Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators Against Children DNA Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. The authorization of executive agencies fulfills Congress' fundamental constitutional obligation to maintain an active and continuing role in organizing the priorities and overseeing the operation of the executive branch. With an annual budget of over $20 billion and 100,000 employees, the Department of Justice is one of the most important agencies of the Federal Government and the world's premier law enforcement organization. Like other legislation reauthorizing the Department of Justice approved by the House in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, I am proud that this bill is the product of extensive bipartisan deliberation.

In addition to serving as a broad statement by the House of Representatives regarding the priorities of the DOJ over the next several years, this bill addresses the administration of grant programs by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office on Violence Against Women.

By providing grants to State and local governments to focus on current crime issues affecting cities and towns across the country, these grant programs can serve an important role in the fight against crime in America. However, given the finite Federal resources available, it is the responsibility of this body, both through the authorizing process and continuous oversight, to review and evaluate these programs to ensure that the taxpayers' money is used effectively.

This legislation contains a number of important provisions that will strengthen congressional oversight of the Department's law enforcement activities and financial management. Among the new provisions included are: The creation of an office of audit, assessment and management within OJP to monitor grants; a privacy officer to protect personally identifiable information; a directive to the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs to establish a single financial management system and a single procurement system.

In addition to the important oversight tools provided in the bill, there are a number of commonsense provisions designed to improve the administration of programs within the department. H.R. 3402 eliminates duplication by consolidating the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program and the Byrne grant program into one program with the same purposes and simplified administration. The bill also preserves the COPS program, but modifies it to allow grantees greater flexibility to seek grants for a number of purposes, including but not limited to hiring.

Other provisions contained in this legislation authorize programs to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Titles 4 through 10 of the bill focus on reauthorizing, expanding and improving programs that were established in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, or VAWA, and reauthorized in 2000. The bill reauthorizes some important core programs, such as ``STOP'' grants and grants to reduce campus violence. These programs have been successful in combating family and domestic violence.

The reauthorization of VAWA will continue the tradition of changing attitudes towards domestic violence, and will expand its focus to change attitude toward other violent crimes, including dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Because these crimes affect both men and women, it is important to note that this legislation specifies that programs addressing these programs should serve both male and female victims.

Furthermore, the legislation specifies that the same rules apply to these funds as to other Federal grant programs. The funds devoted to these programs are not to be used for political activities or lobbying. This money is and always was intended to be used to provide services to victims and to train personnel who deal with these violent crimes. The Department of Justice is expected to enforce that provision for all its grants and to monitor grant activities to ensure compliance not only with this condition but all conditions of the grants.

Mr. Chairman, prior to the enactment of the ``21st Century Department of Justice Authorization of Appropriations Act'' in 2002, Congress had not formally authorized the operations of the Department of Justice in nearly a quarter of a century.

During floor consideration of that legislation, I expressed my desire that its passage would lead to a regular authorization process that permits Congress to more rigorously oversee the organization, structure, and priorities of DOJ. While the House unanimously passed legislation reauthorizing the Department last Congress, the legislation was not taken up by the other body.

H.R. 3402 contains important bipartisan provisions to ensure that the Department of Justice is better equipped to promote the purposes for which it was established. The legislation also reauthorizes critical programs necessary to help protect the safety and security of Americans while enabling Congress to properly exercise the vigorous oversight that the Constitution requires. I urge my colleagues to support this important and bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to hear what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has just said. Let me reassure the gentleman that the language to have grants go to underserved racial and ethnic populations is still in the manager's amendment. The reason the language had to be changed was to avoid a potential court challenge because language in grant programs have strict scrutiny by the courts.

Let me just quote what is contained on page 8 in the manager's amendment which provides an amendment to lines 1 and 2 of page 126 of the bill. The new language says, ``Populations underserved because of geographic locations, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alien age status, or age) and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General.'' This new language, which is proposed in the manager's amendment I believe will do what the gentleman from Michigan wishes to accomplish, and that is to make sure that underserved racial and ethnic populations are on the radar screen when the attorney general makes up his mind on who will be able to get grants to provide services to deal with this subject.

What it does do is it prevents this money from being tied up in a court challenge that will probably last through most of the life of this authorization bill, which is through September 30, 2009, or just a few days more than 4 years from now.

I would encourage the gentleman from Michigan to be sensitive to the fact that the language in the original bill would have been subject to a court challenge, and in the manager's amendment we attempt to get rid of that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would agree and would work with the gentleman from Nevada to address this problem as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to have the GAO do a study on this issue. I am hopeful that we will be able to speed it up so that we can get it in a timely manner.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I wish there were time to have committee consideration of this. However, there are certain legislature provisions in the Violence against Women Act that expire on September 30, and, if we keep on talking and talking and talking, you are going to see a good part of the VAWA end up disappearing. That is why we have to deal with this issue today.

I would urge adoption of the manager's amendment to remove the cloud of the constitutional challenge over the money that is to be sent to underserved racial and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret a minor change that was made to ensure that the money for underserved communities is not tied up in litigation is being turned into a partisan issue. There is no malevolent thought on the part of the majority to do so.

Now, let me say that the language in the base bill presumes that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved. That was the presumption for which there are no congressional findings. And because grant language is construed with strict scrutiny by the courts, setting up a preference based on racial and ethnic minorities is going to end up at minimum tying up the money that the people on the other side of the aisle who are complaining about the manager's amendment want to get into society to help solve these problems.

Now, the manager's amendment ensures that attention is paid to whatever community is underserved, not simply assuming that a community is underserved, even though there is no evidence on the table to back up that assumption.

Now, the manager's amendment uses the words ``underserved racial and ethnic populations,'' together with other types of underserved populations. So the words ``underserved,'' ``racial,'' and ``ethnic populations'' is contained in the manager's amendment. I think this is a small price to pay to prevent the money that is to be sent out in grants under this section of the Violence Against Women Act to be tied up for weeks and months and years.

Mr. Chairman, the time has come to recognize that there is a legal problem in this, rather than making political points.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation beginning by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked very hard with me on the bill. In the past few years, we have dealt with the Department of Justice, which has oftentimes become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them so vaguely that we are not sure what the answer really is. Fortunately, together we worked to address our concerns with the Department of Justice and arrived at the bill before us today.

The bill provides funding for the various offices within the department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. Why is that important? Because in the past few years, the Office of Inspector General has been particularly diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on the 9/ 11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures are used for handling terrorism suspects.

In addition, the bill reauthorizes the COPS office. That is the Community Oriented Policing Services. Now, we all know that this Clinton administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving, and that is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of the Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing is the backbone in our war on terrorism as community offices are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by the community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides them over $1 billion per year for this program.

An important piece of legislation before us is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. I am particularly proud of it for this is the third time we have worked on this bill and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on the work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the most current programs that have been enormously effective, including the ``STOP'' program, which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victims services providers, including legal assistance for victims.

However, there is a grave concern about this measure before us that I must speak to. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities and their organizations face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities nor does it impose any quotas. And we have all been there on quotas. It does not do that. It simply requires the Department of Justice to describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations, and to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of these racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations. That is all, and to ensure each gets their fair share.

The bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary had this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a manager's amendment. I am very sorry to learn of this news. For while I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I seriously regret this advance that was included in the language that has been stricken. I think it is a tragedy. I think it is a serious misunderstanding of what the law is now. Everybody on the Committee on the Judiciary knows how to avoid quotas and certainly not to give preferences to minorities. This measure was included in our bill because it was important that they begin to get a fair share of proceeds that were being allotted under the bill. It was not to secure anything like a quota, and the bill to me deserves our support. I stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it. I have a very serious problem with the manager's amendment, and will not support that effort.

I rise in support of this legislation. I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Justice with this bill. In the past few years, the Department has become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them vaguely at best. Fortunately, we worked together to address our concerns with the Department and arrived at the bill before us today.

In general, the bill provides funding for the various offices within the Department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. In the past few years, the OIG has been diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures for handling terrorism suspects.

The bill reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, office. We all know that this Clinton Administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving. That is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing also is the backbone in our war on terrorism, as community officers are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides over $1 billion per year for this program.

An important piece of the bill is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This is the third time we have worked on this bill, and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the current programs that have proven enormously effective, including the STOP program--which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services providers--and legal assistance for victims.

I do have one grave concern about this bill that must be addressed. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities, nor does it impose any quotas. It simply requires the Department of Justice to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share.

The bill passed the Judiciary Committee with this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a Managers' Amendment. While I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I have serious problems with the Managers' Amendment and will not support that effort.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him for yielding to me because the position that we have adopted that we are being set back by the manager's amendment is agreed to by the women against violence organizations, the civil rights organizations. And we have numerous letters, one from the chair of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which plainly go into the details of the fact that in no way are we trying to establish quotas or favoritism to any one particular group whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a very vital participant in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the head of the Women's Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time; and let me thank the chairman, first of all, for his willingness to include, or to continue to include, an important amendment dealing with early release for Federal prisoners.

That is why I rise, because I believe we can work this issue out. I would ask the chairman and the ranking member, as we move toward this legislative finality of the authorization bill that we take a second look at this language that was included that has to do with racial ethnic minorities.

Let me join my colleague, or allow me to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) in the work that she has done on the Violence Against Women Act. I have also included language in the omnibus immigration bill dealing with racial ethnic minorities, and this language is key to be reincluded. Why? Because too often, racial and ethnic minorities have lacked access to services and their safety has been compromised.

I want to compromise, frankly, Mr. Chairman, with all of those individuals who, for some reason or another, believe that this is a preference, a quota. It is not. It is an outreach mechanism to ensure that States who receive Federal monies, and we have done this often before, we have done this with the issue dealing with procurement. We have insisted on it not being quotas. This is only to say that ethnic and racial minorities many times are not able to access the questions of dealing with domestic violence. We know that that is not an occurring incident in high numbers in these communities, language barriers that do not allow individuals to access resources.

This is where the Congress can intervene, because VAWA intended for all underserved communities to have a fair chance of addressing these crimes in holding perpetrators accountable. Even when these women will go to court, we need culturally sensitive individuals, whether it is individuals from Southeast Asia, whether it is individuals from Africa or the Caribbean, whether it is individuals from the poor areas of America.

This is a viable amendment, language that should be reincluded; and I ask my colleagues, let us work together. Let us not misinterpret and make this a racial issue when it is not. It is an outreach issue. It is an aspiration issue. It is a goal issue. And I would ask my colleagues to support the language being reinstated at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying legislation that has been introduced by my colleague on the Committee, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. The spirit of bipartisanship that went into crafting H.R. 3402, the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009'' is to be commended.

H.R. 3402 will reauthorize the Justice Department and its various offices and components. While the Appropriations Committee is responsible for issuing funds to government bodies, it is the purview of authorizing committees to permit the agencies to spend those funds. Congress last authorized the Justice Department in 2002, through the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. While the House passed authorization legislation in the 108th Congress, the Senate failed to act before adjournment.

I am particularly pleased that this bill contains provisions from my bill entitled ``Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators Against Children DNA Act of 2005 (H.R. 244)'' and the ``Enhanced Protections for Trafficked Persons Act of 2005.''

Furthermore, I would like to highlight the fact that the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that is part of the legislation we are considering today, contains important provisions that will enhance protections to immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking. I am happy that these provisions resulted from bipartisan efforts of members of this committee. They will significantly improve safety for immigrant victims. I thank Congresswomen Lofgren and Solis for their leadership.

While VAWA 1994 and 2000 made significant progress in reducing violence against immigrant women, there are still many women and children whose lives are in danger today. Many VAWA eligible victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse or trafficking are still being deported. This bill will implement VAWA's original intent by stopping the deportation of immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking who qualify for VAWA immigration benefits. Very importantly the bill contains provisions designed to deter Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from arresting immigrant victims seeking help from domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers and protection orders. It also removes obstacles in immigration law that cut victims off from VAWA cancellation of removal and adjustment of status including improved rules for VAWA motions to reopen. VAWA 2005 will extend immigration relief to all victims of family violence by preventing victims of incest and child abuse perpetrated by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent from being cut off from VAWA's immigration protections when they turn 21; by protecting non-citizen parents abused by their adult U.S. citizen sons or daughters; by protecting adopted and abused children; and by securing protection for children of immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking. Very importantly this bill contains provisions that will guarantee economic security for immigrant victims and their children by granting employment authorization to adult victims who have filed valid immigration cases. Yet I am very opposed to the Manager's amendment that eliminates the outreach to racial and ethnic women who are victims of domestic abuse. We must add that language back into the underlying bill and I will vigorously oppose the Manager's amendment.

The trafficking provisions in this bill are of particular importance to me and I am very pleased that additional protections for trafficking victims and tools to help prosecute traffickers have been included in the bill. These VAWA 2005 provisions will extend the statute of limitations on bringing charges for trafficking, slavery, and involuntary servitude to 10 years. This legislation will protect family members of trafficking victims from retaliation by traffickers abroad by helping family members reunite with trafficking victims in the United States, including the use of parole. It will also allow for extension of duration of T visas when needed to facilitate prosecution of traffickers. We will also require reports to Congress on the number of law enforcement officers trained on identifying trafficking victims and on the T and U visa protections and law enforcement certification process. Finally the bill will shorten the time T visa victims have to wait before filing for lawful permanent residency, particularly in cases in which the prosecution against the traffickers has been completed.

In addition, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation in incorporating the language of an amendment that I offered that expresses a commitment of Congress to continue exploring the benefits of granting ``good time release'' to non-violent Federal incarcerated persons. This is an initiative that I have pursued for a long time and will continue until we make real progress. The language of my amendment to this effect was passed in the 108th Congress as part of H.R. 1829 and in the Subcommittee on Crime this Congress as H.R. 2965.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this legislation will pass into law retaining all of the beneficial provisions that I have enumerated above.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the bipartisan leadership of the Judiciary Committee for its hard work shepherding through this powerful reauthorization of Department of Justice activities, a bill that I strongly support. The bill authorizes a total of $95 billion, including $24.4 billion for the FBI, $7.25 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, and $6.85 billion for U.S. Attorneys. It is a true victory that the committee leadership included reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act in this bill. It is essential that Congress stands strong and protects victims of domestic violence and other crimes against women. The bill's new $15 million a year grant program will help colleges and universities prevent dating violence, sexual assault and stalking on campuses.

Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves to conference, I want to highlight two provisions that was included in the original text of H.R. 3402 at my request. Section 321 will close loopholes that have allowed those impersonating police officers to evade conviction, while section 253 reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program, and makes it easier for local police departments to apply for and win grants by consolidating it into a single grant program. Whereas cities used to submit different application for hiring, and one for overtime and one for technology and one for training--this language allows them to only have to submit one application.

Section 321, language inserted in the original bill at my request and based upon the Badge Security Enhancement Act of 2003, amends criminal prohibitions on the use of a false badge to close loopholes used by many to evade prosecution and conviction. No longer will criminals be able to claim that they badges the use to impersonate police officers are just souvenirs or collectors items. Instead, my language amends the criminal code so that the only acceptable defense for possessing a counterfeit police badge is for use in a dramatic production or for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. There are countless website where one can purchase a very convincing NYPD police badge and then use it to commit a crime. It is common sense that we close these loopholes in order to protect the public and our law enforcement personnel. Also, language offered by Mrs. Slaughter expands the criminal ban on counterfeit police badges to also include the misuse of uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of all public officials, but maintains my language that limits acceptable defenses in the case of counterfeit badges.

Mr. Chairman, I consider reauthorization of the COPS program to be a singular triumph of this bill. By reauthorizing the program at $1.05 billion a year for 4 years, we are providing a valuable resource to local law enforcement as they fight crime and protect the homeland from terrorist threats. Throughout its history, the COPS program has put more than 118,000 cops on the beat in more than 12,000 communities, and added 7,407 officers to the force in New York City. This is the ultimate democratic program, with a small ``d,'' as it benefits small towns and big cities alike throughout our country. The reauthorization amount in the bill will pay for an estimated 13,000 new cops on the beat nationally each year, and 3,640 NYFD officers over the length of this authorization.

The reauthorization will also allow Federal funds for the first time to flow to hiring officers to perform intelligence, anti-terror and homeland security duties. These are federal responsibilities and this language will help special terrorism units throughout the country, such as those at the NYFD and the LAPD.

I have also worked with Mr. Rothman to ensure that $30 million a year of the COPS reauthorization goes to the Secure our Schools Program to make grants for school security, including installing metal detectors, personnel and student training, and coordination with local law enforcement.

Authorities across the country agree that COPS works. A GAG report issued this summer that found a 13 percent drop in violent

crime because of COPS. Former Attorney General Ashcroft once said of COPS in June 2003 that, ``Let me just say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime could be affected and that people would be safer and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.''

I would like to thank advocates both in this House and in the law enforcement community who have stood with me and fought for COPS reauthorization. The COPS program is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors. The PROTECTION Act, offered to reauthorize COPS for 6 years in 2004 had 224 cosponsors. I would like to thank Ms. Linda Sanchez and Mr. Keller for their support, and commend our committee's leaders, Mr. Conyers and Chairman Sensenbrenner for agreeing to include COPS reauthorization in this very important piece of legislation.

In particular, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation, and who deserve the entire House's thanks. I would like to extend my gratitude to Sampak Garg, Perry Apelbaum and Ted Kalo of Mr. Conyers' staff and Beth Sokul, Katy Crooks, Sean McLaughlin and Michael Volkov of Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff, who all worked with me on these important provisions in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and giving me this opportunity to be heard.

I would like to say specifically to the gentleman from Wisconsin, time sometimes is of the essence, but the reality is that minority women and immigrant women, for them time is of the essence, and it is important that we have programming that focuses in on issues that involve cultural sensitivities.

In many of the ethnic and minority communities, it is taboo to bring a lawsuit or to bring a charge against your husband, and we, therefore, need to give States the opportunity to have the ability to craft programs that would allow them and encourage them to come forward, and that was the sense of the legislation as it came out of the committee.

I would encourage the gentleman to consider removing his manager's amendment in the interest of the racial and ethnic minority women who are out here suffering daily from domestic violence charges. It is so important that we understand that domestic violence cases continue to be on the rise. It is important that we understand in fact that racial and ethnic minority women are often not willing to come forward and bring charges.

I don't know about the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), but I was a prosecutor for 8 years, heading the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office, and that was always one of the challenges we had dealing with racial and ethnic minorities. I think it is such a wonderful opportunity for us to say to them, just as we are talking about what is happening with Hurricane Katrina, have we not thought about racial and ethnic issues, that we ought to pay attention to that, right now, today in this legislation.

I would encourage the gentleman, as he has encouraged us, to reconsider his decision to remove that important provision from the manager's amendment, and we could continue to have some bipartisan support.

As the House considers H.R. 3402, the DOJ/Violence against Women Reauthorization Act, VAWA, today, I rise to express my disappointment and strong opposition to a manager's amendment submitted late last night, by the majority staff of the Judiciary Committee. This amendment seeks to strike ``racial and ethnic minorities'' from the definition of underserved populations in the STOP grants section of VAWA. Mr. Chairman, my initial reaction to hearing about this proposed amendment was give me a break! Why? What is the majority looking to accomplish by striking this language from the legislation. What is the goal! Somebody help me understand this!

STOP grants are the heart of VAWA funding. By striking this language from the legislation, domestic violence prevention and treatment services specifically targeting women of color and immigrant victims of domestic violence will continue to be compromised.

Mr. Chairman, many racial and ethnic minority women and immigrant women are less likely to report instances of domestic violence than Caucasian women because they face institutional barriers to reporting abuse or seeking help for domestic violence. These women often face restrictions on public assistance, limited access to immigration relief, lack of translators or bilingual professionals, little educational material in the woman's native language, treatment programs that do not take into account ethnic and cultural differences, and prohibitive fee structures. The VAWA Reauthorization provisions in H.R. 3402 establish grants that will provide these women with information to get the assistance they need.

Violence against women and children is a serious, widespread problem in America. Each year, close to 1 million incidents of violence are reported against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. On average, more than 3 women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day, and approximately 1 in 5 female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. Last year, in the State of Ohio, 129 fatalities occurred as a result of domestic violence. In addition, there were over 100,000 domestic calls and arrests as well as over 17,000 new civil protection orders issued. It is important to understand that violence against women and children not only devastates families but it devastates entire communities. Reauthorization of VAWA '05 is integral to providing practical solutions to improving the response of the criminal justice and legal systems by expanding funding for local groups working with underserved communities, strengthening the criminal justice response to sexual assault, providing services for children and youth, and advocating for effective prevention programs.

The manager's amendment seeking to strike this language from the legislation would be a slap in the face to minority women across the country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment.