F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is also a very good amendment. The gentleman from Massachusetts is also batting 1.000. We are happy to accept it, and he should play for the Red Sox, too.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment, and I am pleased to accept it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. This manager's amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes requested by the Department of Justice. Probably more importantly, because this is the issue of controversy, it clarifies a provision in the legislation that may have been vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. In its current form, a provision in the legislation could be viewed to prescribe race-based VAWA grant awards by conditioning certain grants upon an applicant's ability to address the needs of ethnic and racial minorities. The amendment addresses this issue by clarifying existing VAWA grant criteria that require applicants to indicate how they intend to meet the needs of populations that are currently underserved by existing VAWA programs. Specifically, the manager's amendment clarifies that such funding should be based on an applicant's ability to address the needs of ``populations underserved by geographic locations, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs, such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age, and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General.'' The amendment remedies the possible constitutional concerns that effectuates the intent of the committee when drafting the legislation. Additionally, the amendment reauthorizes the Secure Our Schools grant program and ensures that it is preserved as a stand-alone program; authorizes a program for training prosecutors for child abuse cases; and ensures that Native American Tribes are eligible for certain DOJ grants, including the new Justice Assistance Grants program and the Weed and Seed program grants. Finally, the amendment includes a provision to encourage cooperation between Federal, State and local courts and communities to ensure that the State and local courts will be able to continue to operate utilizing available Federal facilities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me say that the gentleman from Michigan correctly states the law that anything that has race-based quotas in it or set-asides is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. I am afraid that if the manager's amendment goes down, there will be a lawsuit and a temporary restraining order against disposing of any of these funds to underserved communities, and that would be a shame. What the manager's amendment does is err on the side of caution. Now I point out that the bill, H.R. 357 of the 106th Congress, which the gentleman from Michigan himself introduced, does exactly what the manager's amendment proposes to do. And in section 651(c)(7), his bill from the 106th Congress says underserved populations include populations underserved because of race, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, alienage status, geographic location, including rural isolation, language barriers, or any other populations determined to be underserved by the State planning process. Now the gentleman from Michigan has changed his position. The manager's amendment keeps it the way it is because we know that the money will be flowing and cannot be enjoined as a result of a constitutional challenge irrespective of how that challenge ends up being finally decided by the courts. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the SCAAP program is a very important program in providing reimbursements to those States that do have to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens. I am pleased to support his amendment and would urge that we promptly adopt it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment. I am pleased to accept it and commend him for drafting this amendment and persuading the Committee on Rules to make it in order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will support the amendment at this time, but I believe that the language may need to be refined during conference and pledge that I will work with the gentlewoman from New York to refine the language if it is determined to be necessary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 245, expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Supreme Court should speedily find the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States. As Justice Stevens noted, writing for the Court last year in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, ``The Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.'' However, going far beyond the requirements of the Establishment Clause and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that clause, the Ninth Circuit struck down a school policy of voluntary, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, citing that the policy impermissibly coerces a religious act. Last summer, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision on standing grounds. Though the Court did not address the merits of the case, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his concurring opinion: ``I do not believe that the phrase `under God' in the Pledge converts its recital into a `religious exercise.' Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase `under God' is in no sense a phraser, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact that from the time of our earliest history, our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.'' Just 2 weeks ago, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, the Eastern District of California relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision and held that school district policies of voluntary, teacher-led recitations of the Pledge violate the Establishment Clause. But, as former Chief Justice Rehnquist stated: ``The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they choose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of `heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase `under God' is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.'' The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a patriotic exercise in which one expresses support for the United States of America, that was founded by a generation of framers who saw a belief in God as fundamental to sustaining the moral fabric of a free society. Those who did not share the beliefs of our founding generation as reflected in the Pledge are free to refrain from its recitation. However, those who wish to voluntarily recognize the special role of providence in America's identity and heritage must also continue to be free to do so. This body affirms its support for the Pledge of Allegiance by starting each session of the House with its recitation. When the Pledge of Allegiance has come under legal and political assault, this body has consistently and overwhelmingly defended it by passing resolutions that expressed support for its voluntary recitation. Most recently, in 2003, the House passed H. Res. 132 affirming support for the Pledge by a margin of 400 to 7. I urge my colleagues to continue to affirm their support for the Pledge of Allegiance by supporting the passage of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 245) expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Supreme Court should speedily find the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 245.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the author of the resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3402, the bill to be considered shortly.