Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1585) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Collins and I have been working on any number of issues dealing with criminal justice reform, and certainly we have spent the last couple of years on the Judiciary Committee. He may not recall, but working with our chairman in the last session of Congress, who acknowledged that the Judiciary Committee had many opportunities to work together--and I totally agree--one of those issues was, of course, the Violence Against Women Act. We engaged with the staff quite extensively because we wanted this to be a bipartisan bill.

So, for a 3-year period, we engaged, I engaged, many women of this Congress

engaged, and we think we have come up with a product that recognizes that, as we speak here today, there are women who are dying from domestic violence. As we stand here today, law enforcement will tell you that the most difficult, or one of the most difficult, calls they have to make is a domestic violence call.

Maybe it is like my constituent, Candice, whose bill I introduced, who was laying in the bed with a little baby and her other children were moving around the house, and a significant other--a husband, a boyfriend--took his gun and killed Candice while that baby was lying next to her. The little children had to hear that, and they were scurrying. They had to run to another house to try to get help for mommy.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about a score of the National Rifle Association, because this is not a gun bill, this is a lifesaving bill. This is a bill that a Republican from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, put a health provision in, he expanded the Public Health Service Act.

His bill will allow more services to come for those children and those survivors of domestic violence, it will expand the capacity of early childhood programs to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It will put in $291 million, so that date rape kits, DNA kits, will not be backlogged, so that law enforcement will have resources, and so that prosecutors will have resources.

Candice cannot be brought back. And we introduced that bill at a time when no one wanted to see anything having to do with protecting us from guns. Now we have a statement that respects Candice's life by indicating that if you have been convicted, you need not have a gun around your family, it should be in a lockbox.

What more can we do to be fair and balanced and draw bipartisan support, even to the extent of joining with my friend from Texas to have a bill amendment that deals with female genital mutilation.

We have worked hard. This bill deserves 100 percent support of this Congress, because while we talk lives are being lost.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my friends to support the legislation that we are debating, H.R. 1585.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank Congresswoman Wagner for her continuing leadership. It has been a pleasure to work with her over the years in the House Committee on the Judiciary on the question of human trafficking and sex trafficking.

I am delighted to join this amendment, along with Congresswoman Maloney from New York. We have a long history of working on the issues of human trafficking and sex trafficking.

Madam Chair, the International Labor Organization estimates that there are 40.3 million victims of human trafficking. Twenty-five percent of them are children; 75 percent of them are women and girls.

It is a tragedy, but one out of seven endangered runaways reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were likely child sex trafficking victims. Of those, 88 percent were in the care of social services or foster care when they ran.

From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline has received 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside the United States; and, in 2017, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children indicated that children continue in 2017, again, to be sex trafficked. The International Labor Organization, again, estimates that there are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation.

What is necessary to know is that sex trafficking can be a revolving door. It is income that sex traffickers and human traffickers use.

I am very delighted to join with Congresswoman Wagner's amendment to this bill dealing with violence against women because it is an expanded bill that answers the concerns of so many.

I am glad that this amendment will ensure that the Creating Hope through Outreach, Options, Service, and Education for Children and Youth program, the CHOOSE Children and Youth program, can continue to be programs that address sex trafficking.

It is important to note, in particular, that it is answering the question of the gap in services in our States for young women who are at risk and who are struggling to restart their lives. We must ensure that, once these individuals have been victimized, sex trafficked, we do all we can to help them heal and recover.

I ask all Members to join in supporting this amendment, which emphasizes that sex trafficking is a part of our trying to stop and stomp out for good violence against women. I ask all Members to support the Wagner-Jackson Lee-Maloney amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Wagner/Jackson Lee/ Maloney Amendment to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.

The Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney makes an improvement to the bill by drawing attention to the lack of services for child sex trafficking services and which draws attention to groups like CHOOSE Children and Youth (Creating Hope through Outreach, Options, Service and Education for Children and Youth) for educating and preventing sex trafficking.

Madam Chair, while we live in the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world, in our nation we still see the prevalence of sex trafficking.

It is important that as we do this work before us today, we emphasize that sex trafficking is also a form of violence against women and children.

The Congress--this body--must work to ensure that services for sex trafficking victims are available.

The Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney Amendment addresses the gap in services in our state for young women who are risk and who are struggling to restart their lives.

Crime, and especially crimes falling within the umbrella of offenses addressed in VAWA are unconscionable and intolerable in a civilized society.

We must ensure that once these individuals have been victimized, we do all we can to help them heal and recover.

This Jackson Lee/Wagner/Maloney Amendment works towards that end.

I ask all members to support the Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney Amendment and I thank the gentlelady from Missouri for her work.

Notes on Sex Trafficking

Sex Trafficking is an extension of human trafficking

The International Labor Organization estimates that there

are 40.3 million victims of human trafficking globally.

81 percent of them are trapped in forced labor.

25 percent of them are children.

75 percent are women and girls.

The International Labor Organization estimates that forced

labor and human trafficking is a $150 billion industry

worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Labor has identified 148 goods from

75 countries made by forced and child labor.

In 2017, an estimated 1 out of 7 endangered runaways

reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children were likely child sex trafficking victims.

Of those, 88 percent were in the care of social services or

foster care when they ran.

There is no official estimate of the total number of human

trafficking victims in the U.S. Estimates indicate that the

total number of victims nationally reaches into the hundreds

of thousands when estimates of both adults and minors and sex

trafficking and labor trafficking are aggregated.

From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline

has received reports of 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside

the United States.

In 2017, the National Center for Missing & Exploited

Children estimated that 1 in 7 endangered runaways reported

to them were likely sex trafficking victims.

The International Labor Organization estimates that there

are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation

globally.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I am holding up this bill, H.R. 1585. We are very grateful for the many victims who, once this bill is passed, will be able to both be honored but also be protected.

At the same time, with the gentlewoman's help, we want to make sure

that sex trafficked victims are not left out of important historic legislation like H.R. 1585. With her amendment--and I am pleased to join it with Congresswoman Maloney--we are ensuring that sex trafficking and the victims of sex trafficking will be heard, their voices will be heard. More importantly, there will be resources and programs that will address their pain but also address their ability to restore their lives.

I ask my colleagues to support the Wagner-Jackson Lee-Maloney amendment to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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

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.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an additional 30 seconds.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1585.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, will not only reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, but will also strengthen and expand the act's critical programs.

VAWA's grant programs provide communities across America the crucial assistance they need to combat crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. H.R. 1585 builds on this foundation by enhancing the services available under these programs and by expanding their reach to include vulnerable populations who are victims of these crimes.

VAWA, which is not gender exclusive, addresses the needs of men and women, children, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and LGBTQ people, among others. Importantly, H.R. 1585 includes new protections for transgender individuals.

The range of individuals VAWA helps is broad and should be as diverse as our communities around the country. I am pleased that this reauthorization continues our commitment to this important principle.

This bill reauthorizes a wide variety of grant programs, including programs to help prosecute violent crimes against women and to provide services to sexual assault victims. It also strengthens various nondiscrimination provisions, provides greater protections for survivors during the prosecution of perpetrators, expands services for older survivors of abuse, authorizes programs specifically targeted toward rural areas, strengthens protections against gun violence in domestic abuse situations, and expands the jurisdiction of some Tribal authorities over non-Indians who commit certain crimes on Tribal lands.

I want to thank Ms. Bass, the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the sponsor of this legislation, for her outstanding leadership in the effort to reauthorize VAWA.

I also want to thank Ms. Jackson Lee for her longstanding and tireless efforts over the years to protect and strengthen the act.

Thanks to their efforts and the efforts of many others, this bill will not only continue the progress enabled by VAWA as originally enacted, but it will also make the act an even more effective tool in addressing the horrible scourge of domestic violence.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2019.

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pallone: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

1585, the ``Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of

2019.''

I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this

legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions

that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce. I acknowledge that your Committee will not

formally consider H.R. 1585 and agree that the inaction of

your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any

future jurisdictional claim over the matters contained in

H.R. 1585 which fall within your Committee's Rule X

jurisdiction.

I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the

bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this

legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you

as this measure moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the vice-chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a co-chair of the Bipartisan Women's Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, every year approximately 7.9 million women are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. An average of three women are killed every day by a current or former intimate partner.

These grim statistics underscore the crucial need for us to act without delay to reauthorize VAWA and to enhance and expand the act so that it is even more effective than it has proven to be in the past.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 is comprehensive and inclusive legislation that I hope will earn bipartisan support in the long tradition of this important law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this critical legislation today.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, which would require the preparation of a GAO report on the return on investment for legal assistance grants for victims.

Studies show that the efficiency of the legal system improves whenever victims receive assistance by legal professionals. This amendment would provide a vehicle to help us assess the effectiveness and ramifications of providing legal assistance for victims, particularly in the areas of housing, medical needs, and employment social welfare programs.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I support this amendment, which would direct the preparation of a report on the status of women in Federal incarceration. The amendment would also direct the Attorney General to work on a model of gender- responsive transition for incarcerated women, including the development of a national standard on prevention with respect to domestic and sexual violence.

According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, very little current data exists on the status of incarcerated women in Federal custody. This amendment will allow us to better respond to the needs of incarcerated women, and it will provide us with vitally important data, for oversight purposes.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment to improve the reporting requirements for States and localities that receive funding under the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

As we all know, because of the increased awareness of the potential for DNA evidence to help solve criminal cases, the demand for DNA testing continues to grow nationwide. Crime laboratories now process more DNA than ever before. In recognition of this, H.R. 1585 reauthorizes the Debbie Smith Act, which I helped to originate.

This amendment directs States and localities to report information to the Attorney General on best practices for reducing the backlog of DNA evidence. The emphasis on best practices is a good one, as it will help ensure that the backlog is cleared in as expeditious and efficient a manner as possible.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment which expands the types of grants that can be funded to combat violent crimes on college campuses.

Evidence-based research on the neurobiology of trauma has shown the effectiveness of using victim-centered, trauma-informed interview techniques when investigating allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking.

This amendment seeks to ensure that campus personnel who investigate these types of cases are trained in up-to-date, research-based methods for interviewing victims and handling cases in a sensitive manner.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment because it improves and enhances the special Tribal criminal jurisdiction pilot project created by VAWA in 2013 specifically to benefit Alaska Natives.

For over 5 years, the special Tribal criminal jurisdiction has given qualifying Tribes across the United States the authority to prosecute non-Tribal members for certain offenses.

This year's reauthorization of VAWA would extend that jurisdiction to more crimes, including dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Tribes across the country have been effectively exercising their authority under VAWA and keeping their communities safe. This amendment would ensure that Alaska Native villages that qualify are also able to exercise this type of jurisdiction. It is only fair that they be allowed to do so.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I support this bipartisan amendment, which would ensure that entities focused on addressing sex trafficking maintain eligibility for CHOOSE grants.

We know that sex trafficking is a serious problem in the United States. At this time, CHOOSE grants are available for the purpose of enhancing the safety of youth and children who are victims of or exposed to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or sex trafficking, and for preventing future violence.

This amendment ensures that we continue to provide critical funding to address sex trafficking in our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, which would make entities found by the Attorney General to have fraudulently misused VAWA grant funds ineligible to apply for future grants for up to 5 years.

This amendment tries to guard against the potential misuse of grant funds, but it does so in a way that safeguards due process, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing.

Any misuse of funds that does not rise to the level of fraud, or that is merely an error, is insufficient to make a grantee ineligible for funds and only places a temporary, but sufficiently lengthy, ban on receipt of funding.

Because this is a commonsense measure, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Chair, I support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I believe the intent of this legislation is commendable, and many of the programs it authorizes are critical.

This is a bill that should be and should have broad bipartisan support. It is a bill that should transcend the political games which we see too often in Washington, and we should approach it methodically and wholistically.

Unfortunately, instead of good faith collaboration, my colleagues across the aisle have doubled down on partisan politics at the expense of good policy. They have sought, at every turn, to make this bill into a political weapon rather than a critical resource for victims and tools to support law enforcement.

I tried to meet with my Democratic colleagues to negotiate a meaningful reauthorization of VAWA. We tried to engage with other Members in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, although our efforts were rebuffed, and we were handed the flawed bill that is before us today. My colleagues across the aisle informed us H.R. 1585 would be the bill. This is particularly unfortunate because this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.

There are areas where both sides can agree, areas where we can strengthen existing law. Instead of seeking out those areas and negotiating in good faith, they have decided a highly partisan bill with zero chance of moving forward in the Senate was the best way to approach reauthorizing crucial VAWA programs.

Remember, Republicans tried to add a short-term extension of VAWA to the funding bill in February when Congresswoman Lesko offered it as a previous question. Democrats blocked this attempt and refused to include a short-term extension to allow time for meaningful negotiations to take place.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I want to find a solution that helps victims, prevents domestic violence, and strengthens programs that serve vulnerable populations. We stand willing and ready to discuss ways to do that.

But I cannot and will not support a bill that undermines and jeopardizes due process; that curtails prosecutorial discretion; that makes it more difficult for victims in rural areas to find housing; that could weaken programs for female victims; that could re-victimize abused women; and that undercuts the Second Amendment rights.

This bill contains a large expansion of unemployment insurance benefits, which amounts to a new tax on employers. This bill continues to expand the focus of programs past women and children; and this bill fails to provide a faith-based exemption for grant recipients, which could jeopardize these organizations' ability to provide services for victims.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation was referred to seven committees. The bill was rushed to markup at the Judiciary Committee, but at least Judiciary actually had a markup. Even though the rushed markup ended in a party-line vote, that markup is far more than the Democrats gave the other committees of jurisdiction.

The Ways and Means Committee is the committee with expertise in unemployment insurance benefits, but if you are on that committee, Democrats denied you the chance to weigh in on that issue at committee, and Americans didn't get to benefit from your expertise there.

The Financial Services Committee is the committee with expertise on housing issues. But if you are on that committee, you were shut down as well; this bill moving ahead without the benefit of your consideration.

Democrats also denied the Natural Resources, Education and Labor, Veterans' Affairs, and Energy and Commerce Committees the chance to weigh in on a bill with provisions that sit squarely within their jurisdiction.

I want to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I want to do it in a way that meets the fundamental goals and intent of the original law, and I want to recognize changes that need to be addressed.

Simply put, I want to find a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that Democrats shunned when they rushed this bill to the floor. This bill could actually put women at greater risk in some of the programs it authorizes, and it is not a solution that I can support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, really, in closing, I would just reiterate the points that I have made.

We are looking forward to a bipartisan, bicameral bill that we do believe will come back eventually. The Senate has said this.

There are many things, and I think the distinguished majority leader made it very clear. I think it was interesting that he said, why did this become a bill that was not--it should be as bipartisan as it should be. I think it is because of stuff that we did not talk about that had been added into this, which makes it much larger than what the bill actually should be about, and focused on those areas.

We can disagree about a lot of things, but I think, in this one, all of us want to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act is reauthorized in a way that does promote the very ideals of the original law, and we would continue to do that.

We look forward to a day in which this body can debate that bill. At this time, we cannot, because this bill does not feel like many of our Members may vote for it. They may vote against. But I think, at the end of the day, there will be a better product coming. I am looking forward to that.

I appreciate the hard work by both sides, but I do believe there is a better outcome and alternative, a bipartisan, bicameral bill in the future.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend from New York. I have no problem with his amendment. It is already a current, existing order, introduced by President Clinton, and it is also under DOJ guidance. This is currently happening, and I think his wanting to continue this, to put it in this bill, I would have no problem with.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance my time.

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, again, I am not opposed to the amendment. I appreciate some of the comments by the gentlewoman from Texas.

Several of these were actually in the FIRST STEP Act, which we passed last year, on criminal justice reform. I am glad to see that they are still being discussed.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I do claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I understand the gentlewoman's concern here, and I appreciate that concern.

A bigger concern I have here is concerning the trend of handling responsibilities on campus and giving those--in a criminal matter and putting them into campus personnel rather than law enforcement. My concern is that these are crimes and they need to be treated as crimes.

We need to do everything we possibly can to treat those victims and give them as much support and help as we possibly can, but I don't want to give in to the implication that this should be treated as anything other than a crime, and law enforcement personnel should be involved in all stages.

I have seen a concerning trend across the country in trying to treat these differently or even adding in a layer of investigation. This needs to be treated as a crime.

I understand the gentlewoman's concern here, and expanding this grant program could result from others in reducing resources that are available for prosecution. So I understand the gentlewoman's concern. I just would oppose this for those reasons and no more that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern; but, also, I do understand this issue, as someone who has been in the legal community, been a counselor, also a chaplain in the Air Force who has had to deal with sexual assault issues, and also served on the local board of Rape Response.

I do get these issues. I don't disagree with the gentlewoman that there are concerns here, that we do need to be sensitive and we do need to do this.

My concern lies simply in the fact that we need to put this funding and these resources not to a bifurcated process, but we also need to continue to make sure that this goes to law enforcement, because someone who mistreats and someone who is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking--it is a crime, and it needs to be treated as that.

We need to make sure our law enforcement personnel can have better resources and better access so that the victims can be taken care of and the perpetrators can be locked up. That is my concern here, not that I don't understand what the victims may be going through.

Although I have never personally been a victim, I have counseled on many occasions people who have been victims. So, I would just caution, so we understand the differences in our opinions, why someone may hold an opinion. And mine was simply from a law enforcement perspective, not that I was ignoring or ambivalent toward the feelings of those who have been victimized.

Madam Chair, I would just oppose this for those reasons and nothing more, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although at this point I am not necessarily opposed.

Madam Chair, I do think it is interesting, for a sovereign government, the expansion should come out of the funds here is the only concern I would have on this, but other than that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining?

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.

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.

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.

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