F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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. 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.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the last roll call that the author of the motion to recommit voted in favor of passage of H.R. 3402. At the time he rose to offer the motion to recommit, he stated clearly that he was opposed to the bill in its present form; and during my arguments against the motion to recommit, I reminded him and other Members that in order to make a motion to recommit, one must be opposed to the bill. This is in direct contravention of House rules and the admonition of the Speaker several months ago when the author of another motion to recommit on another bill voted in favor of the passage of the bill. I would hope that Members would be cognizant of the rules and precedents of the House and not repeat what has just happened.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 3402 that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1368) to extend the existence of the Parole Commission, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1368, the United States Parole Commission Extension and Sentencing Commission Authority Act of 2005. This bill extends the Parole Commission for an additional 3 years and provides the Sentencing Commission with authority to adopt emergency guideline changes for obstruction of justice and anabolic steroids offenses. Congress initially created the Parole Commission in 1976. However, with the creation of Federal sentencing guidelines, the Parole Commission was slated to expire 5 years after the new sentencing system was implemented. Since the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress has extended the Parole Commission on several occasions. Without further congressional action, the Parole Commission is currently scheduled to expire on October 31, 2005. The Parole Commission is responsible for handling parole cases for offenders who were sentenced prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the Sentencing Commission, and eventually led to the elimination of Federal parole for offenders sentenced after 1987. Additionally, in 1997, the Parole Commission was assigned responsibility for supervising offenders in the District of Columbia, which were previously supervised by the D.C. Board of Parole. Enacting this bill is necessary in order for the Parole Commission to continue to carry on these important functions. The provisions in this bill relating to the Sentencing Commission's authority are needed to ensure that the Commission can expeditiously adopt new sentencing guidelines pursuant to two laws enacted during the previous Congress. Under this legislation, the Sentencing Commission will have 60 days to implement the new sentencing guidelines of section 6703 of the Intelligence Reform Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which increases penalties for obstruction of justice offenses involving international or domestic terrorism. Additionally, this legislation directs the Commission within 180 days to amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the seriousness of steroid offenses in accordance with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. Granting emergency amendment authority to the Commission in these two areas will permit the Commission to promulgate appropriate amendments as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.