[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H677-H682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 47, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 83
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 47)
to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
their respective designees; (2) an amendment in the nature of
a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
113-2, if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to commit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1240
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. 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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 83 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013. The rule also provides for consideration
of one substitute amendment to this underlying legislation. This
process ensures there's ample discussion on both options presented to
the House, to give Members, both the minority and the majority, the
opportunity to participate in these debates.
I support the rule, and I hope my colleagues will support it as well
because, by supporting and passing this resolution, we'll be able to
move on to debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act.
As a former law enforcement officer who spent 38 years fighting
against all types of violence, I have seen the evils and cruelty of
domestic violence issues firsthand. That's why I also volunteered with
and even served on the board of directors for the Dawn Center, which is
a refuge for victims of domestic and sexual violence in Hernando
County, Florida.
With these sorts of experience, I know and understand how important
grant programs like these authorized by the Violence Against Women Act
are to law enforcement agencies fighting domestic violence, the
advocates serving the victims of domestic violence, and most
importantly, the victims themselves.
Violence against women is unacceptable in any terms. It should be
unacceptable to everybody in this room, regardless of your gender,
regardless of your sexual orientation, and regardless of your age. I
hope it's that obvious.
The rule we have before us today provides the House the ability to
consider measures that would help provide stakeholders with the tools
they need to combat this terrible crime.
If House Resolution 83 passes, then tomorrow the House will debate
two separate versions of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
We will have 1 hour debate on the underlying bill, which passed the
Senate just 15 days ago.
We'll also spend 20 minutes debating a Republican alternative to the
Senate bill. At the end of the debate, we will vote first on the
Republican alternative to the Senate bill, and if that House amendment
fails, then we'll have an up-or-down vote on final passage of the
Senate reauthorization. It's that simple.
These options offer two separate and distinct visions on how the
Federal Government can help aid in the fight against domestic violence.
I can say that, during my time as sheriff, I never saw a single
Federal domestic violence case ever prosecuted, but I know the Federal
dollars went to the States and counties to help combat these types of
crimes. I also know that victims of all genders and sexual orientations
found shelter and safety in places like the Dawn Center because of
grants like those authorized in the Violence Against Women Act.
For all those reasons, I know this a debate we need to have. That's
why I'm proud to stand here today sponsoring a rule that lays the
options out on the table, provides for vigorous and enthusiastic
discussion of those options, and ultimately, let's the people's House
work its will.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when I joined my former colleague, Representative Pat
Schroeder of Colorado, to write the original Violence Against Women
Act, it didn't occur to us to exclude or discriminate against anyone.
And in the multiple times the law has been reauthorized, we, as a
legislature, have always tried to ensure that all victims of domestic
violence receive the protections under the law.
As my colleague pointed out, up till now they have. Unfortunately,
the latest attempt to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act has
been different. This time, the majority has alternately tried to pass
extreme legislation that would weaken current law and rejected calls to
pass bipartisan legislation that would strengthen the current law.
On February 12, with 23 Republican Senators voting in favor,
including every Republican woman in the Senate, they approved a
reauthorization that is both comprehensive and inclusive in nature.
Unfortunately, instead of allowing a clean, up-or-down vote on
this bipartisan bill, the majority leadership proposed a substitute
amendment that removes key provisions from that bill.
For example, the leadership's amendment fails to explicitly protect
LGBT victims, and limits protections for immigrants. At the same time,
the amendment fails to close the legal loopholes that leave Native
American victims of domestic violence with nowhere to turn.
Additionally, despite the high rate of dating violence and sexual
assault on college campuses, the amendment entirely omits protections
for young women who are victimized in college. And that's why the
majority's amendment is opposed by groups including the National Task
Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the National
Congress of American Indians, and the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, among many others.
It's dismaying that some in the majority want to weaken a strong
bipartisan Senate bill, and it's vital that this Chamber reject their
alternative partisan amendment.
With the votes we are about to take, we will be asked to choose
between an amendment that fails to protect some victims of domestic
violence, and the bipartisan Senate bill protecting all victims. The
choice is so clear.
We'll be asked to choose between an amendment opposed by victims and
victims' rights advocates and a bipartisan bill. And when looking at
those options that are before us, it is clear what we must do. I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute amendment
tomorrow to the Senate bill, so the original Senate legislation will
receive a vote in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and talk about the incredible
impact the Violence Against Women bill has had since it was enacted.
Thanks to that Act, instances of domestic violence have fallen by 67
percent, and over 1 million people have obtained protective orders
against their batterers.
[[Page H678]]
Before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, police officers
were not trained to separate a victim and abuser when they responded to
a domestic violence call. Thanks to the law, the police officers are
now trained to do just that, a most important change that stopped
violence from resuming the moment the police left and the front door
closed.
But perhaps the greatest victory of the Violence Against Women Act is
that the law finally brought millions of victims out of the shadows and
gave them a place to stand.
In 1994, domestic violence in our country was not even discussed, and
its scars were never acknowledged. And as a result, the victims often
became abusers in a cycle of violence that simply wouldn't end. We
wrote the law to stop that cycle of violence, and we think we have
achieved much of that. For 18 years, this law gave victims a choice and
made incredible progress in ending the cycle of violence.
Every time we've renewed the law, our goal has been the same: to
ensure that all victims of domestic violence, no matter their
ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their age or their gender, are
acknowledged and helped and protected by the law.
It has been now more than 500 days since the Violence Against Women
Act expired. Today is the day that ends, and we act in the name of
justice. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the exclusionary
substitute amendment tomorrow so we can vote ``yes'' and get this bill
to the President right away.
Now, in addition, I want to mention on the previous question, today
we're going to have an opportunity to stop the sequester, which is
scheduled, as you know, to take effect in just 2 days.
We all know all the harms. We know very well what the sequester is
going to do to the economy and to the workforce in the United States.
And most importantly, we know that we cannot afford such a slowdown.
Now, today we're going to give Members of the House an opportunity to
vote on a sequester solution. If we defeat the previous question--and
please pay attention: If you want to go on record against having the
sequester go into effect, we are giving you an opportunity to do that.
By voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will allow the House
to vote on a measure that Mr. Van Hollen, ranking member of the Budget
Committee, has come to the Rules Committee three times with to try to
achieve the end of saving us from ourselves. Mr. Van Hollen's
legislation would reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way
but stop the devastating sequestration cuts.
{time} 1250
Today is the last chance for the House of Representatives to stop the
sequester. Despite what some have said, this Chamber has not passed a
solution to the sequester during this Congress. It is vital that the
inaction of the majority come to an end. We must take a step to stop
the sequester today.
So let me urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question if you
wish to be on record saying you do not support the sequester, you do
not want to see this damage done to the economy and to the United
States and, incidentally, to our reputation in the country and in the
rest of the world. Doing so will allow Mr. Van Hollen's legislation to
have the serious debate and vote that it deserves.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. I rise today in support of the rule which provides for
consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2013.
Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act has been
successful. We have seen its benefits. It has saved lives and helped
millions of women find safety, security, and self-sufficiency. While
there are deeply held differences about some policies in the bill we
consider today, now is the time to reauthorize the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act.
If a daughter, sister, or perfect stranger were raped, battered, or
needed help, no one would ask or care what her ethnicity, national
origin, or sexual orientation was before coming to her aid--nor should
the Violence Against Women Act. No community, no person should be
neglected when it comes to domestic violence. As a father of a young
daughter, Grace Catherine, I don't know or care what her orientation
is--and neither should Congress. I simply know that she and all women
and girls should be equally protected under its laws.
We have an opportunity now to finally pass a bipartisan, inclusive
Violence Against Women Act that service providers, law enforcement and,
most importantly, all victims deserve. I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague,
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, twice in two decades Members of both parties have
crossed party lines to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Yet
this week we are considering a partisan bill that excludes some victims
based on sexual orientation or immigration status. Does abuse not
``count'' if the victim happens to be a gay man or a lesbian? What if
the victim is an undocumented worker?
Here are some facts my GOP colleagues may be unaware of: 40 percent
of gay men experience domestic abuse, as do 50 percent of lesbian
women. For undocumented women, abuse rates are slightly higher than the
rest of the population, but go unreported for fear of deportation.
Those are millions of people and thousands of New Yorkers who are being
hurt. This legislation adds insult to their injury by basically saying
because of who you are, we won't help you.
I hope my Republican colleagues agree that that is not the message we
want to send. Vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill so we can
approve a real Violence Against Women Act that protects all victims
equally. Shame on us. This should not be a partisan issue.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying
legislation. This rule brings the Senate-passed version of VAWA to the
floor and allows us to vote on House language to replace that version.
I want to particularly thank my good friend, Chairman Sessions of the
Rules Committee, for devising a rule that will help the House work its
will on this important issue--and do so smoothly, fairly, and quickly.
I want to particularly thank Leader Cantor for his hard work and
effort to truly understand and deal with the problems that Native
American women face. That part of our population, as many of my
colleagues have learned during the course of this debate, is in many
ways the most at-risk part of our population. One in three Native
American women will be sexually assaulted in the course of her
lifetime. The statistics on the failure to prosecute and hold
accountable the perpetrators of those crimes are simply stunning. I'm
very proud that both the Senate and the House have turned their
attention to this issue and finally begun to give it the consideration
that it merits. Again, I particularly want to thank Leader Cantor. The
House version has improved tremendously over what this body passed in
the last Congress; and that's due, in large measure, to his hard work.
That being said, I cannot support the House version of VAWA. While
it's made great strides in recognizing the jurisdictions of tribal
courts over non-Indian offenders, it falls short of giving tribes what
they need to keep their citizens protected from the scourge of domestic
violence. Unlike the Senate version, the House version fails to
recognize existing tribal sovereignty that's enshrined in the
Constitution and has been recognized throughout the history of our
country. The House version requires tribes to seek Department of
Justice certification before exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian
offenders. I cannot think of any example where one sovereign has to
seek permission to exercise their rights as a sovereign. It doesn't
make sense to ask
[[Page H679]]
tribes to willingly abdicate part of their sovereignty to exercise
another part of their sovereignty.
In the same vein, the House bill waives sovereign immunity on behalf
of the tribes. As sovereigns, tribes should make that decision on
whether or not to waive sovereign immunity. In the final analysis,
Indian tribes and Indian women need help--and I don't think there's
much debate about this in this body. And they prefer the Senate bill to
the House bill. That settles the issue for me.
I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the House
amendment to the underlying bill, and I support the underlying bill
that's been passed by the Senate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I rise today in opposition to the
amendment made under this rule to gut the Senate-passed Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Senate bill is a
bipartisan approach that protects vulnerable populations, and the
amendment made under this rule would remove those protections.
Furthermore, S. 47 includes legislation that I have worked on in these
two past Congresses with Representative Virginia Foxx of North
Carolina, who I call my good friend, and Senator Klobuchar of
Minnesota. I reintroduced the STALKERS Act this Congress and am pleased
that it is included in the underlying bill.
No one can deny that the Internet is a great tool for all of us that
connects billions of people around the world. But one of the problems
with it is that it's proven to be an effective weapon for stalkers to
prey on innocent people. Current Federal stalking statutes simply have
not caught up with the new tools and the emerging technologies that
these criminals use. The STALKERS Act would bring our laws into the
21st century by giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat
stalking in the digital age.
The STALKERS Act would protect victims and empower prosecutors by
increasing the scope of existing laws to cover acts of electronic
monitoring, including spyware, bugging, video surveillance, and other
new technologies as they develop. Currently, Federal laws cannot be
enforced unless stalking victims can demonstrate that they are in
reasonable fear of physical injury.
Again, I thank you for including the STALKERS Act in the underlying
bill.
{time} 1300
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to pass the rule and the underlying bipartisan Senate
Violence Against Women Act. This is the first bill that I worked on
when I came to Congress with the great Louise Slaughter and Patricia
Schroeder, and then-Senator Joe Biden. It has been reauthorized in a
bipartisan way many times.
From 1994 to 2010, about four in five victims of intimate partner
violence have been female. These numbers are real people, and so are
the tragedies behind them. But this is not about politics. This is
about the single most fundamental task that we require of our
government: to keep its citizens safe from violent assaults--all of our
residents, all of our citizens, immigrants, no matter what the sexual
orientation is of our citizens. It's for all of our citizens.
I am pleased that two of the bills that I have authored are part of
the Senate version. It would be ripped out by the Republican version,
so I strongly support the bipartisan Senate version. One I authored
with Representative Poe in a bipartisan way, and that was the SAFER
Act. This took the monies and directed Justice not to spend more money
but to process the backlog of DNA kits in rape cases to put rapists
behind bars. And also, the Campus SaVE Act.
There's too much violence on campus. One in five women will be
sexually assaulted during their college years. This provision that I
authored would increase the obligations of colleges to keep students
safe and informed about policies on sexual assault. Also, the very
bipartisan, important anti-trafficking bill is part of it.
So I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan, historic way, to
reauthorize, repass the Violence Against Women Act, the Senate version.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the bipartisan, Senate-
passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
Since the Violence Against Women Act first became law in 1994, the
incidence of domestic violence is down more than 60 percent. It is with
that same record of success that we should address the prevalence of
domestic violence in underserved communities.
In my district of Sacramento, we are fortunate to have an
organization called WEAVE, which provides crisis intervention services
to domestic violence and sexual assault victims. Recently, WEAVE
admitted a woman and her 8-year-old son, Tucker, to their safe house.
By the time Tucker reached the safe house, his father's verbal abuse
had convinced him that he was stupid and insignificant. For an 8-year-
old boy to no longer smile, to play games, to enjoy life is
heartbreaking.
Fortunately, Tucker's mother rescued herself and her son by using the
resources that the Violence Against Women Act makes available. Tucker
is now living away from his father, in counseling, and on his way to a
happy and healthy future.
Time and time again we hear that programs like this break the cycle
of domestic violence. We must view this legislation not just as a
women's issue, but as a family issue, as a community issue that touches
all of our lives.
It is essential for all past and future victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking that we strengthen and
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I urge my colleagues to
reauthorize an all-inclusive version of the Violence Against Women Act.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule but oppose
the House Republican substitute, and to urge my colleagues to vote for
the real Violence Against Women Act's reauthorization. This passed the
Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Real VAWA focuses on key programs to address sexual assault,
including the backlog in testing rape kits. It also consolidates
programs to ensure that resources are reaching victim services and
local law enforcement, and it ensures protection for all victims of
abuse and violence.
In Nevada, nearly half of all women have been the victim of some kind
of sexual assault, and more than a quarter have been the victim of
rape. The Rape Crisis Center in Las Vegas--an excellent organization
that I've worked with closely over the years--assists victims in the
transition to become survivors. This Congress should support the
Center's efforts, not hinder them.
Violence against women is not a game. It is time for House
Republicans to stop playing games and to reauthorize this final
legislation now.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank you so much for the time.
Isn't it ironic that today, the Supreme Court of the United States of
America is considering section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in terms of
whether it will continue to apply to the United States of America and
those specific States and areas that are included therein. This is
being done at the same time we are considering the Violence Against
Women Act, which in my opinion should be called a Family Violence Act.
I say this because we cannot exclude people because of their
sexual orientation.
This is my watch. I have a duty to stand up for those who are being
left out or left behind. This act should include the LGBT community,
and any
[[Page H680]]
substitute that would remove the LGBT community is a substitute that I
cannot support.
Isn't it ironic that today, the Supreme Court is considering section
5 of the Voting Rights Act, and we just had a statue of Rosa Parks made
available to the public in Statuary Hall? Friends, it's time for us to
come up to the standards of this time, and let's bring all of our
people with us. The LGBT community merits our consideration. I will not
vote for the substitute. I support the LGBT community.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to discuss the previous
question. Mr. Van Hollen is the distinguished ranking member on the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank Ranking Member Slaughter.
I hope tomorrow this House will finally have a chance to vote on the
bipartisan Senate bill to prevent violence against women. I hope
tomorrow we will also have a chance to vote on a proposal that we've
now put forward three times this year to replace the sequester.
Unfortunately, the rule reported out of the House Rules Committee
denies us that opportunity. So let's just remind people what will
happen starting March 1.
Starting March 1, if this House does not take action to replace the
sequester, we will lose 750,000 American jobs between March 1 and the
end of this year. Those are not my numbers; those are not President
Obama's numbers; those are the numbers from the nonpartisan,
independent Congressional Budget Office--750,000 fewer American jobs by
the end of this year if we don't replace the sequester.
This majority in this House has not taken any action this year in
this Congress to prevent that sequester from happening beginning
Friday, not one step. We have now asked three times for the opportunity
to vote on our alternative.
So what's our alternative, Mr. Speaker? Our alternative would replace
the sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenue generated by
closing tax loopholes and tax preferences that benefit the very
wealthy.
So very specifically--because it's a concrete proposal--we would get
rid of the direct payments that go to agribusinesses, something that
used to have bipartisan support because that's an unnecessary subsidy
that has outlived its purpose. So that's a cut.
{time} 1310
We also say we no longer need taxpayer subsidies for the big oil
companies. Guess what? That's an idea that was proposed by President
Bush who said taxpayers should no longer be giving these big breaks to
big oil companies; they don't need that extra taxpayer incentive in
order to keep producing oil and making record profits. So we do that.
Then we say to folks who are making $2 million a year that we're
going to limit the number of preferences you can take. We're going to
limit the number of tax breaks that you take that allow you to
effectively pay a lower rate than the people who work for you. So if
you're making $2 million or more per year, we say you should pay an
effective tax rate of 30 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If you take that balanced combination of targeted
cuts and the elimination of tax breaks that disproportionately benefit
very wealthy people, guess what happens? You get the same deficit
reduction over the budget window, so you reduce the deficit by the same
amount as you would get if you allow the sequester to take place
throughout this year, but you do it in a way that does not lose 750,000
American jobs. You do it in a way that does not cause disruption at our
airports; in a way that does not cause disruption to our food safety
system; in a way that does not cause disruption to the nurses who are
caring for our veterans in military hospitals and veterans hospitals
around this country; and in a way that does not disrupt our military
operations.
So, Mr. Speaker, we just have a simple question: Why is it that as we
gather here Wednesday, we're denied the opportunity to even have a vote
on this alternative, this balanced alternative, to prevent the loss of
750,000 American jobs? We're not asking Members of this House to vote
for our alternative, although we think it's a good one and would urge
them to do so. We're simply asking that in the people's House we have a
vote on an alternative to something that will create these great job
losses and that great disruption.
I think the American people are going to ask themselves why we were
not even granted that opportunity with less than 3 days to go before we
hit that across-the-board sequester, which is just Washington-speak for
massive job loss and massive economic disruption.
In addition to the job loss, according to the independent
Congressional Budget Office, it will cause one-third less economic
output in the United States of America in this year at a time when the
economy remains very fragile. So I ask, finally, Mr. Speaker, give us
that opportunity at least to vote so people have a choice to prevent
the sequester.
I thank the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership as the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee.
Today, we have an interesting discussion. We are debating the rule
that will enable us to bring to the floor the Violence Against Women
Act. As part of the debate on the rule, we are asking a ``no'' vote on
the previous question which will enable us also to not only vote on the
Violence Against Women Act but, at completion, to go on to voting on
the proposal that the Democrats have to resolve the sequester issue.
I'll start first, though, with the Violence Against Women Act. As of
yesterday, it was over 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act
had expired. The reauthorization is long overdue. Last year, the
Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed a bill that was comprehensive, that
did the job. The House Republicans resisted that. Here we are again,
this year, last week, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed 78-22 the
Violence Against Women Act, which is comprehensive and does the job.
That means 78 percent of the Senate voted--78 percent of the Senate
voted--for this Violence Against Women Act. It means also that all of
the women in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for
this act. It also means that a majority of the Republicans in the
Senate--a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--voted for this
comprehensive Violence Against Women Act.
So the Senate has passed it overwhelmingly with the majority of
Republicans supporting it. The President stands ready to sign it.
Democrats in the House support it. We will call upon the leadership of
Gwen Moore, who has a similar bill in the House. We stand ready to
support the Senate version. The Senate has passed it, we support it,
the President is ready to sign it, and, once again, the Republicans in
the House are the obstacle to passing this legislation.
It's really hard to explain to anyone why we would say to the women
of America, Women of America, step forward; we are stopping violence
against women. Not so fast if you're an immigrant, not so fast if
you're a member of the LGBT community, not so fast if you're a Native
American. What is that? Violence against some women but not others?
Quite frankly, the groups that are excluded by the House bill are the
groups that are in the most need of protection against violence.
So I would hope that in the course of the debate that we will move on
to on the Violence Against Women Act that we will all open our hearts
to what is needed to reduce violence in the lives of America's women.
In the meantime, we have a procedure that is not preferable, we have
asked over and over again, as the distinguished gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen) has said, this will be the third time we've asked to
get a vote on a Democratic alternative. The American people want to
know why we can't pass something to avoid sequestration. We have this
proposal that is
[[Page H681]]
fair, that does make cuts, that does produce revenue, and that does not
impede growth with jobs in our economy. All we want is a vote. Why do
we have to beg, hat in hand, for a vote on the floor of the House in
this marketplace of ideas? What are the Republicans afraid of? They may
be afraid that it will win because it makes so much sense that their
Members may be attracted to vote for it. Or they may not want to put
their Members on record voting against something that is so balanced,
that is so commonsense driven that is a solution, a solution to
sequestration.
What does sequestration mean? Well, whatever it means, this is what
it equals: sequestration equals unemployment. Sequestration equals job
loss. And we just cannot have a slowing down of our economic growth. We
cannot afford losing the 700,000 jobs. That's the low estimate that has
been put forth by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office
itself.
We urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which means
that we would then be allowed to come to the floor to take up the
Violence Against Women Act and also to take up the sequestration bill.
It is really something that deserves debate on the floor of the House.
The Republican leadership has said, well, we voted on that last year.
Last year was another Congress. That Congress ended. How to make a law:
Congress ends, we have an election, and a new Congress begins. The
Constitution says that bills that relate to revenue or to
appropriations must begin in the House. So they said, We did it last
year. It doesn't count. Let the Senate begin. That's not what the
Constitution says.
So let us take our responsibility and not be afraid of the ideas that
people sent us here to discuss. We don't have to agree on every point,
but we certainly should have an opportunity on the floor of the House.
People across the country are talking about this. You can't turn on any
media without their talking about this. The only place we can't talk
about it or get a vote on it is on the floor of the House of
Representatives. That's plain wrong.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the
Republican Violence Against Women Act, and a ``yes'' vote on the
bipartisan Senate bill when we have an opportunity to vote on that.
{time} 1320
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Mr.
Van Hollen for clarification, and following that I will yield 2 minutes
to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just three numbers: 750,000 fewer
American jobs, cutting growth in GDP by one-third, not economic output
but growth in GDP by one-third. That's one number. The second number:
three, the number of times we've tried to get a vote on this. The third
number: zero, the number of times our Republican colleagues this year
have tried to resolve the sequester issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of this comprehensive and bipartisan effort
to end violence against women.
The Violence Against Women Act recently passed by the Senate properly
updates this crucial legislation for the 21st century by providing
necessary resources and support to all victims of domestic violence
regardless of their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. An
overwhelming 78 Senators, including 23 Republicans, recognize the need
for these protections, and I'm thrilled that we're finally moving to
recognize the same.
I'd like to express my gratitude to the champions of this bill in the
House, including the gentlelady from New York. Several of my colleagues
and I, along with hundreds of groups and thousands of concerned
citizens all across the country, have worked tirelessly these past few
weeks to make sure that the voices of survivors and advocates could be
heard over partisan debate. That is why the bill we consider today
reflects the needs of vulnerable populations that have been ignored in
the past. It will give Native American tribes the tools to hold abusers
accountable, LGBT survivors the protection they need to access
services, and immigrant survivors the independence necessary to escape
violence.
I'm proud to vote in favor of a comprehensive Violence Against Women
Act for my constituents, for my children, my daughters, and I urge all
of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
May I inquire of my colleague if he has any more requests for time?
Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If not, then I'm prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been a wonderful day for us in some way because we are
finally debating the Violence Against Women Act, with a great
possibility of passing the Senate bill, which will protect all women in
the United States and not just some. It's terribly important that we do
that. And I think we may have caused some confusion there as we talk
about violence against women, and we're also talking about the previous
question which deals purely with sequestration. I would like to close
speaking about that.
I think everyone understands the importance that we attach to the
Violence Against Women Act, but we are also very much concerned about
sequestration. The reason we have brought it up on a previous question
on the Violence Against Women Act is we've had absolutely no other
opportunity to bring it up.
The American public has been told over and over again that twice this
House has passed legislation dealing with sequestration. All of us
know--I'm not sure the public knows, but let me make it clear--that
anything done before December 31 of last year is no longer valid.
Nothing has been done this term to stop the sequestration. The only
effort that has been made to do so has been done by Mr. Van Hollen, the
ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has a very moderate request,
one that does not do great harm either to the employment situation in
the country or to the output of GDP, and what he said was terribly
important.
What we are about to embark on here is totally unknown. We know that
it's bad. I think everybody has understood that it's bad. Why we would
continue to do it is beyond my imagination. But let me make it
absolutely clear here: no opportunity has been given to our side of the
House to even attempt to deal with sequestration. This is it.
For any Member of the House of Representatives who would like to go
on record saying that they don't want sequestration to take place on
March 1, this is your only opportunity. So we are asking that you will
vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can at least go on record in
this House and we can do our very best to stop what, by all accounts
and by what all important economists say, will be an unmitigated
disaster.
If we defeat the previous question, we will offer the amendment,
which will allow the House to vote on replacing the entire sequester
for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced
approach to reducing our national deficit. It is a balanced approach,
Mr. Speaker, not a meat-ax across the board.
We have to act now if we're going to avert this crisis. I can't
reiterate enough that this is our only chance. If we're going to avoid
the unnecessary cuts to essential programs, the time is now.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues in
this House, because none of us want to face that abyss, to vote ``no''
to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H682]]
I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as
well.
Every day, people flee their homes because of violence they suffer at
the hands of a domestic partner. If there's something we can do to stop
that violence to save those women and children, then we need to do it.
Inaction is unacceptable. I've seen the consequences of doing nothing
too many times when it comes to domestic violence.
We have before us a rule that provides the House with multiple
options on how we take a stance against domestic violence right here
and right now. We may not agree on which of these two visions is the
best one, but I think we can all agree that something must be done.
That's why I say to you, Mr. Speaker, support the rule before us today.
If you want to do something, anything, then you need to start with
voting for the rule. That's the first step. That's what we need to pass
first and foremost so we can debate those options.
Some folks here will like the Senate's vision of the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act more than they like the House alternative.
Others have problems with the Senate bill and think the House's plan is
the way to go forward. Either way, if you want to take a stand against
violence against women, then you need to support this rule.
This rule is how we move to the next step, to debate the options
before the House to ensure that law enforcement departments,
organizations like the Dawn Center back home, and victims of domestic
violence can get the support that they so desperately need.
There are those who want to confuse this with another issue before
this House, but this is the issue that we have today, the issue on
domestic violence, the Violence Against Women Act.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 83 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
699) To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 to repeal and replace the fiscal year
2013 sequestration. 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 among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill 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. 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. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may 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.
Mr. NUGENT. With that, Mr. Speaker, 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________