[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2993-H3002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1585, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2019
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 281
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1585) 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. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-9 modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 281, providing for consideration of
H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019,
under a structured rule.
The rule self-executes a manager's amendment that makes technical
changes to reflect appropriate statute sections, corrects
terminologies, and makes in order 40 amendments.
Mr. Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of
the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, a landmark piece of bipartisan
legislation that has helped to reduce instances of domestic violence
and ensure that millions of survivors have access to the services they
need.
VAWA was the first piece of Federal legislation to acknowledge
domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and has dramatically
improved our Nation's response to helping survivors in both the short
and long term.
Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has brought together law
enforcement, social service organizations, and victims' advocates to
bring domestic violence to light, provide survivors with support, and
hold abusers accountable for their actions.
VAWA was and still is a piece of legislation developed by the people
who work closest to these issues in their communities. The bipartisan
bill we will vote on this week reflects the ongoing commitment of
Members on both sides of the aisle to ending domestic violence and
abuse in all forms.
Before I get further into the components and details of the bill, I
would like to share two stories about my constituents to illustrate why
VAWA reauthorization is so necessary and why we must continue to commit
ourselves to preventing domestic violence at every opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, please keep in mind that each of these stories happened
in the past week in my district.
First, last week, a young woman was murdered by her ex-husband at a
convenience store, where the two were meeting to exchange custody of
their 6-year-old son. The ex-husband left their son at home and,
instead, brought an AR-15 style rifle, which he used to murder the
woman in the middle of the store.
He was caught by law enforcement after he fled the store, but as a
result of these horrific actions, a young woman was murdered in cold
blood and a child has, effectively, lost both parents.
This was not the first time the ex-husband had threatened to kill his
ex-wife during a child custody exchange just like the one this past
week. Following an incident 3 years ago, he was charged with harassment
and making terroristic threats, and the woman was granted a protection-
from-abuse order.
But this didn't prevent her or her family from living in fear of what
her ex-husband might do next. Tragically, the very worst happened.
Then, just this past Sunday evening, another woman was asleep in her
home in Upland with her three children when, just after midnight, her
ex-boyfriend broke into her house, entered
[[Page H2994]]
her bedroom, and shot her. Her 5-year-old child witnessed the shooting.
Had the gun not jammed when the ex-boyfriend fired a second time, the
victim would be dead.
This victim, too, had a protection-from-abuse order against her
attacker, hers being issued just 5 days before that attack.
These two attacks happened just miles apart from each other, just a
few days apart. These stories are all too common, because violence
against women is all too common.
I am willing to bet that every Member of this body could point to
similar examples of violence against women from their own congressional
districts. Such acts of violence are not isolated incidents but are,
instead, representative of the larger systemic problem.
According to the National Center on Domestic Violence, one in four
women experiences severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate
partner sexual violence, or intimate partner stalking, with impacts
such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and more.
The same organization found that one in three women has experienced
some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, and one in seven
women has been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime, to
the point they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close
to them would be harmed or killed.
Intimate partner violence accounts for 15 percent of violent crimes
nationwide. Women between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most commonly
abused by an intimate partner.
It is absolutely no wonder why domestic victimization is correlated
with a higher rate of depression and suicidal behavior later in life.
Further, 19 percent of domestic violence involves a weapon of some
kind. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases
the risk of homicide by 500--that is 500--percent. You don't need to be
a mathematician in order to see that guns in the hands of domestic
abusers routinely leads to violence and death.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act recognizes this
indisputable fact and takes active measures to correct and improve our
laws.
In the United States, women are 21 times more likely to be killed
with a gun than women in any other high-income country.
Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ million American women alive today have been
threatened by intimate partners with firearms. One million of those
have actually been shot or shot at by their abusers.
I have represented some of these women and have seen the fear that
they live with and the impact it has on their children and families.
This bill finally closes the boyfriend loophole. While Federal law
prevents gun possession by people convicted of, or under a restraining
order for, abusing their spouses, dating partners are generally exempt
from these restrictions.
This gaping hole in our gun safety laws has become even more deadly
over the years. The share of homicides committed by dating partners has
been increasing for three decades. Today, women are as likely to be
killed by dating partners as they are by spouses.
Closing the boyfriend loophole is a fact-based, commonsense response
to a very real threat.
The provisions in this reauthorization would protect women from
abusive dating partners by ensuring that their abusers are prohibited
from possessing guns under Federal law.
The definition of ``dating partner'' is already contained in the
Violence Against Women Act. This simple update to policy will provide
increased protections for partners in unmarried relationships.
Closing the boyfriend loophole has been a bipartisan issue since long
before this bill. Last year, six Republicans cosponsored legislation
that would have closed this loophole, and 23 States, in their own laws,
have already acted to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, including
Pennsylvania and Arizona.
It is time we update Federal law to reflect the reality, which our
States have already recognized, and prevent violent dating partners
from being able to access weapons.
This bill also closes the stalker loophole. Stalking has been shown
to be a predictor of intimate partner violence and homicide, although
current law does not prohibit misdemeanor stalking offenses.
A study of intimate partner homicides and attempted homicides
involving female victims found that 76 percent of those murders and 85
percent of attempted murders were preceded by at least one incident of
stalking before the attack.
Passing this bill will protect women from stalkers by ensuring those
convicted of stalking offenses are prohibited from possessing guns
under Federal law.
On top of limiting stalkers and abusive dating partners from legally
owning weapons, this bill strengthens enforcement by alerting State and
local law enforcement when an abuser fails a firearms background check.
This notice gives State law enforcement an opportunity to intervene
before an abuser can obtain a firearm or do any further harm.
This provision mirrors a bipartisan bill that was introduced earlier
this year to notify State law enforcement each time a person who is not
allowed to have guns tries to buy a firearm and fails the background
check. Clearly, keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not
have them is a bipartisan priority.
Mr. Speaker, one of my first experiences as a young attorney was
representing women and families who had sought shelter at the People's
Emergency Center in West Philadelphia. That agency was started by
former Congressman Bob Edgar.
Most of the women in that shelter had been subjected to domestic
abuse. This was before VAWA was the law of the land, but even then it
was clear there were significant problems with how the system cared for
abused women and punished their abusers.
When VAWA was enacted in 1994, it spoke to so many of the problems my
then-clients were facing, issues with housing and employment, caring
for young children, and fighting for custody in court.
What makes VAWA such a critical bill is not just the legal
protections it puts in place to protect women but the structures it
sets up to help women who have been abused.
This reauthorization bill builds upon those critical reforms from 25
years ago and updates them to address current needs.
The bill funds and improves screening for victimization and the
perpetration of intimate partner and sexual violence across federally
funded healthcare programs. The healthcare system is often one of the
first places women go where unseen abuse can be detected. Empowering
healthcare professionals to address such sensitive situations can help
to avert abuse before it escalates or prevent it from happening in the
first place.
The bill ensures that survivors of domestic abuse can maintain
housing in the event of a breakup with their partner and further
protects their privacy through strengthened confidentiality agreements
with housing authorities. Similarly, the bill extends traditional
housing grant opportunities to organizations that help underserved
populations.
Victims of domestic abuse are often at risk of significant financial
loss if they are unable to work and provide for their family as a
result of abuse. This bill protects survivors from termination from
employment due to disruption caused by domestic abuse and also
addresses the impact of domestic abuse on a woman's credit rating.
We should also note that transgender people are disproportionately
survivors of sexual assault and violence, and they deserve to access
services consistent with their gender identity.
Domestic violence providers and law enforcement agree: Transgender
women being in the same space as other women does not make either less
safe. Laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity have
been in place for years, including specifically for VAWA programs.
Minneapolis, for example, has had gender identity protections since
1975, and there is no credible evidence that the existence of these
laws has contributed to violence against women. Instead, they simply
keep transgender people safe.
Since 1994, VAWA has provided critical tools to survivors of domestic
[[Page H2995]]
abuse, law enforcement, and community organizations to prevent and
address the impact of domestic violence. Using those tools to represent
survivors of such abuse, I have seen both clients and constituents find
safe havens, rebuild their lives, protect their families, and develop
emotionally and financially productive lives.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to reauthorization of this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am a survivor of domestic violence. I also serve on
the advisory council of a domestic violence shelter in my district, and
I am the cochairwoman of the congressional Bipartisan Working Group to
End Domestic Violence.
That is why having a strong Violence Against Women Act, commonly
known as VAWA, that works for the American people is so very important
to me.
Ending violence against women and protecting women and children
should not be a partisan issue. However, we find ourselves debating a
VAWA reauthorization act that is literally a Christmas tree of
progressive, liberal policy objectives rather than an honest approach
to reforming and updating such an important law for millions of women
and children.
VAWA has lapsed, putting millions of women and children at risk, when
it didn't need to. I, along with 194 other Republicans, voted to
reauthorize VAWA through the end of the fiscal year on February 14,
2019.
I sponsored the Protecting Women Act, which would reauthorize VAWA
until September 30, 2019. This would have allowed the program to stay
in place while we worked in a truly bipartisan fashion to update and
reauthorize this critical program.
VAWA has historically been a bipartisan bill with little controversy.
However, this particular VAWA proposal moved through the Judiciary
Committee without a single vote of support from any Republican.
Throughout this process, my friends across the aisle have talked a
lot about bipartisanship, but I have seen little effort from my
Democratic colleagues to engage in a process to pass a VAWA
reauthorization bill that could garner wide-ranging bipartisan support.
And believe me, I have tried.
I have reached out to my Democratic colleagues to set up meetings
several times, to no avail.
{time} 1245
H.R. 1585 is a treasure trove of liberal policy objectives that will
put women, girls, and children at risk. This bill, as written, forces
shelters and service providers, under the power of Federal law--
shelters that may not even be equipped--to place males in the same
sleeping and showering quarters as women and children purely based on
how that individual ``identifies.''
These gaping holes in the law will put women and children at risk to
predators, who may have experienced trauma from male predators
themselves. Based on this bill, the shelter would be required to accept
a biological male even if the shelter is not equipped to separate males
and females, forcing vulnerable women who have been abused and maybe
sexually assaulted to shower with and sleep next to males.
We hear constantly from the other side of the aisle that this is all
conjecture, what I am saying is all conjecture and completely
hypothetical, and that this just does not happen. However, we know this
is not true, and I have stated this before in the Judiciary Committee
and the Rules Committee.
Nine women in Fresno, California, are suing a shelter for being
sexually harassed in a shelter by a biological male.
The Hope Center in Alaska is another example, where a woman was
quoted as saying she would rather sleep in the woods than have to be in
close quarters with a male and relive her trauma.
Further, this legislation requires--requires--prisons to place
biological males who identify as women in women's prisons. We have seen
how this played out in Britain, where a biological man who identified
as a woman raped two females.
Those on the other side of the aisle have accused those of us who
want to preserve sex-segregated spaces based on biology as
discriminatory and demonizing transgender individuals. This is
completely false.
Nothing in the amendments that I have offered would discriminate
against anyone. Any shelter could still take anyone in, but I don't
want government forcing the shelters to take someone in if they are not
equipped to do so.
What we are pointing out are gaping holes in this legislative
proposal and potential for predators to take advantage of the law. We
must give those who are sheltering and serving women the tools to keep
them safe.
H.R. 1585 also seeks to eliminate due process and infringe on Second
Amendment rights. I agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of
dangerous criminals, but expanding laws to prohibit individuals from
exercising their Second Amendment rights without them even being
present to defend themselves, as is the case in ex parte orders of
protection, is a dangerous precedent.
Further, H.R. 1585 includes provisions that would result in a
permanent prohibition on owning or possessing firearms by anyone
convicted on a misdemeanor. Permanently losing a fundamental civil
right for a misdemeanor conviction is virtually unheard of. The bill
uses the legitimate and serious issue of domestic violence as a way to
limit legitimate gun rights.
When coupled with the bill's expansion of the definition of
``domestic relationship'' to include ``former dating partners,'' a
subjective term that could be easily abused, the bill expands power to
permanently remove someone's right to own firearms to an untenable
degree.
This legislation also advances policies that could reduce criminal
prosecutions by tying States' grant eligibility to policies that ensure
that compelling victim testimony is discouraged.
Further, it permits the use of VAWA funds for new ``alternative
justice'' models, under which funds could be granted to programs that
force mediation between an abuser and the victim of the abuser.
Finally, H.R. 1585 rolls back protections for sex trafficking. The
bill deprioritizes the use of grant funding to protect victims of sex
trafficking and would only allow this funding to go to grantees if
their program is primarily focused on domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
These are just a few of the hyperpartisan provisions that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have injected into this VAWA
reauthorization. We all want to protect women and children, and VAWA
has typically received wide-ranging bipartisan support; however, this
legislation fails to do that.
We should be focusing on commonsense, bipartisan reforms to VAWA
instead of on a bill that is a nonstarter in the U.S. Senate and a bill
that will not be signed by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is not the first time that I have heard my colleagues misgender
trans women as biological males, and I need to point something out.
Beyond this term being outright offensive, it shows how disingenuous
their concern for the safety of women is, and they are showing their
hand.
The use of the term ``biological male'' is a dog whistle to
transphobia that runs rampant in society and seems to on the other side
of the aisle. It is not rooted in concern for women but, rather, a
manifestation of their disdain for the trans community.
Also, my constituents are not the Senate. My constituents are not Mr.
McConnell. My constituents want VAWA reauthorized, and we are going to
do what we can to pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the time.
I rise today in support of the Violence Against Women Act of 2019.
I want to thank the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and I want to
commend the chair of the Subcommittee
[[Page H2996]]
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for her leadership and quick
action to get this reauthorized in the 116th Congress.
I also want to thank the chair of the Rules Committee for his effort
to bring this to the floor today and to have a strong debate.
The Violence Against Women Act is a success story. Since its
groundbreaking passage in 1994, this bill has been an example of
Congress working in a bipartisan way to address an intolerable problem,
the problem of domestic violence. Today, we are here, over two decades
later, making VAWA even better.
H.R. 1585 will improve services for victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It assists young victims
of violence, and it extends programs to address bullying. It also
updates current programs relative to dating violence and children
exposed to violent acts.
Of particular importance in the State of Maine, the bill will further
protect Native American women by expanding the provisions written in
2013. H.R. 1585 will include Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian
predators of dating violence, stalking, and trafficking. At last, the
Tribes of Maine and Alaska will have the same protections provided to
Tribes nationwide.
According to the most recent data from the National Institute of
Justice, four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women have
experienced violence in their lifetime. But, according to the way the
Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has been interpreted by some, Maine
has been left out of the law. Unfortunately, this has resulted in
Tribal victims of domestic violence in Maine or Alaska losing out on
protections that have been extended to Tribal victims of every
federally recognized Tribe in the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. PINGREE. The benefits that other Tribes have seen from allowing
Tribal jurisdiction over domestic violence cases include: increased
public safety for all of those living on Tribal lands, increased
community conversations about domestic violence, updates to Tribal
criminal codes, and increased collaboration among Tribes and local and
State governments--all of which have been elusive for the Tribes of
Maine.
Today's bill will address this long overdue unfairness that has left
Maine Tribes not only to be treated differently, but has also left them
out of the benefits of the 2013 VAWA bill.
For every Member of this body, there are many reasons to support this
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I have my friend speak, I am going to address what
Representative Scanlon said, that calling a transgender woman a
biological male, she said, is offensive and it shows my disdain for
transgender individuals. That is absolutely false. I have no disdain. I
am just merely stating fact.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler), my good friend.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
and the underlying legislation.
The Violence Against Women Act was originally enacted to strengthen
law enforcement's ability to help women suffering from domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and to bolster their efforts in
preventing future violence. I fully support VAWA's original intent;
however, this rule and the bill under consideration no longer focus on
the women suffering from violence. Instead, H.R. 1585 has been
politicized.
This bill was written to use women to overhaul several unrelated
areas of law, such as unemployment benefits, housing requirements for
nonwomen populations, and the Second Amendment.
In short, the original intent of this measure, to protect women from
abuse, has been hijacked. Not only does this legislation lose focus on
the matter at hand, which is women suffering from violence, it fails to
prioritize a woman's right to privacy, to safety, and to healing from
sexual violence.
Specifically, H.R. 1585 continues a misguided policy adopted under
President Obama, forcing domestic violence survivors to share female-
only shelters with men. Unfortunately, we have already seen litigation
in women shelters caused by this type of problematic policy.
For example, as was mentioned by my friend from Arizona, the Naomi's
House women's shelter in California is facing a lawsuit on behalf of
nine women who were sexually harassed by a transgender individual.
Staff at the shelter did not take any disciplinary action due to the
fact that, as a Federal grantee, they are required to take in
transgender men who identify as females.
The women suffering from sexual violence were not only subjected to
additional sexual harassment, but were threatened to be removed from
the shelter if they refused to share a shower and coexist with the
transgender individual.
In a similar case in Alaska, the city of Anchorage is investigating
the Downtown Hope Center, which is a faith-based, nonprofit
organization. The reason? They are allegedly violating a local law
because they provide shelter to only women.
Anchorage is trying to force the Hope Center to house transgender-
identifying men alongside women in its overnight, shared-sleeping
facility. However, part of the Hope Center's mission is to provide
women suffering from rape, physical abuse, and violence a safe place to
sleep at night without the presence of men.
I would ask my colleagues: How does this policy advance our goal of
helping women suffering from abuse when it denies them a safe place to
heal? The answer is: It doesn't. These new housing provisions not only
diminish the Violence Against Women Act, but also enable more violence
against women.
While there are many other concerns with the VAWA language, I will
mention just one more.
A 2018 Government Accountability Office report found that Planned
Parenthood received nearly $300,000 from VAWA formula grants during
2013 through 2015. This is extremely disheartening, considering there
have been several undercover investigations and news stories suggesting
that a number of Planned Parenthood affiliates have not been reporting
when clients are victims of statutory rape, child prostitution, or sex
trafficking.
Mr. Speaker, while I fully support increased protections for battered
women, this bill is not the answer. It further victimizes women, and it
uses them to advance other political causes. We need to send this bill
back to all seven committees of jurisdiction to address these concerns
so that a VAWA law can once again focus on alleviating suffering from
violence.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the
underlying legislation.
{time} 1300
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard this allegation over and over again based
on one case in Fresno where the facts have not been established. It is
still in litigation.
As a former trial lawyer, I know that a lot of allegations can be
made, but the fact that what has been stated as facts in this case,
that men were in a shelter, is not true. Transgender women were in the
shelter.
It has been stated that a transgender man couldn't be excluded from
the shelter and that the staff at the shelter failed to take action.
That actually is under dispute.
So we have one isolated instance that is being misrepresented to
continue this line of argument. What we are really seeing is this
tactic of trying to pit one minority group, one group in need of
services, against another to convince us that the rights and
protections of one group come at the cost of another. They have done it
with people of color, with immigrants, and now with women and members
of the trans community.
Mr. Speaker, I have a clear message: this country is better than
that. They both need help. It can be done under this law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
[[Page H2997]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act.
The world has changed, my friends, since our last reauthorization of
VAWA. This bill updates VAWA to cover new victims of domestic violence
that were not covered in our prior bill and desperately need
protection.
In addition, the #MeToo movement has made women more determined
concerning their rights than ever before.
Perhaps the most desperate need of victims of domestic violence is
for sanctuary, shelter, emergency housing, and affordable housing, all
in short supply.
Victims who stay with an abuser risk everything: homelessness, loss
of custody of children, more abuse, and even injury and death.
Victims who remain with an abuser in 40 to 50 percent of cases also
see their children abused.
Forty to as high as 70 percent of female homicide victims were
murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in a relationship where there
had been ongoing abuse.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the most serious issue confronting victims is
no alternative place to live or even to shelter. One-third of survivors
become homeless immediately after separating from partners.
Our bill bars the eviction of the victim until suitable housing or a
termination of a lease without penalty can occur. Grants to help
homeless victims achieve stability are necessary to prevent recurrent
bouts of homelessness from domestic violence.
This reauthorization is desperately needed without delay. I strongly
urge its passage.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I have one comment before I introduce my
friend from Oklahoma.
It is said that there has only been one incident where a biological
male threatened the women, and that is just simply not true. There have
been several incidences. Quite frankly, the question is, how many women
have to be put in a potentially unsafe situation or have their privacy
violated by males before you realize that this concern is really
legitimate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), my good friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Arizona for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule, and to offer
conditional support for the underlying legislation, H.R. 1585, the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.
I oppose the rule simply because my friends didn't make in order
quite a number of proposals that we had that we think ought to be
debated on today, but in fairness, I want to thank Chairman McGovern
for making in order quite a few amendments that related particularly to
VAWA in Indian Country, and I look forward to supporting those
amendments.
I have always tried to consider legislation within its full context
and look at the overall benefit of the bill, and I will certainly do
the same with respect to VAWA.
Certainly there are provisions in this version of the reauthorization
with which I profoundly disagree. Those are particularly related to the
Second Amendment; this includes a misguided provision to strip someone
of the right to possess a firearm following a misdemeanor conviction.
Frankly, I hope and expect that these provisions will change as the
bill progresses through the legislative process.
To enact VAWA, to actually achieve the objective, my friends are
going to have to do something they haven't done so far: that is
actually compromise. They will have to compromise with a Republican
Senate and a Republican President, or this important legislation will
not come into law.
However, there are compelling things about this legislation, and I
believe them particularly to be consistent with my own views and my own
voting record on Tribal sovereignty and protection of native women, and
I want to be supportive where I can be.
In 2013, Congress authorized the Tribal Court's jurisdiction over
non-Indian offenders that are arrested for committing domestic violence
or assault against women Tribal members on Indian lands.
The legislation we are considering today expands this jurisdiction to
include not only women, but also Tribal children. Further, it extends
critical protection to Tribal police officers.
There are several important amendments that will be debated related
to Indian Country, and I urge the adoption of all of them.
I support the right of Tribes to enact their own definition of
domestic and sexual violence, rather than replacing it with the Federal
Government's definitions. States already have this flexibility; Tribes
should as well.
In addition, I also believe Tribal law enforcement should have the
authority to have access to the National Crime Information Systems.
Mr. Speaker, more than four out of five American Indian and Alaska
Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime. More than
half of the American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced
sexual violence in their lifetime. American Indian and Alaska Native
women are almost twice as likely as White women to have experienced
violence in the past year. Native women face murder rates more than ten
times the national average in some parts of the country. They are also
more than twice as likely to have experienced rape than non-Hispanic
white women over the course of a lifetime.
Given these statistics of acts of violence, 96 percent of American
Indian and Alaska Native women who are victims of sexual violence
experience violence at the hands of non-native perpetrators. To
reiterate, nearly all the violence committed against native women is
committed by non-natives.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the protection of all women and
children is or should be treated as a partisan issue. Tribal
governments, through trust and treaty obligations, should have the same
authority as States to protect women and children in vulnerable
situations. All States, Tribal, and local law enforcement authorities
should have access to the use of the same tools to prevent these crimes
on or off reservations.
As I have said before, hunters know where to hunt, fishermen know
where to fish, and predators know where to prey.
The passage of a reformed Violence Against Women Act gives Tribes
badly needed tools to combat the epidemic of violence and abuse in
Indian Country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House of Representatives to
work together in a bipartisan manner to create, in the end, a bill that
can pass both chambers and be enacted into law.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of what I consider, and
many consider, one of the most important pieces of legislation that
protects the families of America, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act, because no woman or man or child should ever be
afraid to walk into their own home because of fear from violence from a
spouse or a dating partner.
So today, I rise on behalf of one of my constituents named Olga, from
Florida, who on her wedding day thought she was entering into a dream
marriage for herself and her two children. But this marriage turned
into a nightmare when her husband became aggressive, violent, and
controlling, imprisoning Olga and her two children in their own home,
not even letting the children go to school.
Olga fled to my hometown and was nurtured back to emotional and
financial health by a local domestic violence organization in my
community.
The Violence Against Women Act helps tackle the epidemic of domestic
violence, stalking, dating violence, and sexual violence.
Since it was first passed in 1994, serious victimization by an
intimate partner has dropped by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for
men. However, it is estimated that as many as 45 million adults will
still experience physical violence, rape, or stalking by an intimate
partner sometime in their lives.
Reauthorizing and strengthening this legislation, expanding
protections, increasing funding, and improving services to survivors
will save lives across America and help protect women like
[[Page H2998]]
Olga and let her children be spared from horrific violence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this great bill.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Arizona for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill.
The Violence Against Women Act, originally enacted in 1994, was
reauthorized twice with broad bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, today's bill has followed the same path as other bills
this Congress. Democrats are more interested in playing politics and
falsely painting Republicans as anti-women rather than passing
legislation to actually protect women.
Sadly, despite years of work through local, State, and Federal
efforts, domestic and sexual violence remain serious problems. I have
heard from women and those working to help them about the challenges
faced by women due to violence, but as Republican leader of the House
Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you they have never asked for
a GAO study on student loan repayment. Such a study is included in this
bill. Another study about repayment options and the challenges of
student debt will not help those women who are victims of violence.
If Democrats ever had a compelling argument, Americans would never
know, since this bill was marked up in only one committee instead of
the seven that have jurisdiction.
This bill also requires a study by the Secretaries of Labor and
Health and Human Services on workplace responses to victims of violence
against women. We are concerned this study is overbroad, and that the
workplace is not the best avenue to address domestic violence,
especially when those resources can be directed to already existing
programs like the National Domestic Abuse Hotline.
I supported the 2006 reauthorization of this bill and stand strongly
against all perpetrators of violence against women.
I will always stand for the protection of women, and any
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act should do the same.
Republicans have been ready and willing to work in a bipartisan
fashion to reauthorize a bill that truly addresses domestic and sexual
violence, but the legislation before us today is not a product worthy
of its predecessors.
This bill should go back to be thoughtfully considered by the
Education and Labor Committee and all the committees of jurisdiction
before we consider it on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to reject the rule and the
underlying bill.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
{time} 1315
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have heard, in some
way, paraphrased: While Rome is burning, much fiddling is going on.
I am grateful for all of the Members of Congress who helped construct
this legislation.
I want to remind my friends, as the authorizations proceeded in the
1990s into the 2000s of the Violence Against Women Act, the last
authorization was technically supposed to be in 2010, but it took 3
years until 2013. Working with advocates who represent almost 200
groups, Republicans and Democrats, organizations who deal with women
impacted by domestic violence and other sexual assault issues and acts,
they indicated that they wanted to see this bill expanded to cover
Native American women, they wanted to protect immigrant women who are
left vulnerable, they wanted to make sure it was gender-neutral in many
instances. But, as I recall, in 2010, it was Native American and
immigrants, so it took 3 years. And all the bill wanted to do was to
simply protect people who are vulnerable.
In this bill, that has been 3 years in writing--with every
opportunity with the preceding chairman of this committee, preceding
Congress, and members on the Judiciary Committee to sit with us to
work--I, for one, remember constant meetings with staff and members
interested, Democratic members, in how we can work together.
This bill is long in waiting for prosecutors and law enforcement.
They are waiting on the $291 million for stock grants and resources for
women's shelters.
This bill is a bipartisan bill. I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his work.
And in this bill is a whole section on healthcare that Mr.
Fitzpatrick's bill allowed us to put in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aguilar). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is an important contribution to this legislation.
There is an amendment by Mr. Gohmert, my friend from Texas, on female
genital mutilation. It is an amendment that we worked on, in discussion
about reporting on the incidences with Indian women, Native American
women. My amendment was joined, supported, by Republicans in the
Judiciary Committee.
This bill is bipartisan, but, most of all, it is a response to
desperation of need. The Violence Against Women Act is long overdue for
being reauthorized. This is a strong product that covers so many issues
to protect women and to ensure that those who have convictions with gun
violence do not allow them to come and kill an innocent mom with her
children.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill. The rule is a good rule. Support
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rule and the underlying bill of
H.R. 1585.
The Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') is landmark legislation
which--through policy reforms, interstate cooperation and grant
allocation--has been pivotal in providing a national response to
protecting half of the population.
Equally important, it has ushered in a seismic transformation on how
society perceives violence against women.
The law has enhanced and improved the lives of girls and women, boys
and men.
There are many similarities between the year that VAWA initially
passed in 1994, and the moment in which we all find ourselves today.
When it was first passed, the country was experiencing reverberations
to yet another polarizing battle to fill a seat on the Supreme Court.
Then the courageous victim sharing her truth was Anita Hill.
Today, as VAWA is yet again scheduled to expire, the country is
assessing the ripples created by the #MeToo movement.
But despite the passage of over a quarter-century since its first
enactment, the malignant treatment received by a courageous person
willing to share her story unfortunately endures.
The need to create a safe space for victims of violence, especially
women, supported with substantial resources to address this scourge has
taken on a new urgency in this era of the #MeToo movement.
When discussing VAWA, we cannot forget the victims of domestic
violence like Brittany Smith, who was 23 years old and was gunned down
last year in Houston, by her boyfriend and San Diego-based Marine; nor
can we forget Charlene Caldwell, a mother and grandmother beaten to
death last year by a baseball bat at the hands of her boyfriend in
Houston.
Domestic violence was alleged in both of these horrific events.
Unfortunately, there are too many stories like Charlene's or
Brittany's.
The stories of these two women remind us of the urgency to protect
survivors now, before it is too late, because many of these deaths are
preventable.
Despite the experiences of #MeToo survivors or victims like Ms. Smith
or Ms. Caldwell, all is not for naught.
Since VAWA's codification in 1994, more victims report episodes of
domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate
partner violence against women has decreased by almost two-thirds.
VAWA has also led to a significant increase in the reporting of
sexual assault.
For example, the percentage of victims of rape and sexual assault who
report the assault to the police increased from 28.8 percent in 1993--
the year prior to VAWA's initial passage--to 50 percent in 2010.
In the first 15 years of VAWA's validity, rates of serious intimate
partner violence declined by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for
men.
Research suggests that referring a victim to a domestic violence or
sexual assault advocate has been linked to an increased willingness to
file a police report--survivors with an advocate filed a report with
law enforcement 59 percent of the time, versus 41 percent for
individuals not referred to a victim advocate.
[[Page H2999]]
This progress cannot be allowed to stop.
Congress must continue sending the clear message that violence
against women is unacceptable.
Prior to VAWA, law enforcement lacked the resources and tools to
respond effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault.
Each reauthorization of VAWA has improved protections for women and
men, while helping to change the culture and reduce the tolerance for
these crimes.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 improves
current law in several important respects, and takes a holistic
approach to the goal of eliminating the harm faced by victims of
violence, and making vital services accessible to victims of this
scourge.
For example, this iteration of VAWA contains guidance on the use of
grants to activate judicial and law enforcement tools to develop and
enforce firearm surrender policies; expands permissible use of grant
funding for programs focused on increasing survivor/law enforcement/
community safety; and provides legal assistance for dependent children
in appropriate circumstances.
It also updates programs designed to reduce dating violence, help
children exposed to violence and engage men in preventing violence
against women.
Additionally, the bill improves services for victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
It provides policies, protection, and justice for young victims of
violence, including extending the Rape Prevention and Education grant
program, addressing bullying of young people, improving grants focused
on prevention education for students, and expanding relevant training
for school-based and campus health centers; and reauthorizes and
updates programs designed to reduce dating violence, help children
exposed to violence, and engage men in preventing violence.
This bill also recognizes the cascading ills associated with
identifying, eliminating, and preventing the reemergence of domestic
violence.
This bill expands grants under the Public Health Service Act to
support implementation of training programs to improve the capacity of
early childhood programs to address domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking among the families they serve; preserves
and expands housing protections for survivors; provides economic
security assistance for survivors, by reauthorizing the National
Resource Center on Workplace Responses; protects employees from being
fired because they are survivors of sexual assault or domestic
violence; and protects survivors' eligibility to receive Unemployment
Insurance.
Recognizing that many women are victimized at the hands of intimate
partners, this iteration of VAWA helps prevent ``intimate partner''
homicides, by including provisions expanding firearms laws to prohibit
persons convicted of dating violence from possessing firearms,
prohibiting persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking from possessing
firearms, and prohibiting individuals subject to ex parte protective
orders from possessing firearms.
Accordingly, the bill helps protect Native American women, by
including provisions to improve the response to missing and murdered
Native American women, improving tribal access to federal crime
information databases, and reaffirming tribal criminal jurisdiction
over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault,
dating violence, stalking, and trafficking for all federally recognized
Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives.
Additionally, this bill protects the Office on Violence Against Women
in the Department of Justice from being de-emphasized, merged, or
consolidated into any other DOJ office.
VAWA is central to our nation's effort to fight the epidemic of
domestic, sexual, and dating violence and stalking.
This work did not happen on its own.
It was the product of a collaborative effort of stakeholders,
including victim advocates.
It was the product of those willing to share their stories of the
abuse suffered at the hands of those who were entrusted to love, but
instead harmed.
The courage, strength, and resilience displayed by survivors has
reminded all that we must continue to foster an environment for victims
of violence to come forward and expose episodes of violence against
women.
This bill represents the good that can come when courageous people
with a story to tell come forward with the belief that through their
pain, the lives of others can be helped.
Having listened to concerned stakeholders from all pockets of the
country, we have put pen to paper and produced a bill that is endorsed
by the bipartisan National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence (NTF), which is a national collaboration comprising a large
and diverse group of 35 national, tribal, state, territorial, and local
organizations, advocates, and individuals that focus on the
development, passage and implementation of effective public policy to
address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.
Indeed, there is no reason our work on this cannot be bipartisan, as
has been the custom of prior Congresses in authorizing this critical
piece of legislation.
The love for a spouse, the comfort of a mother and the best wishes
for a sister know no political allegiance.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Act we are voting on this
week is nearly unrecognizable from the legislation originally passed in
1994. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
chosen to politicize and expand the legislation far beyond the original
scope by adding controversial provisions that undermine the
constitutional rights of Americans.
In the name of protecting women, Democrats are exploiting this bill
as an opportunity to assault the Second Amendment rights of American
citizens. It is despicable that anyone would seize on this as such an
opportunity to weaponize a measure that was intended to protect
victims.
This body is not meant to fulfill campaign promises that have nothing
to do with the legislation allegedly before us. And let's make no
mistake, that is what the purpose of this legislation is today. It is
being structured intentionally. They are structuring it intentionally
to be able to run campaign ads in districts back home, because you have
got a piece of legislation that is titled the Violence Against Women
Act. So let's just bury stuff in a bill that sounds good to the
American people, but which then attacks our fundamental God-given
rights reflected in the Bill of Rights.
Now, the gentlewoman from Texas who just spoke, my friend from Texas,
just spoke about fiddling while Rome burns. Well, let's talk about the
fiddling that is going on on our southern border while women and girls
are traveling miles up to our southern border being abused by cartels.
When Amnesty International and when organizations that are
nonpartisan are talking about a third of these women being abused, my
friends on the other side of the aisle bury their head in the sand and
don't seem to care.
When we are talking about violence against women, let's talk about
the violence against women that is happening today, right now, just
across the border in Reynosa. Just across the border in Mexico, some
little girl and some woman is going to be raped and abused, while we
sit and vote on legislation that is designed to be a political tool by
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle against the GOP for
political purposes.
I think we should not be fiddling while Rome is burning and while
women are being abused on our southern border.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, the NRA has spent a lot of money to create
this distraction, making this about them as opposed to protecting the
lives of women. Over 50 percent of women murdered in 2017 were slain by
an intimate partner or family member; 82 percent of homicide victims
targeted by intimate partners are women; the weapon of choice in over
half of female homicides, a firearm.
This is an opportunity to support both saving the lives of women and
responsible gun ownership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Carolyn B. Maloney).
(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission
to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding and for her outstanding work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2019.
I want to be associated with the remarks that the gentlewoman just
gave
[[Page H3000]]
that this is about protecting women, and the addition that says that if
you take away guns from convicted abusers or those who are being
watched and being restrained, this will save lives. So this is an
important part of protecting women.
VAWA is a law that literally, absolutely literally, saves lives, and
this bill we are voting on today provides even more lifesaving
resources to women and families, like closing the boyfriend loophole
that she just mentioned and providing housing and beds for abused
women.
It is important to point out that this landmark legislation was
created in 1994 and has been reauthorized many times. But I would say
that protecting women or providing lifesaving resources should be
permanent law. We should not have to come back to this body and be
subject to the whims of legislators who don't think it is important to
protect women, which this bill does.
One of the lifesaving resources in this bill is the Debbie Smith DNA
Backlog Grant Program, which was created by legislation I first
authored in 2004, and it is renewed in this bill through 2024.
This legislation, which has been called the most important anti-rape
prevention legislation ever signed into law, provides funding to
localities to audit and process DNA evidence kits, including
unprocessed rape kits. Each rape kit represents a life. If you convict
that rapist and get them off the street, you save the lives of other
women and prevent rape. This is just one example of this important
bill.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my good friend.
Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak against the rule
for H.R. 1585. Domestic violence is a major problem in our communities
and throughout our country. I am in complete support of providing all
the resources needed to the victims of abuse and for the law
enforcement that protects these vulnerable women.
What could have been an opportunity to work together as a unified
House of Representatives and to provide a great bill that we can all be
proud of, our colleagues across the aisle dismissed our input on during
the legislative process, silenced our voices, and put forth a bill
which strikes the unique balance of overreaching where it is
unnecessary and underperforming where resources are needed the most.
I don't dispute that my Democrat colleagues are well-intentioned with
their legislation, but they missed the mark. In this bill, they diluted
important funds meant to help the victims, handcuffed our law
enforcement, and reduced their effectiveness. Additionally, they have
taken a bipartisan issue and used it to weaken the Second Amendment,
reduce religious freedoms, and even possibly cause further harm to
victims.
As a woman, a wife, and a mother, as well as a grandmother, who
represents a State where one in three women are victims of domestic
violence, I say with assurance that my Republican colleagues are
committed to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in a way that
preserves and strengthens the law, provides the needed support for
victims of domestic abuse, and strengthens our judicial system. We want
to work together on this issue which affects so many people around the
country. We can put forth a good bill together.
I have often said that good governance is finding the issues that we
can all agree upon, Republicans and Democrats alike, and put aside our
differences to come together, solve the problem, and make this country
better.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. MILLER. So, put aside our differences to come together, solve
the problem, and make this country better than before we got here. This
could have been that chance. We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote
against the underlying bill.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and also for her tremendous leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1585, the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. This critical bill will
expand crucial protections for all Americans making very important
enhancements to VAWA.
When I was in the California legislature, Mr. Speaker, I authored the
Violence Against Women Act for the State of California, and, yes, it
was signed by a Republican Governor.
In addition to the protections this bill has provided for 26 years,
it will now expand protections for Native American women and will
protect the transgender community. Every woman has the right to live
free from abuse.
Although my Republican colleagues argued differently in committee,
sexual orientation or gender identity should not put victims in a
second-class status. This bill will now make sure that every victim of
sexual violence has access to support.
VAWA is critical for the 1.3 million individuals who benefit from
this program. We must continue to improve these services for victims
and survivors by passing this bill here today.
Mr. Speaker, I know from personal experiences, yes, the life-and-
death implications of this very important bill. So I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on this bill to ensure that all women are protected
from sexual and domestic violence.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
{time} 1330
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to provide additional consideration of H.R. 1741, authored by
Representative Elise Stefanik.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1741 is a bill that would provide a 1-
year extension of VAWA while we work on negotiating a long-term
reauthorization of VAWA. I think there are a lot of things that the
Republicans and Democrats can agree on, and I would like to come up
with a bipartisan bill.
During the Rules Committee, my colleague, Representative Woodall,
asked the Democrat witness if the majority would consider moving a
short-term extension if the U.S. Senate does not take this bill up. The
witness could not answer the question.
This is a dangerous gamble the Democrat majority is willing to play.
We have received no indication that the U.S. Senate will use this bill
as a starting point or move quickly on this liberal proposal, leaving
VAWA unnecessarily expired during the meantime.
The Democrats are in control and have the votes to pass their bill;
however, they are putting the lives of millions of women in jeopardy by
gambling on what the Senate will do. We should not be gambling.
The Democrat majority has already passed up a short-term extension
once via a vote, and the program has lapsed. There is no reason why we
should not send an additional option that the Senate can take up
quickly to keep the program functioning.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all--Republicans and Democrats--want to
protect women and children and stop violence against women, but,
unfortunately, this particular bill advances a separate policy agenda
other than that.
The long history of bipartisanship of VAWA will become a thing of the
past with this bill. This bill leaves gaping holes for potential
predators to victimize women and children in areas that are supposed to
be safe.
It advances new gun control policies to permanently restrict people
from exercising their Second Amendment rights or does so without that
person even being able to defend themselves in court.
[[Page H3001]]
It deprioritizes funding to combat sex trafficking and includes
various new forms of criminal justice policy that could let
perpetrators walk or have opportunities to revictimize women and
children.
As a survivor of domestic violence, I want to see a VAWA
reauthorization that focuses on women and children and keeps our
country safe. We should be voting on legislation which all women of
this Chamber could support; however, this bill is not that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I have to rebut my colleague's repeated assertion that this iteration
of VAWA would violate the Second Amendment because it fails to offer an
opportunity for abusers to protest having their guns taken away--and
the gentlewoman said this several times in the course of debate--on the
basis that ex parte orders are often entered against abusers.
But, in fact, in every instance, even if an initial order is an ex
parte, the abuser has the right to request a hearing, including in
Arizona, where title 12, section 1809 provides that anyone who has a
protection order entered against them can file a written request for a
hearing, and that is when they get their due process. So I just want to
point that out.
The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is today as it was when
it was passed in 1994: to keep women safe from domestic abuse. It
remains a piece of bipartisan landmark legislation.
Ms. Jackson Lee detailed the number of Republican amendments and
bills that have been incorporated into this version, so it is a shining
example of what Congress can accomplish when we set aside our partisan
differences and work together to find actual solutions.
VAWA has dramatically improved our Nation's response to domestic
violence and has provided invaluable support to victims, communities,
social service providers, and law enforcement. It is working.
We won't solve domestic violence overnight, nor will we end it with
the passage of a bill, but we can continue to change the culture of
violence against women and provide the support that survivors need.
The two constituents I spoke of in my opening never should have
experienced the violence that was inflicted upon them; but it is not
enough to condemn what was done or to charge those responsible, no. We
must change the conditions to allow such acts of violence to occur.
We can look at the facts and we can look at the research so we create
policies and pass laws to better protect women from abusers, and this
reauthorization is a bold step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 1741) to reauthorize Department of Justice
programs that combat violence against women, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1741.
Ms. SCANLON. 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. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
Adoption of H. Res. 271.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
YEAS--231
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
[[Page H3002]]
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--7
Estes
Hoyer
McEachin
Rooney (FL)
Rutherford
Ryan
Stivers
{time} 1401
Messrs. WOODALL, TAYLOR, and WESTERMAN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 144.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 194, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
YEAS--231
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--6
Demings
McEachin
Rooney (FL)
Rutherford
Ryan
Stivers
{time} 1412
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________