ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly


[Congressional Record: May 1, 2002 (House)]
[Page H1990-H1997]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr01my02-42]                         



 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2215, THE 21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT 
              OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         Ms. DeGette moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2215 be 
     instructed to--
         (1) agree to title IV of the Senate amendment 
     (establishing a Violence Against Women Office); and
         (2) insist upon section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by section 402 of the 
     House bill (establishing duties and functions of the Director 
     of the Violence Against Women Office).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).


                             General Leave

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2215.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion before us now would instruct conferees to the 
U.S. Department of Justice authorization bill to agree on the Senate 
provisions to make the Violence Against Women Office independent within 
the Justice Department, and also the House language that provides a 
clearly defined list of important duties and authority that VAWO should 
have. The combination of these provisions will effectively strengthen 
the Violence Against Women Act so that it can carry out its mission.

[[Page H1991]]

  Before I discuss the reasons why this is so important, I would like 
to begin by recognizing two Members who have been integral to this 
issue. The first one, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), has 
worked on this bill and this issue for quite some time, both as a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and as a member of the 
conference committee to H.R. 2215. Working to protect women from 
domestic violence has always been a high priority for her and her work 
to protect the integrity of the Violence Against Women Office in the 
Department of Justice has been invaluable.
  I would also like to recognize the work of the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter), who has always been a champion in the fight 
against domestic violence throughout her distinguished tenure in 
Congress. As one of the original sponsors of the Violence Against Women 
Act, she was integral to its passage. The gentlewoman continues to be a 
leader who we all look to on the issues and many other issues as well.
  I want to thank these esteemed Members for their leadership and say 
what an honor it has been to work with them on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department 
of Justice was created in 1995 to implement the programs created under 
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The creation of this office was 
critical to transforming the work done in the States to address the 
issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
  The establishment of this office meant that for the very first time 
there was a strong showing of leadership from the Federal Government on 
the issue of domestic violence. This leadership has lent guidance and 
support to all the different entities at the State level to work to 
reduce the incidence and lessen the impact of violence against women. 
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, the courts, and victim service 
organizations have all been assisted by the guidance given by the 
Violence Against Women Office. That office has served as a powerful 
voice within the administration, ensuring that keeping women and 
children safe from abuse is a top priority of the Federal Government.
  The office also administers grants to States, tribal communities, 
local communities, and domestic violence and sexual assault providers 
to assist with improving the methods in which the criminal and civil 
justice systems respond to violent actions against women.
  How has the office improved the way we deal with domestic violence? I 
would just like to describe a few ways in which the office has been 
transformative on the issue. The Violence Against Women Office has 
worked with U.S. Attorneys to ensure enforcement of the Federal 
criminal statutes contained in the Violence Against Women Act and 
assisted the Attorney General in formulating policy relating to civil 
and criminal justice for women.
  The office also works closely with State and local organizations, 
with the understanding that ending violent crimes against women and 
children requires coordinated community-based responses. It administers 
over $270 million in grants each year to assist States and tribes to 
deal with the problem of domestic violence. The office also ensures the 
appropriate training of judges and other law enforcement personnel.

  The Department of Justice Health and Human Services National Council 
on Violence Against Women, staffed by the Violence Against Women 
Office, has raised awareness in this country about the nature and 
harmful effects of domestic violence and, as a result, there is a great 
deal more awareness of domestic violence and its effect among the 
general public.
  These are just a few of the myriad ways in which the Violence Against 
Women Office has provided leadership. So what exactly is the problem we 
are here to address? Unfortunately, the Violence Against Women Office 
has never been instituted under Federal statute, and much of its power 
has been undermined, thereby reducing its effectiveness. Because this 
office was never instituted under a Federal statute, it is vulnerable 
to being stripped of its power. And, indeed, that is exactly what has 
been happening lately.
  In fact, there is nothing to prevent this administration or any other 
administration from summarily shutting the office down completely. 
Right now, the office is in a location well outside the main Department 
of Justice building, and its director, who used to have a seat at daily 
meetings of executive leadership with the Attorney General, now has 
very limited access to the power structure within the agency.
  Just a few months ago, in fact, the policy office was effectively 
shut down. This completely undermines it and hobbles the office's 
ability to retain its status both as a national resource and an 
international leader on the issue of domestic violence.
  Currently, the Justice Department is engaged in reorganizing internal 
offices that distribute grant funding, including the Violence Against 
Women Office. These plans, unfortunately, include reducing the already 
understaffed office as well as consolidating its funding goals with 
other unrelated grant programs. This again will only serve to further 
undercut the effectiveness of the office.
  Now, the good news is that both the Senate and the House DOJ 
authorization bills take important steps to remedy this situation. What 
we need to do now is to combine the best provisions of both bills to 
protect this office from any further erosion of its status and ability. 
Both the House- and Senate-passed bills would statutorily institute the 
Violence Against Women Office, which is a very important step. However, 
we need to make sure that the differences between the two bills are 
resolved in such a manner that it will guarantee the effectiveness of 
the office.
  The Senate language creates an independent office within the 
Department of Justice, giving it a high profile and guaranteeing the 
ability of the office to formulate policy and to assist the other 
governmental agencies in their work on violence against women. This, 
combined with the House language, listing its duties and authorities, 
will restore the Violence Against Women Office to its former position 
as a national leader, and an agent for change on the issue of combating 
domestic violence around the country.
  The Federal Government should not forfeit our leadership on such an 
important issue. We owe it to the women and children in this country 
who have been affected by the scourge of domestic violence. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for my motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado would instruct conferees on H.R. 2215 to 
agree to title 4 of the Senate amendment but insist on adding the new 
section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 
as added by section 402 of the House bill.
  I will not oppose the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman 
from Colorado, but there are a few things that I think she ought to 
think about before the conferees actually meet on this subject.

                              {time}  1400

  The motion will basically instruct conferees to create a separate and 
independent Violence Against Women's Office in the Department of 
Justice headed by a director appointed by the President by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. I supported such an amendment in the 
House Committee on the Judiciary, but in response to concerns about 
this proposal, it was amended to permit the attorney general the 
discretion to put the office in the Office of Justice Programs so that 
the grant-making function of both offices could coordinate. The 
Department of Justice has testified it prefers the House provision, and 
is concerned about balkanizing the various grant making offices that 
currently exist in OJP.
  Most would agree that the current organizational structure at OJP is 
in need of reform, and this administration is undertaking steps to 
streamline and improve the organization and administration of OJP. As a 
result of various authorizing statutes and funding mandates by 
Congress, and organizational decisions made by past attorneys general, 
OJP consists of five bureaus, six

[[Page H1992]]

program offices, and seven administrative offices. Each of the five 
bureaus is headed by a presidential appointee by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. This structure does not include the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing.
  Some argue persuasively that mandating that there be a separate VAWA 
office will further complicate the current structure at DOJ and make it 
more dysfunctional. Furthermore, a completely separate office would 
require additional resources to support the administrative functions of 
the office. I have heard that a completely separate office would 
require $10- to $15 million in funding, which I presume would come out 
of VAWA program funds.
  I want to repeat that because the consequence of establishing this 
office precisely as the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is 
advocating might mean $10- to $15 million more in administrative 
expenses, and $10- to $15 million less in program, depending upon the 
decisions being made by the appropriators. I advise the gentlewoman 
that is a potential consequence of this motion.
  I have discussed this matter with a number of Members and my 
constituents. The staff of the Committee on the Judiciary has met with 
Senator Biden's staff, the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, and 
various groups who support the creation of a separate office. As the 
conference proceeds, all of these viewpoints have and will continue to 
be heard, about I am confident a compromise can be reached.
  The gentlewoman's motion says nothing about the coordination of 
grant-making functions of the new VAWA office with OJP. I can only 
assume that she would like to create a completely separate grant-making 
structure that does not have to coordinate with OJP, thereby siphoning 
program funds to pay for administrative infrastructure. A bigger 
bureaucracy is not necessarily better. Many would prefer to spend 
precious Federal dollars on combating violence against women instead of 
creating a new bureaucracy to implement the Violence Against Women Act.
  Also, while the motion instructs conferees to include the provision 
of the House bill relating to the duties and functions of the director 
of the VAWA office, the motion says nothing about a similar provision 
found in section 403 of the Senate bill. I can only assume the 
gentlewoman wants it dropped.
  To those who say that a separate office is needed to raise the 
profile of the director in these issues, I would direct them to the 
very language of the House bill which the motion would direct conferees 
to include. Under that language, the director of the VAWA office would 
serve as special counsel to the attorney general on the subject of 
violence against women. The director would work with the judicial 
branches of Federal and State governments on these issues. The director 
would serve at the request of the attorney general as the 
representative of the Department of Justice on task forces, committees 
and commissions addressing violence against women issues. The director 
would serve at the request of the President as the U.S. representative 
on these issues before international bodies.
  The list goes on. I do not know what could be more high profile than 
designated in the statute that the director will be the point person in 
the Federal Government on issues relating to violence against women.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the motion because it generally captures that 
which has already been agreed to and will allow the conferees to 
continue to work on these and other very important administrative and 
organizational issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), and congratulate her for all of her many 
years of fine work on this issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is in very good hands, and 
the gentlewoman has done such a good job describing it that I am going 
to be brief.
  The DeGette motion instructs conferees to accept the Senate provision 
to create the independent Violence Against Women Office in the 
Department of Justice, and to accept the House provisions defining the 
duties and authority of the Violence Against Women's Office, and I 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for accepting 
this motion. We appreciate that very much.
  This office has been really important. Since 1995, it has heightened 
awareness throughout the United States about what happens with domestic 
violence, sexual assault and stalking. This office formulates policy, 
and administers more than $270 million annually in grants to State 
governments as well as to local community organizations, trains police 
and prosecutors and courts to address violence against women. In 
addition, it assists these organizations with the ability to give the 
highest quality of services to the victims and full administration of 
justice.
  The importance of the Violence Against Women Office cannot be 
overestimated. In fact, and I think this is very important, a survey 
conducted by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports 
that domestic violence has dropped 21 percent since the inception of 
this office, showing that the grants that they have given out have 
borne fruit. But much more remains to be done. Nearly 25 percent of the 
women in the United States, that is one-quarter of the women who are 
the majority in the country, reported that they have been physically or 
sexually assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at some 
point in their lifetime. We think that makes it worth $10- to $15 
million.
  The statistics illustrate the importance of that office to the 
health, safety and the very survival of women in many parts of this 
country. As has been pointed out, this wonderful resource is not 
authorized by statute, and as such, is not a permanent part of the 
anti-violence efforts. We want to pass the bill H.R. 28, the Violence 
Against Women Office Act, which would make it permanent. I was pleased 
that the bill was included in the Department of Justice authorization 
approved by the House last year.
  It is for this reason we stand today to ask the conferees to agree to 
the House and Senate-passed language and ensure the Violence Against 
Women Office is given the permanent status that it desperately needs to 
address the crisis of violence against women in the coming years.
  The office's work with grantees on very sensitive issues is vital, 
and can be best addressed through a separate and independent office and 
not the more broadly focused Office of Justice Programs. In addition, 
we want the conferees to adopt the detailed description of the duties 
of the director of the Violence Against Women's Office, contained in 
the House-passed Department of Justice authorization bill. It defines 
several important duties for the director, including serving as a 
special counsel to the attorney general on the subject of violence 
against women, and serving as a liaison with the judicial branches of 
the Federal and State governments on matters relating to violence 
against women.
  Ending violence against women and girls is an ongoing struggle, and 
one of our best tools is the office. It is imperative that it be made 
permanent, and I urge my colleagues to support the office.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. I rise in strong 
support of the DeGette motion to instruct the conferees of H.R. 2215, 
the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act.
  Since 1994, Congress has demonstrated our commitment to eradicating 
domestic violence. Passing the DeGette amendment is consistent with our 
demonstrated goal of protecting victims and stopping the cycle of 
violence that plagues millions of children every day.
  This motion refers specifically to the bill introduced last year by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and myself to make the 
Violence Against Women Office at the Department of Justice permanent 
and independent with qualified experts in the field of domestic 
violence. I support the inclusion of the Senate language in combination 
with the House language

[[Page H1993]]

in the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.
  A permanent and visible office is essential. It is essential to 
implement the Violence Against Women Act programs, and expertise among 
personnel promotes the most effective and efficient use of Federal 
dollars. Since the creation of the Violence Against Women Office in 
1995, we have learned the critical importance of securing permanence 
for this office. The office has successfully administered effective 
VAWA grant programs, and heightened awareness of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking within the Federal Government and 
throughout the Nation. The office also provides invaluable expertise to 
States, developing programs to reduce domestic violence in their 
communities.
  Domestic violence rates have declined by over 21 percent since the 
passage of the Violence Against Women Act; and yet a July 2000 study 
reported by the Department of Justice, in that study nearly 25 percent 
of women surveyed stated that they had been physically and/or sexually 
assaulted by a current or a former intimate partner at some point in 
their lifetime. These statistics are unacceptable. As violence 
continues to demonstrate so many families, a permanent Violence Against 
Women Office is necessary to ensure that VAWA's benefits continue to 
reach victims all across the country.
  The current office is not specifically authorized by statute, and as 
such, is a de facto part of the Office of Justice Programs. Within OJP, 
the Violence Against Women Office has developed exceptional expertise 
in both the efficacy of policy and the accountability of VAWA grant 
administration. The Violence Against Women Act grant programs are 
extensive and far reaching. The success of a grant depends on the 
Department of Justice's development of good implementation policies and 
technical assistance.
  Additionally, strong leadership of an independent Violence Against 
Women Office is necessary for ensuring that the Federal criminal, civil 
and immigration law responsibilities created by the VAWA and its 
reauthorization in 2000 are carried out consistently, department-wide 
to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and 
trafficking. The office's work with grantees such as State coalitions 
on these very sensitive and important issues is critical to meeting the 
goals in the Violence Against Women Act.
  I am confident that a combination of these provisions can establish 
the independence of the office and avoid unnecessary duplication within 
the existing infrastructure of the Department of Justice. Ending 
violence against women requires constant education, advocacy and 
implementation at all levels of our society, work that depends on 
strong leadership from a Federal Violence Against Women Office.
  Mr. Speaker, with this office, I believe that we can continue to make 
progress on minimizing the epidemic of domestic violence that we 
currently face. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
DeGette motion to instruct the conferees.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for coming here to make I think important improvements 
and to make recommendations that I think we will take to heart in 
considering where we go in terms of family abuse, violence against 
women, which has been gaining increasing bipartisan support in both 
bodies. I am very pleased with the work of the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who brings this motion to instruct before us.
  Mr. Speaker, remember that it was the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) who has tried to give statutory foundation to the Violence 
Against Women Office, and it was our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), on the Committee on the Judiciary whose 
amendment was accepted and is now a subject of us instructing our 
conferees how to move.
  It is clear from this discussion that there is bipartisan support. We 
still have a long way to go. But in Michigan, in Detroit, we are 
getting ready for our second metropolitan area town hall meeting which 
will be at Greater Grace Church at the end of this month. The first one 
held over a year ago brought together for the first time police, 
prosecutors, social workers, victims, family, clergy, lawyers and 
community people who were really inspired by the Federal involvement in 
this.
  What we are simply doing here today is letting our conferees know 
that this office should be as strong and as independent as they can 
make it because they have been working with the U.S. Attorneys, they 
have been training the judges and the prosecutors and the members of 
the private bar, they have been working with Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  So this is a huge step forward. I am very pleased to be associated 
with it. Obviously, the only direction we can go now, and we are 
deciding this, I think, as we gain more experience with the office 
itself, what we are trying to make sure is that we do not have an 
office that is just a grant agency. We want to be able to distribute 
grants where they are appropriate, but also it has to be a policy 
mechanism that advises the administration and the Congress alike.
  I thank all the Members on the floor that have spoken in support of 
this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time 
and commend on a bipartisan basis the efforts of those on the floor 
right now to help battered women.
  The Violence Against Women Act was a promise by Congress to make 
America and the home a safer place for women. This act promised to 
finally treat domestic violence like the crime that it is, to improve 
law enforcement, to make streets safer for women, and to vigorously 
prosecute perpetrators. It promised more counseling and more shelters 
to provide a safe haven for abused women.
  But, Mr. Speaker, underfunding and neglect have made this promise 
half-filled at best. The Violence Against Women Office cannot lead our 
Nation's efforts to serve victims of domestic violence if it is merely 
a check-writing organization. It needs strong statutory authority and 
adequate staff to do its job.
  The Violence Against Women Office is essential to the Government's 
role in preventing violence, but private industry must also play a 
vital role.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you one example. One year ago, Harman 
International lost a 26-year employee who was brutally attacked and 
killed by her estranged husband. In response, Harman International 
worked with the Family Violence Prevention Fund to develop a 
comprehensive domestic violence prevention policy and to educate its 
employees about domestic violence. Harman International's policy states 
that domestic violence is not tolerated, and provides employees 
flexibility to take time off to handle the legal and mental 
consequences of domestic violence. The program protects those employees 
and helps the company by recognizing that the work of a victim of 
domestic violence suffers as she suffers.
  But as Harman International was developing this policy, it discovered 
that few other companies have similar policies and programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to work across the board to prevent domestic 
violence in both public and private sectors. I commend successful 
efforts to date, like those of Rainbow Services, Ltd., a haven for 
battered women in San Pedro, California, and I commend companies like 
Harman International.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important 
motion.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who has done so much on this bill.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DeGette motion to 
strengthen the independence of the Violence Against Women Office within 
the Department of Justice.
  As we all know, violence against women continues to be a significant

[[Page H1994]]

problem in our Nation. Domestic violence and sexual assault are still 
scourges on our Nation. The statistics are chilling. Nearly 1 in 3 
women experience physical assault by a partner. These horrible crimes 
damage lives and tear families apart. The Violence Against Women Act, 
or VAWA for short, is a proven part of the solution to these problems.
  There is much evidence of the success of VAWA. For example, in my 
State of Wisconsin, before the availability of VAWA grants there were 
only 15 nurses in the entire State who knew how to work with victims of 
sexual assault, collect forensic evidence, and work with law 
enforcement. Now there are over 150 nurses in Wisconsin who are trained 
to help victims. This training not only helps put the victim more at 
ease under the circumstances, but also increases the likelihood that 
prosecutions will be successful.
  What was not included when VAWA was reauthorized last session was a 
permanent and statutorily authorized VAWA office within the Department 
of Justice. The VAWA office has been key to raising awareness within 
the Federal Government and the Nation about the impact of sexual 
assault and domestic violence. It is well-recognized for its 
distribution of $270 million in annual grants to local communities to 
fight violence against women.
  But the office does far more. The office also works with U.S. 
Attorneys to enforce Federal criminal statutes. It provides technical 
assistance to local prosecutors, health care professionals, shelter 
staff, and domestic and sexual assault organizations.
  Under the previous administration, the VAWO director was visibly and 
actively involved in the every-day work of the Justice Department. She 
participated in the daily meetings of the executive leadership with the 
Attorney General. She was a major international voice on violence 
against women issues, and consulted extensively with the various 
divisions within the department about violence against women issues. 
VAWA requires work with the FBI, the INS, and the civil and criminal 
divisions of the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Speaker, while I understand the management concerns that lead 
some Members of Congress and the Department of Justice to want to 
locate the Violence Against Women Office within the Office of Justice 
Programs, I believe the mission of the Violence Against Women Office is 
much larger than just a grant administration organization. There are 
also limits on the Office of Justice Program's statutory authority to 
engage in policy work. Under the current structure this has been a 
serious impediment to the work against the Violence Against Women 
Office.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record testimony of Lynn Rosenthal, 
executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
that was given before the Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime 
and Drugs in the other body. Her testimony provides numerous examples 
of why we need an independent Violence Against Women Office.

 Testimony of Lynn Rosenthal, Executive Director, National Network to 
  End Domestic Violence Before the U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, 
                    Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of 
     the National Network to End Domestic Violence, thank you for 
     providing the opportunity for me to share with you our views 
     on the critical role of the Violence Against Women Office. 
     The National Network is a network of statewide domestic 
     violence coalitions around the country, who in turn represent 
     more than 2,000 local domestic violence shelters and 
     programs, and hundreds of thousands of battered women and 
     their children.
       In particular, I want to thank you, Senator Biden, for your 
     landmark report ``Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life 
     of American Women'' prepared by the Senate Judiciary in 
     October of 1992. This report, a snapshot of the lives of 
     women across the country, graphically described 200 incidents 
     of domestic and sexual violence that occurred in just one 
     week of one year. This report had a profound impact on my 
     personal commitment to end violence against women, and many 
     times over the past ten years I have returned to this report 
     when I have needed inspiration and guidance to continue this 
     important and often difficult work. It is this report that I 
     begin with today.
       September 1, 1992 12:45 a.m.: Rural California- ``A woman 
     with five children is physically abused by her husband. He 
     punches her in the head with his fist. She sustains bruises. 
     She escapes and runs to a friend's house for the night. She 
     reports that she is afraid to call the sheriff because her 
     husband threatens to take their 11-month old baby.''
       September 1, 1992 late afternoon: Maine- ``A woman in her 
     early twenties is thrown out of her trailer home by her 
     boyfriend as her two sons, ages two and three, watch. Bruised 
     and cut she attempts to leave with her sons. The two-year old 
     child is taken from her by her boyfriend and she is ordered 
     to leave and threatened with further violence. She departs 
     her home with one of her children, but does not contact the 
     police.''
       What might be different today for these women and countless 
     like them because of the Violence Against Women Act? Because 
     of VAWA, hundreds of police officers have been trained in the 
     dynamics that keep these women trapped in violence 
     relationships, and now play leadership roles in their 
     communities. Because of VAWA, legal assistance is available 
     for women facing the devastating fear of losing their 
     children to perpetrators. Because of VAWA, more women reach 
     out for help, seek shelter, obtain protective orders and are 
     treated with dignity and respect by law enforcement officers. 
     It was VAWA's critical focus on victim safety and offender 
     accountability that brought about these important changes in 
     our culture.
       In retrospect, Congress conceived a brilliant formula for 
     successful implementation of VAWA. Congress provided the 
     states with critical funds and policy direction through the 
     state formula grants and discretionary programs such as the 
     pro arrest grants, rural, tribal, legal assistance to 
     victims, research and training and technical assistance 
     programs that collectively comprise the Violence Against 
     Women Act.
       But there is another partner to thank in this work, a 
     partner who often works quietly but tirelessly to ensure that 
     Congress' intent and the needs of the field are never 
     forgotten as the day-to-day work in the field continues. That 
     partner is the Violence Against Women Office.
       First established as a high-level Office in Main Justice 
     with full access to the policy-making and implementation 
     functions of the Department, VAWO and its expert staff 
     created a national awareness about the impact of violence 
     against women that had never existed before. Within weeks of 
     being appointed as the first director of VAWO, Bonnie 
     Campbell was inundated with requests for help and technical 
     expertise from the national and international leaders. 
     Governors called, asking VAWO to help them plan statewide 
     strategies for addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, 
     and stalking. Leaders in government from other countries 
     asked VAWO to share the U.S.'s groundbreaking legislation and 
     methods with them. The Director of VAWO was a leader of the 
     U.S. delegation to the U.N. World Conference on Women in 
     Beijing.
       These images of leadership greatly inspired the work of 
     those of us on the frontlines, many of whom had been 
     struggling for many years with limited resources and lack of 
     public attention to the bruised and bleeding women we were 
     seeking in our programs every day. The vision of a 
     Presidentially-appointed, highly placed spokesperson 
     galvanized the work at the state and local level. State and 
     local legislators and policy makers were impressed with the 
     strong commitment shown by the Department of Justice to 
     ending violence against women, and became inspired to become 
     leaders themselves in this battle.
       The work of advocates at the state and local level was made 
     easier and more effective because VAWO took on the equally 
     important challenge of coordinating the interagency work that 
     VAWA mandated. Your vision for ending violence against women 
     was broad. VAWA created numerous grant programs in DOJ that 
     required coordination with the grant programs in HHS, created 
     new federal crimes, established new federal immigration 
     rights, required states to honor each other's protection 
     orders, established standards for the local issuance of 
     protection orders and arrests of perpetrators of domestic 
     violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and required state 
     and local communities to come together in multidisciplinary 
     efforts to develop policy and strategies for dealing with 
     violence against women.
       The number of agencies and offices required to carry out 
     these substantive responsibilities is stunning. VAWA's 
     mandates impact the U.S. Attorney's Offices, the INS, the 
     FBI, HHS, the Civil and Criminal Divisions of DOJ, even 
     parts of HUD, Labor, and DoD. Leadership was needed to 
     coordinate these far-reaching implementation efforts--and 
     VAWO stepped ably into that role, convening the National 
     Advisory Council (an unprecedented public and private 
     partnership of business, government, and public service 
     sectors) and working with the various federal entities 
     charged with the work of implementing VAWA. If VAWO had 
     not been there, it is hard to imagine how the demand for 
     federal and state coordination, leadership, and policy 
     guidance could have been met.
       When VAWO was housed in Main Justice, the director and her 
     staff were able to work with other components of DOJ and 
     other federal agencies to develop comprehensive policies 
     regarding the implementation of VAWA. For example, the Full 
     Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA 1994 simply said that 
     states shall honor sister jurisdictions protective orders. 
     The plan language of this provision did not explain how a 
     state would know another

[[Page H1995]]

     state's protective order is valid, nor did it say whether or 
     not a state must establish a protective order registry to 
     implement this law. These are the practical concerns of 
     turning a visionary law into a reality. VAWO led a 
     collaborative effort that included the DOJ Office of Policy 
     Development and the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys to 
     develop practical policy guidelines that make it possible for 
     all states, territories and tribes to make good use of the 
     Full Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA.
       When VAWO moved to the Office of Justice Programs, the 
     responsibilities of the Office became more focused on the 
     technical aspects of grant making and less on the policy 
     issues that emerge in building programs that address victim 
     safety and offender accountability--the cornerstones of VAWA. 
     This trend seems to have continued under the new 
     administration, and is cause for great concern. Although we 
     have made great strides in some ways, in others our work is 
     just beginning. Our need for a vigorous, proactive Violence 
     Against Women Office has not diminished.
       The tremendous needs and gaps uncovered by VAWA in 1994 led 
     to its reauthorization in 2000, and the work at the state and 
     local level has become more, not less, complex. VAWA requires 
     the criminal and civil justice systems to work together with 
     community services. VAWA funds prosecutors, courts, law 
     enforcement, victim services, community-based assistance 
     programs, tribal governments, and state coalitions. This 
     broad range of professionals in turn serves victims and 
     survivors living in rural towns and large urban cities, as 
     well as immigrant, disabled, and older victims of abuse. VAWA 
     grants provide needed services in communities of color and 
     communities of faith. And all of these services are provided 
     in the context of a complex system of federal, state, local, 
     and tribal laws.
       Addressing all of these mandates, understanding all of 
     these laws, and reaching all of these communities is a tough 
     challenge on the state and local level. Now more than even, 
     we need an active, high-profile Violence Against Women Office 
     to help establish baseline standards for this increasingly 
     complex work, and to provide consistent interpretations as to 
     how the mandates of VAWA are to be met.
       We need an Office staffed with program managers and policy 
     analysts that have subject matter expertise, not just grant-
     making skills. Three examples of VAWA programs speak vividly 
     to this need for the combined functions of grant-making and 
     policy analysis within the same office. First, the Legal 
     Assistance for Victims Program grantees might well call VAWO 
     to ask for assistance in developing appropriate screening and 
     conflicts protocol, or for help in developing policies to 
     implement the new funding mandate that civil legal assistance 
     be provided to sexual assault survivors. This new area of law 
     requires guidance not simply on allowable expenses of a 
     grant, but on what the civil legal needs are of such victims, 
     and what challenges to expect in crafting these new programs. 
     It takes a policy analyst familiar with these complicated 
     issues to give the right answers or know how to find them. 
     The lives of sexual assault survivors all across the country 
     will be dramatically impacted by the answers to these 
     questions.
       Second, jurisdictions receiving Grants to Encourage Arrest 
     funding needs to know how the VAWA 2000 amendments to the 
     Full Faith and Credit mandate of VAWA 1994 will impact their 
     program practices. For example, states must certify that its 
     laws, policies and practices do not require victims to bear 
     costs associated with prosecution, filing, registration or 
     service of a protective order. This requires not just grant 
     managers who know the paperwork needed to meet the 
     certification requirements, but policy experts who know how 
     to craft changes in state law and policies to come into 
     compliance with this new requirement.
       Grantees of the Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce 
     Protection Orders Program must also certify that their 
     jurisdictions do not allow the issuance of mutual protection 
     orders. If there is no legislative opportunity to satisfy 
     this funding condition, grantees will turn to VAWO for expert 
     guidance on alternative ways to meet this funding condition. 
     A policy analyst must be available to speak to the various 
     ways this requirement can be met, whether through changes in 
     court rules or administrative memorandums. What may seem a 
     technical certification requirement is so much more than a 
     check on a grant application. Requiring states to prohibit 
     the issuance of mutual protective orders as a condition of 
     funding is about fulfilling the intent of VAWA to make 
     systemic changes in the way states respond to critical issues 
     of victim safety. We need look no farther than the recent 
     highly publicized protective order case in Kentucky to know 
     the importance of such requirements.
       Finally, the new immigration rights and procedures created 
     by VAWA are numerous and complex; grantees of all the VAWA 
     programs need technical assistance to help them understand 
     when critical immigration issues arise and how grantees can 
     best help immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, and staking. This work must be done very carefully. 
     The lives of whole families are in danger--this really is a 
     matter of life and death.
       It is more important than ever that The Department of 
     Justice provides leadership and guidance, inspiration, and 
     policy support for the local and state work on domestic 
     violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Now, more than ever, 
     states need a strong Violence Against Women Office. It is 
     only through this leadership that we one day we will know for 
     certain that a week in the life of American women is no 
     longer a week filled with violence.

  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the recent actions on the part of 
the administration that clearly indicate that the Violence Against 
Women Office is not a high priority. The policy staff of the office is 
woefully understaffed. In addition, the pending reorganization of OJP 
threatens to dismantle the expertise the Violence Against Women Office 
provides to local grantees.
  The language added by the other body that this motion asks the House 
to endorse would statutorily authorize an independent Violence Against 
Women Office within the Department of Justice. I believe this 
recognizes the importance of the office. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this motion to instruct.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, Congress passed the Violence 
against Women Act, which has had great success in reducing violence 
against women and domestic violence generally. One of the things that 
act did was to create the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice 
Department. That office has been instrumental in directing the efforts 
against domestic violence. But the office has lost influence and is in 
danger of losing its role or much of its role in the pending 
reorganization within the Department of Justice.
  With the strong bipartisan support, the House and the Senate have 
both passed provisions in the appropriations authorization bill to make 
the office permanent and statutory, but it is critical that the 
statutory creation of this office reflect the essential components of 
the office.
  The office cannot serve as the leader in promoting the changes needed 
to effectively serve victims of domestic violence, sexual stalking and 
trafficking if it is merely a check-writing office, as it is often 
regarded today. The office needs the authority to create policy 
regarding violence against women and needs to have a presidentially-
appointed, Senate-confirmed director in order to ensure that these 
issues continue to have a high profile at local, State, Federal and 
international events.
  This motion to instruct will accomplish these purposes, and that is 
why I rise in support of the motion to instruct. I commend the 
gentlewoman for offering it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that many years ago in the now 
receding past, I was privileged to be the sponsor in the Colorado 
legislature of one of the first omnibus domestic violence bills in the 
country, and in fact that bill was passed in 1995 in Colorado.
  The thing we learned at that time was that one of the biggest 
barriers to preventing and stopping domestic violence is a lack of 
awareness by everybody around the country. This is a problem that is 
faced nationwide, which is why Congress passed the Violence against 
Women Act and why the Violence Against Women Office was set up in 1995.
  However, if we are going to have a strong and effective Violence 
Against Women Office, it must be permanent, it must be independent, and 
it must be prepared to do much more than just simply administer grants. 
It needs to do outreach and education, and it needs to have the kind of 
stature within the Justice Department on a continuing basis that it did 
when it was once instituted. So, for those reasons, it is essential 
that we pass this motion to instruct and that we instruct the conferees 
both to adopt the Senate provisions that establish the office and also 
the House provisions that delineate the duties of the office.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend Congresswoman DeGette for bringing 
this motion to the floor and I thank her, Congresswoman

[[Page H1996]]

Slaughter, and Congresswoman Baldwin for their leadership on this 
issue.
  The Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice 
was created in 1995 to implement the Violence Against Women Act. The 
creation of this office greatly strengthened the efforts of states to 
fight domestic violence, because for the first time, they had strong 
leadership and funding support from the federal government.
  Under President Clinton, the Violence Against Women Office was a 
powerful voice within the Administration. The Director had strong 
support from the White House, and was a recognized leader in the fight 
to end domestic violence. It was clear that the safety of women and 
children was a top priority for the federal government.
  Under the leadership of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, 
the Violence Against Women Office has been systematically weakened. 
Just within the last two months, the policy department of the Violence 
Against Women Office disappeared, and the Director of the office has no 
access to the Attorney General or the President and no seat at the 
table to affect the policies of this Administration with concern to 
violence against women.
  This is one of a series of actions by this Administration to diminish 
the importance of women's issues.
  In one of his first actions, in January 2001, President Bush closed 
down the White House Office on Women's Initiatives and Outreach. The 
purpose of this office was to advance policies such as the Family and 
Medical Leave Act and to serve as a liaison between the White House and 
advocates for women.
  Next, President Bush tried to eliminate funding for the regional 
Women's Bureau offices in the Department of Labor. The Women's Bureau 
had a mission of promoting the welfare of working women, improving 
their working conditions, and advancing their opportunities for 
profitable employment. This was further evidence of the Administration 
moving backwards on progress for women.
  Violence against women doesn't rate highly in the Bush budget either. 
The President's budget falls $111.3 million short of fully funding 
critical programs such as transitional housing for victims of domestic 
violence, shelter services, and rape education and prevention. 
Obviously, President Bush does not support full funding of the Violence 
Against Women Act.
  Today we have the chance to send a clear message to the conferees, 
that ending violence against women is a top priority. To do that, we 
need to restore a strong, independent Violence Against Women Office 
with the authority to impact critical public policy decisions. This is 
not a time to backtrack on our commitment to ending domestic violence 
against women.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of 
Representative DeGette's motion to agree to provisions in the DOJ 
Authorization bill that strengthen and elevate the Violence Against 
Women Office. This is an important motion that deserves our support.
  Since 1995, the Violence Against Women Office at the Department of 
justice has handled policy issues regarding violence against women, 
provided national and international leadership on the subject and 
worked with other DOJ offices to implement the mandates of the Violence 
Against Women Act.
  The Office is responsible for coordinating the training of judges, 
law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in responding to victims of 
domestic violence, stalking and assault. it works with states and 
localities to provide a coordinated community response to domestic 
violence and establishes public education initiatives to heighten 
awareness about domestic violence.
  The office has awarded more than $1 billion in grant funds, making 
over 1,250 discretionary grants and 336 formula grants to states. These 
grant programs help train personnel, establish specialized domestic 
violence and sexual assault units, assist victims of violence, and hold 
perpetrators accountable.
  In Mercer County, New Jersey, local social service groups have used 
grant funding from the Office to recruit and train pro bono attorneys 
and advocates to help provide legal assistance to battered women and 
their families.
  Domestic violence is still shockingly pervasive in our society. The 
National Violence Against Women Survey found that domestic abuse rates 
remain disturbingly high. Clearly this violence is a national concern, 
and we need to do everything within our capabilities to make sure that 
it receives due attention.
  The DeGette motion to instruct would go a long way toward 
strengthening and elevating this office and its mission. The Violence 
Against Women Office should be front and center in the Department of 
Justice. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congresswoman 
DeGette's Motion to Instruct Conferees on Department of Justice 
Authorization (H.R. 2215). This motion instructs conferees to agree to 
Senate provisions to strengthen the Violence Against Women Office and 
make it independent within the Justice Department.
  The Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) of the U.S. Department of 
Justice was created in 1995 to implement the laws and programs created 
under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Through the creation of 
VAWO, a clear voice of leadership on addressing domestic violence, 
stalking, sexual assault and trafficking from the federal government. 
VAWO has been a powerful voice within the Administration, ensuring that 
the safety of women and children is a top priority to the federal 
government.
  Because the Violence Against Women Office was never instituted under 
federal statute, the administration and management of the office has 
been at the discretion of leadership in the Department of Justice. 
Consequently, VAWO has been slowly stripped of much of its power and 
effectiveness. Presently, the Director of VAWO has very limited direct 
access to the Attorney General or the White House. At one point, VAWO 
helped advise every entity in the Justice Department charged with 
implementing and enforcing laws created by VAWO. VAWO has seen all the 
staff of that division, including its director, suddenly transferred to 
places in the Department where they can no longer work on policy issues 
regarding VAWO.
  Violence against women continues to remain a critical issue in our 
society that requires special attention. In the U.S., nearly 25% of 
women surveyed reported that they had been physically and/or sexually 
assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at some point in 
their lifetime, and 1 in 6 women has experienced an attempted or 
completed rape in her lifetime. If VAWO will continue to be an integral 
part of developing and implementing the Administration policy on 
violence against women, it must have the authority to do so. The Senate 
version of H.R. 2215 creates an independent Office within the main area 
of Justice, giving it a high profile and guaranteeing the ability of 
the Office to make policy and assist other governmental agencies in 
their work on violence against women.
  I support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same. I would 
like to take this opportunity to recognize the Women's Resource Center, 
The Safety Zone, and The Women's Coalition in the Virgin Islands. These 
are organizations in my district that work on violence against women 
issues.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 3, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier

[[Page H1997]]


     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Flake
     Hostettler
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cannon
     Clayton
     Crane
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Green (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Norwood
     Traficant
     Weller

                              {time}  1454

  Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. SCOTT, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, and TANCREDO 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________







Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: