains dangerous language that would pave the path for a war
with Iran. H.R. 4310 says the U.S. should take all necessary measures,
including military action, to prevent Iran from having nuclear
technology--this, despite the fact that Secretary of Defense Panetta
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have spoken out against a strike in Iran.
What's Congress spoiling for another war for?
Now, we've spent trillions of dollars for war to wage violence
thousands of miles away, and we've become anesthetized to the violence
of war against millions of innocent women, children, and men abroad.
It's no wonder that we're grappling with how best to deal with domestic
violence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. KUCINICH. Imagine if we took a fraction of the trillions of
dollars we've spent for war and used it to deal directly with the root
causes of domestic violence--spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in
the schools, gang violence, gun violence, racial violence, violence
against immigrants, violence against gays. If we did that and looked at
the root causes, we wouldn't even be arguing about spending money for
war. We need to look at the issue of violence in America and do it in a
consistent, comprehensive way.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio says, the second bill
that's made in order under this rule is H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act, otherwise known as the NDAA.
As we debate this very important bill, let's keep in mind the men and
women of the Armed Forces and their families, and in particular those
who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of American freedom,
which includes this deliberative process of freely debating our laws
and ideas about the role of government. We could not be here today
without the sacrifices of those who've served in the military and
helped protect us as a free people.
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers:
The operations of the Federal Government will be most
extensive and important in terms of war and danger.
Our Founding Fathers had a clear view that the primary and central
job of the Federal Government was ``to provide for the common
defense,'' which is a constitutional mandate. It is not an issue that
should divide us or devolve into partisan rancor but unite us as a
country that supports our military and provides them with the resources
necessary to complete their critically important mission.
Madam Speaker, in a few days, we will be in our districts
participating in Memorial Day events. I approach Memorial Day with
mixed emotions, as a part of me celebrates the joy and pride of living
in this great country where we're all free to participate in a robust
public policy debate. I am proud that I live in a meritocracy, where
anyone can choose which path to follow and succeed. But Memorial Day
also elicits somber thoughts of those who have given their lives in
defense of the greatest country in the history of humankind.
While many of our fellow Americans will be celebrating with cookouts
and family, I ask that we all pause and think about those families who
will have an empty place at their dinner table, those families who
still mourn the loss of a loved one and, rather than cooking out, will
be visiting our fallen heroes in hallowed grounds across these United
States. That's the true purpose of Memorial Day--to pause, remember,
and honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to preserve all
that is great in our country.
So as we return home to our districts, I ask all of my colleagues to
keep in mind the spouses, children, and families of the fallen. As
President Lincoln stated in his second inaugural address:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with
firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let
us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the
Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the
battle, and for his widow and his orphan--to do all which may
achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among
ourselves, and with all nations.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, as I rise
today to speak against this flawed Violence Against Women Act that the
House is presenting, let me point out this picture. This picture is a
picture of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three with a
master's degree and no prior convictions, who received a 20-year
sentence for firing a warning shot in the air to warn off an attack by
her husband. At the time that it occurred, there was a restraining act.
Let me point out that this shot did not injure anyone, yet she will be
in jail until 2032.
The imbalance in the system is obvious. Just minutes before she fired
the shot Marissa's husband told her, ``If I can't have you, no one is
going to.'' Sadly, millions of abused women have heard these exact
words and not lived to tell about it.
{time} 1420
Battered women like Marissa need support and counseling.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Battered women like Marissa need support and
counseling so that they don't find themselves in these situations.
Jailing them for 30 years is unacceptable.
This is the beginning, not the end. Along with the NAACP and other
groups, we will fight to make sure we turn over this horrible ruling
and stand up to the legal system that persecutes women who defend
themselves. Those women need help, not prison.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama, Congresswoman Roby.
Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in favor of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act and just want to say, even after VAWA's
enactment roughly 8 years ago, one in four women still experience
domestic violence during their lifetime. Moreover, more than 2 million
adults and 15 million children are exposed to such violence annually.
According to the Alabama Coalition against Domestic Violence and the
Alabama National Census Summary, in Alabama there are 834 victims
served in one day, 187 hotline calls answered in one day, and 76 unmet
requests for services. These numbers are astounding, and something must
change.
Organizations have reported that they have been unable to provide
services for a variety of reasons: the top three being, there's not
enough staff, there's not enough specialized services, and there's not
enough available beds or hotel vouchers to provide safe havens for
victims and their children.
As an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, today I
stand here supporting the Republican reauthorization. This bill brings
greater accountability to the grant administration by ensuring that
funding will support and assist victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault and stalking, and will not be kept in the
pockets of Washington bureaucrats.
Individuals, whether women, men or children, should be able to feel
safe in
[[Page H2741]]
their homes; and when they are not, should be able to have access to
services that allow them to be removed from their abuser.
Congress must put Washington politics aside and take action. I fully
support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me.
Mr. POLIS. I would inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining
speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we do have other speakers.
Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the State of Washington, a member of our leadership,
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership on this important issue.
I rise today on behalf of my mother, my daughter, and every woman in
America in strong support of H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization of 2012.
Each year there are over 200,000 victims of sexual assaults; and
while these numbers are devastating, since the enactment of the first
Violence Against Women Act almost 20 years ago, the annual number of
incidents has dramatically fallen, while the reporting rate has risen
by 50 percent.
The programs in the legislation are critical to continue the fight
for equality and women's rights. The bill we will vote on today makes
commonsense reforms to ensure that more money actually benefits victims
and is dedicated to eliminating the astounding backlog in rape kit
tests.
Additionally, today we have the chance to support vital funding for
rape prevention educational programs, youth victim services, and
improvements to emergency and transitional housing services for
victims.
Since its enactment, the Violence Against Women Act has enjoyed broad
bipartisan support. This is not a Republican or Democrat, conservative
or liberal issue. Together we are uniformly standing against violence
against anyone, particularly women; and I urge all of my colleagues to
support their mothers, wives, daughters, neighbors and friends by
supporting H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2012, a victim-centered bill that will extend vital programs that
protect against and prevent both physical and mental violence.
Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining
speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Yes, Madam Speaker, we have one more.
Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina for yielding to me, and I rise to support the Violence Against
Women Act. I did so when it was reauthorized in 2005, I believe it was,
and we're here today in this debate on the rule, not so much the bill.
I come to the floor to raise a point that constantly in the debate in
the Judiciary Committee there was an effort to divert the subject
matter over to other things, sexual orientation, gender identity,
immigration, a lot of focus on immigration. And one of the things
that's happened to the bill since it left the committee was to change
the language, through this manager's amendment, that's essentially
deemed passed by the Rules Committee that changes the value of evidence
of abuse of, say, a female immigrant who can get a U visa if she has
determined as having been victimized, especially sexually victimized.
That was a clear and convincing evidence standard.
This rule that's written in by the Rules Committee changes it to the
preponderance of the evidence. I support the decision of the Judiciary
Committee. It also changes the investigative component of this from
USCIS, which are trained investigators. They'll only see the evidence
that's offered to them by Federal prosecutors. So I am going to oppose
the rule and support the bill.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Though we disagree on the
bill, we can both agree that this is a terrible rule. And I encourage
my colleagues to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa in
opposing this rule.
I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining
speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this closed rule to make in order the bipartisan Violence
Against Women bill that passed the United States Senate with 68 votes
as an amendment offered by Representative Conyers, Representative
Moore, and Representative Lofgren. If the House passes that, it will
proceed to President Obama's desk.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat
the previous question and allow the Senate bill that has passed with a
bipartisan majority, that actually expands protections for all women,
to be considered by this body.
Here, Madam Speaker, is the face of somebody affected by the Violence
Against Women Act from Colorado. Her name is Sara. Sara came to our
country illegally. She was brought illegally, unbeknownst to her, by
her American husband. Once in the United States, she was abused. She
was isolated. She was effectively kept a prisoner in her own house by
her husband.
The first time she was violently beaten by her husband was when she
went on a walk because her husband claimed that she had disobeyed him.
She was trapped in a relationship where she was abused, sexually as
well as verbally, for 14 years.
She finally escaped with her son to safe transitional housing called
Alternatives to Violence in Loveland, Colorado. Once there, she learned
English and obtained temporary legal status through a U visa provided
under the Violence Against Women Act.
Today, I'm proud to say, Madam Speaker, she's a United States citizen
and works as an advocate for other immigrant victims of domestic abuse.
Stories like Sara are inspiring and reinforce the reason that so many
of us feel passionately to join across party lines to ensure that no
domestic victim is left unserved.
This Cantor-Adams bill offers us a false choice between weakening and
undermining protections in the Violence Against Women Act or
maintaining the status quo. The American people understand that a vote
for the Cantor-Adams bill is a vote to roll back protections for all
domestic and sexual violence victims and puts the safety of our most
vulnerable domestic violence victims at risk.
Immigrants, Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and bisexual victims all
have historically faced many barriers to reporting sexual violence. But
instead of removing those barriers, this bill, under this closed rule,
creates new ones.
{time} 1430
Lesbian and gay survivors face particular obstacles in accessing the
criminal justice system. Lesbian and gay survivors are often reluctant
to report abuse, and when they do finally seek assistance, they
frequently don't receive the support they need across lifesaving
services and resources. Studies tell us that gay and lesbian couples
experience domestic violence at roughly the same rates as the general
population. It is no surprise that less than one in five gay and
lesbian victims of intimate partner violence receives help through a
service provider.
This bill fails to provide the same vital protections for gay and
lesbian families that have been overwhelmingly approved in the Senate
bill. During the Judiciary markup, I offered an amendment to restore
these protections, but unfortunately, it was voted down. This closed
process prevents the ability of Members of the House to even consider
or vote on adding these protections back in. Had the House Republicans
allowed amendments on the
[[Page H2742]]
floor today, I would have offered two amendments that I offered--along
with my colleagues Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Lofgren,
Representatives Deutch and Chu, all who were leaders in the Judiciary
markup--which would have eliminated these atrocious provisions from the
bill.
Some of the most egregious anti-immigrant provisions would destroy
incentives to cooperate with law enforcement. People like Sara, who
bravely came forward to report domestic violence, would face
deportation after 4 years. Why would somebody come forward and report
something if it would ultimately lead to her own deportation?
All women deserve to be protected from domestic violence--even women
who have committed crimes, even women who have had civil violations,
like violating our immigration laws, even women who are lesbians. All
women deserve to be protected by the Violence Against Women Act, and
that is what this bill is about. The Senate bill, which passed on a
bipartisan basis and included a report from well over a dozen
Republican Senators, included these provisions.
Abuse is abuse, whether it occurs against immigrants, whether it
occurs against gay and lesbian Americans, or whether it occurs against
Native Americans. Yet, under this bill before us, a Native American
woman who is living on a reservation and who is raped and abused by a
nontribal member lacks protection and remains at risk of serious sexual
and physical violence by her abuser. Under this underlying bill, gay
and lesbian survivors and victims will struggle to get protective
orders or will be turned away from service providers just because of
their sexual orientation or gender identities.
Just as alarming, this bill removes protections that currently exist
for some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations: battered
immigrant spouses, restricting the ability of U visa holders to apply
for permanent resident status and forcing them to face deportation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bills and to
defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I agree with my colleague from Colorado. Abuse is abuse, no matter
against which person it is, and nothing in this Violence Against Women
reauthorization bill prohibits grant recipients from serving all
victims of domestic violence, and I am glad to hear my colleague say
that.
Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to help women, particularly
those who have been victims of violence and abuse, while also being
good stewards of limited taxpayer resources. The 2012 Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act accomplishes these goals. In addition, the
FY13 National Defense Authorization Act ensures that the men and women
in our military have the resources they need while protecting taxpayer
investments.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
improved congressional oversight and against special interests by
voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 656 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
Strike the first section and insert the following:
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. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994. 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 chair 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.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of S. 1925 as
passed by the Senate if offered by Representative Conyers of
Michigan, Representative Moore of Wisconsin, or
Representative Lofgren of California. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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 information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4119.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 187, not voting 9, as follows:
[[Page H2743]]
[Roll No. 254]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--187
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Akin
Burton (IN)
Cassidy
Filner
Labrador
Luetkemeyer
Perlmutter
Slaughter
Young (FL)
{time} 1459
Ms. WILSON of Florida, Messrs. TONKO, MURPHY of Connecticut,
McINTYRE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Mr. RICHMOND changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 254, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Reichert was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Commemorating National Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, yesterday was National Law Enforcement
Memorial Day. This entire week is National Law Enforcement Week.
Last year, we lost 163 police officers killed in the line of duty. So
far this year, there have been 40 killed in the line of duty protecting
each one of the communities that we represent in this great body,
people like Tony Radulescu, a trooper in Washington State, a person who
left his home that day with a hug and a kiss from his family expecting
him back home again that evening for dinner, men and women in uniform
leaving every day to go to work to protect our communities, expecting
to return home. Some never do.
It is right; it is proper; it is our duty, Madam Speaker, to, today,
pause in this great body and pay tribute to those men and women who
have sacrificed their lives for us so that we can all live safely.
I ask for a moment of silence.
Moment of Silence
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will rise, and the House will
observe a moment of silence.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 186, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
[[Page H2744]]
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--186
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Altmire
Burton (IN)
Cassidy
Filner
Gerlach
Labrador
Perlmutter
Slaughter
Yarmuth
{time} 1510
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 255, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________