PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1585, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 58
(House of Representatives - April 03, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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.

                          ____________________