[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.''

                          ____________________