Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I am proceeding under the assumption that we will conclude this pretty…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I am proceeding under the assumption that we will conclude this pretty rapidly.
Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through a rushed and closed process, all in an obvious attempt to throw red meat to their base. Let's not parse words. This is an ill-thought-out bill trying to score cheap political points with the Republican base.
Mr. Speaker, this bill takes up no small feat. It attempts to utterly redefine what is meant by ``crime of violence'' in our criminal code. Our need to revisit the definition is due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court has now twice held that what is known as the residual clause under this particular area of our criminal code is unconstitutional because it is so broad it violates a person's constitutional right to due process.
Such a reality does not invite this body's attention, but demands it. However, with that demand comes a great responsibility, a responsibility to take the time necessary to do it right; a responsibility to ensure that members of the committee of jurisdiction, and other Members of Congress, are consulted; a responsibility to ensure that
we hear from public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and criminal justice and immigration reform experts, for this bill touches upon all of these areas, and not one person, let alone an expert, has been consulted in the drafting of this bill, at least not in the light of day.
Ostensibly, this bill was dropped to address the Supreme Court decisions just noted, the most recent of which was handed down in April of this year. I presume the composition of the bill was started soon after the Court dropped its decision, and, therefore, the author had from that time until last Friday to prepare today's bill. I think it only fair, then, that we have a similar amount of time to consider such an important matter.
Of course, I know that is not going to happen. No, instead, my friends across the aisle have, once again, insisted on engaging in fly- by-night legislating and, in so doing, shutting out not only Democrats but Republicans, and not only Democrats and Republicans, but the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 96th closed rule of this session, and that is record-breaking in and of itself. That means that Members don't have an opportunity to have input to substantive legislation, and somehow or another, with no hearings, or any markup or anything, a measure like this is before us.
While home for the district work period, my constituents didn't talk to me about replacing the definition of a ``crime of violence'' in the Federal criminal code. They did talk to me about a number of circumstances, but they didn't talk to me about liquefied natural gas, one of the other bills the House is going to consider this week.
On the other hand, they did ask about what Congress is going to do to address the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country, including, regrettably, today, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
They asked about what Congress is doing to ensure that DACA, the Dream recipients, and temporary protected status holders have a pathway to citizenship, and they asked what Congress is going to do to address the Nation's need for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure.
And high among the things that I heard from my constituents was about the cost of drugs and the rising cost of insurance.
Let us also include with those very important issues, including today, there are nine legislative days until the government runs out of money. I had representatives from the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers visit me an hour and a half ago explaining to me what a government shutdown would do to that particular agency.
We once again are forced to stare down the very real possibility of another government shutdown. And what are my friends across the aisle doing to thwart that inevitability? Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, we have some serious issues to tackle, and so I am discouraged to be on the floor today focusing on yet another messaging bill. I call on my Republican friends to put their perplexing fear of governing aside in the final days before we leave Washington, so that we may get to the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We were supposed to have a speaker speak to the previous question, and she may not be here to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, I heard my colleague, Mr. Buck, discuss how one of the root causes of rising crime in this country is our broken education system.
And now I will say to the gentleman that Ms. Bonamici has arrived, and like him, she was just a little bit delayed. So she will speak to this issue once I finish my comments, and then that will be our only speaker, I would urge my friend.
I also would like to say, it is not often in this body that Members say that they made a mistake. In an exchange last night in dialogue with my friend from Colorado, he commented that Florida's violent crime had gone down, and I mistakenly said to him that he was in error.
He was correct. It has gone down. I indicated to him last night that I would speak with him more about it. And there are some particulars that I will share with him, not so much in this particular setting, but I will get a chance to talk to him. There are some things where crime did go up, and Florida still ranks fifth in the Nation in violent crime, but I do want to say to him that I was mistaken when I spoke last evening.
Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado about education, and I believe every Member of this House is concerned about the education of our children in this country. We are failing our younger generations. We need to make monumental strides in this country to better our education system, and I believe that starts with childcare.
And I always make a caveat there, because when I am asked about education at home, and my opponent brought it up often in the election that I was involved in, and I constantly reminded her that the Federal Government only provides less than 7 percent of the budgets of our local communities. So this is largely a matter where we talk a lot up here, but the local communities are where the rubber hits the road.
We need to make these strides because of the problems that we are seeing. We obviously need more pre-K, we obviously need more Head Start, but in the past decade, the cost of childcare has increased by 25 percent. In 33 States and the District of Columbia, infant care costs exceed the average cost of a 4-year in-state college tuition. This is a huge financial burden that is only worsening.
Mr. Speaker, families need access to a system that provides high quality, affordable early learning and care that will prepare children for success without breaking the bank.
That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member Scott's bill, H.R. 3773, the Child Care for Working Families Act. This bill will establish a new Federal-State partnership to provide high quality, affordable childcare from birth through age 13.
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, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the committees of jurisdiction hold hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in the field are consulted, in a manner where members of both parties have an opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bills that come before this body.
None of that happened with today's bill.
Instead, for reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on a bill that no person in this body had sufficient time to understand, let alone time to consider the far-reaching consequences it could have on people living in this country and on our Constitution. The fact that Republican leadership insists on governing in such a manner is, as always, as disappointing as, in my opinion, it is shameful.
Now, listen: 96 closed rules. I am fond of talking about when I first ran for Congress in 1992, the then leadership of the Republican Party did an effective job saying to the American public that the then leadership of the Democrats were having closed rules and closing out the process.
Newt Gingrich was the person that was the author of that, in many respects in retrospect, brilliant strategy. That was one of the tenets that he put forward, that it was not right for Democrats to have as many closed rules as they had at that time. I don't remember the exact number, it was a number, but it didn't come close to 96. And now, if we flip the script, what we have is 96 closed rules.
I serve on that Rules Committee with my friend from Colorado. And repeatedly, you look around this room, on an ordinary, regular order process, we would have at least five or six speakers on either side to substantive legislation, or we would have had an opportunity for Members to offer amendments that could have been considered in a germane or non-germane manner to be able to come out here on the floor.
The American people are being shut out, not just Republicans and Democrats. It is not right, and we shouldn't go forward that way.
I promise you that we are doing a disservice when we do not allow for measures of this consequence. We don't know what the outcome of this is going to be.
I can't disagree with a thing my friend from Colorado said with reference to the measure and the clarification that is needed after the two Supreme Court decisions, but please know this: the proper way to do that would have been for the committee of jurisdiction to hold hearings and then to have a markup and then come to the Rules Committee. But what we saw was, bam, right straight to the Rules Committee, no hearings, no markup, no experts, no prosecutors, no public defenders, no input, and the public not having an opportunity to participate. It is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.