[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1783-1789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 47, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 83

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 47) 
     to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. 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 Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their respective designees; (2) an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-2, if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to commit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.

                              {time}  1240


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 83 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2013. The rule also provides for consideration 
of one substitute amendment to this underlying legislation. This 
process ensures there's ample discussion on both options presented to 
the House, to give Members, both the minority and the majority, the 
opportunity to participate in these debates.
  I support the rule, and I hope my colleagues will support it as well 
because, by supporting and passing this resolution, we'll be able to 
move on to debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  As a former law enforcement officer who spent 38 years fighting 
against all types of violence, I have seen the evils and cruelty of 
domestic violence issues firsthand. That's why I also volunteered with 
and even served on the board of directors for the Dawn Center, which is 
a refuge for victims of domestic and sexual violence in Hernando 
County, Florida.
  With these sorts of experience, I know and understand how important 
grant programs like these authorized by the Violence Against Women Act 
are to law enforcement agencies fighting domestic violence, the 
advocates serving the victims of domestic violence, and most 
importantly, the victims themselves.
  Violence against women is unacceptable in any terms. It should be 
unacceptable to everybody in this room, regardless of your gender, 
regardless of your sexual orientation, and regardless of your age. I 
hope it's that obvious.
  The rule we have before us today provides the House the ability to 
consider measures that would help provide stakeholders with the tools 
they need to combat this terrible crime.
  If House Resolution 83 passes, then tomorrow the House will debate 
two separate versions of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. 
We will have 1 hour debate on the underlying bill, which passed the 
Senate just 15 days ago.
  We'll also spend 20 minutes debating a Republican alternative to the 
Senate bill. At the end of the debate, we will vote first on the 
Republican alternative to the Senate bill, and if that House amendment 
fails, then we'll have an up-or-down vote on final passage of the 
Senate reauthorization. It's that simple.
  These options offer two separate and distinct visions on how the 
Federal Government can help aid in the fight against domestic violence.
  I can say that, during my time as sheriff, I never saw a single 
Federal domestic violence case ever prosecuted, but I know the Federal 
dollars went to the States and counties to help combat these types of 
crimes. I also know that victims of all genders and sexual orientations 
found shelter and safety in places like the Dawn Center because of 
grants like those authorized in the Violence Against Women Act.
  For all those reasons, I know this a debate we need to have. That's 
why I'm proud to stand here today sponsoring a rule that lays the 
options out on the table, provides for vigorous and enthusiastic 
discussion of those options, and ultimately, let's the people's House 
work its will.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I joined my former colleague, Representative Pat 
Schroeder of Colorado, to write the original Violence Against Women 
Act, it didn't occur to us to exclude or discriminate against anyone. 
And in the multiple times the law has been reauthorized, we, as a 
legislature, have always tried to ensure that all victims of domestic 
violence receive the protections under the law.
  As my colleague pointed out, up till now they have. Unfortunately, 
the latest attempt to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act has 
been different. This time, the majority has alternately tried to pass 
extreme legislation that would weaken current law

[[Page 1784]]

and rejected calls to pass bipartisan legislation that would strengthen 
the current law.
  On February 12, with 23 Republican Senators voting in favor, 
including every Republican woman in the Senate, they approved a 
reauthorization that is both comprehensive and inclusive in nature. 
Unfortunately, instead of allowing a clean, up-or-down vote on this 
bipartisan bill, the majority leadership proposed a substitute 
amendment that removes key provisions from that bill.
  For example, the leadership's amendment fails to explicitly protect 
LGBT victims, and limits protections for immigrants. At the same time, 
the amendment fails to close the legal loopholes that leave Native 
American victims of domestic violence with nowhere to turn.
  Additionally, despite the high rate of dating violence and sexual 
assault on college campuses, the amendment entirely omits protections 
for young women who are victimized in college. And that's why the 
majority's amendment is opposed by groups including the National Task 
Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the National 
Congress of American Indians, and the Leadership Conference on Civil 
and Human Rights, among many others.
  It's dismaying that some in the majority want to weaken a strong 
bipartisan Senate bill, and it's vital that this Chamber reject their 
alternative partisan amendment.
  With the votes we are about to take, we will be asked to choose 
between an amendment that fails to protect some victims of domestic 
violence, and the bipartisan Senate bill protecting all victims. The 
choice is so clear.
  We'll be asked to choose between an amendment opposed by victims and 
victims' rights advocates and a bipartisan bill. And when looking at 
those options that are before us, it is clear what we must do. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute amendment 
tomorrow to the Senate bill, so the original Senate legislation will 
receive a vote in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and talk about the incredible 
impact the Violence Against Women bill has had since it was enacted. 
Thanks to that Act, instances of domestic violence have fallen by 67 
percent, and over 1 million people have obtained protective orders 
against their batterers.
  Before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, police officers 
were not trained to separate a victim and abuser when they responded to 
a domestic violence call. Thanks to the law, the police officers are 
now trained to do just that, a most important change that stopped 
violence from resuming the moment the police left and the front door 
closed.
  But perhaps the greatest victory of the Violence Against Women Act is 
that the law finally brought millions of victims out of the shadows and 
gave them a place to stand.
  In 1994, domestic violence in our country was not even discussed, and 
its scars were never acknowledged. And as a result, the victims often 
became abusers in a cycle of violence that simply wouldn't end. We 
wrote the law to stop that cycle of violence, and we think we have 
achieved much of that. For 18 years, this law gave victims a choice and 
made incredible progress in ending the cycle of violence.
  Every time we've renewed the law, our goal has been the same: to 
ensure that all victims of domestic violence, no matter their 
ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their age or their gender, are 
acknowledged and helped and protected by the law.
  It has been now more than 500 days since the Violence Against Women 
Act expired. Today is the day that ends, and we act in the name of 
justice. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the exclusionary 
substitute amendment tomorrow so we can vote ``yes'' and get this bill 
to the President right away.
  Now, in addition, I want to mention on the previous question, today 
we're going to have an opportunity to stop the sequester, which is 
scheduled, as you know, to take effect in just 2 days.
  We all know all the harms. We know very well what the sequester is 
going to do to the economy and to the workforce in the United States. 
And most importantly, we know that we cannot afford such a slowdown.
  Now, today we're going to give Members of the House an opportunity to 
vote on a sequester solution. If we defeat the previous question--and 
please pay attention: If you want to go on record against having the 
sequester go into effect, we are giving you an opportunity to do that.
  By voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will allow the House 
to vote on a measure that Mr. Van Hollen, ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, has come to the Rules Committee three times with to try to 
achieve the end of saving us from ourselves. Mr. Van Hollen's 
legislation would reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way 
but stop the devastating sequestration cuts.

                              {time}  1250

  Today is the last chance for the House of Representatives to stop the 
sequester. Despite what some have said, this Chamber has not passed a 
solution to the sequester during this Congress. It is vital that the 
inaction of the majority come to an end. We must take a step to stop 
the sequester today.
  So let me urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question if you 
wish to be on record saying you do not support the sequester, you do 
not want to see this damage done to the economy and to the United 
States and, incidentally, to our reputation in the country and in the 
rest of the world. Doing so will allow Mr. Van Hollen's legislation to 
have the serious debate and vote that it deserves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. I rise today in support of the rule which provides for 
consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act 
of 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act has been 
successful. We have seen its benefits. It has saved lives and helped 
millions of women find safety, security, and self-sufficiency. While 
there are deeply held differences about some policies in the bill we 
consider today, now is the time to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act.
  If a daughter, sister, or perfect stranger were raped, battered, or 
needed help, no one would ask or care what her ethnicity, national 
origin, or sexual orientation was before coming to her aid--nor should 
the Violence Against Women Act. No community, no person should be 
neglected when it comes to domestic violence. As a father of a young 
daughter, Grace Catherine, I don't know or care what her orientation 
is--and neither should Congress. I simply know that she and all women 
and girls should be equally protected under its laws.
  We have an opportunity now to finally pass a bipartisan, inclusive 
Violence Against Women Act that service providers, law enforcement and, 
most importantly, all victims deserve. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, twice in two decades Members of both parties have 
crossed party lines to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Yet 
this week we are considering a partisan bill that excludes some victims 
based on sexual orientation or immigration status. Does abuse not 
``count'' if the victim happens to be a gay man or a lesbian? What if 
the victim is an undocumented worker?
  Here are some facts my GOP colleagues may be unaware of: 40 percent 
of gay men experience domestic abuse, as do 50 percent of lesbian 
women. For undocumented women, abuse rates are slightly higher than the 
rest of the population, but go unreported for fear of deportation. 
Those are millions of

[[Page 1785]]

people and thousands of New Yorkers who are being hurt. This 
legislation adds insult to their injury by basically saying because of 
who you are, we won't help you.
  I hope my Republican colleagues agree that that is not the message we 
want to send. Vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill so we can 
approve a real Violence Against Women Act that protects all victims 
equally. Shame on us. This should not be a partisan issue.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation. This rule brings the Senate-passed version of VAWA to the 
floor and allows us to vote on House language to replace that version. 
I want to particularly thank my good friend, Chairman Sessions of the 
Rules Committee, for devising a rule that will help the House work its 
will on this important issue--and do so smoothly, fairly, and quickly.
  I want to particularly thank Leader Cantor for his hard work and 
effort to truly understand and deal with the problems that Native 
American women face. That part of our population, as many of my 
colleagues have learned during the course of this debate, is in many 
ways the most at-risk part of our population. One in three Native 
American women will be sexually assaulted in the course of her 
lifetime. The statistics on the failure to prosecute and hold 
accountable the perpetrators of those crimes are simply stunning. I'm 
very proud that both the Senate and the House have turned their 
attention to this issue and finally begun to give it the consideration 
that it merits. Again, I particularly want to thank Leader Cantor. The 
House version has improved tremendously over what this body passed in 
the last Congress; and that's due, in large measure, to his hard work.
  That being said, I cannot support the House version of VAWA. While 
it's made great strides in recognizing the jurisdictions of tribal 
courts over non-Indian offenders, it falls short of giving tribes what 
they need to keep their citizens protected from the scourge of domestic 
violence. Unlike the Senate version, the House version fails to 
recognize existing tribal sovereignty that's enshrined in the 
Constitution and has been recognized throughout the history of our 
country. The House version requires tribes to seek Department of 
Justice certification before exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
offenders. I cannot think of any example where one sovereign has to 
seek permission to exercise their rights as a sovereign. It doesn't 
make sense to ask tribes to willingly abdicate part of their 
sovereignty to exercise another part of their sovereignty.
  In the same vein, the House bill waives sovereign immunity on behalf 
of the tribes. As sovereigns, tribes should make that decision on 
whether or not to waive sovereign immunity. In the final analysis, 
Indian tribes and Indian women need help--and I don't think there's 
much debate about this in this body. And they prefer the Senate bill to 
the House bill. That settles the issue for me.
  I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the House 
amendment to the underlying bill, and I support the underlying bill 
that's been passed by the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment made under this rule to gut the Senate-passed Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Senate bill is a 
bipartisan approach that protects vulnerable populations, and the 
amendment made under this rule would remove those protections. 
Furthermore, S. 47 includes legislation that I have worked on in these 
two past Congresses with Representative Virginia Foxx of North 
Carolina, who I call my good friend, and Senator Klobuchar of 
Minnesota. I reintroduced the STALKERS Act this Congress and am pleased 
that it is included in the underlying bill.
  No one can deny that the Internet is a great tool for all of us that 
connects billions of people around the world. But one of the problems 
with it is that it's proven to be an effective weapon for stalkers to 
prey on innocent people. Current Federal stalking statutes simply have 
not caught up with the new tools and the emerging technologies that 
these criminals use. The STALKERS Act would bring our laws into the 
21st century by giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat 
stalking in the digital age.
  The STALKERS Act would protect victims and empower prosecutors by 
increasing the scope of existing laws to cover acts of electronic 
monitoring, including spyware, bugging, video surveillance, and other 
new technologies as they develop. Currently, Federal laws cannot be 
enforced unless stalking victims can demonstrate that they are in 
reasonable fear of physical injury.
  Again, I thank you for including the STALKERS Act in the underlying 
bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to pass the rule and the underlying bipartisan Senate 
Violence Against Women Act. This is the first bill that I worked on 
when I came to Congress with the great Louise Slaughter and Patricia 
Schroeder, and then-Senator Joe Biden. It has been reauthorized in a 
bipartisan way many times.
  From 1994 to 2010, about four in five victims of intimate partner 
violence have been female. These numbers are real people, and so are 
the tragedies behind them. But this is not about politics. This is 
about the single most fundamental task that we require of our 
government: to keep its citizens safe from violent assaults--all of our 
residents, all of our citizens, immigrants, no matter what the sexual 
orientation is of our citizens. It's for all of our citizens.
  I am pleased that two of the bills that I have authored are part of 
the Senate version. It would be ripped out by the Republican version, 
so I strongly support the bipartisan Senate version. One I authored 
with Representative Poe in a bipartisan way, and that was the SAFER 
Act. This took the monies and directed Justice not to spend more money 
but to process the backlog of DNA kits in rape cases to put rapists 
behind bars. And also, the Campus SaVE Act.
  There's too much violence on campus. One in five women will be 
sexually assaulted during their college years. This provision that I 
authored would increase the obligations of colleges to keep students 
safe and informed about policies on sexual assault. Also, the very 
bipartisan, important anti-trafficking bill is part of it.
  So I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan, historic way, to 
reauthorize, repass the Violence Against Women Act, the Senate version.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the bipartisan, Senate-
passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
  Since the Violence Against Women Act first became law in 1994, the 
incidence of domestic violence is down more than 60 percent. It is with 
that same record of success that we should address the prevalence of 
domestic violence in underserved communities.
  In my district of Sacramento, we are fortunate to have an 
organization called WEAVE, which provides crisis intervention services 
to domestic violence and sexual assault victims. Recently, WEAVE 
admitted a woman and her 8-year-old son, Tucker, to their safe house. 
By the time Tucker reached the safe house, his father's verbal abuse 
had convinced him that he was

[[Page 1786]]

stupid and insignificant. For an 8-year-old boy to no longer smile, to 
play games, to enjoy life is heartbreaking.
  Fortunately, Tucker's mother rescued herself and her son by using the 
resources that the Violence Against Women Act makes available. Tucker 
is now living away from his father, in counseling, and on his way to a 
happy and healthy future.
  Time and time again we hear that programs like this break the cycle 
of domestic violence. We must view this legislation not just as a 
women's issue, but as a family issue, as a community issue that touches 
all of our lives.
  It is essential for all past and future victims of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking that we strengthen and 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I urge my colleagues to 
reauthorize an all-inclusive version of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule but oppose 
the House Republican substitute, and to urge my colleagues to vote for 
the real Violence Against Women Act's reauthorization. This passed the 
Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Real VAWA focuses on key programs to address sexual assault, 
including the backlog in testing rape kits. It also consolidates 
programs to ensure that resources are reaching victim services and 
local law enforcement, and it ensures protection for all victims of 
abuse and violence.
  In Nevada, nearly half of all women have been the victim of some kind 
of sexual assault, and more than a quarter have been the victim of 
rape. The Rape Crisis Center in Las Vegas--an excellent organization 
that I've worked with closely over the years--assists victims in the 
transition to become survivors. This Congress should support the 
Center's efforts, not hinder them.
  Violence against women is not a game. It is time for House 
Republicans to stop playing games and to reauthorize this final 
legislation now.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank you so much for the time.
  Isn't it ironic that today, the Supreme Court of the United States of 
America is considering section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in terms of 
whether it will continue to apply to the United States of America and 
those specific States and areas that are included therein. This is 
being done at the same time we are considering the Violence Against 
Women Act, which in my opinion should be called a Family Violence Act. 
I say this because we cannot exclude people because of their sexual 
orientation.
  This is my watch. I have a duty to stand up for those who are being 
left out or left behind. This act should include the LGBT community, 
and any substitute that would remove the LGBT community is a substitute 
that I cannot support.
  Isn't it ironic that today, the Supreme Court is considering section 
5 of the Voting Rights Act, and we just had a statue of Rosa Parks made 
available to the public in Statuary Hall? Friends, it's time for us to 
come up to the standards of this time, and let's bring all of our 
people with us. The LGBT community merits our consideration. I will not 
vote for the substitute. I support the LGBT community.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to discuss the previous 
question. Mr. Van Hollen is the distinguished ranking member on the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank Ranking Member Slaughter.
  I hope tomorrow this House will finally have a chance to vote on the 
bipartisan Senate bill to prevent violence against women. I hope 
tomorrow we will also have a chance to vote on a proposal that we've 
now put forward three times this year to replace the sequester. 
Unfortunately, the rule reported out of the House Rules Committee 
denies us that opportunity. So let's just remind people what will 
happen starting March 1.
  Starting March 1, if this House does not take action to replace the 
sequester, we will lose 750,000 American jobs between March 1 and the 
end of this year. Those are not my numbers; those are not President 
Obama's numbers; those are the numbers from the nonpartisan, 
independent Congressional Budget Office--750,000 fewer American jobs by 
the end of this year if we don't replace the sequester.
  This majority in this House has not taken any action this year in 
this Congress to prevent that sequester from happening beginning 
Friday, not one step. We have now asked three times for the opportunity 
to vote on our alternative.
  So what's our alternative, Mr. Speaker? Our alternative would replace 
the sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenue generated by 
closing tax loopholes and tax preferences that benefit the very 
wealthy.
  So very specifically--because it's a concrete proposal--we would get 
rid of the direct payments that go to agribusinesses, something that 
used to have bipartisan support because that's an unnecessary subsidy 
that has outlived its purpose. So that's a cut.

                              {time}  1310

  We also say we no longer need taxpayer subsidies for the big oil 
companies. Guess what? That's an idea that was proposed by President 
Bush who said taxpayers should no longer be giving these big breaks to 
big oil companies; they don't need that extra taxpayer incentive in 
order to keep producing oil and making record profits. So we do that.
  Then we say to folks who are making $2 million a year that we're 
going to limit the number of preferences you can take. We're going to 
limit the number of tax breaks that you take that allow you to 
effectively pay a lower rate than the people who work for you. So if 
you're making $2 million or more per year, we say you should pay an 
effective tax rate of 30 percent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If you take that balanced combination of targeted 
cuts and the elimination of tax breaks that disproportionately benefit 
very wealthy people, guess what happens? You get the same deficit 
reduction over the budget window, so you reduce the deficit by the same 
amount as you would get if you allow the sequester to take place 
throughout this year, but you do it in a way that does not lose 750,000 
American jobs. You do it in a way that does not cause disruption at our 
airports; in a way that does not cause disruption to our food safety 
system; in a way that does not cause disruption to the nurses who are 
caring for our veterans in military hospitals and veterans hospitals 
around this country; and in a way that does not disrupt our military 
operations.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we just have a simple question: Why is it that as we 
gather here Wednesday, we're denied the opportunity to even have a vote 
on this alternative, this balanced alternative, to prevent the loss of 
750,000 American jobs? We're not asking Members of this House to vote 
for our alternative, although we think it's a good one and would urge 
them to do so. We're simply asking that in the people's House we have a 
vote on an alternative to something that will create these great job 
losses and that great disruption.
  I think the American people are going to ask themselves why we were 
not even granted that opportunity with less than 3 days to go before we 
hit that across-the-board sequester, which is just Washington-speak for 
massive job loss and massive economic disruption.
  In addition to the job loss, according to the independent 
Congressional Budget Office, it will cause one-third less economic 
output in the United

[[Page 1787]]

States of America in this year at a time when the economy remains very 
fragile. So I ask, finally, Mr. Speaker, give us that opportunity at 
least to vote so people have a choice to prevent the sequester.
  I thank the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership as the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee.
  Today, we have an interesting discussion. We are debating the rule 
that will enable us to bring to the floor the Violence Against Women 
Act. As part of the debate on the rule, we are asking a ``no'' vote on 
the previous question which will enable us also to not only vote on the 
Violence Against Women Act but, at completion, to go on to voting on 
the proposal that the Democrats have to resolve the sequester issue.
  I'll start first, though, with the Violence Against Women Act. As of 
yesterday, it was over 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act 
had expired. The reauthorization is long overdue. Last year, the 
Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed a bill that was comprehensive, that 
did the job. The House Republicans resisted that. Here we are again, 
this year, last week, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed 78-22 the 
Violence Against Women Act, which is comprehensive and does the job. 
That means 78 percent of the Senate voted--78 percent of the Senate 
voted--for this Violence Against Women Act. It means also that all of 
the women in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for 
this act. It also means that a majority of the Republicans in the 
Senate--a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--voted for this 
comprehensive Violence Against Women Act.
  So the Senate has passed it overwhelmingly with the majority of 
Republicans supporting it. The President stands ready to sign it. 
Democrats in the House support it. We will call upon the leadership of 
Gwen Moore, who has a similar bill in the House. We stand ready to 
support the Senate version. The Senate has passed it, we support it, 
the President is ready to sign it, and, once again, the Republicans in 
the House are the obstacle to passing this legislation.
  It's really hard to explain to anyone why we would say to the women 
of America, Women of America, step forward; we are stopping violence 
against women. Not so fast if you're an immigrant, not so fast if 
you're a member of the LGBT community, not so fast if you're a Native 
American. What is that? Violence against some women but not others? 
Quite frankly, the groups that are excluded by the House bill are the 
groups that are in the most need of protection against violence.
  So I would hope that in the course of the debate that we will move on 
to on the Violence Against Women Act that we will all open our hearts 
to what is needed to reduce violence in the lives of America's women.
  In the meantime, we have a procedure that is not preferable, we have 
asked over and over again, as the distinguished gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) has said, this will be the third time we've asked to 
get a vote on a Democratic alternative. The American people want to 
know why we can't pass something to avoid sequestration. We have this 
proposal that is fair, that does make cuts, that does produce revenue, 
and that does not impede growth with jobs in our economy. All we want 
is a vote. Why do we have to beg, hat in hand, for a vote on the floor 
of the House in this marketplace of ideas? What are the Republicans 
afraid of? They may be afraid that it will win because it makes so much 
sense that their Members may be attracted to vote for it. Or they may 
not want to put their Members on record voting against something that 
is so balanced, that is so commonsense driven that is a solution, a 
solution to sequestration.
  What does sequestration mean? Well, whatever it means, this is what 
it equals: sequestration equals unemployment. Sequestration equals job 
loss. And we just cannot have a slowing down of our economic growth. We 
cannot afford losing the 700,000 jobs. That's the low estimate that has 
been put forth by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office 
itself.
  We urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which means 
that we would then be allowed to come to the floor to take up the 
Violence Against Women Act and also to take up the sequestration bill. 
It is really something that deserves debate on the floor of the House.
  The Republican leadership has said, well, we voted on that last year. 
Last year was another Congress. That Congress ended. How to make a law: 
Congress ends, we have an election, and a new Congress begins. The 
Constitution says that bills that relate to revenue or to 
appropriations must begin in the House. So they said, We did it last 
year. It doesn't count. Let the Senate begin. That's not what the 
Constitution says.
  So let us take our responsibility and not be afraid of the ideas that 
people sent us here to discuss. We don't have to agree on every point, 
but we certainly should have an opportunity on the floor of the House. 
People across the country are talking about this. You can't turn on any 
media without their talking about this. The only place we can't talk 
about it or get a vote on it is on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. That's plain wrong.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the 
Republican Violence Against Women Act, and a ``yes'' vote on the 
bipartisan Senate bill when we have an opportunity to vote on that.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Mr. 
Van Hollen for clarification, and following that I will yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just three numbers: 750,000 fewer 
American jobs, cutting growth in GDP by one-third, not economic output 
but growth in GDP by one-third. That's one number. The second number: 
three, the number of times we've tried to get a vote on this. The third 
number: zero, the number of times our Republican colleagues this year 
have tried to resolve the sequester issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I rise today in support of this comprehensive and bipartisan effort 
to end violence against women.
  The Violence Against Women Act recently passed by the Senate properly 
updates this crucial legislation for the 21st century by providing 
necessary resources and support to all victims of domestic violence 
regardless of their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. An 
overwhelming 78 Senators, including 23 Republicans, recognize the need 
for these protections, and I'm thrilled that we're finally moving to 
recognize the same.
  I'd like to express my gratitude to the champions of this bill in the 
House, including the gentlelady from New York. Several of my colleagues 
and I, along with hundreds of groups and thousands of concerned 
citizens all across the country, have worked tirelessly these past few 
weeks to make sure that the voices of survivors and advocates could be 
heard over partisan debate. That is why the bill we consider today 
reflects the needs of vulnerable populations that have been ignored in 
the past. It will give Native American tribes the tools to hold abusers 
accountable, LGBT survivors the protection they need to access 
services, and immigrant survivors the independence necessary to escape 
violence.
  I'm proud to vote in favor of a comprehensive Violence Against Women 
Act for my constituents, for my children, my daughters, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

[[Page 1788]]

  May I inquire of my colleague if he has any more requests for time?
  Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If not, then I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This has been a wonderful day for us in some way because we are 
finally debating the Violence Against Women Act, with a great 
possibility of passing the Senate bill, which will protect all women in 
the United States and not just some. It's terribly important that we do 
that. And I think we may have caused some confusion there as we talk 
about violence against women, and we're also talking about the previous 
question which deals purely with sequestration. I would like to close 
speaking about that.
  I think everyone understands the importance that we attach to the 
Violence Against Women Act, but we are also very much concerned about 
sequestration. The reason we have brought it up on a previous question 
on the Violence Against Women Act is we've had absolutely no other 
opportunity to bring it up.
  The American public has been told over and over again that twice this 
House has passed legislation dealing with sequestration. All of us 
know--I'm not sure the public knows, but let me make it clear--that 
anything done before December 31 of last year is no longer valid.
  Nothing has been done this term to stop the sequestration. The only 
effort that has been made to do so has been done by Mr. Van Hollen, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has a very moderate request, 
one that does not do great harm either to the employment situation in 
the country or to the output of GDP, and what he said was terribly 
important.
  What we are about to embark on here is totally unknown. We know that 
it's bad. I think everybody has understood that it's bad. Why we would 
continue to do it is beyond my imagination. But let me make it 
absolutely clear here: no opportunity has been given to our side of the 
House to even attempt to deal with sequestration. This is it.
  For any Member of the House of Representatives who would like to go 
on record saying that they don't want sequestration to take place on 
March 1, this is your only opportunity. So we are asking that you will 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can at least go on record in 
this House and we can do our very best to stop what, by all accounts 
and by what all important economists say, will be an unmitigated 
disaster.
  If we defeat the previous question, we will offer the amendment, 
which will allow the House to vote on replacing the entire sequester 
for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced 
approach to reducing our national deficit. It is a balanced approach, 
Mr. Speaker, not a meat-ax across the board.
  We have to act now if we're going to avert this crisis. I can't 
reiterate enough that this is our only chance. If we're going to avoid 
the unnecessary cuts to essential programs, the time is now.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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 New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues in 
this House, because none of us want to face that abyss, to vote ``no'' 
to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as 
well.
  Every day, people flee their homes because of violence they suffer at 
the hands of a domestic partner. If there's something we can do to stop 
that violence to save those women and children, then we need to do it. 
Inaction is unacceptable. I've seen the consequences of doing nothing 
too many times when it comes to domestic violence.
  We have before us a rule that provides the House with multiple 
options on how we take a stance against domestic violence right here 
and right now. We may not agree on which of these two visions is the 
best one, but I think we can all agree that something must be done. 
That's why I say to you, Mr. Speaker, support the rule before us today. 
If you want to do something, anything, then you need to start with 
voting for the rule. That's the first step. That's what we need to pass 
first and foremost so we can debate those options.
  Some folks here will like the Senate's vision of the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act more than they like the House alternative. 
Others have problems with the Senate bill and think the House's plan is 
the way to go forward. Either way, if you want to take a stand against 
violence against women, then you need to support this rule.
  This rule is how we move to the next step, to debate the options 
before the House to ensure that law enforcement departments, 
organizations like the Dawn Center back home, and victims of domestic 
violence can get the support that they so desperately need.
  There are those who want to confuse this with another issue before 
this House, but this is the issue that we have today, the issue on 
domestic violence, the Violence Against Women Act.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 83 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 
     699) To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to repeal and replace the fiscal year 
     2013 sequestration. 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget, and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. 
     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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____


        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.''

[[Page 1789]]

       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. NUGENT. With that, 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________