Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4970, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 656 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 656
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 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 with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. At any time after the 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. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, 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 Armed Services. After general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 656? Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, excludes from the application of that act any legislative provision that establishes or enforces statutory rights prohibiting discrimination.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that while they have not reviewed a provision in section 3 of H.R. 4970 for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates, since that provision prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability, other provisions of H.R. 4970 would impose no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.

CBO goes on to say the bill would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on brokers of international marriage and certain supervisors over persons under official control of the United States. However, CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA: $146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation.

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it really pains me to see my colleagues across the aisle make the kind of accusations that they make about Republicans being unconcerned about the issue of violence against women. How could they possibly accuse us of not being concerned about that issue? All Republicans are concerned about violence against anyone. Violence, we are very concerned about that. I personally won't even watch any kind of movie that has any kind of violence in it because I can't stand to see violence perpetrated on another human being. So Republican men and women both abhor violence against women.

But what we have done in the legislation that we are proposing is we are asking for increased accountability and to see that more services are directly offered to women who have violence perpetrated against them. In fact, I would say that we are more concerned about violence for women because we want to see those women served better and we want to see the money spent better.

Mr. Speaker, helping victims of abuse and domestic violence is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I have been pleased to work with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez on H.R. 196, Simplifying the Ambiguous Law Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe, or STALKERS, Act which she has championed for the last two Congresses. The Democrats wouldn't bring this bill up when they were in control of the House.

The STALKERS Act updates the Federal stalking statute to include electronic surveillance and other means of cyber-stalking to ensure that potential stalking victims are protected as technology changes. In addition, the STALKERS Act increases criminal penalties by 5 years for offenders who have violated a protective order or whose victims are under the age of 18 or elderly.

Congresswoman Sanchez and I worked together regardless of which party was in charge of the House, and I'm pleased that legislation with the original cosponsor, who's a Democrat, has been included in the VAWA reauthorization bill that the House will vote on today. The VAWA reauthorization bill also adds stalking as an allowable grant purpose to continue the work of protecting these victims.

As we all know, law enforcement and prosecutors must have the resources they need to pursue violent criminals, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for H.R. 4970 after voting for this rule providing for its consideration, or the rule we will consider in just a few minutes.

I'm not going to impugn the character of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We all want to stop violence against women. That's why Republicans have brought forth this bill. Again, the STALKERS Act could have been brought forward under Democrat control of the House. It was not, and I'm very disappointed. But I'm proud of Republicans, that we're doing it and we're strengthening the Violence Against Women Act, not weakening the act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 656 provides for a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and general debate for H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

As an original cosponsor of the underlying bill, I am proud to stand with my Republican colleagues in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, otherwise known as VAWA.

The House Judiciary Committee-passed version of VAWA before us today is a commonsense proposal to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and efficiently while also improving access to services for victims. With this bill, we have also worked to add accountability requirements to conduct the necessary oversight of VAWA grant recipients and programs. Our goal is to ensure that more money is spent on direct services and less on administrative bureaucracy.

I commend Representative Adams on authoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio says, the second bill that's made in order under this rule is H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, otherwise known as the NDAA.

As we debate this very important bill, let's keep in mind the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families, and in particular those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of American freedom, which includes this deliberative process of freely debating our laws and ideas about the role of government. We could not be here today without the sacrifices of those who've served in the military and helped protect us as a free people.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers:

The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in terms of war and danger.

Our Founding Fathers had a clear view that the primary and central job of the Federal Government was ``to provide for the common defense,'' which is a constitutional mandate. It is not an issue that should divide us or devolve into partisan rancor but unite us as a country that supports our military and provides them with the resources necessary to complete their critically important mission.

Madam Speaker, in a few days, we will be in our districts participating in Memorial Day events. I approach Memorial Day with mixed emotions, as a part of me celebrates the joy and pride of living in this great country where we're all free to participate in a robust public policy debate. I am proud that I live in a meritocracy, where anyone can choose which path to follow and succeed. But Memorial Day also elicits somber thoughts of those who have given their lives in defense of the greatest country in the history of humankind.

While many of our fellow Americans will be celebrating with cookouts and family, I ask that we all pause and think about those families who will have an empty place at their dinner table, those families who still mourn the loss of a loved one and, rather than cooking out, will be visiting our fallen heroes in hallowed grounds across these United States. That's the true purpose of Memorial Day--to pause, remember, and honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to preserve all that is great in our country.

So as we return home to our districts, I ask all of my colleagues to keep in mind the spouses, children, and families of the fallen. As President Lincoln stated in his second inaugural address:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree with my colleague from Colorado. Abuse is abuse, no matter against which person it is, and nothing in this Violence Against Women reauthorization bill prohibits grant recipients from serving all victims of domestic violence, and I am glad to hear my colleague say that.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to help women, particularly those who have been victims of violence and abuse, while also being good stewards of limited taxpayer resources. The 2012 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act accomplishes these goals. In addition, the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act ensures that the men and women in our military have the resources they need while protecting taxpayer investments.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of improved congressional oversight and against special interests by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 656 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

Strike the first section and insert the following:

Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. 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, 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 S. 1925 as passed by the Senate if offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan, Representative Moore of Wisconsin, or Representative Lofgren of California. 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. 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.''

--
(The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.)

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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source