[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.

                          ____________________