[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21519-21531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 
                           2006 THROUGH 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Pursuant to House Resolution 462 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3402.

                              {time}  1414


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. 
LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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.

[[Page 21520]]

  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. CONYERS. 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

[[Page 21521]]

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. SENSENBRENNER. 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).

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that included in the Department 
of Justice reauthorization are measures that will ease the 
administrative burdens that exist for State and local governments and 
provide them greater flexibility to spend the money they have been 
awarded from the various grant programs. Is that correct?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are many areas 
throughout the country that have extremely high tourism rates. The 
local law enforcement agencies of these areas have the difficult task 
of providing services to these tourists on top of their responsibility 
to the base population. For example, the city of Las Vegas has a 
population of over 534,000 people; however, over 40 million tourists a 
year visit Las Vegas. Local law enforcement is responsible for the 
safety of these visitors, which places a huge financial strain on the 
various police departments.
  With that in mind, would the chairman agree that one factor in 
awarding grant money should be the disproportionate amount of tourists 
an area has related to that area's base population?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his offer and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it has been said 
that society's humanity is judged by the way it handles the problems 
and the protection of those who are least able to take care of 
themselves. And having watched television for the last few weeks about 
the issues around Katrina, one clearly understands that sometimes 
people on the bottom do not get handled very well. Somehow, the things 
do not happen that should happen for them. That gave us an ugly glimpse 
at that part of our society.
  And then as the country began to come out of that, the President 
walked out of the White House and said, we are not going to give 
prevailing wage to the people who work on the reconstruction of their 
own houses and their own countryside, that we were going to put them 
down at the minimum. We are going to take away the set-asides for 
minority and small business. Now, it is no wonder that these 
organizations would be concerned when they see this kind of manager's 
amendment.
  I am not a lawyer. We could stand out here and argue about all the 
lawyer technicalities inside and outside. And I will enter into the 
Record a letter dated September 28, 2005, from Hilary Shelton. When the 
NAACP and all the women's organizations come out and say we oppose this 
manager's amendment, it is understandable why they might be a little 
concerned, because every time we turn around, the safety net is being 
ripped.
  The language that is being taken out here that has been in the bill 
before is requiring the 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.''
  Now, for us not to be able to put that in the law because somebody 
says on the fringe that this is some kind of affirmative action or 
anything else, we have to take care of people who are not served in 
this society. If they happen to be in underserved areas, they do not 
necessarily have to be black or brown or red or yellow. They could be 
white. The question is, how are we going to deal with the underserved 
people in this country no matter who they are? And this amendment does 
not need to be made so that those groups can say, well, we are going to 
take you to court and fight you for 3 years.
  That is what the chairman just said. He said if we put that in there, 
they are going to go into court and say this is a quota and we want to 
fight it, and they will stretch it out for 3 years or 5 years or 
however long, a typical tactic of the

[[Page 21522]]

right to do unto those who are least able to do for themselves.
  I urge the rejection of the manager's amendment.
  The material previously referred to is as follows:

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2005.
     Re NAACP opposition to the Managers amendment to H.R. 3402, 
       Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, 
       Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009.
     Members,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots civil 
     rights organization, I am writing to express our strong 
     opposition to the Manager's amendment to H.R. 3402, the 
     Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. The Manager's amendment, 
     which is meant to be non-controversial, strips out a key 
     provision that is currently in the bill that ensures that 
     racial and ethnic minorities who are victims of domestic 
     violence would receive adequate services.
       Specifically, the bill that was passed out of the Judiciary 
     Committee 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 population''] and to ensure that each gets 
     their fair share. Unfortunately, this provision is sorely 
     needed as domestic violence is still a serious--and largely 
     untreated--problem in too many of our communities.
       I urge you again, in the strongest terms possible, to 
     oppose the Manager's amendment and to retain the language 
     that is in the bill. Please help to address the problem of 
     domestic violence in racial and ethnic minority communities 
     as well as those areas that are currently underserved. Thank 
     you in advance for your attention to the concerns of the 
     NAACP; should you have any questions or comments, please feel 
     free to contact me at (202) 463-2940.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Mr. Chairman, this is a good 
bill. It has many great programs. But there is one I would like to 
focus on today, one that I authored and worked on extensively as a 
separate bill, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I am 
proud to say it is part of the bill before us, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan for their 
support to make this happen. I am pleased, and I think it is an 
important day for all of us.
  As the Members know, VAWA was originally passed 10 years ago; and 
since that time, it has helped us make remarkable gains in fighting 
domestic and sexual violence. During that decade, VAWA, quite simply, 
has saved lives. It has helped millions of women and children find 
safety, security, and self-sufficiency.
  Because of the Violence Against Women Act, victims have found help to 
escape violence and get treatment. Law enforcement and the judicial 
system have learned how to better help these victims through what can 
be a very daunting and difficult legal process, and more people 
recognize the signs of abuse because of our public awareness campaigns.
  Every step we take in fighting domestic violence helps not only save 
the immediate victim but it can help break the cycle of abuse that 
lasts, sadly, all too often generation after generation after 
generation. In this bill we are building on the successes of the 
Violence Against Women Act not only by reauthorizing effective programs 
but also by including innovative, cost-effective new programs that will 
continue the great work of those who have come before me and others, 
work that will help the criminal justice and legal systems better help 
and protect victims.
  This law was first created 10 years ago. When it was reauthorized 5 
years ago, it was improved; and I am hoping that we are doing the same 
thing here today.
  We are doing this improvement through training grants; providing 
direct services for victims; providing services to children, teens, and 
young adults who have experienced violence in their lives, and 
educating young people about domestic violence and sexual assault.
  By strengthening the health care system's response to violence 
against women and investing in broad remedies and services for victims, 
we will continue to make progress in preventing these crimes and 
ensuring that future generations are safe from domestic and sexual 
violence.
  We have made great strides, but I think everyone here would be quick 
to admit that we have a long way to go. Any law enforcement agency will 
tell us that a huge portion of the violent crime they encounter is, 
sadly, domestic violence. If we give law enforcement better tools and 
training, if we go further to raise public awareness through campaigns, 
then we can break the cycle of violence and abuse that does seem to 
slide too easily from generation to generation.
  I recently had the opportunity to visit the courts in Milwaukee and 
saw some of the groundbreaking work that they are doing. What we need 
to do as Members of Congress is stand shoulder to shoulder with our 
domestic violence leaders and organizations all around this country, 
make sure that they have the tools and the resources they need to be 
effective, that they need to be compassionate. I think this legislation 
does just that.
  Again, I want to thank Members of both sides of the aisle who have 
worked so hard to make this legislation come forward today. It is a 
good day, and I am proud to be involved.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Violence Against Women Act has rescued 
countless women from the vicious cycle of family violence, and it 
remains the cornerstone of our country's efforts to put an end to 
domestic abuse and sexual assault. Now is not the time to abandon our 
commitment to women around the world. It is time to strengthen our 
resolve and to protect these women.
  We must also teach our youngest citizens, our children, that 
bullying, intimidation, and physical abuse are unacceptable behavior. 
That is why I fully support strengthening VAWA.
  The Sensenbrenner amendment, on the other hand, offered today would 
weaken the very core of this legislation. If racial and ethnic minority 
language is struck from the STOP grants, which specifically target 
women of color and immigrant women who have experienced domestic 
violence, these populations will continue to be underserved.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of 
VAWA in the Department of Justice bill and oppose the Sensenbrenner 
amendment so we can ensure these protections and resources remain 
available to all women.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my 
support for the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, 
and specifically title IV, the VAWA reauthorization.
  I want to thank and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin and the 
gentleman from Michigan for their efforts drafting this bill and for 
including legislative provisions from my bill, the International 
Marriage Broker Regulation Act.
  This bill would protect the thousands of so-called ``mail-order 
brides'' who come to the U.S. each year through international marriage 
brokers. And although it is not a practice I particularly endorse, it 
is a practice that is largely unregulated.
  In December 2000, this issue hit close to home when Anastasia King, a 
mail-order bride in Washington State, was murdered and buried in a 
shallow grave by her husband. It was later discovered that her husband 
had abused a former wife whom he had also met through a marriage 
broker.
  Each year hundreds of Internet bride services recruit thousands of 
women, mostly from Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and other 
economically depressed parts of the globe, to marry

[[Page 21523]]

their American clients. These marriage broker Web sites play off old 
stereotypes of foreign women as subservient wives.
  A 1999 report by the INS estimated that there were at least 200 
marriage broker companies operating in the United States and that each 
year as many as 4,000 to 6,000 individuals in U.S., almost all male, 
found foreign spouses through for-profit international marriage 
brokers.
  My International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, and this DOJ 
authorization bill, will give these foreign women knowledge to protect 
themselves. They will know if their American fiance has a history of 
violence, and they will know their rights should they find themselves 
in an abusive relationship.
  This bill will also stop what I call the ``wife lottery,'' where men 
apply for several fiancee visas at the same time and marry the woman 
whose visa is approved first.
  This legislation is a giant step towards protecting women who use the 
services of marriage brokers. I want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for including it in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the language 
contained in the Justice Department Authorization Act that reauthorizes 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  Scratch the surface of any of our Nation's most challenging social 
problems, from crime in schools to gang violence and homelessness, and 
we are likely to find the root cause is domestic violence, which 
disproportionately affects women and girls.
  Law enforcement officers report that domestic violence calls are 
among their most frequent. Judges find that children first seen in 
their courts as victims of domestic violence return later as adult 
criminal defendants. Schools report that children with emotional 
problems often come from environments where violence is the norm.
  This is why, while it is extremely important to combat violence 
against women, it is just as important to combat domestic violence 
involving the youngest of victims. This year's VAWA reauthorization 
bill takes that necessary step by clarifying that programs contained in 
VAWA can serve youth as well. It also adds programs that specifically 
target children and youth and their unique needs. Among these are the 
authorization of grants for services designed for young people who are 
victims of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, 
and prevention programs that work with children and teens to stop the 
cycle of violence.

                              {time}  1445

  Helping the young victims of domestic violence has always been an 
important issue to me. In the 107th Congress, I introduced the Legal 
Assistance for Victims of Dating Violence Act, which amended VAWA to 
allow legal assistance grants to be used to help the victims of dating 
violence. I am pleased to say that this language was included in VAWA 
when it was reauthorized in 2000, and is maintained in the VAWA 
language included in the DOJ Authorization Act today.
  I commend the Committee on the Judiciary for providing additional 
services to victims of dating violence through this legislation. 
Violence begets violence, and it is incumbent on us to try to break the 
cycle. This is done by helping victims of domestic violence, especially 
our youngest victims before they become perpetrators of domestic 
violence later in life.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of provisions of my bill, H.R. 
3188, the Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act, which are 
included in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. These 
immigrant provisions reflect hard, bipartisan work of many Members of 
Congress, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his 
leadership on this issue.
  This bill is a good start. It would help immigrant women who need to 
leave their abusive spouses by preventing their deportation while their 
application is being considered. It would provide them access to work 
permits, so that they can get a job on their own and gain economic 
security independent of their abusers. In addition to spouses, this 
bill would also protect battered children, as well as parents, from 
abusive family members.
  However, we can do more. For example, this bill does not include 
provisions which would allow battered victims access to health 
insurance, food and other benefits required to escape their abuser. I 
will work hard to include these provisions in the final bill enacted.
  As a first generation American and someone who represents an 
immigrant rich community in Chicago, I understand the unique challenges 
immigrant women face. ``My neighbor called the police, but I did not 
sign the report out of fear,'' said a Mexican immigrant and mother of 
four at a press conference I held in Chicago. She said she stayed with 
her abusive husband for 13 years to be with her children.
  This is the voice of women across the country that need our help to 
get out of the cycle of abuse. This Congress must remain vigilant in 
its fight to protect one of the most vulnerable populations in this 
country. I challenge my colleagues to make the fight against domestic 
violence a top priority.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  It has been my intent today to join with my colleagues from 
Washington State to offer two amendments to this bill. Two years ago, a 
terrible murder-homicide was committed in a parking lot in my district. 
This crime was particularly unusual in that it was committed by the 
chief of the Tacoma Police Department who murdered his wife, Crystal 
Judson Brame, while their two children sat in another car just a few 
yards away.
  The investigation that ensued found serious problems with the Tacoma 
Police Department, which had led to the hiring and continued promotion 
of an individual with a history of domestic violence. Upon promotion to 
chief, violence committed by Chief Brame against his wife was not 
addressed by the department, even when police units had responded to a 
call.
  The bottom line in this case is that the Tacoma Police Department did 
not have a strong and enforceable policy to address domestic violence 
committed by a member of the police force, and this was not a 
deficiency exclusive to Tacoma. Because of this, the Washington State 
legislature passed a law establishing strong standards for law 
enforcement agencies within the State to prevent and punish future 
incidents of domestic violence committed by law enforcement officers.
  Our law enforcement officers work very hard to protect us and to keep 
our streets safe. All too often, our law enforcement officers are 
called upon to put their lives on the line to protect us and keep us 
safe. The strain this puts on individual officers is enormous, and I am 
deeply concerned by the anecdotal evidence indicating the possibility 
of a higher incidence of domestic violence among law enforcement 
officers than among the public.
  To this end, I and my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Reichert), sought to offer an amendment to 
establish a Federal study to determine if there is a direct link 
between the nature of the job and domestic violence.
  I understand the majority had concerns with this proposal, and I look 
forward to working with the majority to try and devise a solution that 
can answer these questions. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there may 
be a possibility of it being included in a GAO

[[Page 21524]]

study that the committee is going to ask for, and this may be one way 
to find out the information.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to point out 
the STOP Grants Program is available, and we believe that police 
departments and local governments can apply today for grants, and I 
would urge all of them to do so.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the bill as passed by the 
Committee on the Judiciary makes important improvements on the 
Department of Justice authorization. It was approved on a bipartisan 
basis. It deals with the Violence Against Women Act, especially as it 
applies to immigrants, the COPS authorization, fighting drug abuse. It 
adds administrative efficiencies, and, as I indicated, it came out of 
committee on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the manager's amendment 
will ruin this bipartisan cooperation.
  Reference has been made to the letter we have received from the NAACP 
that points out that the bill as passed out by the Committee on the 
Judiciary was much better than the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there were no hearings on this amendment, there is no 
public comment, it is just a manager's amendment which is supposed to 
be uncontroversial. It would have been helpful if we could have had 
committee consideration and agreed on bipartisan language.
  I am sensitive to the concerns of the chairman that the Constitution 
may jeopardize the language that is in the bill, but I think we should 
have worked it out, and, in the absence of an agreement, I would hope 
that we would defeat the manager's amendment. If we are expected to 
appropriately address and relieve racial tensions in our communities, 
the only way I think we can do this appropriately at this point would 
be to defeat the manager's amendment and come back and try to work out 
language that everyone can agree on.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. 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.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the 
Committee on the Judiciary for 11 years, and I have concerns that the 
committee is not fulfilling completely its responsibility. There have 
been no oversight hearings in the full committee of either the FBI or 
the Bureau of Prisons in the whole 11 years I

[[Page 21525]]

served. The last general oversight hearing on the FBI was at the 
subcommittee level in 1997.
  The lack of committee oversight has created real problems in the way 
the FBI fails to conduct its business properly. Last February, in an 
appropriations subcommittee, we found out that the FBI had invested 
about $170 million on its Virtual Case File computer system and they 
admitted that $104 million of that spending was a loss to taxpayers. 
Then in March, the whole projects was scrapped and we learned from news 
reports that the new Sentinel system will cost an additional $792 
million.
  Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Inspector 
General tells us in the July report that the FBI's backlog of 
untranslated FISA material continues to grow. This means that material 
that is vital to our national defense is not getting looked at in a 
timely manner. It often gets discarded before it is looked at, and that 
is unacceptable.
  Earlier this year, I worked with many of my colleagues to introduce 
the Violence Against Women Act, which is in this bill. My bill would 
have included provisions that established grant programs to protect 
child victims of domestic violence, grant programs for housing needs, 
to protect immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and to 
protect victims of domestic violence on tribal lands. Not all of these 
measures made it into the bill, and I am hopeful in conference those 
provisions that were left out can be added in.
  I want to mention one issue which has recently come to my attention, 
which is the issue of tribal victims of domestic violence who are not 
receiving VAWA's protections. I was going to offer an amendment today 
to allow the Attorney General to appoint prosecutors designated by 
tribal governments as special assistant U.S. Attorneys to bring VAWA 
prosecutions in Federal Court. However, when I looked into it, it turns 
out the Attorney General already has this authority through his general 
authority to appoint special prosecutors. So I would like to urge the 
Attorney General to address this issue and to use his authority to make 
sure that perpetrators of domestic violence on tribal lands do not 
escape prosecution.
  We do not always need to change the law, we just need accomplishment 
and accountability in the administration, and I hope we can use our 
oversight authority to make sure we have the kind of accomplishment and 
accountability in the FBI that we are currently lacking.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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.

[[Page 21526]]

  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. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's work and 
his yielding me this time, and the work of the chairman. I much 
appreciate that the gentlemen have come forward, both of them, before 
the deadline on their portions of the bill. I am particularly 
appreciative of the dating violence, because since the last bill, we 
have infected young people down to the high school age, so the way in 
which we enlarge that section is very important.
  I do want everybody to know that all you could do was the sections 
falling under your jurisdictions. Before this is all done, we have to 
deal with the other sections of the bill, like the housing sections of 
the bill, for example. That, of course, is not with you; you are just 
trying to get the part that is with you so that the deadline would be 
reached.
  But my city is typical. Twenty to 40 women come to court every year, 
we have 48 emergency beds, a thousand women in motels. The major reason 
that these women say, no, I love him, that is why I am staying with 
him, is that they do not have anyplace to go. In fact, what you have is 
women facing homelessness or staying with an abuser. So before this 
process is all over, I hope we will bear in mind that the other 
sections of this bill that cannot be before us now are part and parcel 
of all we are trying to do here.
  I salute the Committee on the Judiciary, the chairman and the ranking 
member, for doing all they could at this point; and let us get to work 
on the rest of the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act.
  While I am supportive of the underlying bill, the manager's amendment 
that we will soon consider creates a serious problem for women of color 
who are victims of domestic violence. The manager's amendment will 
weaken the definition of ``underserved communities,'' so that groups 
that work specifically to help women of color who are victims of 
domestic violence would continue to be ignored by the grants process 
through the Department of Justice.
  After all the bipartisan work that we have done throughout the years 
to work on this to reach a balanced approach, just this morning we 
heard that the Republican leadership was shortchanging the women of 
color and were taking out this very key language.
  When considering VAWA, we must recognize the conflicts and problems 
facing women of color, particularly immigrant women, who are victims of 
domestic violence. Women of color are less likely to report incidents 
of domestic violence, which means that studies of domestic violence 
among communities of color do not reflect the reality of these women's 
lives. Women of color who are victims of violence are at even greater 
risk when their spouses control their immigration status.
  Women of color also face institutional barriers to reporting abuse 
and seeking help, partly because they do not have access to individuals 
who understand their language. It is important to have translators 
available. It is important to have outreach literature available to 
them in their native language.
  By addressing domestic violence in these communities in a way that 
understands their culture and honors their values, we greatly increase 
the chances of making a difference for women of color who are being 
abused. It is my hope that the reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act is comprehensive and meets the needs of all women.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment 
and to join those national domestic violence groups in opposing the 
manager's amendment: the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Coalition to End Domestic 
Violence, Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, Legal Momentum, and 
lastly, the NAACP.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against 
Women Act has been instrumental in protecting women from domestic 
violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Domestic 
violence often has devastating consequences for women, their families 
and society as a whole.
  The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization provides essential 
grants including educational programs for the prevention of domestic 
violence in schools, battered women's shelters, a national domestic 
violence hotline, grants to improve law enforcement and prosecution of 
violent crimes against women, among others. It also provides much 
needed services for the protection of children from maltreatment, 
sexual assault, and domestic violence.

[[Page 21527]]

  I believe it is important to provide preventative domestic violence 
programs as well as help those who have been affected by domestic 
violence with programs that can help them recover and protect them in 
the future. Many of the domestic violence programs that we have today 
would not be able to continue without the reauthorization of the 
Violence Against Women Act. I urge all my colleagues to support this 
important piece of legislation and allow these much needed programs and 
services to continue so that we may continue to work to stop domestic 
violence.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, during debate on the rule 
for this bill, the gentleman from Georgia who was managing the floor 
for the majority stated that my amendments to this bill were not 
germane.
  I would like the Record to show that the Parliamentarian has advised 
me that both amendments are in fact germane.
  Just to be clear, the rules committee did not reject this amendment 
because it was not germane--it certainly is-- They rejected it, I 
believe, because they were simply trying to shield Members of Congress 
from having to go on the record against offering information to rape 
victims that could help prevent pregnancy or abortion.
  Again, please let the Record show that my amendments were germane.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 3402, the 
reauthorization of the Department of Justice. I applaud the authors of 
the Violence Against Women Act for addressing the far reaching problems 
associated with domestic abuse. I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
support of this legislation.
  Domestic violence is a tragedy. It affects far too many women all 
over America.
  Earlier this year, a body was found in my district in Cherry Hill 
that was thought to be the body of a woman who had been reported 
missing. She had left for her job in Towson that morning but never 
arrived at work. She had not made contact with friends or relatives, 
and after her boyfriend led police to the body it was decided to keep 
him in custody. This kind of tragedy needs to stop.
  There is no profile for being a battered woman. Any woman is at risk 
of being abused. The highest risk factor is simply being born a woman.
  Victims may experience many different forms of abuse. They include 
physical harm as well as mental dangers that are just as damaging. Both 
physical and mental abuse destroy self-esteem and independence and 
cause damage which cannot be undone. Many women lack the courage or 
ability to leave abusive relationships and even more frightening is 
that abuses nearly always escalate in frequency and degree over time.
  Children witnessing domestic abuse also suffer. Children who live in 
an abusive home may become withdrawn, anxious, depressed, confused and 
angry. They also are at risk for learning dangerous behavior and 
continuing in an abusive cycle.
  The Violence Against Women Act was originally passed in 1994. It made 
huge progress in the way domestic violence was viewed. Since 1994 the 
VAWA has provided resources and protections for victims of domestic 
violence and sexual assault. The VAWA has saved lives and helped 
millions of victims find safety, security and self-sufficiency.
  The VAWA was reauthorized in 2000. Since that time over $14 billion 
dollars in social costs, prevented medical and mental health care and 
enforcement costs have been saved.
  The VAWA provides practical solutions for criminal justice and legal 
systems. It develops standards for protecting the confidentiality of 
victims, and allows for the enforcement of protective orders across 
state lines.
  We must take this critical step in preventing and addressing abuse. 
We must solve the problem of domestic violence. I fully support the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3402 
which reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act. Domestic violence is 
an issue throughout our Nation and in my district. Federal funding of 
the Violence Against Women Act has helped decrease domestic violence on 
Guam, and the reauthorization of these programs will ensure that the 
progress we have achieved in reducing domestic violence will continue. 
In reauthorizing this Act, Congress sends the message that domestic 
violence will not be tolerated and we stand with women on this issue.
  Statistics show that in 2001 alone, more than half a million women 
were victims of nonfatal violence by a partner. But these women were 
more than statistics--they were someone's mother, daughter, sister, or 
friend. Their voices have been heard and that is why I support H.R. 
3402 and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3402, the 
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which contains 
an amendment that I proposed during the consideration of the bill by 
the House Judiciary Committee to address the rising threat of Organized 
Retail Theft, ORT.
  ORT poses a serious threat to our Nation's consumers and businesses. 
It is estimated that professional organized retail theft rings are 
responsible for pilfering up to $30 billion in merchandise from retail 
stores annually.
  Organized retail theft groups typically target everyday household 
commodities and consumer items that can be easily sold through fencing 
operations, flea markets, swap meets and shady store-front operations. 
Items that are routinely stolen include over-the-counter drug products, 
such as analgesics and cold medications, razor blades, camera film, 
batteries, videos, DVDs, CDs, smoking cessation products, infant 
formula and computer software items. Thieves often travel from retail 
store to retail store, and from state to state, stealing relatively 
small amounts of goods from each store, but cumulatively stealing 
significant amounts of goods. Once stolen, these products can be sold 
back to fencing operations, which can dilute, alter and repackage the 
goods and then resell them, sometimes back to the same stores from 
which the products were originally stolen.
  When a product does not travel through the authorized channels of 
distribution, there is an increased risk that the product has been 
altered, diluted, reproduced and/or repackaged. These so-called 
``diverted products'' pose significant health risks to the public, 
especially the diverted medications and food products. Diverted 
products also cause considerable financial losses for legitimate 
manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, the consumers bear the brunt 
of these losses as retail establishments are forced to raise prices to 
cover the additional costs of security and theft prevention measures.
  At the State level, organized retail theft crimes are normally 
prosecuted under state shoplifting statutes as mere misdemeanors. As a 
result, the thieves that participate in organized retail theft rings 
typically receive the same punishment as common shoplifters. The 
thieves who are convicted usually see very limited jail time or are 
placed on probation. I believe that the punishment does not fit the 
crime in these situations. Mere slaps on the wrists of these criminals 
has practically no deterrent effect. In addition, criminals who are 
involved in organized retail theft rings pose greater risks to the 
public because their intent is for the goods to be resold. Because the 
routes of these diverted products are extremely difficult to trace, 
there is a greater risk that these goods will be faulty, outdated and 
dangerous for consumer use. The punishment for these interstate crimes 
should be greater than that for common shoplifters.
  In December 2003, in response to growth of ORT crimes, the FBI 
established an organized retail theft initiative. While this is a good 
start, much work needs to be done to combat this problem.
  The amendment incorporated into H.R. 3402 will earmark resources for 
DOJ to address ORT crimes to ensure that these crimes receive the 
appropriate attention. Specifically, this amendment creates a Federal 
definition of organized retail theft crimes, and authorizes $5 million 
for each of the next three fiscal years for educating and training 
Federal law enforcement regarding these crimes, as well as for 
investigating, apprehending and prosecuting individuals engaged in 
these crimes. In addition, this amendment directs the FBI to consult 
with the private sector in order to construct a database, housed in the 
private sector, where retail establishments, as well as Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement can compile evidence on specific organized 
retail theft crimes to aid investigations and prosecutions. Often, a 
lack of information about the interstate nature of these crimes 
prevents federal law enforcement from getting involved in these cases. 
This database will help put the pieces together to show the organized 
and multi-state nature of these crimes, as well as provide important 
evidence for prosecutions.
  I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his willingness to address 
organized retail theft crimes in this important authorizing 
legislation, and I look forward to continuing to work to combat these 
serious crimes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise it support of H.R. 3402, the 
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
2006 through 2009, particularly the sections which re-authorizes 
portions of the Violence Against Women Act that are under the 
jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee.
  I am a long-time supporter of programs authorized by the Violence 
Against Women Act. I believe Congress must proactively work to

[[Page 21528]]

combat crimes against women including domestic violence, rape and other 
sex crimes.
  In 1994, I voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act, which incorporated VAWA. This legislation established a number of 
grant programs designed to aid law enforcement officers and 
prosecutors, encourage arrest policies, stem domestic violence and 
child abuse, and establish training programs for victim advocates and 
counselors.
  I am deeply concerned about the scourge of domestic violence and 
other crimes against women, and recognize the need for support services 
and tough prosecution guidelines. Each year, approximately 2 million 
women are physically or sexually assaulted or stalked by an intimate 
partner in the United States. Perpetrators of these reprehensible 
crimes must be punished, and victims must have the services available 
to help transition to a normal life.
  Passing H.R. 3402 will ensure the development and continuation of 
programs that work to prevent violence and assist survivors and their 
families regain their safety and self-sufficiency. I strongly support 
these programs and encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WEINER. 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. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that is a part 
of today's Department of Justice Authorization Act. Enacted in 1994, 
this law provides access to programs and services for many victims of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Since 
VAWA was first passed, domestic violence has decreased by almost 50 
percent and incidents of rape have decreased by 60 percent More than 
one million women have used the judicial system to obtain domestic 
violence protective orders.
  During my time as a former King County Prosecutor I saw how VAWA 
successfully helped many people. The criminal justice system was 
improved by training police and prosecutors to respond more effectively 
to incidences of domestic violence or sexual assaults. The Act also 
provided legal aid so victims may seek justice to their crimes. It 
provided the tools in order to protect the victims and provide them 
with the services they need to escape this horrible situation.
  But there is still more work to be done. Each year, 960,000 incidents 
of violence are reported in which the offender has acted against a 
current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. It is unacceptable 
that women are still being abused. It is unacceptable that high school 
students are sexually harassed. It is unacceptable that these victims 
face the fear and embarrassment of telling others about their 
situation.
  Unfortunately, some victims are faced with the situation where their 
abuser is a law enforcement officer. I recognize that law enforcement 
officers are faced with many complex situations and a great deal of 
work-related stress. I recognize that law enforcement officers are 
faced with complex situations on a day to day basis while trying to 
make our communities safer. However, these situations can push many to 
their limits and cause hardships in their jobs and personal lives.
  I would like to bring to your attention the case of Crystal Judson. 
On April 26, 2003, Tacoma Police Chief David Brame shot his wife, 
Crystal Judson Brame, before he killed himself in a parking lot in Gig 
Harbor, a community near my district. Their two young children, ages 8 
and 5, sat nearby in their father's car. Crystal had been the victim of 
abuse for many years prior to this incident, but she was unable to 
obtain help for herself and her children in part because she lacked the 
tools and resources she needed.
  Unfortunately, there was no policy in place for the City of Tacoma or 
the Tacoma Police to address this issue.
  In response to this incident, the Washington State Legislature passed 
a law in 2004 establishing standards for law enforcement agencies 
within the state to prevent and punish future incidents of domestic 
violence committed by law enforcement officers. I am pleased to

[[Page 21529]]

see law enforcement agencies taking this matter seriously and 
implementing policies that help them address these situations.
  I am disappointed that I--along with several of my colleagues from 
Washington State--were not able to offer two amendments that sought to 
address this issue. The first amendment would have simply clarified 
that Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecution (STOP) program 
grants were available to law enforcement agencies to develop policies 
to address law enforcement officer domestic abuse. STOP grants promotes 
a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the criminal 
justice system's response to violent crimes against women by 
encouraging the development and strengthening of effective law 
enforcement and prosecution strategies to address violent crimes 
against women and the development and strengthening of victim services 
in cases involving violent crimes against women.
  The second amendment would initiate a study conducted by the 
Department of Justice to investigate the incidence of domestic violence 
involving law enforcement officers. Little research has been done on 
this specific issue in over a decade. A study conducted by the Justice 
Department could provide policymakers with critical facts and 
information as we seek to undertake a federal effort to address the 
issue. While I am pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner agreed to conduct 
a GAO Report on law enforcement-officer-involved domestic violence, I 
hope this study will be conducted in a speedy manner to ensure other 
victims like Crystal Brame are not left without a voice.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure ample funding 
for VAWA and STOP grants. I look forward to supporting the Chairman in 
his request and look forward to the results so we can do more to assist 
victims of domestic abuse.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
provisions contained in the Justice Department authorization bill that 
relate to the Violence Against Women Act. It is fitting that we are 
considering this measure today, as yesterday this body passed H. Con. 
Res. 209, which will designate October as National Domestic Violence 
Awareness Month.
  The Violence Against Women Act was first authorized in 1994. Since 
that time, the rate of family violence has dropped from 5.4 to 2.1 
victims per 1,000 U.S. residents over the age of 12. These provisions 
expand upon the many successes of the Violence Against Women Act since 
its inception. They will enhance the civil and criminal response to 
violence against women, will improve services and outreach to victims, 
and will provide additional resources for sexual assault victims 
through rape crisis centers and State coalitions.
  I am also pleased that provisions in this Act will address the needs 
of victims from communities of color, and which aid immigrant and 
tribal victims have been strengthened. However, I am concerned that the 
manager's amendment will strike the phrase ``ethnic and racial'' from 
several sections in the bill, which will have the effect of specific 
racial and ethnic communities not having their specific concerns 
addressed.
  This amendment should be rejected, thereby helping to ensure that 
racial and ethnic minority women will have their safety needs met 
through culturally-appropriate services.
  By leaving the language as it stands, the Violence Against Women Act 
will ensure that racial and ethnic minority women will have their 
safety needs met through culturally appropriate services.
  Rejecting the amendment also will ensure that culturally specific, 
community-based organizations will have the opportunity to access 
Federal funds that address domestic violence, sexual violence and other 
social ills.
  Two years ago, I was pleased to support a Federal earmark for 
Communities Against Domestic Violence, a worthwhile organization in 
Northern Virginia which provides public awareness and education 
programs designed to discourage domestic violence in the Hispanic, 
Vietnamese and Korean communities.
  Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my constituents from the 
local offices on Women in the city of Alexandria and Fairfax County, 
Arlington County's Domestic Violence Services and Violence Intervention 
Program and the numerous non-profit organizations which work to address 
domestic violence issues and break this devastating and destructive 
cycle of violence.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment, and to 
support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Particularly, I am a 
strong supporter of the section renewing the Violence Against Women 
Act, and a new program I've worked on, the Jessica Gonzales Victim 
Assistance Program, to better enforce protective orders. Today, 
together, we are making a big leap forward in protecting women who are 
victims.
  For many years domestic violence has been viewed as a woman's 
problem, but that is not the case. Domestic violence is a woman's 
problem, a man's problem, the community's problem. The time is long 
overdue for men to take a stand and say that domestic violence is 
unacceptable.
  On June 27, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court held that 
the police did not have a mandatory duty to make an arrest under a 
court-issued protective order to protect a woman from a violent 
husband. The ruling ended a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed the 
police did not do enough to prevent her violent husband from killing 
their 3 young daughters. The ruling said Jessica Gonzales did not have 
a constitutional right to police enforcement of the protective court 
order against her husband.
  The heartbreaking details of this case show the desperate need for 
legislation. That's why I have drafted the Jessica Gonzales Victim 
Assistance Program, which will restore some of the effectiveness of 
protective orders.
  The Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program would place special 
victim assistants in local law enforcement agencies to serve as 
liaisons between the agencies and victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking in order to improve the 
enforcement of protection orders.
  I support the underlying bill and the renewal of the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3402, a 
measure that reauthorizes most Justice Department programs through FY 
2009, with some extended through FY 2010. I support this measure 
because it provides crucial funding for Justice Department programs. 
The bill authorizes $95 billion through FY 2010, including $5.8 billion 
for the FBI in FY 2006, and $5 billion for Federal prisons.
  I am especially glad to see that this bill reauthorizes programs 
funded under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which is designed to 
combat crimes often targeted toward women, such as stalking, domestic 
violence, and sexual assault. During the past decade, VAWA of 1994 and 
2000 have provided tremendous protections and support for victims of 
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. VAWA funding has 
provided law enforcement agencies, the judicial system, rape crisis 
centers, and domestic violence shelters with the expertise and services 
they need to do the work of prevention and protection of those affected 
by violence. The reauthorization of VAWA will allow us to continue to 
fund crucial and successful programs and expand on 10 years of progress 
to further provide safety and stability for survivors of gender-based 
violence.
  I am disappointed that late last night, Judiciary Majority staff 
submitted a manager's amendment which strikes ``racial and ethnic 
minorities'' from the definition of underserved populations in the STOP 
grants section of VAWA. STOP grants are the heart of VAWA funding. 
Without this language, domestic violence prevention and treatment 
services specifically targeting women of color and immigrant victims of 
domestic violence will continue to be shortchanged. This language 
change is a major flaw in the Manager's Amendment and I oppose the 
amendment.
  H.R. 3402 also merges the Byrne Grant Program and the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant program, and renames it the Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. It authorizes $1.1 billion 
for this program in FY 2006 and such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
years 2007 through 2009. Finally, the bill re-organizes the Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program by consolidating all the 
different grant programs into a single block grant program. The bill 
authorizes $1 billion in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for 
this important crime fighting program.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill overall and I am glad to see 
Republicans working with Democrats on such an important measure.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of several important programs that will be reauthorized in H.R. 
3402, The Department of Justice Authorization Act. The two programs 
that I'd like to highlight are the Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS) program and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). 
Both COPS and SCAAP provide critical resources that help local law 
enforcement do their job.
  The COPS program consists of Federal grants to provide assistance to 
eligible police

[[Page 21530]]

departments to help improve community policing efforts and law 
enforcement support activities including: hiring or rehiring police 
officers, purchasing equipment; paying overtime; and building support 
systems.
  The COPS program has long had bipartisan support in Congress, even in 
the face of repeated proposed budget cuts from this Administration. 
Despite these budget proposals Congress worked in a bipartisan way to 
appropriate funding for the COPS program and ensure that our local law 
enforcement agencies continued to receive these valuable grants. I hope 
that the formal reauthorization of the COPS program through H.R. 3402 
clarifies the Congressional recognition of the significance of the COPS 
programs to local law enforcement, and the importance of the COPS 
program now and in the future.
  The SCAAP reimburses states and localities for the cost of detaining 
criminal aliens. These funds are critical for local law enforcement 
agencies; especially those in border states like California, that 
routinely cover the cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. 
Between FY2001 and FY2005, SCAAP funding decreased by $265 million. 
This is unacceptable and places a significant burden on cash-strapped 
States that desperately need reimbursement.
  I supported the Kolbe/Dreier/Lewis amendment to increase the 
authorized funding for SCAAP to $750 million for FY06, $850 million for 
FY07, and $950 million for FY08-11. I am pleased that this amendment 
was accepted as it will provide much needed funds to the states and 
improve their ability to work with the Federal government on border 
security and immigration issues.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, for 10 years, the Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA) has strengthened communities and provided critical, life-
saving support to victims of violence. VAWA has meant that no victim of 
violence has to suffer in silence. This legislation has been a 
tremendous success in addressing an appalling problem: since VAWA was 
enacted in 1994, states have passed more than 660 laws to combat 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The 
National Domestic Violence Hotline has answered more than 1 million 
calls. VAWA has strengthened communities across the country and saved 
countless lives. But we can and must do more.
  Women should feel safe whether in public or private: In their 
workplace, in their homes, and walking on the street. Yet many women 
continue to live in fear. One in three American women report being 
physically or sexually abused by a partner at some point in their 
lives, and more than three women are murdered by their husbands or 
boyfriends in this country every day. We cannot tolerate the violence, 
abuse, and sexual assault that pervade our communities. As a nation, we 
must fight this epidemic in every way possible.
  Today, the House reauthorized VAWA, making dramatic improvements to 
the existing law by establishing new rape crisis centers and increasing 
grants for community organizations that work to prevent and eliminate 
domestic violence. The reauthorization of VAWA is a critical step and a 
national commitment to keep future generations of women and children 
safe.
  Unfortunately, the spirit of VAWA came under attack today by the 
House Republicans. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner offered 
an amendment that eliminated carefully crafted provisions of the 
bipartisan bill that recognized that racial and ethnic minorities face 
unique challenges in reporting and getting help for domestic violence, 
sexual assault, trafficking and stalking. With this change, domestic 
violence prevention and treatment services specifically targeting women 
of color and immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault 
will continue to be shortchanged.
  VAWA is one of the crowning achievements of the Congressional Caucus 
on Women's Issues and a truly bipartisan success. I urge the Senate to 
reject the Sensenbrenner amendment and return the bill to its original, 
bipartisan version.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Congress took a significant step 
forward in the fight against domestic violence by enacting the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA). Today, as part of the DOJ reauthorization, we 
are considering the reauthorization of VAWA (VAWA 2005), making it a 
stronger and more effective tool in the struggle to end domestic 
violence.
  I have met with many of the domestic violence shelters and advocates 
in my district who tell me that VAWA is working. Victim Outreach 
Intervention Center provides services to survivors of domestic 
violence, sexual assault and other violent crimes. On an average year, 
VOICE provides services to over 3,000 people in Butler County.
  The VAWA funding they receive has made a tremendous improvement in 
both the types of services they provide and also to the scale on which 
they are able to serve. Their counseling and advocacy services are 
substantially funded by VAWA. Without this money, VOICE would be unable 
to serve survivors at current levels; a waiting list for direct 
services, which could contain 20-25 survivors at a time, would have to 
be established.
  In order to provide that basic level of service, VOICE would have to 
substantially decrease or eliminate programs, such as their Prevention/
Education programming. Without the re-authorization of VAWA, the past 
28 years of progress they have made in service to survivors would be 
set back tenfold.
  Nearly one in four women experiences at least one physical assault by 
a partner during adulthood. As resources become stronger, more victims 
gain the courage to seek help. Now is not the time to retreat. The work 
at the state and local level has become more, not less, complex.
  The programs and provisions of VAWA will continue the progress made 
over the past 10 years in three ways.
  First, VAWA 2005 reinforces existing core programs like the STOP 
grants which have brought communities together to solve the problem of 
domestic violence. VAWA programs have provided training for hundreds of 
law enforcement officers on the dynamics of domestic violence and VAWA 
2005 will attempt to solve the problem attrition among domestic 
violence professionals.
  Second, with VAWA 2005 we ensure that the needs of uniquely 
vulnerable communities are met. One of the lessons we have learned over 
the past 10 years is that many victims face unique obstacles.
  VAWA has helped fund specialized services to improve victim safety in 
rural areas, such as paying for ``attorneys on wheels'' to help rural 
women get to court or effective outreach programs in remote 
communities.
  VAWA 2005 also addresses the unique challenges faced by persons with 
disabilities and elder victims of abuse, by offering services tailored 
to their circumstances and by educating their communities on how to 
best provide services.
  Third, VAWA 2005 provides greater opportunities for victims to 
rebuild their lives. While domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking are fundamentally criminal justice problems, the 
solutions are not to be found in the criminal justice system alone.
  VAWA 2005 will help victims rebuild their lives and create long term 
security for themselves and their children. It works to educate 
domestic violence prevention professionals, child welfare workers, and 
home visitors on how to identify and serve victims of domestic 
violence. Further, it provides guidance on preventing violence, rather 
than reacting to it.
  We've come a long way since 1994, but people from my district tell me 
that our shelters are full and our hotlines are ringing off the hook. 
We need to continue with our mission to end violence against women and 
children. VAWA 2005 is an important step in that mission.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, prior to my election to Congress, I was a 
patient advocate and rape crisis counselor in New York's hospitals. I 
saw first-hand the debilitating effects domestic violence, dating 
violence, and sexual assault can have on a woman. It was there, as I 
counseled thousands of victims of rape and assault, that I recognized 
that more resources need to be provided to prevent these types of 
attacks, to assist victims in receiving justice, and to help these 
women put their shattered lives back together. That is why I feel so 
strongly about the Violence Against Women Act.
  VAWA literally transformed the way our society deals with these types 
of attacks. Over the past ten years, it has provided vital resources 
and protections for victims. It has provided increased training for 
police, prosecutors, and court officials, and overhauled how the 
criminal justice system responds to victims of violence.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3402, which reauthorizes 
the Violence Against Women Act, because it works. It is an effective 
tool in reducing the number of women living with violence.
  H.R. 3402 develops new programs that meet the needs of battered women 
and creates a comprehensive approach to ending domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  Congress must reauthorize these historic women protections, and I ask 
that all of my colleagues support it later today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page 21531]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3402) to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 
2006 through 2009, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________