Providing for Consideration of H.R. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. American Dream and Promise Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Farm Workforce Modernization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preventing Paygo Sequestration; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the manager of the bill for her leadership and the rule.

Let me, first of all, rise in support of H.R. 6 because there are millions of young people waiting for this relief in the DACA promise.

The American Dream and Promise Act is long overdue. These are nurses and doctors, these are hardworking young people, these are college students who are ready to serve America.

Let me also rise in support of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act for the many, many farmers across America who are supporting that and needing that.

And I don't know who would be against making sure that there are no Medicare cuts as we proceed to give a lifeline to the American people through the American Rescue Act. I stand solidly behind that bill.

But let me spend most of my time, Madam Speaker, on the question of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 1620, and H.J. Res. 17.

First of all, there is no divisiveness, and I really stand openly against that interpretation. Is there divisiveness on helping rape victims across America who, as President Biden has said, live in States that are not blue States or red States, but they live with the scourge of domestic violence, one of the most dangerous calls that police officers make?

In 2018, we could not get the Violence Against Women Act, which I wrote, to the floor because our Republican friends would not proceed. At that time there was a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. Nothing happened, and women suffered.

My women's center right now is teeming with women who are impacted by domestic violence during this pandemic. They are crying out for this legislation, and they don't see divisiveness.

What they do see is enhanced legal assistance.

What they do see is $110 million for rape prevention.

What they do see is intervention, with training for men and boys.

They see a space that provides training and refuge for culturally distinct women who are victimized who can go to a quiet, calm place and deal with culturally sensitive counselors and others.

What they see is cooperation between the victim and law enforcement by providing and making sure that they have the kinds of resources and legal representation that is necessary. No one goes without legal representation, whether they are immigrant or Native American.

They see an enhanced response to the victimization of Native American women who, in fact, there are those who victimize them on their particular reservation or pueblo and then run off outside of that, and they are not prosecuted. We changed that.

They see the closing of the boyfriend loophole.

They see the taking away of guns from stalkers.

Yes, this is a lifeline. The Violence Against Women Act, constitutionally grounded, due-process protected for those who may be accused, but it is legislation that women have been waiting for.

This bill expired in 2018. We wrote it in 2018, we built on it in the last Congress, and the amendments that were both Republican and Democrat are still in this bill because we believe in bipartisanship, and it is a bipartisan bill with Members from the Republican Conference, who are in this bill in terms of cosponsors.

As it relates to H.J. Res. 17, let me say that Congress has the authority to extend the deadline for ratification of the ERA.

The ERA says that women do not have to live in discomfort and live under equality and live in inequality. They live in a Nation of equality, and they live in inequality in housing, in income, in access to credit, in employment, in many ways. Why are we continuing this in the 21st century?

So what does H.J. Res. 17 do? It extends the deadline for the compliance with the equal rights amendment for the States to be able to reach the 38 margin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It extends that time beyond the time that was last extended. When we extended that time, we extended it by majority vote in the United States Congress.

A decision came out just recently about the fact that the deadline had expired, but what it did say is that the deadline was created by Congress and that Congress obviously has that authority.

When we researched this in 1978 in the Judiciary Committee, there was no requirement that that extension of the deadline constitutionally require a two-thirds supermajority vote. Simple majority. Are you going to suggest that women now should be denied the ERA when a number of States have already sanctioned this? There are some States that have rescinded, but that will be the jurisdiction of the United States Congress when appropriate.

I ask my colleagues to support VAWA, H.R. 1620, and H.J. Res. 17, removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. It is time for VAWA. It is time for the ERA.

Source