On the recordOctober 24, 2017
I would only offer to say that there is not one Judiciary Committee Democrat on this so-called bipartisan bill. That is where you first start the bipartisanship: you work with members who may, in fact, believe that some of the issues that have been raised by my good friend from California may have merit. Maybe this bill could have been drafted in a way that would have responded to some of the failures, if there are some, such as evidenced by our good friend from New Jersey, who recalled a lot of failures not by Democrats but by Republicans. But when you start off with a bill talking about slush funds, then you negate the good work of so many organizations that have benefited to do the very good that the consent decree was intended to do. Today, I stood with the Latinas Against Domestic Violence. They came here to stand against the violence against women that goes on and on and on. Some of them may be in the gallery. But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is: Why would we not want to give that organization funds if they were in line to get dollars to help prevent or intervene in the vileness of domestic violence? So the idea that our friends on the other side are missing is the value some of these entities have been given. The only word that I have heard over and over again, as I have heard from the administration, I have heard from the Attorney General, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one word.…
