Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we on the committee can agree with everything, which should be being celebrated; but the one thing that is in disagreement creates the greatest amount of discussion. I regret that, but I think the manager's amendment has to be called into account because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color, and I cannot allow this to happen without making the comments that I do.

Let us understand that constitutional law is not some secret body of intelligence that is in the power of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment, which is being taken out because it is thought to cause constitutional problems, is the same amendment that is supported by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, the NAACP, the YWCA and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Abuse.

The bill that passed the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary contain language ensuring that the minorities who are victims of domestic and sexual assault would receive adequate services. That the members of the Committee on the Judiciary agreed upon. This language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations.

Now this was unfortunately removed, but under current law since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand and its decision in Grutter, specific set-asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. There are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary. The same provision has passed in the Senate, and we have lists of constitutional scholars to attest to the fact that this language does not require the distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity.

I urge my colleagues in a sense of fairness, not making political points, that we reject the manager's amendment.

I rise in strong opposition to the Managers' amendment because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color.

This is why the amendment is opposed by the groups that are working so hard to prevent rape and sexual assault--the National Network to End Domestic Violence; the Family Violence Prevention Fund; the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence; Legal Momentum; the NAACP; and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault.

The bill that passed both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees contains language ensuring that minorities who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault would receive adequate services. The Members of the Judiciary Committee agreed--on a bipartisan basis--that this language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations.

This is a serious problem because we know that people of color are far less likely than other groups to report incidents of rape and sexual assault. The only way we can reach out to these individuals is by supporting these non-traditional groups.

Unfortunately, between the Judiciary Committee and the floor, this provision--which has been in the bill since its introduction--suddenly became controversial. Out of the blue, the Administration has attempted to argue that there might, possibly be a constitutional problem with this provision.

Under current law, since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena and Grutter v. Bollinger, specific set asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. Clearly, there are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee.

The bill simply requires states 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 racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share.

There is no set aside. There is no quota. Considering the needs of certain communities in no way violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and I would hope that the Members of this body would agree with that very common sense notion.

We have consulted with outside and independent constitutional experts and have confirmed that the Administration's last minute arguments do not pass the legal laugh test. For example, an esteemed constitutional scholar at the University of Texas, Professor Douglas Laycock, said the language does not require distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity, but rather requires states to be alert and ensure that underserved racial and ethnic populations are not subject to discrimination. ``A state cannot be confident that funds are being administered and awarded in a nondiscriminatory way unless it examines the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. That is all these provisions require.''

We have also received a letter from several other law professors who are experts in the field, including Professor Joan Meier of the George Washington University Law School, Professor Julie Goldscheid of the City University of New York School of Law, Professor Sally Goldfarb of Rutgers University School of Law, and Professor Martha Davis of the Northeastern School of Law. These professors authoritatively state that ``referencing `racial and ethnic minorities' meets the standard most recently laid out by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger. [T]he Federal Government has a compelling interest in assuring that racial and ethnic minorities receive due consideration in the receipt of services, or grants flowing from the Violence Against Women Act. H.R. 3402 does not create quotas or unduly favor racial and ethnic minorities for government benefits. It simply urges that grantors give due consideration to their needs and interests.''

Let me close by noting that in the last several weeks, some have raised questions about the Administration's and Congress' sensitivity to issues of race. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many openly wondered whether it was the race of the victims of the Hurricane that led to a sluggish federal response. The Nation watched and asked why we had left so many people of color behind.

Today, we have a chance to respond to this issue, by telling people of color and other minorities that if you are raped or assaulted, we will do our best to make sure that you have support and counseling. We will do our best to make sure that you are not victimized twice--first by the assailant, and second by the federal bureaucracy.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in supporting the common sense idea of supporting these victims of rape and violence and vote down the Manager's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that it is not me who changed my position. The gentleman from Wisconsin supported the amendment. The amendment that he is striking in the manager's amendment, the gentleman supported in committee, so how can I be changing my position, please?

I have enjoyed the friendly exchanges we have had over the years, and I look forward to them in the future, but to threaten the House with the fact that an injunction might hold up the entire bill, it should be realized that for an injunction, it must be shown that there is a reasonable chance of passage.

He and I and, I think, probably the court would realize that there is nothing, nothing, in here that would suggest that there would be set- asides or quotas. There is nothing race-based here. He knows it; I know it; the committee knew it. And yet last night we were beset by this last problem. And all of the civil rights groups are arguing the same position.

So I urge that the manager's amendment be turned back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. Chairman, is this the amendment that authorizes the FBI National Gang Intelligence Center?

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support after-care to prisoners enrolled in the RSAT program, but the problem with the amendment is that it contains the irrational requirement that the individuals must be drug-free in order to be eligible for a substance abuse program. Please. If they are drug- free, they will not have to use a substance abuse program. So this requirement in the well-intended amendment defeats the very purpose of a substance abuse program, which is to help drug-addicted individuals overcome drug abuse. For that reason, I cannot join in the support of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, because this amendment supports the efforts to investigate domestic violence and collect data that will help define the next step for Congress to put an end to domestic violence entirely, I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I join in supporting the amendment because it ensures full funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I commend the gentleman on his amendment.

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

The simple problem with the amendment, although well intended, is that it would also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser.

In addition, battered immigrant women who are arrested sometimes receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment; and because they are not, I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of the gentleman from Iowa's amendment, which is to ensure that persons who have been convicted of certain types of abuse be prevented from sponsoring the immigration of family members whom they may, in turn, abuse.

However, while noble in its intent, this amendment is overly broad and could have serious, negative, unintended consequences on innocent immigrants, as it is currently drafted.

First, the amendment makes no distinction as to the degree of the crime or rehabilitation of the offender. A person with a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction of assault who has successfully completed a domestic violence rehabilitation program, has no further domestic violence convictions and has no other record of violent crime is barred from sponsoring family members just as an abuser with a string of domestic violence convictions culminating in the murder of his wife would be barred.

Second, the amendment does not specify where the crime must have been committed. It may well require DHS to ask foreign governments to investigate and reveal the criminal histories of U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens who have lived in other countries and are now trying to sponsor a family member. This could include countries with long histories of politically motivated persecution or human rights abuses--such as Cuba, Sudan, or Iran--and inquire about the criminal history of one of their citizens who has received asylum or refugee status here due to persecution they suffered in that country. Not only might this lead to inaccurate information from untrustworthy governments, but it also may lead to reprisals against the family members of refugees who fled persecution by the foreign government.

Third, this amendment will also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. Furthermore, battered immigrant women who are arrested often receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer, even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment.

The safety of immigrant victims can be enhanced by expanding their support system to include close family members. We should not bar victims of domestic violence from sponsoring their children, siblings and other close relatives. If this amendment passes as it is, it will do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I am not encouraging opposition to the King amendment today. However, should the House adopt this amendment, I hope that the House Conferees will work with our colleagues in the other body to ensure that the unintended negative consequences of the amendment are mitigated, while still preserving the vision that is embodied within it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the amendment as well, and I congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 462 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 462 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2009.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Additionally, I want to commend the full committee for all their hard work and time involved in the completion of this important authorizing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect, and they demand, that Congress uphold its obligation to ensure that their money is spent both wisely and effectively, and some of the most important expenditures made on behalf of the American people are included in this legislation we are considering today. Without question, the Department of Justice is charged with the responsibility to enforce and to uphold the Constitution and statutes of this great country. All Americans benefit from an effective and a fully funded law enforcement apparatus at the Federal level, at the State level, and especially at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 would authorize appropriations to fund the agencies under the Department of Justice, including the FBI; the DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration; the United States Attorneys; and the Bureau of Prisons. This bill authorizes $59 billion for these four agencies through 2010. Additionally, this legislation will reauthorize, strengthen, and implement new programs in the Violence Against Women Act, many of which are slated to expire September 30 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 also would build upon many of the reforms instituted by the administration to improve the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, OJP, and Community-Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program. This bill would merge the current Byrne grant program with the local law enforcement block grant programs into one new Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. By merging these two programs, States and local law enforcement will be able to more easily apply for and access vital funding.

Mr. Speaker, this streamlined process will improve flexibility for our State and our local governments. A one-size-fits-all mentality is not an acceptable solution for funding individual communities and law enforcement entities that have specialized and diverse needs. A certain degree of deference must be given to State and local law enforcement as they work to combat individual threats to and problems in their own communities.

However, H.R. 3402 also ratifies our need for continuing oversight of Federal dollars by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management that will ensure that the Office of Justice program runs efficiently and applies the money responsibly and effectively. This oversight office will be focused on results, and it will follow the trail of these funds so they can reach their intended target and achieve their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, this authorization would also permanently authorize an Office of Weed and Seed Strategies. This office would replace the current Executive Office of Weed and Seed created by the first Bush administration in 1991 as a community-based, multiagency approach to blend law enforcement, crime prevention, and neighborhood restoration strategies to strengthen our communities.

With respect to the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 will reauthorize and strengthen various court programs, including the STOP grant program which brings police and prosecutors into a collaborative process with victim services that aims to prevent and punish violence committed against women.

As the proud parent of three daughters and the proud grandparent of two granddaughters, I fully recognize the need to give law enforcement every tool available to prevent domestic violence and to protect America's wives, mothers, daughters and granddaughters.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 makes significant improvements to these programs. For instance, this legislation assures gender equality by requiring gender neutrality in any grant or activities that assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault or human trafficking. Additionally, H.R. 3402 includes provisions to strengthen the privacy rights of victims, to allow for a more vigorous prosecution of cyberstalking and to double, let me repeat, double the penalty for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders.

The bill not only strengthens the ability of law enforcement but it also provides victims with additional tools in the fight against domestic violence, including access to trained attorneys and to lay advocacy services.

H.R. 3402 would also create two new programs focused on children and youth who are victims of or witnesses to domestic violence. Clearly our children do not have to be physically abused to become victims of domestic violence. Exposure to these types of heinous acts can be enough to scar the life of a child forever, and this reality must be, and it is, addressed by this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, today as this House considers the rule and the underlying legislation and a number of amendments, I would like to encourage my colleagues to keep this thoughtful debate focused on the topic at hand. Funding the Department of Justice and protecting victims of domestic violence are commonsense priorities on both sides of the aisle.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. I ask my colleagues to support it and, of course, the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the amendments that were made in order, in fact, there are 12. Many of the amendments that were authored were non- germane; but in any regard, 12 amendments under this structured rule were made in order. And certainly in the interest of being fair and balanced, six Democratic amendments and six Republican amendments are those we will consider later on this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

In regard to the amendment the gentlewoman from New York is referencing, in the jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary, it was ruled nongermane to this bill. There are other committees certainly that would have jurisdiction over that and need an opportunity to look at that very closely.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Regarding the gentlewoman from California, I want to point out to her that this very issue was addressed in the gang bill that was passed earlier this year. In fact, H.R. 1279, the comprehensive gang violence prevention bill, authorized $20 million to provide assistance to State and local prosecutors to fund technology and other equipment to track gang members and maintain information about their crimes. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the gentlewoman from California's amendment on the floor on that very bill that was accepted and included in H.R. 1279.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, I had an opportunity to speak with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) regarding her concerns and her amendment, and what we have committed to her and the Committee on the Judiciary has made a commitment that they will work with her in regard to the language of her amendment as the gang bill goes to conference which really is a more appropriate vehicle to modify that language, and we do make that commitment to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues for a productive discussion on this rule.

H. Res. 462 is a good rule. It balances very well the laborious work of the Committee on the Judiciary with the amendment process on the floor. Multiple Members will have an opportunity to discuss their amendments and receive a vote, and I look forward to the further consideration of this legislation.

From the FBI to the DEA, to the United States attorneys to the Bureau of Prisons, H.R. 3402 authorizes critical funding for the Department of Justice, allowing it to continue its fight to uphold the laws of our land and to keep our citizens safe.

Additionally, this bill will strengthen many of the programs already available under the office of justice programs that aid State and local law enforcement on the ground as they work to protect their individual communities.

This Act streamlines many of the request processes and, thereby, facilitates local officials and law enforcement in accessing the funds made available by these programs.

Mr. Speaker, through the reauthorization of the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 creates stiffer penalty for abusers, and it gives more rights to the victims of domestic violence.

For the sake of law enforcement and victims across this great country, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.