Floor Statements

I am so happy to be able to speak affirmatively about this legislation. I'm really impressed with the storied history of the Lions and their dynamic history, where they serve in more than 200 countries and geographic areas. I am particularly struck by their service and stewardship to our young people across the world, and I'm so proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I would urge all Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House Tuesday afternoon (July 31). My flight was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington from Milwaukee, WI due to bad weather.

Had I been present--

(1) I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 537--S. 679-- Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

(2) I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 538--H.R. 828--Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2011, as amended.

(3) I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 539--H.R. 3803-- District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Thank you, Mr. Doggett. I am so pleased to join you here today to support this motion to instruct.

I was, of course, one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which provides the authority for the Treasury to take action against foreign governments and financial institutions that significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement. Treasury already has similar authority to combat money laundering, so the infrastructure and the know-how already exist.

Congress has an opportunity in this transportation bill to transport this very important debt reduction initiative into our proceedings here today. It will stop sophisticated tax avoidance schemes that add to the national debt and ultimately the burden for that debt that honest taxpayers must bear and are concerned with.

In my home State of Wisconsin, it's estimated that every single honest taxpayer in Wisconsin paid an extra $372 in taxes in 2011 to make up from the revenue lost from corporations, criminals, and wealthy individuals utilizing illegal tax-avoidance schemes. These numbers are even more offensive for Wisconsin small businesses that pay an additional $2,165 due to these abuses of the Tax Code.

That may not seem like a lot of money to anyone--$372--but you multiply that by taxpayers and by 50 States, and according to a GAO study, that turns out to be $100 billion. That's a really nice piece of change.

I have heard this Congress often harp on the percentages and the numbers of United States taxpayers who are so very low income that they have no tax liability, people who make $10,000, $11,000 a year, and are so poor that they have no tax liability. Yet 83 of 100 publicly traded companies have one of these offshore tax havens and avoid $100 billion in tax payments. Compare that with someone trying to get an earned income tax credit.

I've heard from Republicans that this is not germane to the bill. I hope you'll remember that when you put some gun provision in every bill that comes around or some effort to minimize and take away a woman's right to reproductive health in one of your bills, which uses transportation for all of those kind of initiatives.

This is an opportunity to act on the deficit--$100 billion is not small change--and to stand up for taxpayers. It is not spending, as the gentleman has indicated that it is. All it is is not levying a new tax. It's not spending; it's not imposing additional burdens. It just empowers our Treasury to stop tax-avoidance schemes.

Again, thank you so much for this opportunity. I hope my colleagues will stand up for honest taxpayers and support this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to restore $3 million to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. This amendment would simply level fund this account at the fiscal year 2012 level.

Mr. Chairman, it troubles me to see the continued rollout of Secure Communities and increase in funding for these 287(g) programs in the underlying bill, especially juxtaposed with a 13 percent decrease in funding for the office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Experts and officials across the country have concerns about these programs that shift Federal immigration laws into the hands of local police.

I have a letter from 88 civil rights organizations urging the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ``end its facilitation of the fundamentally flawed Secure Communities deportation program.'' The letter states:

Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy

because it threatens public safety, encourages racial

profiling, undermines community policing, and serves as a

deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into

police custody.

As cochair of the Women's Caucus, I am particularly concerned when I hear stories of the effects this program has on victims across our communities. Women and their children are increasingly afraid to go to local police to get confidential help, to call 911 during an emergency because they are terrified of being caught in this dragnet.

For many, suffering through an abusive situation is better than watching their families being torn apart. Mr. Chairman, these are real people who are victims or witnesses to domestic violence or other crimes, but they cannot come forward.

According to an October 2011 report by the UC Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute, more than one-third of individuals arrested in this program report that they have a U.S. citizen spouse or child. In other words, an estimated 88,000 families with U.S. citizen members have been impacted by Secure Communities. The same report found that Latinos comprise 93 percent of the individuals arrested in this program, despite only compromising 77 percent of the population.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is not the America we want to create. We should all be able to agree that we don't want to see an America where victims are afraid of the police or an America where racial profiling is encouraged or tolerated.

Now, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that increasing enforcement policies is the right approach to solve our broken immigration system. With that being said, I appeal to my colleagues to support efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to ensure adequate oversight of this program.

Steps that the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties have taken and will take to:

Analyze arrest data to make sure that there are no serious indications of racial profiling in any of the participating communities;

Help improve training for local law enforcement officers to reduce confusion and ensure that there are clear guidelines to prevent misuse of the program;

To inform the public about options they have and recourses they can use if their civil liberties are violated by department action; and, finally,

To help investigate and resolve cases where an individual alleges that their rights were violated.

I support these important efforts towards promoting accountability and oversight over these enforcement programs, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is fully offset, as is required of this appropriations process, and it is not an increase in this program, but it simply level funds it at 2012 levels.

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

March 8, 2012.

R. Scott Trent,

CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information

Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Trent: We, the undersigned, call on the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to end its facilitation of the

fundamentally flawed Secure Communities deportation program.

We urge the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services

Advisory Policy Board (APB) to adopt the attached proposal to

mitigate the damage this program has done to public safety

and community policing. The proposal would respect the wishes

of states and localities that chose not to participate in

``Secure Communities'' and would prevent the implementation

of the program in jurisdictions with a documented pattern of

civil rights abuses.

Secure Communities is a wide-sweeping deportation program

launched in 2008 by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement

agency. It has been sharply criticized by the governors and

state legislators of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts;

local officials from numerous cities and counties, including

the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San

Francisco; dozens of Congressional representatives; many

prominent law enforcement officials; hundreds of immigrant

rights, criminal justice, and privacy advocates; religious

leaders; and community members.

As described in more detail in the attached proposal,

Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy because

it threatens public safety, encourages racial profiling,

undermines community policing, and serves

as a deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into

police custody.

The FBI plays a large role in Secure Communities by

automatically initiating the immigration background check

that sets the deportation process in motion for anyone booked

into police custody. The CJIS APB approved this process

almost two years ago, well before the problems caused by

Secure Communities came to light. It is urgent that in the

upcoming August 2012 meeting, the APB Working Groups consider

the newly disclosed information regarding the fatal flaws in

this program, and adopt the attached proposal to mitigate the

damage.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact

Jessica Karp at 213 380 2214 or [email protected] with any

questions or information about the status of this request.

Sincerely,

Alliance for a Just Society; American Friends Service

Committee; Angels For Action; Asian American Legal

Defense and Education Fund; Asian Law Caucus; Bill of

Rights Defense Committee; Black Alliance for Just

Immigration; Blauvelt Dominican Sisters Social Justice

Committee; Bronx Defenders; CAAAV Organizing Asian

Communities; Casa Esperanza; Casa Freehold; CATA The

Farmworker's Support Committee; Center for

Constitutional Rights; Central American Refugee

Center--New York; Central American Resource Center--

Houston; CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

of Los Angeles; Coalicion de Organizaciones Latino-

Americanas (COLA); Community Service Organization;

Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and

Responsibility; Defending Dissent Foundation; Detention

Watch Network; Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug

Policy Alliance.

El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas;

Franciscan Action Network; Grassroots Leadership;

Graton Day Labor Center; Hayward Day Labor Center;

Hispanic Resource Center of Mamaroneck; Houston's

America for All; Houston Peace and Justice Center;

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;

Immigrant Defense Project; Immigrant Legal Resource

Center; Immigration Circle of Justice, Sisters of St.

Dominic, Blauvelt, NY; Immigration Justice Clinic of

John Jay Legal Services, Inc.; inMotion; IRATE & First

Friends; Ironbound Community Corporation; Junta for

Progressive Action; Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration

Justice Clinic, Cardozo School of Law; Labor Council

For Latin American Advancement Central Florida Chapter;

Labor Justice Committee; Latino Foundation; Legal Aid

Justice Center's Immigrant Advocacy Program; Make the

Road by Walking New York; Massachusetts Immigrant and

Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

Mennonite Central Committee East Coast; Mennonite Central

Committee U.S. Washington Office; Muslim Legal Fund of

America; National Day Labor Organizing Network;

National Employment Law Project; National Guestworker

Alliance; National Immigration Law Center; National

Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild;

National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;

Neighbors in Support of Immigrants; New Orleans Workers

Center for Racial Justice; New Sanctuary Coalition NYC;

New York Immigration Coalition; Passaic County

Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Presente.org; Prison

Activist Resource Center; Progressive Leadership

Alliance of Nevada; Progressive States Network; Pueblo

Sin Fronteras; Puente Arizona; Queer Women of Color

Media Arts Project (QWOCMAP); Rights Working Group;

Rockland immigration coalition; Restaurant

Opportunities Center of New York; Services, Immigrant

Rights & Education Network; South Asian Americans

Leading Together (SAALT); Tenants and Workers United;

The Reformed Church of Highland Park Immigration

Committee; The Workplace Project; United Methodist

Church, General Board of Church and Society;

VivirLatino; Voces de la Frontera; Voces Unidas Por los

Inmigrantes; WeCount!; Welcome Everybody Organization;

Wind of the Spirit, Immigrant Resource Center, NJ;

Workers Defense Project; Young Workers United.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, ma'am, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, if the final amendment that I'm offering here today were to be adopted, is it not the case that the bill will be amended and that the House will then proceed to final passage right away?

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit simply clarifies that the preservation of confidentiality to protect the victims' identity to avoid retaliation and even loss of life shall not be weakened as compared to current law.

We have debated the need to expand this bill beyond what the author has put in. We have lost that debate because the Rules Committee has put forth a closed rule, and we do not have the opportunity to present the Senate version of the bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate 68 31. So we have lost that battle for the Violence Against Women Act to include all women.

In this motion, we are simply trying to reestablish one little sliver--one little piece--in this bill that we are hoping the majority will recognize will greatly enhance the safety of all women. This motion simply protects the victim's identity to avoid retaliation and even the loss of life, and it makes sure it is not weakened as compared to current law. Now, we are going to be told that the manager's amendment does that, but it does not.

Under current law, abused women are able to seek help and come forward to authorities under the condition of confidentiality; but H.R. 4970, as amended, does a couple of things. For example, it delays the protection of battered victims by staying adjudications before pending investigations or prosecutions are completed. It creates a negative inference against the victim if law enforcement does not open a formal investigation or if prosecutors fail to prosecute the perpetrator. I can tell you that, notwithstanding the due process rights of abusers, current law provides a very delicate balance between the due process rights of abusers and the confidentiality of those accusers.

The fact that the bill was amended in this way restimulates me to remember

an incident in my own life when the balance of rights was tipped in favor of the abuser. I am reminded of a time when I got into an automobile, with a man whom I thought to be a personal friend, to go get some fried chicken. He pulled in behind some vacant buildings, and he raped me and choked me almost to death. When I went to the hospital, I was encouraged by an advocate--this was in the 1970s, long before there was a Violence Against Women Act, long before there was a Rape Shield Act--to take him to court.

Indeed, I was on trial because, like this bill--and just like what I experienced--I had to prove as a victim that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. Oh, they brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed, and they carried me through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops. Ultimately, he was found to be not guilty; although, I had done everything that I was told to do in terms of prosecuting this. I cannot stress the solemn nature of this issue.

It doesn't surprise me that she had the cell phone in her hand but that she lost her life because she couldn't escape this man. It doesn't surprise me that she was shot four times behind the police station. The most dangerous time for a woman is when she is trying to escape her perpetrator, when she is trying to do something about it, when she is trying to turn her life around, hers and her children's.

When the perpetrator is given the tools that this bill gives him to have an abuser's rights prevail over the rights of the victim's, she will have the cell phone in her hand, but she will lose her life anyway because she cannot escape this man. The manager's amendment does not fix this. We have heard from 325 groups and organizations that oppose this bill and say that the manager's amendment does not fix it, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

It's important that the American people know the truth about this sequestration replacement bill. And no matter how many times we hear that this package is going to cut welfare programs or socialist programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, things that we call the safety net, all for the sake of reserving every last dime of military spending, ignoring the opportunity to rout out waste, fraud, and peace dividends, it doesn't add up.

The math I was taught is that what you do to one side of an equation, you have to do to the other side of the equation for it to balance out. You can't just subtract from the social safety net--Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, cut the Social Services Block Grant, stop the Wall Street bailouts; you can't just add more tax cuts for the wealthiest, add more defense spending, maintain oil subsidies, maintain expensive corporate farm subsidies and say that that's a balanced approach.

I have very limited time, but I want to say to Americans: It don't add up. This dog doesn't hunt. You can't just cut the social safety net and add billions of dollars of corporate welfare and say that that's a balanced equation. It doesn't support simple math.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please see this request through the eyes of a child who was assaulted by a family member and comes forward at school to confide in a beloved teacher; the woman in an isolated rural area, where local law enforcement is under- resourced and transportation or legal services may be lacking or nonexistent; the women on college campuses, where rates of intimate partner violence are among the highest. Please, Mr. Speaker, see this through the eyes of victims with disabilities who are at high risk of abuse and are often dependent on their abusers for care.

In short, this VAWA funding means that a woman--and even men--who have been victimized can step out of the shadows away from their abusers and get access to counseling, legal services, or other services. And, Mr. Speaker, every single day, for three women, this VAWA funding is a difference between life and death.

It is so true that the CJS legislation before us has provided the requested level of support for victims and their families; but it's been chronically underfunded since the day they opened their doors, and there are thousands of men, women, and children who are not being served.

Please, this is an opportunity to provide a small increase to fill the gap between available resources and the desperate need to serve folks. We must commit adequate resources toward these effective, lifesaving programs. And, Mr. Speaker, we must do it now.

I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I come humbly to the well today, under the ``E Pluribus Unum,'' to ask that there be swift bipartisan action in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA's authorization, of course, lapsed at the end of the last fiscal year, on September 30, 2011.

Unfortunately, for every day that passes by, women pay the price. The annual National Census of Domestic Violence Services--a daily snapshot taken every year by the National Network to End Domestic Violence-- found that in one 24-hour period in the United States, over 67,000 victims were served through emergency shelters, transitional housing, counseling, legal advocacy, and more. Over 22,000 hotline phone calls were answered and over 26,000 people participated in domestic violence prevention and education training.

For all these people who are served, unfortunately, in the same 24- hour period, there are nearly 11,000 unmet requests for services because these programs neither have the resources to help these victims nor the authorizations based on best practices on how we need to change VAWA in order to meet the needs of women.

Our colleagues across the Capitol in the Senate are on the cusp of passing a bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill that contains these provisions to strengthen our ability to combat not only domestic violence, but also sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. And I'm so proud to say that right here on this floor, 1 month ago, I introduced a companion bill to the Senate legislation that contains these badly needed updates to reflect the input of numerous stakeholders and lays a path forward for VAWA.

The vision is to protect all victims, no matter what their gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or whether or not they reside in sovereign territories or in States. These updates have garnered criticism from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that offer fundamental, simple rights that ought to be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

For example, this bill would recognize the tribes' authority to prosecute non-Indians or Indians who abuse their American Indian spouses or dating partners on tribal lands. Fifty-two percent of women who are beaten, battered, raped, or stalked on tribal lands are not prosecuted because tribes have no authority. And on tribal lands, there is no follow-up and no prosecution.

The bill would also provide equal opportunity for areas that are in traditionally underserved areas, including those who have barriers because of their religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. It's absurd to say that because you are a homosexual that you don't deserve protection from being beaten, stalked, or raped. And, of course, the Hippocratic Oath would have us scoop up a person who may be lying in the street, hit by a truck. We don't ask people for their immigration papers in order to intervene in a lifesaving intervention. Why would we demand this of immigrant women?

We have got to ensure a more comprehensive response to the continuing problem of enforcement, reporting, and services for victims of sexual assault.

In spite of the strides we have made toward a new and improved VAWA, just yesterday the House Republicans put their so-called ``clean'' reauthorization bill on the floor. Let me tell you this: it's clean, perhaps, because we don't want to sully our hands dealing with the beaten, stalked, murdered, and bullied butch-batterers, because we don't want to deal with homosexuality. We want clean reauthorization, a sleight of hand that keeps immigrant women in the shadows and keeps their pain and their battery and their victimization in the shadows and makes them invisible. We're actually sanctioning the abuse that occurs on tribal lands and providing a sanctuary for assailants who commit these crimes on

native lands by not providing this authority to tribal nations.

I urge my Republican colleagues to work together with House Democrats to craft a truly bipartisan update of VAWA.

Mr. Speaker, I was so happy this week when I learned from our Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, that the Republicans are now prepared to realize that women are a very important part of the economy. And that is why I'm wondering why Romney has embraced the Republican budget which would fix Medicare by cutting out $30 billion in 10 years when 56 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are women, and the oldest of old, 85 and older, 70 percent are women. Two-thirds of Medicaid recipients who are adults are women; and of the SNAP program--formerly known as food stamps--cut of $134 billion, of the adult recipients, two-thirds of them are women.

So, in an environment where he claims that 92, 93 percent of all job losses have occurred among women, why would we snatch the safety net out

from under women with this cruel Republican budget?

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 614 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 likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 4089.

But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress had adopted such concurrent resolution.''

Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed H. Con. Res. 112?

Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as I have construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress, which would include the Senate, had adopted such concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate.

So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican budget, which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the entitlement under Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134 billion over 10 years, that we could be deeming this to be passed.

I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of ``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your lack of clarity.

I raise this point of order because it's important to uncover whether or not the underlying rule for this Natural Resources bill--it's a Natural Resources bill--also deems the Republican budget plan to end Medicare as we know it, slash funding for SNAP.

When it comes to the Republican budget, my Democratic colleagues are most definitely not asleep at the wheel. And we want to take this moment to shed light on what's going on here.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of that prestigious committee, the House Committee on the Budget, and a long-time advocate for sound budgetary policy. I recognize the importance of tackling our deficit and debt head-on, carefully balancing both the spending and revenue-raising sides of our ledger.

But House Republicans, led by my dear colleague from Wisconsin, have put out a budget that is neither sound nor balanced. This budget finds a jaw-dropping 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve the most vulnerable of our society, the poor, and I might add in the most vulnerable, women and children, since we've just recently established in this last week that women were very important in our economy.

In addition to the sheer magnitude of these raw numbers, I want to make it clear that the Republican budget contains major departures from current policy. This budget heralds welfare reform as a vital victory and plots the next chapter of so-called ``reforms'' for other areas of the safety net.

Our core programs are not spared by this budgetary trick. This budget takes an aim at Medicare. We're told that by stripping Medicare of its entitled status, cutting $30 billion out of Medicare, that we're going to save it. We're going to save Medicare by subtracting $30 billion. That's not the kind of math I learned at North Division High.

And we're going to set seniors adrift in the private market. Now, this budget does nothing to cut the cost of health care in the private market. It only passes those costs on to seniors.

The cuts to the SNAP program have not gotten as much attention as the Medicare cuts, even though they are cause for collective alarm. As we know, over half of our citizens in the United States, working people, many of them, found themselves with no other income. They had no job. We played phony baloney with the unemployment insurance. They had nothing except SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

And so they had no other income other than the food stamp program,

SNAP, but yet we're going to cut $134 million out of this program and convert it again to a block grant and handcuff SNAP's ability to respond to its increased need.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask you how much time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and neighbor from the great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

I reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear what the opponents to my point of order have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would yield to a question.

I would yield my time for the purpose of your answering my question.

The Speaker has declined to answer my parliamentary query and said that that would be settled during the debate. So is it your understanding that passage of this resolution will or will not deem the Republican budget to have been passed in all of the Congress?

I yield to the gentleman.

No, no, no. He said it would be determined during debate.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time from the point at which I said I was reclaiming my time. And I ask that he be taxed for that extra time because he already gave me his answer--that, yes, it would be deemed to be passed.

I just want to remind people, in this week when we have learned how important it is to have a stable, good budget for women, that this program slashes funding for Medicaid--two-thirds of adults are women who depend on it. It slashes Medicare--two-thirds of the recipients are women. And 85 percent of Medicare recipients that are older than 85 depend on it.

It cuts support for key programs like childcare, which are important to women, and job training. It cuts core programs like food stamps. Our Presidential candidate said that 93 percent of women lost jobs during the recession. Why would we want to take away the safety net of food stamps when women put food on the table every day trying to feed their babies?

Mr. Speaker, this program--which will be deemed to be passed--needs more review, and I would ask you to find my point of order in order.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman for a vigorous debate--at least on my part--and I would ask my colleagues to take a closer look.

This is the Congress of the United States of America. We are supposed to do things very carefully. This is the budget that we're setting out, the moral document for how this country is to be run, and we should not be deeming it as passed, as this resolution calls for.

I would ask all my colleagues to support my point of order and ask them to vote against this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. for 100 years of service in the great State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Community Services, Inc., or WCS, was founded in 1912 as the ``Society for the Friendless'' and is the largest and oldest non-profit criminal justice organization in the State of Wisconsin.

WCS' original mission has remained constant from its inception to present day: to assist people who were incarcerated; to assist the families left behind; and ``to advocate for justice and community safety by providing innovative opportunities for individuals to overcome adversity.'' During its 100-year history, WCS has helped to increase public safety and strengthen communities by giving disenfranchised residents the tools and support they need to be healthy, law-abiding, and productive.

I applaud WCS for offering alternatives that have resulted in lower recidivism rates compared to incarceration, thereby providing significant savings to taxpayers. The organization takes every opportunity to provide both innovative and evidence-based programming in a variety of service areas including the following: residential re- entry and workforce development; court services; services to persons with alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA); services to those with mental health or co-occurring disorders; and services for youth. In 2011 alone, WCS has served more than 15,000 individuals.

Mr. Speaker, WCS agency has made a tremendous impact and left its imprint on the historic, cultural, and civic life of the people of Wisconsin. I am proud that WCS is located in the 4th Congressional District providing support services and tools to help people successfully reintegrate into the community. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting WCS in recognition of 100 years of advocating for justice and community safety by providing innovative opportunities for individuals to overcome adversity.

Thank you, Representative Slaughter.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to allow us to consider the Violence Against Women Act. It is pathetic and it is disappointing that it has come to this--that we have to use procedural shenanigans to talk about an initiative that has been a bipartisan initiative since 1994.

Violence against women in this country is not levied against just Democrats but Republicans as well; not blacks or whites or Hispanics but against Native American people as well; not just Christians or Muslims but Jews and nonreligious people--atheists--as well; not just rich people or poor people but middle class people as well; and not just against heterosexual women but homosexual couples as well. It knows no gender. It knows no ethnicity. It knows nothing.

I'll tell you that violence against women is as American as apple pie. I know not only as a legislator but from my own personal experience that domestic violence has been a thread throughout my personal life, from being a child who was repeatedly sexually assaulted up to and including being an adult who has been raped. I just don't have enough time to share all of those experiences with you.

Yet I can tell you, when this bill came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with all of the Republican Senators--all of the guys--voting no, it really brought up some terrible memories for me of having boys sit in a locker room and sort of bet that I, the A kid, couldn't be had and then having the appointed boy, when he saw that I wasn't going to be so willing, complete a date rape and then take my underwear to display it to the rest of the boys. I mean, this is what American women are facing.

I am so proud to be an author of this amendment because it has been, in the past, a bipartisan bill. This bill will strengthen the core programs and support law enforcement, prosecutions, and judicial staff training. It will include new initiatives aimed at preventing domestic violence-related homicides that occur every single day in this country. It will extend the authority to protect Native American victims on tribal lands. It will ensure a strong response to the insufficient reporting and services for victims of sexual assault. It will increase the numbers of U visas for undocumented women who, because they're in the shadows, are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence. This bill will also expand services for those in underserved communities, who, due to their religion or gender or sexual orientation, have not been served.

This is not a partisan issue, and it would be very, very devastating to women of all colors, creeds, and sexual orientations for us not to address this.

I thank you so much, Mr. Cleaver.

Mr. Chairman, prior to 1994, Congress acted to ensure that Americans had guaranteed support under the Social Security Act. It was a three- legged stool. The American social contract provided retirement security for retirees through Social Security, health coverage for elders with Medicare, dignified care for the infirm and disabled under Medicaid and sustenance for low-income families with children.

Now, in 1994, on a bipartisan basis, this body breached the Social Security Act's contract with the people and ``ended welfare as we know it.''

Now, this Republican budget says that that is a model for what this budget should do. It recalls that victory, and I quote from the narrative under the Path to Prosperity, a blueprint for American Renewal:

This budget completes the successful work of transforming

welfare by reforming other areas of America's safety net to

ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into

lives of complacency and dependency.

We've heard on this floor that we're going to make sure that the safety net does not become a hammock. So, in other words, Medicare and Medicare recipients are now welfare recipients.

So what this budget does is it ends the guarantee of health care for retirees, turning it into a voucher program,

and cuts $30 billion over the next decade.

The program, Medicaid, it is now a welfare program, and Grandma, who is in the nursing home, is now a welfare recipient who is lying in a hammock instead of living out her life in dignity, and you cut $810 billion out of that fund over the next decade.

Another entitlement program, food stamps, which served 45 million people during this recession, half of all Americans are now poor. You're going to amend that entitlement program by cutting $134 billion out over the next decade.

The CBC budget rejects the breach of the Social Security Act and renews that contract with Americans. It rejects the 62 percent of the Republican budget that cuts $5.3 trillion--62 percent of it taken from those Americans who are most vulnerable--yet it provides deficit reduction of $3.4 trillion over a 10-year period of time.

Yes, we do have different priorities. We prioritize retirees, elders, the disabled, and infirm over millionaires.

Thank you, Ms. Fudge.

I would, first of all, like to thank Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank and, on the subcommittee, Chairman Garrett and Ranking Member Waters, Mr. Stivers and Ms. Fudge from the Ag Committee, for their leadership that kept the bill moving; other members of the Financial Services Committee--Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Himes, Mr. Miller, Mr. Dold, Mr. Gibson, among others--for all of their input on this legislation.

This is a bill--and some people here today, Mr. Speaker, may be surprised to know that it enjoys bipartisan support because it ensures, number one, the vitality of U.S. and global commerce by exempting interaffiliate swaps, or those swap transactions used internally by companies in all our districts, from clearing, margin, and execution requirements. But H.R. 2779 also preserves the all-important reforms of the over-the-counter swap markets enacted as part of Dodd-Frank while providing swap end users that exemption that is responsive to their legitimate business needs for flexibility, risk management, and price stability.

Now, in Congress, 4 years is an eternity; but I have not forgotten the 2008 financial crisis and the human hardship that it caused and continues to cause in Milwaukee and all across America. The work continues, and this bill is a part of that.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be part of the effort that produced Dodd-Frank, legislation that will improve accountability and transparency in the financial markets, including the pre-Dodd-Frank unregulated over-the-counter derivatives markets which played a central role in the crisis. However, I did not vote for Dodd-Frank as retribution against Wall Street or for any punitive means. I voted for Dodd-Frank to enhance the function and transparency of markets and to promote prosperity for Americans going forward. For that reason, I am happy to support H.R. 2779.

A little bit of background about the critical need the bill addresses and how bipartisan collaboration produced the final bill.

Now, swaps are versatile financial tools that have become instrumental for the management of risk and for allowing companies to more efficiently transact in global markets. Swaps aid companies to hedge and to mitigate things like interest rate and currency exposure, but also more exotic risks associated with unique markets and businesses. H.R. 2779 clarifies that end users, not investors, have the ability to hedge risk for legitimate business purposes.

Now, the flip side of swaps are that they may also be used to acquire risk by investors. In that capacity, swaps allocate risk to parties that want to and are able to bear the risk. However, in the unregulated pre-Dodd-Frank world, over-the-counter swaps and derivatives lacked transparency and allowed risk to pool and gather in ways that would eventually help drive the financial crisis and create systemic risk.

Dodd-Frank duly addressed the lessons of the financial crisis by pushing as many product types as possible to be centrally cleared and traded on electronic exchanges or other trading facilities, subjecting these swap dealers and major market participants to capital and to margin requirements, and requiring the public reporting of transaction and pricing data of both cleared and uncleared swaps.

H.R. 2779 does not disturb any of those important reforms accomplished in Dodd-Frank. Interaffiliate swaps are simply transactions within a single group of affiliated entities, in other words, meaning entities that prepare financial statements on a consolidated basis. Therefore, interaffiliated swaps do not add or subtract from overall systemic risk. Therefore, H.R. 2779 simply builds on my original intent of voting for Dodd-Frank--the promotion of U.S. prosperity going forward.

Through the process of drafting the bill, a number of revisions were adopted, thanks to the thoughtful input of many of our colleagues. The definition of ``control,'' which is central to the issues of a legitimate interaffiliate transaction, was clarified. Anti-evasion measures were added so that the exemption would not lead to abuse. Language was adopted that made sure Fed authority over interaffiliate banks was preserved as was language that clearly and explicitly states that the bill does nothing to disturb the existing regulatory regime for insurance companies.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It has the backing of Republicans, Democrats, and industry end users of derivatives. I urge all of my colleagues to back this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.