[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 159 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8897-H8902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6157,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1071, RECOGNIZING THAT ALLOWING ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS THE RIGHT TO VOTE DIMINISHES THE VOTING POWER OF UNITED
STATES CITIZENS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 1077 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1077
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
conference report to its adoption without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to
recommit if applicable.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1071) recognizing that
allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the
franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States
citizens. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 27, 2018, or September 28, 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 (Mr. Bacon). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres),
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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 6157, the
Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, 2019, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2019, and for an additional resolution, H. Res. 1071. The rule provides
for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the
second of what will likely be several appropriations packages to fully
fund the government for fiscal year 2019.
This represents the first time in more than 10 years that Congress
will send more than one final appropriations bill to the President for
signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. In years past, we
have relied strongly on omnibus spending bills to fund the government;
but now, with the hard work done on both sides of the aisle and in both
Houses of Congress, we are returning to regular order and completing
spending work through the normal legislative process.
Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said on this floor, the primary
obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and keep
it open and operating. The American people deserve no less. With this
package under consideration today, Congress will do just that with
respect to 2 of the 12 main spending bills: the Department of Defense
and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and related agencies.
In addition, the bill also includes a continuing resolution extending
funding for other parts of the government not covered by this bill or
the appropriations bill signed by the President last week.
In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services
across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the
American people: to patients, to communities, to business owners, to
the military, and to Americans of all stripes.
The House is already familiar with this bill from when it was passed
in June, and this conference version, agreed to with the Senate, has
not substantially changed with respect to Defense. However, it now
reflects the combined priorities of the Members of both sides of the
aisle and in both the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, in the Defense title of the bill, the conference report
appropriates a total of $674.4 billion for the Department of Defense,
including $606.5 billion in base funding, an increase of $17 billion
above fiscal year 2018, and $67.9 billion in overseas contingency
operations and global war on terrorism funding. This increase in
funding will help begin to right the wrongs committed against our
military readiness by several years of chronic underfunding.
This bill provides an authorized 2.6 percent pay increase for our
troops, the largest pay raise in 9 years, and it ensures we will be
able to increase our Active-Duty number of military personnel by more
than 16,000 soldiers.
The bill provides $148 billion for equipment procurement, including
13 new warships, a number that includes two new Virginia-class
submarines and three new littoral combat ships. It also adds 93 new F-
35 aircraft, new transport aircraft, new tankers, and over 100 new
helicopters.
The bill also provides $96.1 billion for research and development of
new defense systems and technologies, and $243.2 billion for training,
maintenance, and base operations, funding that is sorely needed to
increase our dwindling readiness to confront threats both at home and
abroad.
Mr. Speaker, in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
title, the conference report appropriates $178 billion, a $1 billion
increase over fiscal year 2018.
As the conference knows, I am fortunate to chair the Labor, Health
and
[[Page H8898]]
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and I am
very pleased with the results of this year's bill. We were able to
increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion
to $39 billion, thus ensuring that we will be able to direct
significant new dollars to medical research, tackling vexing health
problems like Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and the opioid crisis.
Indeed, across the entire bill, we are putting more than $6.6 billion
into the fight against the opioid crisis. We are putting $7.9 billion
into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make sure that
we will have the resources available to battle emerging public health
emergencies and fight infectious disease. We did all of this while also
ensuring that popular programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides
meals for our vulnerable senior citizens, can continue to be funded at
current levels.
In the other areas of the Labor-HHS title, we have provided $12.1
billion for the Department of Labor, including $3.5 billion for job
training, $1.7 billion for Job Corps, and $300 million to help veterans
transition into the workforce.
We provided $71 billion to the Department of Education. This includes
$12.4 billion for IDEA special education grants to States. We also
funded TRIO at $1.06 million and GEAR UP at $360 million, both
substantial increases.
{time} 1230
These programs are near and dear to my heart personally and help
first-generation college students succeed.
We increased the maximum Pell grant award to $6,195, and we provided
$1.9 billion for career, technical, and adult education programs. We
included significant funding for our youngest Americans, including
$10.1 billion for Head Start, $5.3 billion for childcare and
development block grants, and $250 million for early childhood
programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes a provision acting as a
continuing resolution, extending some portions of government funding
out to December 7. This extension, while not ideal, gives the
Appropriations Committee and both Houses of Congress time to come to an
agreement on legislation funding the remaining areas of our government.
Such an extension fulfills our primary obligation as legislators, which
is to fund the government and keep it open and operating.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief look at what we have
accomplished and put these bills in context.
Last week, the President signed into law the first package of three
bills for fiscal year 2019, covering Energy and Water, Military
Construction and Veteran Affairs, and the Legislative Branch titles.
These bills covered just over 11 percent of total discretionary
spending.
Today's bill, which covers the Defense and Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education titles, will produce the vast majority of
discretionary spending, just short of 65 percent of the total
discretionary spending for fiscal year 2019. What is left in the
remaining seven titles amounts to just shy of 24 percent of
discretionary spending.
We may need to do a short-term continuing resolution for part of the
government, but with these bills today, what we will have accomplished
is sending over 75 percent of the total discretionary spending to the
President for his signature into law before the start of the new fiscal
year.
That is an amazing accomplishment, one that has not happened in
Congress in over a decade. Indeed, this is the first time in more than
10 years that the Department of Defense will have its full annual
funding enacted before the start of the fiscal year. This is the first
time in 22 years that the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies will have been funded before
the beginning of the fiscal year.
As Chairman Frelinghuysen has said, this is the next step on the
return to regular order. Those who would reject this bill because of
the presence of a continuing resolution for part of the government are,
frankly, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. This
bill, Mr. Speaker, is a return to regular order, and we should all be
proud of what we have achieved. It also represents a compromise between
the two parties in this body and between this body and our counterpart
on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda.
Mr. Speaker, today's conference report represents nearly a year of
strong work by Congress. I applaud my colleagues for all they have
accomplished. This is just the next step, and we will have many things
to do before we finish our appropriations work for fiscal year 2019.
But for now, I congratulate the House and the Senate for finalizing
this package.
I want to take a moment also, since this is the last one of these
particular bills that Chairman Frelinghuysen will present, he will have
others later, obviously, but he is ending his term, and I want to
congratulate our chairman for the outstanding work that he has done,
and also that of his strong working partner, Mrs. Lowey of New York,
for her outstanding work.
Frankly, since we are dealing with the Labor-H portion, I want to
thank my good working partner and friend, Rosa DeLauro, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, for her hard work. I also thank our superb staff,
particularly our clerk, Ms. Ross, for her work in ably helping us
arrive at a monumental achievement. Again, this is the first time in 22
years that the Labor-H bill has gotten done in full and on time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, if you are having deja vu right now, it is because we
have been here one too many times before. Our government is on the
verge of yet another government shutdown this week. After yet another
district work period, we return today to this rule to consider the
bills it makes in order. We are left with just one last chance to do
our work and one final opportunity to send President Trump a funding
bill that reflects the true value of bipartisanship, one without poison
pill riders which would put so many of our constituents out of work.
This rule makes in order H.R. 6157, the DOD, HHS, and Education
omnibus bill; and H. Res. 1071, which is a rebuke on some localities
expanding voting opportunities to immigrants.
While some of my colleagues may wish to speak about H. Res. 1071, I
will focus on the good work that we are accomplishing today, not a
meaningless political game House Republican leadership is choosing to
waste our time with to further divide this House and instead of
focusing on preventing a shutdown.
H.R. 6157, the second minibus to keep the government open in fiscal
year 2019, is an example of how this body can still work together to
reach a bipartisan consensus when we take politics out of the picture.
Perhaps more important than what is included in the minibus is what
is not included. This minibus rejects the proposed cuts to healthcare
programs, job training, education, and access to healthcare that were
in President Trump's budget proposal.
This minibus also rejects President Trump's efforts to expand family
separation at our Nation's border. While many children remain separated
from their parents, at least this minibus agreement does not include
House Republican language that would have overridden the Flores
settlement and authorized the indefinite detention of immigrant
children. This is a very small victory, but an important one. This
minibus is a fundamental statement of our values, and the United States
Congress should not condone the President's inhumane practice of family
separation.
In addition, let me make this clear: nothing in this legislation will
pay for one foot of the President's border wall. I hope President Trump
joins this Congress and listens to the majority of the American people
who don't want to fund this wall. This Congress has repeatedly rejected
funding for his misguided wall, and it is about time the President gave
up on such a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars while our bridges,
freeways, and streets are crumbling beneath us. That does not do
anything to keep America safe.
Let's talk about the good things that this bill brings to our
constituents. I am happy to report that this legislation provides a 2.6
percent pay raise for servicemembers who continue to serve our Nation
around the world. As a
[[Page H8899]]
mother of a veteran, I celebrate that even more. It is wonderful to
hear that our servicemembers are finally being acknowledged for the
hard work that they do keeping our Nation safe at home and abroad.
In addition to paying our servicemembers more, this agreement will
protect our men and women in uniform from one of the most common harms
they encounter: shamelessly stated as sexual assault. The $5 million in
additional funding we will provide will fully implement and expand the
Sexual Assault Special Victims Counsel Program. The Counsel Program
provides representation for survivors navigating the complicated
military justice process. Hopefully, victims of sexual abuse will not
have to wait years to report this crime.
The conference report also provides a $35 million increase, for a
total of $270 million, to construct, renovate, repair, or expand
elementary and secondary public schools on military installations,
giving military families an opportunity to thrive and educate their
young. In other words, this increase means that we are not only helping
our servicemembers, but the families that support them and who provide
invaluable moral support for our soldiers.
Another bipartisan achievement included in this legislation is an
increase for environmental restoration by more than $13 million. One of
the shortfalls of this Congress has been a failure to address the water
crises we have seen ravaging our communities. In California alone,
dozens of communities have experienced recent rates of childhood
poisoning that surpass those in Flint, Michigan, with one locale
showing rates nearly three times higher.
It is unacceptable that in the richest Nation in the world, our
children are being poisoned because we refuse to take the necessary
actions to provide the infrastructure to deliver clean water to our
communities. Securing this funding is a real step to helping invest in
communities and the health of our children.
That is why we included yet another investment into our communities'
health by increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health by
$2 billion. This rejects the cuts proposed by the President in his
administration and instead supports research into cures for life-
threatening diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, HIV/AIDS, influenza, and
diabetes.
Additionally, we are providing $4.4 billion to combat the nationwide
opioid crisis. This means more prevention programs, better treatment,
and training for the workforce to ensure our healthcare professionals
aren't making problems worse.
Finally, the last part of this agreement that I would like to
highlight is what we are doing for our workforce programs. This bill
invests in students, the future of America, those looking for workforce
training and working families.
Included is:
$10.1 billion for Head Start, which provides literacy programs to
young children in working families;
$5.3 billion for childcare and development block grants to provide
childcare assistance to low-income families. We celebrate that mothers
will finally have the support that they need to work and deliver for
their families;
$160 million for apprenticeship grants to connect businesses to
workers;
$1.3 billion for career and technical education; and,
An increase to the maximum Pell grant to help our students keep pace
with the rising cost of college.
This is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that
should be signed into law. I urge the President to look at what a
bipartisan agreement looks like and take ``yes'' for an answer. The
last thing any of us want is yet another government shutdown. Let's
prevent that today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend, my colleague
on the Rules Committee, for her kind words and her acknowledgment of
how many accomplishments there are that both parties have worked hard
to achieve in this particular legislation. That is why I am confident
that once the bill comes to the floor, we will have a substantial
majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voting for it and
a substantial majority of my friends from my side of the aisle joining
them in that. That is a good thing. America should be exceptionally
pleased with that.
I also want to thank the President, because he is a participant in
this. While this bill does represent a compromise, the reality is,
particularly in the defense area, we essentially gave the President
most of the things that he asked for and worked for, and we brought
this. So I think he can take considerable pride in the achievements of
restoring the military, because that was his suggestion, his proposal,
and he worked to that end.
{time} 1245
There are also particular initiatives in the Labor-H portion of the
bill that the President deserves credit for. My friend cited the
apprenticeship program, a great program. That was a Presidential-level
proposal. A lot of the training programs are.
It was this President who declared opioids as a national healthcare
emergency. I am proud Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have
responded. As my friend knows, there was a budget agreement last year
between the administration, the Senate, and the House that actually put
an emphasis on more money at the NIH, more money for opioids.
I am the first to acknowledge there is good work and good praise here
to go all around for everybody. My friends in the House worked very
hard. I have always joked with my good friend, the ranking member, that
we always start out on different sides, but for four times in a row
now, we have come together for the final package and both supported the
legislation that authorized Health and Human Services, Labor,
Education, and related agencies. Again, that wouldn't be possible
without the leadership of the full committee. That wouldn't be possible
without friends across the rotunda.
Far be it from me to overpraise the Senate of the United States, but
I have to say that they deserve a lot of praise in this instance,
because the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy on
that side was exceptionally important to us in reaching a resolution
and working through some of the knotty issues.
Finally, I want to thank the President of the United States. We make
Presidents go first in their budget proposals, largely so then we can
pick them apart later and do what Congress should do, and that is to
make the final decisions in this area. But we took the President's
recommendations very, very seriously.
There are many good things in this bill, both in the military side
and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education side, that
began with proposals of the administration.
I mentioned opioids. I mentioned apprenticeship programs. I could go
on. I could mention charter schools. There are many, many proposals out
of the administration that are incorporated in this.
The reality is, I think this is actually what the American people
want to see. All three of the legs of this stool--the House, the
Senate, and the executive branch--cooperating together, compromise,
found different ways. We did that within our ranks, within this body
between Republicans and Democrats. We did that across the rotunda with
our colleagues in the Senate. And we certainly did it working with the
President of the United States.
It takes all three of us to get it done. The reality is, this has
already passed the Senate in, I must add, an overwhelmingly bipartisan
manner, 93 to 7, if I recall the vote correctly. That makes a strong
statement as to how well our friends on both sides of the aisle in the
other Chamber work.
I think we will have a very strong vote when we get to final
legislation. That, again, is something that the leadership on both
sides, and particularly in the Appropriations Committee, can take a
great deal of pride in.
When we send it down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, if the
President of the United States doesn't sign it, it doesn't become law.
I believe we will get that signature, and I want to acknowledge how
hard the President and his team worked with us to arrive at a solution
with our friends in both Chambers.
[[Page H8900]]
Mr. Speaker, with praise all around, I am going to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a continuing resolution that
will extend the Violence Against Women Act only until December 7. I am
glad that we aren't letting this important legislation expire. However,
a simple extension is not enough. We need to fully reauthorize and
strengthen this landmark act.
Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Jackson Lee's
legislation, H.R. 6545, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
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 (Mr. Donovan). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from
California for her leadership, and, certainly, I rise enthusiastically
on her motion.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate for H.R.
6157. We must oppose this rule and defeat the previous question. The
reason for such is not because we do not support the troops or our
children but because defeating the previous question will enable this
House to consider and pass H.R. 6545, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
This is an opportunity that we should not squander. This bill is a
bill that we have worked on for 2 years, and a bill that I introduced
with over 150 cosponsors, timely, in July 2018, after working for 2
years with all of the Nation's women's advocacy groups, groups that
opposed and fought against domestic violence, and all other
stakeholders.
I would like to thank them for 2 years of tedious and hard work,
ensuring that immigrant women were protected, ensuring that Native
American women were protected, ensuring that those who had a domestic
abuse warrant could not have a gun without having a lockbox. I want to
say to them that we will never give up.
The Violence Against Women Act is a landmark piece of legislation,
passed in 1994 following the Anita Hill moment that opened our eyes to
the then overwhelming problems faced by victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It is now even more
evident with the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and the
allegations that have been made by Dr. Ford and others that raise a
sense of urgency for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act.
It baffles me that Republicans can leave without passing the updated,
reauthorized legislation and not just a mere extension. By passing
VAWA, we can stop the revictimizing, retraumatizing, and stigmatizing
of sexual assault survivors.
Enough is enough. Science tells us that trauma severely impacts
recall, so let us do our jobs and help them. Women deserve to be
respected, protected, and never neglected.
As we all know very clearly, VAWA is set to expire this week, and
millions of innocent lives are counting on us to get this right and
reauthorize VAWA now, reauthorize it with the new provisions to
increase funding; increase recognition of stalking, sexual assault,
dating violence, and sexual harassment; help women, men, and children
everywhere throughout our great country who have and will suffer at the
hands of perpetrators who commit these violent and abusive crimes.
The bill generically adds the word ``people,'' because we know that
abuse is across the lines of men, women, and children. Clearly, these
victims deserve more than a mere 3-month expedient extension or
piecemeal product to combat these challenges of monumental proportions.
What will we say to them? The current climate of the #MeToo movement
is a wake-up call to the Nation. Let's not make this a partisan issue.
It should not be--it was not in 1994--because crimes of violence
against anyone must be addressed.
I remember standing next to Senator Joe Biden, and I remember
standing next to Congressman Henry Hyde, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, standing next
to Republicans and Democrats to do this. Why can we not do it now?
Therefore, when we ignore an extraordinary movement such as the
#MeToo movement by not reauthorizing a strengthened and improved VAWA
that meets today's challenges, then we have failed the Nation. If we do
not defeat this previous question, we are telling all of our
constituents and all of those stakeholders and those women's centers,
like the Houston Area Women's Center that are waiting for this to be
reauthorized and are a place of refuge for women who are fleeing all
kinds of violence and who rely heavily on VAWA and all of those who
care about protecting women, men, and children's rights against
violence that we do not care.
On July 26, 2018, I introduced H.R. 6545, VAWA 2018, which is a
compromise version with modest improvements, because I am committed to
passing a bipartisan reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Hopefully, we can do more that is tailored to appeal to Members of
Congress across the political spectrum.
My question is, why didn't the Republicans stand up? Where were they?
This is not a bill that is out of line. It is a bill that is updated in
response to needs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the moment for my colleagues to do the right
thing, for the right reasons, to help bring H.R. 6545 to the floor for
a vote. This has always been a bipartisan effort.
Let us not let the current times and background noise sway us away
from our pivotal duties. What is happening on the other side, the other
body, does, in fact, emphasize our need to act.
Let us show the American people that we care about victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and
sexual harassment, which have been added to the VAWA 2018.
H.R. 6545 has received the support of the National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence, women and men who are both Republicans
and Democrats, which is a national collaboration comprising a large and
a diverse group of national, Tribal, State, territorial, and local
organizations, advocates, and individuals who focus on the development,
passage, and implementation of effective public policy to address
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, the
four crimes.
These modest yet vital updates we have made in the existing Violence
Against Women Act are based on the needs identified by direct service
providers who work daily with the victims and the survivors of the four
crimes.
H.R. 6545 makes the following improvements and more.
It makes important investments in prevention, a key priority
identified not only by people who work with victims and survivors daily
but also by our very own Bipartisan Women's Caucus.
It provides resources to implement evidence-based prevention
programs, which will make our communities safer and, ultimately, save
taxpayers money. Law enforcement officers are waiting for the resources
to help them protect the community.
It also safeguards important protections that ensure all victims and
survivors have access to safety and justice, and provides mechanisms to
hold predators who prey on Native women accountable.
Moreover, it provides law enforcement with new tools to protect their
community.
It offers protections for survivors in Federal, public, subsidized,
and assisted housing. It supports victims and survivors who need
assistance rebuilding financially. It addresses the needs of
underserved communities and improves the healthcare response to the
four crimes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
[[Page H8901]]
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. It closes many of the loopholes found in dating
violence.
And in response to the overwhelming victims in the #MeToo movement,
it adds sexual harassment as part of the applicable crimes of violence.
In short, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of
2018 is a bill that should draw wide support but provides across-the-
board protection for those who need it. There is no reason for this not
to be bipartisan and no reason for it not to be on the floor.
Let's not play politics with people's lives. Let's not shortchange
them by slashing funding in half. Let's not kick the can down the road
while omitting funding. Let's not dismiss their cries and pleas.
Certainly, let's not punish them because #theydidnot report.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all of the time, and I thank the
gentlewoman from California for all of her leadership.
It is time to vote ``no'' in order for us to move the previous
question and pass the Violence Against Women Act that is now ready to
move to the floor.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the objective that my
friends are laying out but disagreeing with the means by which they are
trying to achieve it.
I couldn't agree more that passing the National Violence Against
Women Act, or extending it, is the appropriate thing to do. I worked
very hard the last time we did the extension.
I actually helped put together a coalition of Republicans that
brought down the Republican bill, because we thought the Senate
Democratic bill was superior. It extended for the first time
opportunities in Indian country for Tribal governments to hold non-
Tribal Members accountable for assault.
So this is a cause that is near and dear to my heart. I don't pretend
to sit on the authorization committee, which my good friend from Texas
does. I am not exactly sure where they are in the process. But as she
did say, this is normally bipartisan.
So I look on this as a routine extension while they continue to work
through. I think, if we get the legislation to the floor, I have no
doubt it will pass in a very strongly bipartisan way.
I will say, if we adopt the strategy my friends recommend, we will,
actually, in some ways, hurt the cause that I know she feels so
passionately about.
{time} 1300
The Labor-H bill actually funds the battered women shelters and the
National Domestic Violence Hotline. Those are two important items in
here that are actually funded in the bill. If we bring down the bill,
we are going to derail the appropriations process for all Defense, for
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, a
lot of these other related programs that are extremely important.
So I have no doubt about the sincerity of my friend's position, but I
don't want to, frankly, number one, disrupt funding for very, very
important programs that we help, you know, sustain like, again, the
National Domestic Violence Hotline and battered women's shelters, and I
certainly don't want to defund it for the larger measures here either.
So I think you have to recognize we don't always get everything done
on time. I don't think we got VAWA done on time the last time. I know
at least it was quite a difficult struggle, but we eventually got
there, and we got there with substantial votes from both parties and
got it through. I think we will again.
I pledge to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to
achieve that objective. I just don't think, right now, we should derail
an $800 billion bill when this bill will actually extend the current
legislation and give us the time to finish whatever the differences
are, resolve whatever the differences are, if there are any, within the
committee and eventually bring it forward.
Again, I think it is a worthy objective. I look forward to working
with my friends to achieve it. I just simply don't want to derail this
appropriations bill in the course of doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, we are just two more legislative days away from the
third Republican government shutdown of 2018. However, we have done our
jobs to prevent that today.
H.R. 6157 is a testament that despite party differences, we can still
come together to work out our differences and put the American public's
interest first.
I want to be clear that I do not agree with the rule that we are
considering, because this rule makes in order a wholly unrelated
immigration bill. This rule fails to allow the debate on a number of
amendments and marks the 98th closed rule of this Congress, an all-time
record. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous
question and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from California.
We don't agree on every point here, but we do agree on the underlying
legislation. We both, frankly, appreciate the labors of both Democrats
and Republicans to come to compromises on an extraordinarily large
budget item--65 percent, roughly, of the Federal budget here between
Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies. I share my friend's appreciation and admiration for all that
were part of that.
My friend did bring up in her close the concern about two items in a
government shutdown. I will remind my friend, it was our friends who
tried to shut down the government in the House on the other side of the
aisle, and the Democrats in the Senate who actually did shut down the
government in 2017. So I always point out both parties have done this.
It is never a very good idea. Neither has ever achieved their
objectives there, so we are working hard to make sure that doesn't
happen. But it wasn't Republicans that shut down the government in
2017. I think it was actually called--well, I won't use the name, but
it was actually named after a Democratic Senator. So let's put that
aside.
Let's focus. My friend did raise an interesting point on closed
rules. And I think, you know, this is something they continue to focus
on, and, I think, sometimes lost in this, we ignore the structured rule
amendment process that has routinely been used actually by majorities
of both sides, to be fair.
If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to
clarify a couple of points for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, 16 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 United States Senate.
Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the minority 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 to clarify for the American people
the Democratic majority's record in this regard.
In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero
open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing
open versus closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. The
majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of
amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a
Democratic sponsor and/or cosponsor.
In fact, as of September 26, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress
have provided for consideration of over 1,650 amendments on the House
floor: over 750 of those amendments were offered by my friends, the
Democrats on the other side of the aisle; over 635 Republican
amendments were made in order; and over 280 bipartisan amendments.
So the 114th Congress, the GOP majority has actually allowed over
1,700 amendments to be considered on the House floor, and in the 113th
Congress, the Republican majority allowed over 1,500 amendments to be
considered on the floor. My friends, the last time they were in the
majority, the 111th Congress, offered fewer than 1,000 amendments to be
considered.
[[Page H8902]]
So there is a case to be made on both sides of these things. I think
the majority has tried to move legislation as best they can, but we
certainly want the active participation of our friends from the other
side, and, quite often, they are very robust in taking advantage of
that opportunity. That is a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support
the rule. I recognize my friends on the other side probably will not do
that, and that is appropriate. The rule debate is normally a partisan
divide, and I respect my friend's efforts in that regard.
But I know that many of my friends will support the underlying
resolution, and, for that, I express my appreciation, and, frankly, my
gratitude for the good hard work that has gone back and forth across
partisan aisles. This bill, though, this rule represents the next step
toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress to fund
the government.
For the first time in over 10 years, we will fully fund the
Department of Defense before the start of our fiscal year. We will pass
a Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, providing funds for healthcare, schools, medical
research, job training, and thousands of other priorities for both
parties for the first time in 22 years. And we will enable that the
government remains open and operating to provide needed services for
our constituents.
So I want to applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their hard work. I want to thank our friends in the United States
Senate who have already completed their portion of this. I want to join
my friend in urging the President, assuming we pass this legislation,
to sign it and sign it before the end of the fiscal year.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1077 Offered by Ms. Torres
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
6545) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,
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 the Judiciary. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6545.
____
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. COLE. 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.
Mrs. TORRES. 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.
____________________