Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many minutes I have remaining.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the floor, yet again, to consider a rule for a piece of legislation that is nothing more than another messaging bill against the President of the United States. This new Democratic majority has spent nearly 20 percent--20 percent--of the time debating bills on the floor that are nonbinding messaging pieces of legislation. H.R. 9 is just another example of this majority's intent on messaging against the President and the lack of any true agenda for the American people. The reality is that we all want clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Who doesn't? However, this bill isn't the solution. Addressing environmental policy should not include extreme policies like the Green New Deal, nor should it involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put the United States at a disadvantage to its main security and economic competitors in the world, and with no regard to cost for American consumers and ratepayers. Republicans have a better approach. We can protect our environment by promoting policies favoring clean energy, like nuclear, hydropower, natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture, and removing barriers to the deployment of new technologies and innovation. The United States is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technological development. Between 2000 and 2014, in fact, the U.S. reduced emissions more than 18 percent. We should be focused on continuing to reduce emissions, developing and exporting clean energy technologies, and making our communities more resilient, all while ensuring affordable and reliable energy prices and prioritizing the consumer and American security and prosperity. We have serious questions concerning costs, effectiveness, and the feasibility of the U.S. commitments made by the Obama administration under the Paris Agreement 4 years ago. Even then-Secretary of State Kerry noted during the Paris negotiations that if the United States cut its CO2 emissions to zero, it would still not offset the emissions coming from the rest of the world. The Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a clear plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the costs to American consumers, and, certainly, without a strategy that had broad bipartisan support of Congress. If H.R. 9 were enacted into law, it would put the United States into a position where it could not enforce any other country's action and would put us at a disadvantage. I have heard from some of my Democratic colleagues that their energy policies are good for consumers, that it creates many jobs and benefits the economy. When they argue this, they point to States like California, with their renewable energy mandates. However, California finds itself in the precarious situation where it actually pays Arizona to take their energy. This is not good energy or economic policy. If Democrats were serious about solving big problems for the American people, they would partner and work across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions that they knew would have a chance to pass in the U.S. Senate and be signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. 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.

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

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

Mrs. LESKO. 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.

Mrs. LESKO. 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.

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

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

Mrs. LESKO. 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.

Mrs. LESKO. 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.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. This bill, thirdly, also takes away gun rights in 2 cases: One with ex parte orders of protection; that is when a woman, like myself, would go in to see a Justice of the Peace; we would get an order of protection. Under this bill, the perpetrator's gun rights would be taken away, even though they weren't there in court. Also, it would take away someone's gun rights if they were convicted of a misdemeanor, which is very rare. So, again, I don't think this bill is going to get heard in the U.S. Senate, which, I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle-- this is an important issue to all of us, and I hope that we can work together so it is something that I can support, something that we all can support, because it is a really important issue.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I am a survivor of domestic violence from a previous marriage. I serve on the advisory council of a domestic violence shelter in my district. I am the co-chairwoman of the Working Group Against Domestic Violence in Congress. So if you haven't figured it out, this issue is very important to me and I want to protect women. Another role I have is, I am co-chairwoman of the Congressional Women's Caucus. And in that, I spoke with my Democratic colleague, and she knew it was an important issue to me, it was an important issue to her, and we really had talked about having a bipartisan approach that all women and all of us could vote on that we would agree on. So once I found out that Representative Bass was going to be the sponsor of the bill, I reached out to her office. We were trying to--we just never were able to get together before the Judiciary Committee markup on the bill, in the attempt to talk with her, to see if she would listen to my concerns. Then, in the Judiciary Committee, I offered an amendment that basically would make sure that domestic violence shelters could protect the victims and keep their privacy private. And that amendment was rejected, and I was told that it was too broad, and those types of things. So in that Judiciary Committee hearing I asked Representative Bass if she would be agreeable to meeting with me, so I could work with her to do an amendment in a bipartisan fashion to protect women and children, and she said absolutely, yes. And, again, I reached out to her office on at least two occasions and never got a response. So I have really tried to work on this in a bipartisan fashion, because there are some concerns I have. And let me tell you the reason why I am going to vote ``no'' on this bill, even though I am a survivor of domestic violence. First of all, the bill forces domestic violence shelters, under penalty of Federal law, this law, to house biological males in with women. And often these women have been abused themselves, and they may not--this may violate their privacy, and it may have risks. The second reason is this bill forces prisons to take in biological males, under penalty of Federal law, and put them in women's prisons. In the United Kingdom this happened, and a male identifying as a woman was placed in a woman's prison and ended up raping women. The third reason is this bill takes away gun rights.