[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 148 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7882-H7885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6691, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND SECURITY
ACT OF 2018, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE
RULES
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1051
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6691) to
amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition
of ``crime of violence'', and for other purposes. 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 chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 13, 2018, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. 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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. This rule makes in order one bill dealing with
a pressing legal issue.
Mr. Speaker, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, an
immigrant convicted of certain felonies is subject to deportation. In
order to qualify for this particular provision of the INA, an immigrant
must be convicted of a crime of violence.
The statute defines ``crime of violence'' as an offense that, ``by
its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the
person or property of another may be used in the course of committing
the offense.''
This has been a longstanding and roundly accepted policy of the U.S.
Government. For years, we have deported dangerous criminal immigrants.
However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that how the
law defined ``crime of violence'' was impermissibly vague. The result
of the ruling threw all of these kinds of deportation cases into
question.
Historically, this realm of immigration law has never been an area of
law to which the Court has applied constitutional rights. But writing
the ruling for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan applied due process
rights afforded by the Constitution to the removal process of criminal
immigrants. Because the Court applied the Constitution in this manner,
it concluded that the term ``crime of violence'' could be applied
arbitrarily and unpredictably.
Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the path down which this ruling
could lead as it pertains to other provisions of Federal criminal law.
In fact, his concerns were justifiable.
In May, the Tenth Circuit struck down a similar provision in another
portion of Federal law relating to using weapons in the commission of a
crime. That particular case resulted in the sentence of a man convicted
for firebombing a store with a Molotov cocktail being vacated.
Then again, in August, the D.C. Circuit struck down convictions of
two men who were convicted for a violent criminal act. This ruling
opened up the possibility that convictions for criminal acts involving
firearms can be overturned.
Mr. Speaker, this is the backdrop against which we consider this bill
today. This legislation, the Community Safety and Security Act, plugs
the gaps in Federal law created by these recent court rulings.
It specifies the circumstances by which a criminal offense should be
construed as a crime of violence. In particular, a crime of violence
will include crimes of murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery,
domestic violence, human trafficking, and many other types of violent
acts.
By clearly outlining Congress' intent of what constitutes a violent
crime, this bill will eliminate the Court's concerns about ambiguity
and will allow our law enforcement agencies to continue carrying out
their duties to protect the American public.
Mr. Speaker, law and order is a crucial component of a healthy
society. We are beginning to see the effects of feel-good policies in
some locales on the crime rate in those areas, particularly the violent
crime rate. When law and order breaks down in our communities, the
residents suffer.
I am confident there is no intention to erode law and order or
embolden criminals. However, the effects are just the same. That is why
this legislation is so critical.
We need to ensure that there is a clear definition of violent crime,
so that courts across this country are not boxed in by this Supreme
Court ruling and do not have to vacate sentences or release violent
criminals onto our streets.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent more than 2 decades fighting crime, both at
the Federal level and in my own community. The impact of crime, and
violent crime in particular, on victims is heartbreaking. Watching
someone suffer the worst of societal ills is bad enough when justice is
served. But watching a victim suffer not just the crime, but the lack
of justice, is infuriating.
We need to fix this loophole carved by these rulings and defend our
communities from criminals. We need to stand up for victims of violent
crime and see that the justice that we all want for them is served.
I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate, and I am proceeding under the
assumption that we will conclude this pretty rapidly.
Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way
to govern is through a rushed and closed process, all in an obvious
attempt to throw red meat to their base. Let's not parse words. This is
an ill-thought-out bill trying to score cheap political points with the
Republican base.
Mr. Speaker, this bill takes up no small feat. It attempts to utterly
redefine what is meant by ``crime of violence'' in our criminal code.
Our need to revisit the definition is due to the fact that the United
States Supreme Court has now twice held that what is known as the
residual clause under this particular area of our criminal code is
unconstitutional because it is so broad it violates a person's
constitutional right to due process.
Such a reality does not invite this body's attention, but demands it.
However, with that demand comes a great responsibility, a
responsibility to take the time necessary to do it right; a
responsibility to ensure that members of the committee of jurisdiction,
and other Members of Congress, are consulted; a responsibility to
ensure that
[[Page H7883]]
we hear from public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and criminal
justice and immigration reform experts, for this bill touches upon all
of these areas, and not one person, let alone an expert, has been
consulted in the drafting of this bill, at least not in the light of
day.
Ostensibly, this bill was dropped to address the Supreme Court
decisions just noted, the most recent of which was handed down in April
of this year. I presume the composition of the bill was started soon
after the Court dropped its decision, and, therefore, the author had
from that time until last Friday to prepare today's bill. I think it
only fair, then, that we have a similar amount of time to consider such
an important matter.
Of course, I know that is not going to happen. No, instead, my
friends across the aisle have, once again, insisted on engaging in fly-
by-night legislating and, in so doing, shutting out not only Democrats
but Republicans, and not only Democrats and Republicans, but the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 96th closed rule of this session, and that
is record-breaking in and of itself. That means that Members don't have
an opportunity to have input to substantive legislation, and somehow or
another, with no hearings, or any markup or anything, a measure like
this is before us.
While home for the district work period, my constituents didn't talk
to me about replacing the definition of a ``crime of violence'' in the
Federal criminal code. They did talk to me about a number of
circumstances, but they didn't talk to me about liquefied natural gas,
one of the other bills the House is going to consider this week.
On the other hand, they did ask about what Congress is going to do to
address the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country, including,
regrettably, today, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
They asked about what Congress is doing to ensure that DACA, the
Dream recipients, and temporary protected status holders have a pathway
to citizenship, and they asked what Congress is going to do to address
the Nation's need for serious and sustained investments in our
infrastructure.
{time} 1230
And high among the things that I heard from my constituents was about
the cost of drugs and the rising cost of insurance.
Let us also include with those very important issues, including
today, there are nine legislative days until the government runs out of
money. I had representatives from the National Association of Air
Traffic Controllers visit me an hour and a half ago explaining to me
what a government shutdown would do to that particular agency.
We once again are forced to stare down the very real possibility of
another government shutdown. And what are my friends across the aisle
doing to thwart that inevitability? Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, we have some serious issues to tackle, and so I am
discouraged to be on the floor today focusing on yet another messaging
bill. I call on my Republican friends to put their perplexing fear of
governing aside in the final days before we leave Washington, so that
we may get to the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of my friend. I have
no Members here to speak, and I am prepared to close if my friend is.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We were supposed to have a speaker speak to the previous question,
and she may not be here to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, I heard my colleague,
Mr. Buck, discuss how one of the root causes of rising crime in this
country is our broken education system.
And now I will say to the gentleman that Ms. Bonamici has arrived,
and like him, she was just a little bit delayed. So she will speak to
this issue once I finish my comments, and then that will be our only
speaker, I would urge my friend.
I also would like to say, it is not often in this body that Members
say that they made a mistake. In an exchange last night in dialogue
with my friend from Colorado, he commented that Florida's violent crime
had gone down, and I mistakenly said to him that he was in error.
He was correct. It has gone down. I indicated to him last night that
I would speak with him more about it. And there are some particulars
that I will share with him, not so much in this particular setting, but
I will get a chance to talk to him. There are some things where crime
did go up, and Florida still ranks fifth in the Nation in violent
crime, but I do want to say to him that I was mistaken when I spoke
last evening.
Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado about
education, and I believe every Member of this House is concerned about
the education of our children in this country. We are failing our
younger generations. We need to make monumental strides in this country
to better our education system, and I believe that starts with
childcare.
And I always make a caveat there, because when I am asked about
education at home, and my opponent brought it up often in the election
that I was involved in, and I constantly reminded her that the Federal
Government only provides less than 7 percent of the budgets of our
local communities. So this is largely a matter where we talk a lot up
here, but the local communities are where the rubber hits the road.
We need to make these strides because of the problems that we are
seeing. We obviously need more pre-K, we obviously need more Head
Start, but in the past decade, the cost of childcare has increased by
25 percent. In 33 States and the District of Columbia, infant care
costs exceed the average cost of a 4-year in-state college tuition.
This is a huge financial burden that is only worsening.
Mr. Speaker, families need access to a system that provides high
quality, affordable early learning and care that will prepare children
for success without breaking the bank.
That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce
Committee Ranking Member Scott's bill, H.R. 3773, the Child Care for
Working Families Act. This bill will establish a new Federal-State
partnership to provide high quality, affordable childcare from birth
through age 13.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan consensus that our Nation's
families, on behalf of our Nation's children, who are our future and
our future leaders, must be able to access affordable, high quality
childcare and other early learning opportunities to fulfill their
potential and succeed in college and career and in life. In fact, a
recent poll done by the First Five Years Fund found that 89 percent of
voters, including 82 percent of Republicans, support making quality
early childhood education more affordable for working families.
Last year, I joined Ranking Member Bobby Scott and more than 120 of
my colleagues to introduce the Child Care for Working Families Act.
This bill would ensure universal access to quality early learning
programs for all families making less than 150 percent of their State's
median income.
Today, the average annual cost of full-time, center-based childcare
in the United States exceeds the average annual cost of in-state
tuition.
In Oregon and other places around the country, lower and middle-
income families are forced to pay up to 30 percent of their annual
income on childcare, with many of the lowest income families unable to
afford care at all.
The Child Care for Working Families Act is a bold solution to fix
this national problem. The legislation would mean that no family of
four earning an annual household income below $139,000 per year would
pay more than 7 percent of that income for quality childcare.
[[Page H7884]]
This legislation would also ensure that early learning teachers and
caregivers finally get the time, attention, training, and resources
they deserve. Whether in childcare, preschool, prekindergarten, or in
other early learning environments, every child should receive quality
care.
Parents are out working hard. They deserve the peace of mind that
comes from the confidence of knowing that childcare and early learning
professionals are well trained, and that means well paid. No longer
would a full-time early learning professional have to enroll in public
assistance to make ends meet.
Decades of research shows that properly nurturing children in the
early years of life is instrumental in supporting enhanced brain
development, cognitive functioning, and emotional and physical health.
Research also shows what all of us know: investing in quality early
learning programming leads to better educational outcomes, stronger job
earnings, and lower crime rates.
Quality early learning helps prevent and mitigate academic
achievement gaps, it provides indisputable long-term benefits for our
Nation. And nothing returns more money to the Treasury than investments
in early learning programs. Our Nation receives $7 in economic benefit
for every $1 invested in these programs. That, my colleagues, is a good
investment in our future, our children. This bill is not only the right
thing to do, but also the smart thing to do.
The Child Care For Working Families Act lays out the path of what
early learning in America could and should look like. If we want a
promising future for our children, if we want strong and stable
families, we must make sure that all families can access high quality
early learning opportunities. Quality childcare is a national priority.
This bill deserves immediate attention and, importantly, bipartisan
support. Our future is at stake.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a
manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the committees
of jurisdiction hold hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in
the field are consulted, in a manner where members of both parties have
an opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bills
that come before this body.
None of that happened with today's bill.
Instead, for reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on a bill
that no person in this body had sufficient time to understand, let
alone time to consider the far-reaching consequences it could have on
people living in this country and on our Constitution. The fact that
Republican leadership insists on governing in such a manner is, as
always, as disappointing as, in my opinion, it is shameful.
Now, listen: 96 closed rules. I am fond of talking about when I first
ran for Congress in 1992, the then leadership of the Republican Party
did an effective job saying to the American public that the then
leadership of the Democrats were having closed rules and closing out
the process.
Newt Gingrich was the person that was the author of that, in many
respects in retrospect, brilliant strategy. That was one of the tenets
that he put forward, that it was not right for Democrats to have as
many closed rules as they had at that time. I don't remember the exact
number, it was a number, but it didn't come close to 96. And now, if we
flip the script, what we have is 96 closed rules.
I serve on that Rules Committee with my friend from Colorado. And
repeatedly, you look around this room, on an ordinary, regular order
process, we would have at least five or six speakers on either side to
substantive legislation, or we would have had an opportunity for
Members to offer amendments that could have been considered in a
germane or non-germane manner to be able to come out here on the floor.
The American people are being shut out, not just Republicans and
Democrats. It is not right, and we shouldn't go forward that way.
I promise you that we are doing a disservice when we do not allow for
measures of this consequence. We don't know what the outcome of this is
going to be.
I can't disagree with a thing my friend from Colorado said with
reference to the measure and the clarification that is needed after the
two Supreme Court decisions, but please know this: the proper way to do
that would have been for the committee of jurisdiction to hold hearings
and then to have a markup and then come to the Rules Committee. But
what we saw was, bam, right straight to the Rules Committee, no
hearings, no markup, no experts, no prosecutors, no public defenders,
no input, and the public not having an opportunity to participate. It
is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate my friend from Florida and his views on open and closed
rules and the importance of open rules and the importance of amendments
and the importance to an open process.
The fact is the Democrats continue to focus on closed rules versus
open rules, ignoring the structured amendment process, which has
routinely been used by both majorities.
If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to
clarify a couple of points for the record. Sixteen of the closed rules
cited by the minority were rolling back regulations under the
Congressional Review Act, which does not allow for amendments, to
ensure that only a majority vote is required in the Senate.
{time} 1245
Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the majority put out a
call for amendments but received no amendments.
And if my friends from the other side of the aisle believe that open
rules are the only measure of success, it is only fair that we clarify
for the American people the Democrat majority's record.
In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero
open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing
open to closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. This
majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of
amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a Democrat
sponsor and/or cosponsor.
In fact, as of July 24, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress, in
which we serve now, have provided for the consideration of over 1,650
amendments on the House floor; over 745 Democrat amendments, or 45
percent of the total number of amendments; over 630 Republican
amendments or 38 percent of the total amendments; and over 280
bipartisan amendments, or 17 percent of the total amendments.
In the 114th Congress, the last Congress to have served, the
Republican majority allowed over 1,700 amendments to be considered on
the House floor.
In the 113th Congress the Republican majority allowed over 1,500
amendments to be considered on the House floor.
And in the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats
allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.
I just wanted to make sure that we put into perspective the arguments
from my friend.
Mr. Speaker, it is really fairly simple. Law and order is being
jeopardized as it relates to the term, ``crime of violence.'' This bill
plugs the gap left in our laws by the court's ruling.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different viewpoints across this
country about our criminal justice and immigration system, but there
are two nearly universally held beliefs by Americans: one, criminals
should receive justice; and two, criminal immigrants should be
deported.
While we can debate many aspects of our criminal code, we must not
waiver in our commitment to protect the American people from criminals
and to bring justice to victims. There have been numerous cases lately
of immigrants committing violent crimes against Americans. Some of
these cases are too recent to even mention by name here today. We must
stand with victims and their families and remove criminal immigrants
from this country. It is unjust to do anything else.
[[Page H7885]]
Our country is great, in part, because of our commitment to law and
order. It is wrong to pursue a softening of our response to violent
crime. To do so would invite more crime and produce more victims.
We must uphold the rule of law in America. Americans want it.
Americans deserve it. That is exactly what this bill does. It defines
violent crimes so that our immigration and criminal justice systems
will have the tools necessary to remove violent immigrants from our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this bill. Uphold law
and order. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the
resolution. And vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1051 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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.
3773) to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 and the Head Start Act to promote child care and
early learning, 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3773.
____
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. BUCK. 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.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
____________________