Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills: H.R. 4970, the Cantor-Adams bill, and H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Before we discuss the unprecedented rule for the Cantor-Adams bill, which has really turned what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue into a political football--to the detriment of women across our country--I would like to say a few words about the National Defense Authorization Act, which is also included in this rule.

I am really dismayed that the Defense authorization bill that House Republicans have brought before us undermines the bipartisan agreement which was reached just last summer. The bill funds defense spending at $8 billion over the levels set in the Budget Control Act and $3 billion over the President's budget request--again, more deficit spending in this Republican bill before us under this rule.

As our deficit spirals out of control, we need to tighten our belt and balance our budget. Instead, this bill doubles down on 10 years of ballooning defense budgets, which have played a major role in our deficit. This bill continues to kick the can down the road toward balancing our budget and leaves an only bigger hole that the Republican tax-and-spend policies continue to dig, putting our Nation deeper and deeper into debt.

Additionally, this bill ties the hands of our military and law enforcement by requiring in statute to keep military detainees in Guantanamo, handcuffing any President, Democrat or Republican, and preventing him from coming up with a plan for what to do with these individuals. This bill panders to our fears by insisting that the detainees remain in Guantanamo interminably. It tries to tell generals how to do their jobs and sets a timetable for troop levels in Afghanistan rather than does our normal civilian process.

Finally, I am disappointed by the political posturing included in the bill. The NDAA used to focus solely on setting defense policy and protecting our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to use this bill to also push political wedge issues. There is language in this bill prohibiting the use of military facilities to conduct same- sex marriages even in States that allow same-sex marriages. It even prevents gay and lesbian chaplains from marrying members of the military to other members of the military.

Further, I am deeply disturbed that, in a bill that governs our national security, language was included that would increase our dependence on foreign oil and that would undermine our long-term energy security interest. This bill's exemption of the Department of Defense from complying with section 526 of the 2007 energy bill hurts water and recreational interests in my State and harms research and development and investment in renewable energy.

Now, sadly, as disappointing as it is to see political posturing in the Defense authorization bill under this rule, it is truly horrifying to see the political posturing in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, which under this House version would likely lead to more violence against women. The Violence Against Women Act has a long bipartisan history. Both sides have traditionally sought to protect all victims of domestic violence, not just some. Sadly, this bill before us undoes much of the work that previous Congresses have done and accomplished on this issue for no reason when we have a bipartisan Senate version of the bill that protects all women from the abuse of partners.

Why would we exclude certain women in this country? If a woman is in a lesbian relationship, should she not be protected if she is a victim of domestic abuse? If a woman doesn't have the documentation to be in this country and is here illegally, should she not be protected under this law?

VAWA protects women who are actually convicted of other crimes. If a woman stole a car and served time, was convicted of that crime, she is still protected from domestic abuse under VAWA. Yet nonviolent offenders of our civil code, like undocumented immigrants, would no longer be protected because they would effectively face deportation after 4 years for testifying against the perpetrators of their abuse, making it much less likely that they would bring the perpetrators to justice and end the vicious cycle of domestic abuse in their families.

The majority in the House has offered no explanation for their refusal to allow us to take up the Senate bipartisan bill. My colleague Virginia Foxx was noncommittal in her response about whether we would be taking up the Senate bipartisan bill. If she doesn't know the answer--and I certainly take her on her word--I would hope that somebody on the other side would come to the floor and say, Can we take up this Senate bipartisan bill? And if not, why not? And if so, when?

It passed the Senate with 68 votes, Republicans and Democrats. This is the time to stand up and see if our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about responding to the insidious domestic violence crimes that occur every day throughout this country. Frankly, that could start by the defeat of this bill, allowing for an open process in considering this bill on the floor of the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I want to make sure that the time is not begun until the gentlelady begins.

Thank you.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I would inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining speakers.

I'd like to inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining speakers.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Though we disagree on the bill, we can both agree that this is a terrible rule. And I encourage my colleagues to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa in opposing this rule.

I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this closed rule to make in order the bipartisan Violence Against Women bill that passed the United States Senate with 68 votes as an amendment offered by Representative Conyers, Representative Moore, and Representative Lofgren. If the House passes that, it will proceed to President Obama's desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and allow the Senate bill that has passed with a bipartisan majority, that actually expands protections for all women, to be considered by this body.

Here, Madam Speaker, is the face of somebody affected by the Violence Against Women Act from Colorado. Her name is Sara. Sara came to our country illegally. She was brought illegally, unbeknownst to her, by her American husband. Once in the United States, she was abused. She was isolated. She was effectively kept a prisoner in her own house by her husband.

The first time she was violently beaten by her husband was when she went on a walk because her husband claimed that she had disobeyed him. She was trapped in a relationship where she was abused, sexually as well as verbally, for 14 years.

She finally escaped with her son to safe transitional housing called Alternatives to Violence in Loveland, Colorado. Once there, she learned English and obtained temporary legal status through a U visa provided under the Violence Against Women Act.

Today, I'm proud to say, Madam Speaker, she's a United States citizen and works as an advocate for other immigrant victims of domestic abuse.

Stories like Sara are inspiring and reinforce the reason that so many of us feel passionately to join across party lines to ensure that no domestic victim is left unserved.

This Cantor-Adams bill offers us a false choice between weakening and undermining protections in the Violence Against Women Act or maintaining the status quo. The American people understand that a vote for the Cantor-Adams bill is a vote to roll back protections for all domestic and sexual violence victims and puts the safety of our most vulnerable domestic violence victims at risk.

Immigrants, Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and bisexual victims all have historically faced many barriers to reporting sexual violence. But instead of removing those barriers, this bill, under this closed rule, creates new ones.

Lesbian and gay survivors face particular obstacles in accessing the criminal justice system. Lesbian and gay survivors are often reluctant to report abuse, and when they do finally seek assistance, they frequently don't receive the support they need across lifesaving services and resources. Studies tell us that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at roughly the same rates as the general population. It is no surprise that less than one in five gay and lesbian victims of intimate partner violence receives help through a service provider.

This bill fails to provide the same vital protections for gay and lesbian families that have been overwhelmingly approved in the Senate bill. During the Judiciary markup, I offered an amendment to restore these protections, but unfortunately, it was voted down. This closed process prevents the ability of Members of the House to even consider or vote on adding these protections back in. Had the House Republicans allowed amendments on the

floor today, I would have offered two amendments that I offered--along with my colleagues Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Lofgren, Representatives Deutch and Chu, all who were leaders in the Judiciary markup--which would have eliminated these atrocious provisions from the bill.

Some of the most egregious anti-immigrant provisions would destroy incentives to cooperate with law enforcement. People like Sara, who bravely came forward to report domestic violence, would face deportation after 4 years. Why would somebody come forward and report something if it would ultimately lead to her own deportation?

All women deserve to be protected from domestic violence--even women who have committed crimes, even women who have had civil violations, like violating our immigration laws, even women who are lesbians. All women deserve to be protected by the Violence Against Women Act, and that is what this bill is about. The Senate bill, which passed on a bipartisan basis and included a report from well over a dozen Republican Senators, included these provisions.

Abuse is abuse, whether it occurs against immigrants, whether it occurs against gay and lesbian Americans, or whether it occurs against Native Americans. Yet, under this bill before us, a Native American woman who is living on a reservation and who is raped and abused by a nontribal member lacks protection and remains at risk of serious sexual and physical violence by her abuser. Under this underlying bill, gay and lesbian survivors and victims will struggle to get protective orders or will be turned away from service providers just because of their sexual orientation or gender identities.

Just as alarming, this bill removes protections that currently exist for some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations: battered immigrant spouses, restricting the ability of U visa holders to apply for permanent resident status and forcing them to face deportation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bills and to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of

order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

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.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

None of the amendments were made in order except the manager's amendment, which brings the bill closer to the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot assume what this body will do in the future. I am one member of the Rules Committee and the Education Committee. I do not have control over that, and I don't believe anybody can predict the future.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's question is a question for the rule and is not relevant to the point of order which she has raised.

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.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Nugent from Florida, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert.

I would like to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri, Congresswoman Hartzler.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Roby.

Madam Speaker, we do have other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington, a member of our leadership, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers.

Yes, Madam Speaker, we have one more.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I join the United States Conference of Mayors and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination in opposition to the bill, and I ask unanimous consent to submit their letters for the Record.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill that rolls back protections for domestic violence victims and survivors, and I include three letters representing hundreds of organizations--law enforcement organizations, advocacy organizations around the country--in opposition to the rule.

Before coming to Congress, I founded and was the first executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I've trained thousands of police officers and judges, held victims' hands in courts. I've done intake in shelters and held their children in emergency rooms and answered calls on hotlines.

This bill, the underlying bill and the rule, do great damage to the work that we've done across the aisle as advocates and leaders of good will to protect the interests of battered women of domestic violence, victims and survivors.

Since the passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has revolutionized the way violent crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented. Never would I have imagined that, when working on this 18 years ago, that we'd be in this Congress rolling back the protections that have been expanded to protect women, victims, survivors across this country and their children. It really is a sad day in this Congress. We should be ashamed of what we're doing.

We should make sure that we expand protections for women, for immigrant women, for lesbian and gay men and women, and to make sure that we pass a rule that truly is bipartisan in this Congress that reflects the values and the needs and the spirit of the 1994 law.

May 15, 2012.

Re: Update--Manager's amendments to VAWA (H.R. 4970) do not

fix critical problems. H.R. 4970 eliminates protections

for battered immigrants; harms victims.

House of Representatives.

Dear Member of Congress: As a diverse coalition of

immigration, faith, labor, civil rights, human rights and

community organizations serving and advocating on behalf of

immigrant victims of domestic violence, human trafficking,

sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, we urge you to

oppose H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization

Act of 2012 (VAWA) (Adams, R FL) when it comes to the House

floor.

The amendments offered by Representative Adams (``manager's

package'') that will be considered by the Rules Committee

today are inadequate and do not correct the major problems

with H.R. 4970. With the manager's package. H.R. 4970 will

still roll back existing protections for battered immigrants

that were created with bi-partisan congressional support.

Enacted in 1994 and reauthorized twice in 2000 and 2005,

VAWA has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common

purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. When VAWA was conceived, Congress

recognized that the noncitizen status of battered immigrants

can make them particularly vulnerable. Abusers often exploit

their victims' undocumented status, leaving the victim afraid

to report the abuse to law enforcement and making them

fearful of assisting with the prosecution of these crimes.

As modified, H.R. 4970 effectively eradicates protections

created by VAWA that have been available for almost twenty

years to immigrant victims of violence. The bill establishes

an extremely onerous adjudication process for victims to

receive protection that is not required in other areas of the

law. Finally, it wastes government resources when allegations

of fraud have not been substantiated.

H.R. 4970 eliminates protections for crime victims offered by

the U visa.

Deters immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying

nearly all U visa recipients the protections offered by

lawful permanent resident status. By offering only temporary

relief, H.R. 4970 will eliminate an important incentive for

victims to report crimes and silence victims who fear

deportation. A victim could be deported and be forced to

leave her children behind with an abuser if he has legal

status but she does not.

Endangers crime victims by making it extremely difficult

for them to obtain U visa protection. H.R. 4970 needlessly

requires that an investigation or prosecution is being

actively pursued. Current law already requires that law

enforcement certify that the victim has been or is likely to

be helpful to an investigation or prosecution.

H.R. 4970 requires that the victim help identify the

perpetrator. Many sexual assault victims never get a good

look at the perpetrator.

H.R. 4970 denies battered immigrants the protections of

``self-petitioning.''

Gives perpetrators tools to interfere with a victim's

immigration case.

Forces every VAWA self-petitioner to participate in two

face-to-face interviews with DHS officials, subjecting them

to unnecessary additional screening that can be dangerous for

victims who may have to account for their every movement to

the abuser.

Requires untrained local field office staff conduct in-

person interviews with victims of domestic violence and

sexual assault. Long delays to secure initial interviews at

local offices will put victims trying to leave abusive

relationship at greater risk.

Endangers the safety of battered immigrants by suspending

adjudication of their case if there is an open criminal

investigation or prosecution of the perpetrator.

H.R. 4970 requires DHS officials to conduct expensive and

time consuming reviews of the victims' cases that are not

required in other areas of law. These wasteful reviews are

motivated by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and abuse within

VAWA programs.

H.R. 4970 endangers victims, and undoes years of bipartisan

progress made in previous VAWA bills by taking us to a time

before 1994 when abusers were allowed to use immigration

status as a tool for further abuse. When H.R. 4970 is brought

to the floor of the

House of Representatives, we urge you to vote NO. This bill

goes against the core of VAWA by eliminating protections for

victims and placing victims in danger.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mony

Ruiz-Velasco, National Immigrant Justice Center, or Grace

Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Sincerely,

America's Voice Education Fund; American Civil Liberties

Union; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American

Jewish Committee; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Asian

American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for

Advancing Justice; Asian Pacific Islander Institute on

Domestic Violence; ASISTA; Benjamin N. Cardozo Human Rights

and Genocide Law Clinic; Break the Cycle; California

Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza:

National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and

Communities; Centro Legal de la Raza; Church World

Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; Disciples Home

Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Human Rights Defense Center;

Hutto Visitation Program.

Immigrant Rights Clinic at Rutgers School of Law;

Immigration Equality; Immigration Law Center of Minnesota;

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American

Community; International Institute of Buffalo; International

Organization for Adolescents; Jesuit Social Research

Institute/Loyola University New Orleans; Jewish Council for

Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Women

International; Kids in Need of Defense; Legal Aid Justice

Center; Legal Services of New Jersey; Lutheran Immigration

and Refugee Service; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee

Advocacy Coalition.

National Center for Victims of Crime; National Coalition

Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of Anti-

Violence Programs (NCAVP); National Council of Jewish Women;

National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration

Forum; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration

Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Organization

for Women; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending

Sexual Assault; National Network to End Domestic Violence;

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; Northwest

Immigrant Rights Project; Physicians for Human Rights;

Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project; Rabbis

for Human Rights-North America; Rocky Mountain Immigrant

Advocacy Network; South Asian Americans Leading Together

(SAALT).

Texans United for Families; Tahirih Justice Center; The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Reformed

Church of Highland Park, NJ; The Young Center for Immigrant

Children's Rights at the University of Chicago; Vermont

Immigration and Asylum Advocates; VIDA Legal Assistance,

Inc.; Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance;

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Women

of Color Network; Women's Refugee Commission; Who Is My

Neighbor? Inc.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 656 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some unfunded mandates in the underlying bill, H.R. 4970; rather, I am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice opposition to this bill, given the strict, closed terms of our debate today.

It is baffling to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would be so shut out of today's debate and that House Republicans would so completely abandon any pretense of bipartisanship on a bill like the Violence Against Women Act. This bill has always been a bipartisan effort, and I would argue that on an issue like this, it is incredibly important to have a well-rounded discussion.

We obviously disagree about the key elements that are critical to include in a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Well, why not allow us to have a healthy debate? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, why not allow us our chance to try to improve the legislation before us?

Our allies in the domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy community have literally spent years compiling input and data from service providers, law enforcement, and victims themselves about what we must do to update VAWA in a reauthorization. And I am here to be a voice of protest because their input is invaluable; yet, for the very first time, their input has been cast aside.

Last night I offered a substitute, along with Representative Conyers and Representative Lofgren, that would have allowed us to consider the Senate-passed version of the Violence Against Women Act, a version which I proudly introduced in March here in this House of Representatives. This legislation was passed in the Senate with sound bipartisan support and includes the improvements that have been endorsed by a broad array of individuals and organizations, including law enforcement agencies.

But, unfortunately, today we will not be allowed to vote on the Senate bill. We will have to vote on the Adams bill, which is now officially opposed by over 325 organizations. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard it right--325 organizations.

I would like to share my time with my colleagues who are here with me today and would like for their voices to be heard. So, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent, the first of whom is Ms. Yvette Clarke from Brooklyn, New York.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The declarative statement that you referred to, am I not correct, Mr. Speaker, that that could also include a sentence, a complete sentence?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ladies who are submitting their statements for the Record.

The Members who join me today are just a few of the many people who would like to be here to offer their suggestions for improving the bill and to highlight the stories of women, men, and children in their district and communities who have experienced atrocious violence. There are lessons to be learned from their stories, and it is unwise and unkind of us to turn a blind eye.

I'm thinking of Rosalind in Milwaukee, who was killed by her girlfriend, Malika, and her family had concerns about her over- possessiveness. But, of course, this is an LGBT relationship, and an order for protection may have been ignored without these provisions.

I think of another person in my district, Diane's story, 26 years old, married to a non-Indian, beaten. Over a hundred incidences-- slapped, kicked, punched, and living in terror. She called for help several times but no one ever came to her rescue. She was living on a tribal land.

The Violence Against Women Act has been a lifeline for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. It has allowed us to hold perpetrators accountable and to pave pathways out of violence for victims--all women. And since VAWA passed in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by more than half. We must not turn back, Mr. Speaker. We must not weaken or repeal some of VAWA's lifesaving protections.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do appreciate the woman walking us through the protocols for the unfunded mandates. And I would submit to her that the National Network to End Domestic Violence, who does a point-in-time counting of domestic violence services nationwide, would indicate that it costs not only personal anguish, but there are costs in society, actual fiscal costs, to not protecting women who are suffering in violent situations.

Right in my own State of Wisconsin, 714,000 women have been assaulted, raped, or stalked by an intimate partner. This number actually exceeds the population of the entire city of Milwaukee. Imagine the cost to employers when people don't show up at work. Imagine the cost in emergency rooms when people show up battered and bruised and broken and have no health insurance.

Approximately half a million of these women were fearful or concerned for their safety. Two hundred and eighty thousand Wisconsin women, 12.7 percent of our population, have been stalked in their lifetime. Imagine the cost of additional police work when these women call the police and nothing has been done in terms of making arrests and asking for accountability.

A study of childhood exposure to violence in Milwaukee has found that 16 percent of Wisconsin adults report having experienced recurring violence between adults in their childhood. Imagine the loss of productivity at schools. There's often a lot of talk about kids being inattentive in school and not being able to pass and succeed in school. Next to hunger, imagine the cost of witnessing and experiencing violence in the home as a cost to society.

I would now like to yield to the gentlelady for a question.

There were several amendments that were introduced in the Rules Committee last evening, and I was wondering if you were aware of any amendments that were adopted after we left the Rules Committee last evening. I know there had been a hearing. I was wondering if any of the amendments that Democrats had introduced were adopted.

The manager's amendment, thankfully, was adopted, because the manager's amendment did have one little piece in there that helps out immigrant women. But there are 325 groups and organizations, everything from national women organizations to evangelical women and the bishops, that oppose even the manager's amendment because they say that not only are there just simply rollbacks to the Violence Against Women Act, but it actually puts immigrant women in danger, as the balance is tipped from current law in favor of these batterers, sexual assaulters, abusers, and killers.

I would like to yield to the gentlelady for one more question.

Will this body ever have an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan bill from the Senate that passed 68 31? Will this body ever have the opportunity? Will that bill ever be before us?

Representative Foxx, just a follow-up, you are a member, a very senior member, of the Rules Committee, and so I was wondering if the rule is structured in a way that will ever allow to have before us, after we vote on this version, the Adams version of the VAWA bill? Will there be a pathway toward voting on the Senate bill as you understand it?

I thank the Speaker and I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4119) to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the Southwest Border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4119, as amended, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, strengthens current law and prohibits the construction, use, and financing of unauthorized tunnels across the U.S. border.

I thank the sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Reyes of Texas and Mr. Quayle of Arizona, for their work on this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Similar legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent in January.

This legislation establishes the penalty for conspiracy or attempt to use, construct, or finance a cross-border tunnel. It also identifies the construction, financing, or use of a cross-border tunnel as a predicate offense for a charge of money laundering and for an application for judicial authorization to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications. H.R. 4119 also allows the criminal forfeiture of property that enters the United States through a cross- border tunnel.

Reports of drug-smuggling tunnels have increased, particularly in the past 10 years. Drug traffickers have ramped up their use of underground smuggling in light of increased border security, either real or perceived. Mexican drug-trafficking organizations have used tunnels as a smuggling method since at least 1990.

A majority of cross-border tunnels continue to be found in California and Arizona. These tunnels range in sophistication from a simple 16- inch pipe to well-engineered tunnels equipped with electricity, ventilation, and rails. Ownership of the tunnels is often attributed to the Mexican drug cartels.

To find cross-border tunnels, U.S. agents use devices that range from ground-penetrating radar to seismic sensors. Despite these efforts, drug smugglers continue to build the tunnels.

In November 2011, Federal law enforcement agents shut down two sophisticated tunnels that led from an area near Tijuana's airport to an industrial park in the U.S. About 49 tons of marijuana were seized.

Drug traffickers are also skilled at setting up front companies to rent space in busy warehouse districts in the United States. Mining engineers and architects are employed to construct the tunnel and bore directly into the foundation of the front company's rented warehouse.

The Drug Enforcement Administration describes marijuana as ``the top revenue generator for Mexican drug trafficking organizations--a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year after year.'' The profits from marijuana trafficking finance the drug cartels' other drug enterprises, which include the construction and use of cross-border tunnels.

Border tunnels are an unfortunate testament to the ingenuity and determination of the Mexican drug cartels. It is time for Congress to enhance law enforcement's ability to fight transnational organized crime and the drug cartels' construction of cross-border tunnels. This bill reaffirms our determination to bring an end to cross-border tunnels.

When Congress enacted the border-tunnel statute in 2007, it omitted the changes contained in this bill. H.R. 4119 simply corrects this to ensure that investigators are equipped with the ability to locate and shut down these tunnels and hold these dangerous criminals accountable.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and we are prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, we were hoping that the other author, the other cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), would be here. Unfortunately, he was detained. His flight was delayed from Arizona to Washington, D.C.

But in his absence, I just want to thank him for his work on this bill and for all of his efforts to reduce the amount of cross-border drug smuggling and thereby protect the lives of individuals in Arizona and all Americans. He has done great work on this particular piece of legislation. We all appreciate those efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters regarding H.R. 4119.

May 15, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith,

On March 21, 2012, the Committee on the Judiciary reported

H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, as

amended, favorably to the House. The Committee on Ways and

Means received an additional referral on the bill as a result

of section 5(b) dealing with civil asset forfeiture, which

falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and

Means. As a result of your Committee's agreement to remove

section 5(b) of the bill, I agree to discharge the Committee

on Ways and Means from further consideration of the bill so

that a suspension version, incorporating the amendments to

which we have agreed, may proceed expeditiously to the House

Floor.

The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with our

mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R.

4119 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the

subject matter contained in section 5(b) in this or similar

legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately

consulted and involved if that provision moves forward in any

legislation so that we may address any issues that arise and

fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. Our Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving

this provision, and requests your support for any such

request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of

our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.