[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2354-S2355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
H.R. 1585
Mr. President, on another matter, earlier this week the House passed
a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Our Democratic
colleagues keep saying how important it is to quickly pass this
legislation to restore funding to VAWA as it is known, but I think it
is important to back up for a moment and remember why that funding
lapsed in the first place.
Earlier this year our Democratic colleagues allowed VAWA to get
caught in the crosshairs of our funding debates, and they insisted we
should not fund this vital program because it was overdue for updates.
Their argument was this: We want to reform or update VAWA, so we are
going to let funding for it lapse. It just didn't make any sense at
all.
It is no secret that folks on the other side of the aisle think it is
time we made some changes to the program. It is something I support,
but we don't need to let the funding lapse in order to do it.
This is an issue that our friend and colleague Senator Ernst
continues to champion here in the Senate. But the approach taken by our
Democratic colleagues to get those changes is a head-scratcher, to say
the least.
There were, as I see it, two options on how to solve the problem. One
was to provide an extension for the previous funding to the end of the
fiscal year. That would have allowed us to work on the long-term
reauthorization under the regular processes in the Senate, which, in my
experience, is always the preferred action to take.
The second option our Democratic colleagues chose was to do nothing
and let this important legislation expire without a plan to replace it.
For whatever reason, that was the option that Democrats in the House
chose.
In the nearly 2 months since, we have tried to negotiate a short-term
extension to fund these vital programs. As recently as last week, our
Democratic colleagues had a chance to support the restoration of
funding while our negotiations continued.
The supplemental appropriations bill introduced by Senator Shelby
would have funded the Violence Against Women Act through the end of the
fiscal year--again, giving us time to negotiate changes in the law that
Democrats obviously want. But our Democratic colleagues simply refuse
to support even a procedural vote that would have allowed us to get on
the bill and debate it and then amend it. It seems increasingly clear
to me that rather than providing the funding for victims of sexual
assault and other violence, rather than finding solutions, what is
happening here is that politics is creeping in and rearing its ugly
head.
It is clear to me that this isn't about finding a solution; this is
about political game playing. Now, rather than going through regular
order to create a long-term reauthorization that includes feedback from
both sides, House Democrats are trying to jam a one-sided piece of
legislation through the House and then through the Senate. I think this
is very shameful.
Our Democratic colleagues first refused to fund the Violence Against
Women Act. They allowed it to expire, and now they are using victims of
violence as leverage to push through their rushed, one-sided piece of
legislation. Throwing a temper tantrum and holding the Violence Against
Women's Act hostage until you get what you want is not a responsible
way to legislate.
I would encourage our colleagues across the aisle to put politics
aside for just a moment and work with us to pass a short-term extension
for VAWA while we use the regular order to discuss long-term solutions.
There is a good way and a bad way to do this, and, unfortunately, our
Democratic colleagues have chosen the bad way, but we would ask them to
reconsider and work with us--not for us, but for the victims of
domestic violence who are suffering as a result of their game playing.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Stanton
nomination?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
[[Page S2355]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker)
and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Ex.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Booker
Klobuchar
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________