Stolen Valor Act of 2005

Mr. President, when we talk about moving toward energy independence in this country, we are really speaking to the issue of reducing America's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Our addiction to oil is most acute in the U.S. transportation sector where a stunning ninety-seven percent of our fuel comes from petroleum--97 percent. In the electricity sector we have largely turned away from oil but not so in transportation.

Fortunately a growing percentage of transportation energy is now coming from clean, domestically-produced renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. With the nearly 8-billion-gallon Renewable Fuels Standard now the law of the land, renewable fuels will supply 5 percent of the energy for our passenger vehicles by 2012, perhaps more. These home-grown, environmentally friendly alternatives made from corn, soybeans and other sources of biomass are helping to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the rural economy while substantially reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The best part of this trend is that the health, community, and domestic security benefits of renewable fuels come with the bonus of price savings at the pump. Ethanol prices in this country can be as much as 70 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline. Drivers in my State of Iowa are saving as much as 10 cents a gallon on E10--a blend of just 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. This is a savings of about $100 a year for a typical family.

A report earlier this year by the Consumer Federation of America found that consumers throughout our country would experience similar savings if all refiners offered E10. That is a significant savings in all regions of the country. Now, consider the savings if ethanol and other renewable fuels were blended not at 10 percent, but at 85 percent or more. That $100 a year savings turns into hundreds of dollars each year for a typical family.

Unfortunately, right now only about two percent of vehicles on the road in the United States can use ethanol blends of 85 percent--what we call E85. It turns out standard gasoline engines aren't designed for the different fuel to oxygen ratio.

The good news is, manufacturing a new vehicle to run on E85 or other clean alternative fuel blends is simple--the manufacturer adds a fuel sensor and modifies the engine calibration and fuel line to allow the vehicle to run on gasoline or a combination of gas and alternative fuels.

Right now, these ``flex-fuel'' vehicles cost at most an additional $100 or so to produce. Some cost estimates are as low as $50. Many auto manufacturers offer them to customers at no additional cost. But few Americans are even aware of the option.

At a time of record-high gas prices and continued instability in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries of the world, I believe that all Americans deserve the option to choose the fuel they put in their car.

In Brazil, all new vehicles on the road are expected to be flex-fuel- ready by 2008--meaning every new vehicle owner will have the choice to fill up with gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two. If the Brazilians can do it, why can't we?

That's why today Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama and I are introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act to require that automobile manufacturers equip a growing percentage of new vehicles sold in the U.S. for flexible fuel operation. Mr. Lugar is a leader in promoting research and development into the conversion of cellulosic biomass into useable fuels. Mr. Obama is a leader in promoting renewable fuels and in particular E85.

Starting eighteen months after the bill's enactment, manufacturers will be required to equip 10 percent of their cars and light trucks with flex-fuel vehicle, FFV, capability. This is a modest proposal. Several manufacturers are close to meeting or beating this requirement already.

Each model year thereafter, the requirement increases 10 percentage points, so in the second year the manufacturers would have to make at least 20 percent of their vehicles FFVs, and so on, until in about ten years' time 100 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States are flex fuel. I recognize that we could be more aggressive in our timetable, but I believe we've struck the right balance here in pushing and prodding.

In addition, the bill allows auto manufacturers to bank and trade FFV credits toward meeting the requirements. In other words, if one company produced more than its required percentage of FFV vehicles in a given year, it could trade or sell extra credits earned to another company that would then use them to meet the bill's requirements. Credits would have a three-year window if banked or traded. This banking and trading provision is similar to others in law, in the RFS for example, making it that much easier for companies to meet statutory obligations at the lowest possible cost.

Finally, the bill would leave intact the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits for FFV production. However, the bill would change the way the credits are calculated for vehicles produced above the required percentages. Rather than keeping the assumption that the vehicle runs 50 percent of the time on fuel like E85, which isn't an appropriate figure since most don't run yet on E85, we phase-down the assumed use from 50 percent in the first model year the requirement applies to 30 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third year, and 0 percent thereafter. This should still spur interest among automakers in the early years of the requirement to go beyond the minimum FFV production levels outlined in the bill to get the extra credits. And in the meantime the FFV requirement is kicking in and the ramp up of FFVs won't dilute or weaken CAFE.

This bill will give American consumers true choice in fuel selection for the first time. Drivers will have the option to choose low-price, high-performance E85, or another fuel. My firm belief is that consumers will choose to buy home-grown renewable fuels that directly reduce oil dependence rather than buy traditional fossil fuels often derived from unstable regimes around the globe.

Now, I don't doubt some automobile manufacturers will complain that this requirement is unduly onerous, that it will hurt the industry somehow. Well, I heard the same thing back in 1989 when I proposed another revolutionary idea: closed captioning for TV sets. Industry was in an uproar when I suggested that the hearing impaired should have access to television programming on the public airwaves. The industry said closed captioning would bankrupt it and drive the price of televisions through the roof.

But then, an amazing thing happened. Electronics manufacturers realized that they could reach a broad range of new audiences, including not just the hearing impaired, but also the learning disabled, and immigrants for whom English is a second language. Sales for several companies reached an all-time high, and with implementation across the electronics industry, the cost of the closed captioning chip dropped dramatically to less than a dollar a set.

I have no doubt that vehicle manufacturers will discover similar unexpected efficiencies and benefits with flex fuel vehicles. As more Americans discover the savings from flexible fuels, the more they will seek them out. What better way to boost car sales than to market the fuel cost savings that flexible fuel vehicles offer? Any very small additional cost of the flex-fuel vehicle will be more than offset by the price benefits drivers will achieve from a flexible fuel supply over time, not to mention the tremendous energy security benefits for our Nation.

The country will benefit from cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and an enhanced rural economy. Simply, put, this is a low-cost measure with a tremendous payoff.

It is already well-established that federal auto standards for the benefit of our Nation are an appropriate policy option. It's also important to note that auto manufacturers already comply

with literally dozens of other requirements having to do with the make- up, design, and performance of their vehicles. Making an FFV is a lot cheaper than putting in air bags, or many other components.

Agriculture and renewable fuels producers are ready to provide the fuel. Automobile manufacturers have the technology to do it. Given the country's great energy and security challenges, all sectors must do their part to chart a path toward energy independence: government, individual citizens, energy companies, and yes, auto manufacturers.

I'm grateful that this legislation has been endorsed by a wide array of renewable fuel, agriculture, clean energy and security organizations, including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Alliance to Save Energy, Set America Free, and National Corn Growers Association.

In closing I want to recognize Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama for co- sponsoring this legislation with me today. Mr. Lugar and I have teamed up many times over the years, most recently to enact the national Renewable Fuels Standard, which we did as part of the comprehensive energy bill. This bill builds upon the RFS, to guarantee that renewable fuels which are being produced in ever greater abundance can find a home in just about any vehicle on the market a few short years from now. I am thankful for his leadership on this and so many other important energy security issues. I am also grateful to Mr. Obama for his leadership.

I hope we can rapidly enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to award School Energy Grants to the poorest school districts in each State. I am pleased that Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Bingaman have joined me in sponsoring this bill.

With cold weather setting in, people all across the country are worried about the sky-high cost of energy. Americans are feeling pain at the pump, and they are feeling even more pain at home, with home- heating costs expected to rise as much as 70 percent above last year's levels.

At the same time, many public school districts across the country are struggling to cope with a dramatic, unexpected surge in their energy costs. Schools are facing a double hit: they operate large fleets of buses, and they must heat large, sprawling buildings. This problem is especially acute in the West and Midwest, where many school districts cover large geographic areas, and in urban areas, which are burdened with some of the nation's oldest and often least energy-efficient buildings.

For affluent suburban districts, these unanticipated energy costs are a challenge. But for poor school districts, they are a full-blown crisis. Many school boards face a choice between paying their higher energy bills or cutting instructional staff and programs.

My bill would allow the Secretary of Energy to award grants to schools districts with the highest percentage and highest number of students eligible for Title I assistance. The grant amounts would be awarded based on the population of school-age children in the district, as well as the regional costs of transportation and heating fuel.

This is a nationwide crisis, and it calls for an urgent Federal response. School districts across the country are already implementing drastic measures in response to higher energy costs. In Kentucky, for instance, several school districts have cut back to four days of classes per week. In September, most of Georgia's schools cancelled classes for two days in an effort to conserve energy and cut costs.

In my State, the Iowa Association of School Boards estimates that, this winter, there will be $40 million shortfall in funding to cover school heating costs. Higher fuel costs for school buses could worsen the shortfall by another $8 million. And because that will come out of the fixed general fund for public education, every additional dollar spent on energy costs will come at the expense of classroom and instructional quality. For example, Charles City, IA, expects to spend $140,000 more on fuel this winter. That's enough to pay the salaries of four teachers.

According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, school districts are responding to the energy crisis by reducing staff, increasing class sizes, reducing course offerings, postponing technology purchases, or cutting Headstart transportation programs. Many school districts are lowering their thermostats to unhealthful levels. In fact, just yesterday, I heard that the school district in Ottumwa, IA, has asked parents to start sending kids to school with coats to keep them warm indoors. This is just not acceptable.

In addition, I remind my colleagues that school districts--especially high-poverty school districts--are struggling heroically to try to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is penny wise and pound foolish to force these districts to cut instructional staff and classroom resources in order to pay their higher energy bills. And none of us can be comfortable with the prospect of children sitting at their school desks in coats and scarves to fight off the chill. As I said, this is just not acceptable.

The poorest school districts all across America are in desperate need of assistance with their energy costs. Low-income children deserve the opportunity to learn and achieve in classrooms that are properly heated. And we certainly don't want schools to be eliminating school days and laying off teachers because of higher energy costs. So we need to act. I urge my colleagues to support the School Energy Crisis Relief Act so we can respond to this emergency as expeditiously as possible. According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, this has led to some schools deciding to scale back after-school activities because of heating costs and to cut non-varsity sports because they lack funding necessary to take them to games. It is very troubling to me that schools have been forced to make cuts that have directly affected the educational experience of the children in their schools, in the name of rising fuel costs. For instance, some schools have had to cut back on field trips, put off buying new text books and school supplies, while reducing course offerings in fine arts and academics.

In addition, the Iowa Association of School Boards has reported that schools have cut back on staff and increased class sizes while also turning down the thermostat in the classroom. I ask, Mr. President, are we supposed to expect students to learn at a high-level when rising energy costs have put them in overcrowded, cold classrooms?

But this problem is not specific to my home State of Iowa. As the sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Baca, pointed out that some schools in Kentucky have cut back to four-day school weeks to keep their energy costs down. Recently, Georgia schools cancelled two days of classes in an attempt to keep their costs down. In Colton Joint Unified District in Congressman Baca's congressional district, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel has risen from under a dollar at one point to $2.72 a gallon increasing annual fuel costs by over $300,000.

So I have come to the floor today to introduce the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This legislation meets the needs of struggling school districts by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to award grants to poor school districts struggling to balance skyrocketing energy costs with providing a quality education. Grants would be awarded to the poorest urban and rural school districts in each state. In Iowa alone, this means both poor rural and urban districts would be eligible to receive grants.

I ask for my colleagues support for the School Energy Crisis Relief Act and urge the Senate to work quickly to pass this crucial legislation and provide relief to those school districts in need.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1998) to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other purposes.

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 S. 1998 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1998, the Stolen Valor Act, which expands existing law prohibiting the fraudulent use of military decorations or medals.

The men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives every day to preserve America's freedom. They sacrifice for our liberties with courage, patriotism and humility. They do not seek fame or celebrity status when told that they are heroes, and they often respond, ``I am just doing my job.''

While we can never fully pay our military heroes our debt of gratitude, America honors their service and sacrifice with military decorations and medals such as the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Navy Cross, and our Nation's highest military decoration, the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Unfortunately, the significance of these medals is being devalued by phony war heroes who fabricate their honors and military careers. They do so for greed and selfishness, and disrespect the service and sacrifice of our military heroes, as well as the honor they uniquely deserve. Federal law enforcement authorities have responded to these imposters by launching a dozen investigations currently underway.

In Illinois, one man attended numerous Marine Corps functions, military funerals and fund-raisers, posing as a retired Marine Corps colonel. He claimed to have been awarded the Purple Heart eight times, the only marine to have obtained such a distinction, as well as the Navy Cross. It turns out he never served a single day as a Marine.

In St. Louis, Federal authorities arrested a man at a local Marine Corps event who claimed to be a decorated officer. He had previously been spotted at the annual Marine Corps Birthday Ball wearing a Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars and numerous other medals. He, too, never served a single day as a marine.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this fraud was perpetrated by a 10-year marine sergeant who secured $66 million in security contracts from the military based upon fictitious combat experience in Panama and Somalia, with fabricated Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars and Air Medals. Upon learning of the man's fraudulent combat record, the military revoked the contracts, but by this time he had already fled the country.

The FBI estimates that for every legitimate Navy SEAL team member, there are roughly 300 imposters. Moreover, there are roughly only 124 living recipients of the Medal of Honor, yet more than twice as many falsely claim to have received it.

The Stolen Valor Act enhances penalties for those who masquerade as decorated war heroes. It expands the existing prohibition against wearing, manufacturing or selling military decorations or medals without legal authorization. The bill also imposes penalties for falsely representing one's self as the recipient of any medal or honor authorized by Congress for the armed services, and increases penalties for violations involving a Distinguished Service Cross, an Air Force Cross, a Navy Cross, a Silver Star, a Purple Heart or the Congressional Medal of Honor.

On September 7, the other body passed this bill by unanimous consent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the words of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

This is kind of a tough act to follow, but I would like to state for the record that the Judiciary Committee, because it has such a vast jurisdiction and an awful lot of controversial legislation, that by working with Mr. Conyers and the members of the minority, and having the majority and minority staff work together, we knew that there were some philosophical differences on many of the pieces of legislation that could not be bridged without a vigorous debate and votes both in committee and on the floor of the House of Representatives. But the cooperation and the respect and the trust that we had across the aisle were able to narrow those differences so that what we did debate were true differences in approach and true differences in policy.

I keep on telling the high school classes that I talk to about what really goes on here that 95 percent of the bills that we pass are worked out in committee, and the debate and votes on the floor merely ratify decisions that have been made earlier in committee. The problem is that compromise agreement, and I would even submit accomplishment, do not get any media attention. It is allegations of misconduct, actual knock out, drag down fights in those areas that we do have disagreements on that really monopolize the news media.

As a result, people get the wrong impression that all we do out here is fight and argue amongst ourselves. And while we do a lot of that, and I think the framers of the Constitution intended the Congress of the United States to do that, the tremendous work product of the committee over the last 6 years I think has been due in large part by the trust and respect and agreement that we have had in working across the aisle.

And while I was sitting here listening to the debate, I was going through the calendars of the House of Representatives looking at the number of committee reports we filed, and I think it is somewhere in the 90 to 100 number range during this Congress. And a lot of these reports were really on controversial and complicated legislation where we needed to have a committee report to explain what the intent of Congress was, and that type of cooperation allowed us to have that tremendous output of work product.

It has been my honor to chair this committee for the last 6 years, but I can say one of the things that I am most proud of is the fact that, where it has been possible, I have been able to reach across the aisle and work with my friend from Michigan, and I think that he and I have each directed our respective staffs to do the same thing, and we can be proud of what we have done not only in this Congress but in the previous two Congresses. And although our roles will be kind of reversed in the next Congress, I look forward to continuing to build on that cooperation so that the country knows that the Judiciary Committee not only is the place to be at, but it is the folks that get things done.

So I thank you very much for your very, very good comments. You have been instrumental in putting together that record of accomplishment, and I think we can be proud of what the committee has done.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would transfer the YouthBuild program from its current home in the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor. Transferring departmental jurisdiction over this program will help ensure that Youthbuild continues to receive the funds it needs to help unemployed and undereducated young people ages 16-24 work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing for homeless and low-income people. It is supported by the YouthBuild Coalition.

Poverty, neglect, abuse, and deprivation of all kinds can prevent people from reaching their true potential. Many of those who have fallen off track, suffered losses, and made mistakes can recover. If given the opportunity, they can learn to cope with obstacles and care effectively about themselves, their families and their communities. YouthBuild helps young people who have lost their way to turn their lives around.

YouthBuild is a uniquely comprehensive program that offers at-risk youth an immediate productive role rebuilding their communities. While attending basic education classes for 50 percent of program time, students also receive job skills training in the construction field, personal counseling from respected mentors, a supportive peer group with positive values, and experience in civic engagement. They build houses for homeless and low-income people while earning their own GED or high school diploma.

YouthBuild is built on success. The first YouthBuild program was created in 1978. At that time, YouthBuild's future founder, Dorothy Stoneman, formed the Youth Action Program to rebuild homes in New York City. The successful renovation of an East Harlem tenement led to a city-wide coalition and in 1990, led to YouthBuild USA, an organization created to replicate this program around the Nation.

In 1992, I introduced legislation which was enacted into law as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, authorizing federal funding for YouthBuild through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In its first 10 years of Federal funding, YouthBuild has demonstrated the ability to bring the most disadvantaged youth into productive employment, higher education, and civic engagement. Since 1994, more than 40,000 YouthBuild students have helped rebuild their communities, creating more than 12,000 units of affordable housing, while transforming their lives at the same time.

YouthBuild has earned majority bipartisan support for Federal funding in the Senate due to its great success in local communities. Today there are 226 YouthBuild programs in 44 States engaging 7,000 young adults.

The number of programs could easily be expanded. Last year alone, 260 communities were denied YouthBuild funding. The programs that exist could easily grow. In 2004, local programs turned away 10,000 applicants solely for lack of funds.

The expansion of YouthBuild would help address critical national problems: the construction industry is short 80,000 workers; over 500,000 youth are dropping out of high school every year with no prospects of becoming gainfully employed; states are spending huge amounts on prisons, housing 365,000 16 to 24 year olds, 65 percent of whom have dropped out of high school.

Consider this story of success: Manny Negron grew up in New Britain, CT. He left school during his Sophomore year after having some personal problems. He started selling drugs and getting into trouble. Then he joined YouthBuild, obtained a GED and learned more about the construction industry. ``Before YouthBuild, I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life.'' Manny said. ``I had no goals, no plans--I had nothing. If it was a weekend when I was partying and in the street, I had no plans. Now it's completely different and YouthBuild did that for me. Now that I'm away from all that, I actually see a future for myself and see what I'm capable of and what I can do with my life.''

Research on 900 YouthBuild graduates several years after program completion showed that 75 percent were employed at an average wage of $10/hour or in college. They were voting and paying taxes. Of those who had committed felonies, the recidivism rate was a strikingly low, 15 percent.

The legislation I am introducing today responds to the Bush administration's attempt to move YouthBuild from HUD to DoL in its FY 2006 budget request. I did not agree with the Administration attempt to transfer YouthBuild in the budget; it was simply the wrong approach. However, my staff has met with Administration officials, with YouthBuild and with YouthBuild's strong supporters. And I believe that we can find a way to do this, and I appreciate that the Administration has shown a willingness to work with us so far. If done properly, I transferring YouthBuild from HUD to DoL could increase YouthBuild's scope, helping it to reach the communities and young people that are currently denied access due to a lack of funds. This legislation not only authorizes the transfer of YouthBuild from HUD to DoL, but also allows unlimited future federal funding, continues centralized management at DoL and continues the historic role of YouthBuild USA as the partner and contractor for quality assurance.

This legislation is an attempt to help move the process of transferring the YouthBuild program forward. I look forward to working with Senators Enzi and Kennedy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to develop compromise legislation that will ensure that YouthBuild continues to assist young people around the nation. I ask that all my colleagues support this legislation and continue to support the YouthBuild.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Sensenbrenner in supporting this measure, the Stolen Valor Act, introduced in both this body and the other body, which enjoys the widespread support of a long list of bipartisan cosponsors. In fact, here in the House the measure has a total of 110 Democratic and Republican cosponsors.

The legislation starts out by honoring the brave men and women who courageously serve our country. It also protects the precious medals that are awarded during the course of their service by establishing a new set of criminal penalties against anyone who fraudulently claims to be a medal recipient or displays a fake medal in his home or office.

Recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Award, the Silver Star and Purple Heart have made considerable sacrifices for our country and, as such, deserve a tremendous amount of our gratitude and respect. It can be said that this legislation represents just one of the many ways of saying thanks for a job well done.

The bill is supported by several of our military groups, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the FBI Agents Association. I, too, strongly urge my colleagues to lend their unanimous support to this commonsense proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), the original author of this measure, who has worked on it with leaders in both the House and the other body for a considerable period of time.

(Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, since this is likely the last piece of legislation the House Judiciary Committee will control time on the floor, I would like to take this moment and opportunity to reflect back on the good and outstanding work of James Sensenbrenner during his tenure as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

It has been my privilege to serve with Chairman Sensenbrenner in my role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee over these last three Congresses.

During that time, the Judiciary Committee has become one of the most active committees in the House, processing the second largest number of bills of any committee. It is rare a week goes by that this committee is not on the floor of the House considering frequently complex and significant legislation that impacts the lives of millions of Americans.

There is no question that Mr. Sensenbrenner has led the committee firmly and fairly at all times during his chairmanship, but there are three things that I would like the record to reflect.

The first is his tireless advocacy for the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Our rule X jurisdiction ranges far and wide, and Chairman Sensenbrenner has been a constant advocate in protecting our legislative prerogatives, and I can assure him that all the members of the Judiciary Committee are very grateful for the zeal in which he has conducted that part of his responsibility.

Secondly, the chairman has been a strong advocate for antitrust laws and for the concept of competition. Time and time again, we worked together to see that the interests of the American public were put ahead of any special interests.

Finally, I feel very personally affectionate toward the chairman for the critical role that he has played in the passage of voting rights legislation. It was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, why I initially joined the Judiciary Committee, that I participated in this vastly and hugely important piece of legislation. Mr. Sensenbrenner was not there then, but it was when we got around to some reauthorizations that his commitment to this constitutional concept was as strong as mine.

In 1982, it was his role and commitment that helped get the extension of the bill through this body and the other body as well, but it was only last year that we were able to begin the work that got us through the current extension of legislation. The reason that this was important was that, first of all, we were able to have the work product of the Committee on the Judiciary not only pass the House without amendment but the exact bill was passed in the other body as well, eliminating, of course, the necessity for a committee to work out any differences.

It was then that we realized that on this question of protecting the right of our citizens to vote, the cornerstone of our democracy, that Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers could not be more closely working together, not that there were not huge problems that had to be worked out and resolved, not just between ourselves but between other Members of the committee and some of our colleagues not even on the committee. We were able to do that with dispatch. I quickly add the names of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the Constitutional Subcommittee ranking member, Jerry Nadler, as well and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who worked with us all together on this matter.

So I am pleased to make these remarks as his term expires. I look forward to him working on the Committee on the Judiciary in future sessions of Congress.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce there are no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for allowing us to bring this important legislation forward. As you all know, Senator Conrad from the Senate side, both his staff and my staff worked in a bipartisan effort to bring this important act forward.

This act would actually place a criminal penalty on those who falsely claim to have risked their lives for their country, and restoring honor to those who have truly earned it.

Last year, in Pueblo, Colorado, I met with Pam Sterner of Pueblo, who was attending Colorado State University in Pueblo, and also with Medal of Honor recipient Peter Lemmon of Colorado Springs.

Pam had recently completed a working paper on the issue of military medals fraud for a political science class at Colorado State University, Pueblo. With her research and with some of her language, we drafted the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

Current law basically allows Federal law enforcement to prosecute individuals who physically wear medals on their person. The problem has been occurring where individuals are claiming to have earned these medals and there is no way for authorities to be able to prosecute these individuals. These frauds and these phonies have diminished the meaning and the honor of the recognitions received by our military heroes.

In addition to diminishing the meaning, on several occasions phonies have used their stature as a decorated war hero to gain credibility that allows them to commit more serious frauds.

B.G. Burkett's award winning book, ``Stolen Valor,'' first exposed the problems of these medals fraud. The authors show that killers have fooled the most astute prosecutors and gotten away with murder. They show phony heroes who have become the object of national award-winning documentaries on national network television. They show liars and fabricators who have flooded major publishing houses with false tales of heroism which have become best-selling biographies.

Not only do the authors show the price of the myth has been enormous for society, but they spotlight how it has severely denigrated the service, patriotism, and gallantry of the best warriors America's ever produced.

The Stolen Valor Act, H.R. 3352, makes a language fix to the current Federal statute, to include making verbal and written claims to be the recipient of a military medal that they were not entitled to.

This bill expands penalties currently in effect for the Medal of Honor to apply to the so-called valor medals, including but not limited to the Distinguished Service Crosses of the respective military branches and the Purple Heart.

Our bill, H.R. 3352, a companion bill of Senate bill 1998, now has 110 cosponsorships with, as Ranking member Conyers stated, 73 Democrats and 37 Republicans.

H.R. 3352 has been endorsed by numerous veterans and law enforcement organizations, including the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the FBI Agents Association.

The Stolen Valor Act may well be the most sweeping legislation affecting military awards since the Medal of Honor review of 1917, during which this criteria for awarding our Nation's highest military award was strengthened. During the 1917 review, Congress began establishing a series of lesser awards which has evolved to become the Pyramid of Honor. This is a series of medals awarded to members of the military in increasing levels of importance and prestige.

Subsequent to this review of 1917, little had been legislated in regard to these awards beyond authorization of new awards or slight changes in the awards process. Additionally, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 restores a precedent established by General George Washington. This was when he first instituted our first individual military award in 1782.

In his General Orders issued from his headquarters in Newburg, New York, on August 7, 1782, General Washington established the Badge for Military Merit, which in 1932 was revised as the Purple Heart. General Washington noted the following point with regard to military awards: ``Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished.''

The success of the Stolen Valor Act is notable because both Democrats and Republicans from both Houses have worked together in a unique display of teamwork on behalf of our brave men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to protect and honor those who have earned the right to wear these prestigious medals.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Senate bill 1998, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.