Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 888, the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007. I want to commend Chairman Conyers and Representatives Berman and Pence, the sponsors of the House version of this legislation, H.R. 2489, for their dedication and commitment to this issue.

Perpetrators of genocide have committed some of the most heinous crimes ever carried out. Genocide is a crime not only against specific victims targeted for extermination, but it is also a crime against humanity. History is replete with horrible images of human suffering, where victims targeted were based on their human characteristics. In the modern era, we have technological advances used for carrying out heinous acts of genocide.

The idea that individuals, hundreds, thousands, and sometimes hundreds of

thousands, are singled out and systematically targeted for extermination offends every person's belief in humanity or the rule of law. In recent decades, we have seen ethnic cleansing during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, systematic mass killings in other areas, and of course there is the ongoing suffering in Darfur.

S. 888, the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007, expands Federal criminal jurisdiction for prosecution of those responsible for genocide. With this improvement, I hope that Federal prosecutors will be able to prosecute aggressively those heinous criminals. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Ehlers.

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

As the gentleman from Indiana said, this is a small step but a very profound step. You have heard the voices all in almost unanimous agreement supporting this bill. I hope that would be the pleasure of the House.

I would like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately some things never change, and unfortunately this bill happens to be one of them. No matter how dangerous law enforcement says this bill is, it hasn't changed. No matter how dangerous the intelligence community says it is, this bill hasn't changed. And unfortunately there is a cycle that won't change either, and that cycle is simply this.

In the nineties, we cut our intelligence capabilities. On 9/11/2001, we had the worst terrorist attack that has ever hit our shores. Since that time our intelligence community and our law enforcement people have worked hard and they have kept us safe. But if we have another hit, and this bill puts us on the same cycle, because what are we doing now? We are cutting our intelligence capabilities once again, like we did in the nineties. If we have another terrorist attack, the cycle will repeat itself, and they will bring back in law enforcement and they will point their fingers and they will say, why didn't you stop it?

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity tonight not to repeat that cycle by not passing this bill and making the amendments necessary to keep our intelligence strong.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form I am.

Mr. Speaker, one of the big concerns that many of us have with legislation of this type is that courts across the country have used it to establish public policy, and then certain judges have taken that and determined from that public policy that they are going to redefine the institution of marriage.

In considering this bill, I am deeply troubled by not only what is in the bill, but where I believe this bill is leading us. And you don't have to take my word for it. A memo from the Marriage Law Project at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law noted this:

``ENDA is about more than jobs. It is also about marriage. ENDA is based on the idea that State laws restricting marriage to the union of one man and one woman are a `subterfuge' for discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals. If the courts accept the proposition that marriage is a `subterfuge' for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down as unconstitutional.''

And that is the goal, Mr. Speaker. This legislation will ultimately allow activist judges across the country to redefine the institution of marriage. The majority might say that is not their intent, but I guarantee that is exactly what will happen if ENDA passes as it is. If we don't vote to stop it, then we are tacitly allowing one of our most sacred institutions to be torn down.

This legislation will provide certain activist judges with the legal justification to strike down State and Federal

marriage laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman. State ENDA laws are being used by activist judges to impose same-sex marriage and civil unions on States. State courts are using ENDA and other similar laws to justify the argument that the government has no rational basis to continue discriminating in the area of marriage. And this is not something that might happen down the road. It has already happened in three States: Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey.

In Massachusetts, the supreme court there decided in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that there was no rational basis for the denial of marriage to same-sex couples. In that case the court cited a list of State statutes, including nondiscrimination laws, as evidence that the State should not discriminate in the area of marriage. The court's opinion laid it out clearly, writing, ``Massachusetts has a strong, affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.'' You can't get any clearer than that on how nondiscrimination laws can be used to undermine marriage.

However, even before the Massachusetts decision, the supreme court of Vermont in 1999 ordered the State legislature to pass either a same-sex marriage or civil union law. The Vermont court relied in part on the fact that the State had a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court said it would be irrational and thus not meet the rational basis test to argue that the State could refuse to allow same-sex marriage or civil unions when they clearly already had a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Most recently, New Jersey's courts have gotten into the game. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the State legislature 6 months to pass either a same-sex marriage law or a civil union law. In Lewis v. Harris the court stated, ``New Jersey's legislature has been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment towards gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the law against discrimination, New Jersey became the fifth State in the Nation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ensure that this bill does not become the building block that some may want to use to destroy the institution of marriage. The motion simply says this: That nothing in this act may be construed to modify, limit, restrict, or in any way overturn any State or Federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, including the use of this act as a legal predicate in litigation on the issue of marriage.

On the wall in my office, I have a framed copy of the Declaration of Independence and the pictures of our Founding Fathers. This wall serves as a reminder to me of the ideals and institutions our country was founded on. Yet every day we see people trying to rewrite our history and tear down those ideals and institutions.

This country is great because of the ideals of our Founding Fathers, but eventually if we chip away at enough of our values, we will lose our foundation. This is what is happening and will continue to happen unless we stand up and make sure it doesn't.

Marriage between a man and woman has been the cornerstone of strength in our country, and while it may be under attack from all sides, I believe it is an institution worth protecting. This motion allows us to take a stand for marriage, for our country, and, at least for today, puts a stop to those that are trying or may try to use this legislation as a predicate to change those laws. This motion would ensure that the intentions of this Congress are clear and unambiguous.

I would object.

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad, if the gentleman would yield me some time.

If the gentleman doesn't want me to respond, then I won't.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you listen to this debate and those watching at home listen to it, the only thing that they hear are Democrats saying one thing and Republicans saying another thing. They don't know who to believe. They listen to the debate and they hear hatred of the Presidency and hatred of Republicans. But, Mr. Speaker, we just invite you today, take a moment and a breath and put all of that hatred on the shelf for just a second, and to remember that the Director of National Intelligence, not an appointee from President Bush but from President Clinton, has stated that their approach will be devastating to the intelligence-gathering capability of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts that we know. In the late 1990s, we cut intelligence. Then we had 9/11 where we had the worst terrorist attack to ever hit our shores. Since that time, regardless of who did it and deserves the credit, we have not had a major terrorist attack hit the United States, and now we are trying to repeat the cycle and cut intelligence-gathering capability again. We all know what is going to happen if, and some would say when, another terrorist attack hits. We are going to bring law enforcement in and we are going to point our finger at them and say: Why didn't you stop it?

Mr. Speaker, just recently we had one of our NFL football coaches get in trouble because he was trying to steal the signals of an opposing team. Everyone argued and agreed that wasn't fair. And they were right; but that was a game. Mr. Speaker, in this particular situation it is not a game. We don't want a fair fight. We want to steal every signal we can from enemies who are trying to harm this Nation, and we want to know what they are doing before they do it so we can protect and defend this country.

Mr. Speaker, I just invite us to take the hatred off the shelf, take the rhetoric off the shelf, and to exchange it for ration and reason so we can do what we need to do to gather the intelligence to keep our people safe.

Mr. Speaker, I, like so many others, rise today to pay tribute to Jo Ann Davis and to offer my sympathies to her husband, Chuck, and her family.

By now, you begin to hear a pattern that reflects very accurately the life of Jo Ann. And you hear many people stand up and saying the same thing, that she was our friend, and like so many others, we will miss her.

I spent a lot of hours talking with Jo Ann in this corner and in the Armed Services Committee, and I remember reading one account in one of the papers that said that she was born of ``modest'' means. But if you listened to Jo Ann, she was born poor. Jo Ann never went to a 4-year college, but she had more wisdom than you could ever see reflected in a diploma, and one mistake you could never, ever make with Jo Ann Davis was to underestimate her.

I still remember how she used to talk that so many people felt that she could never put herself through real estate school, and she proved them wrong. I remember her talking about how, that as a wife and mother, many people didn't feel that she could become a successful Realtor, and she proved them wrong.

I remember when she was first running for the House of Delegates meeting with her and talking with her and she told me that people didn't think she could win, and she proved them wrong. And then, like my good friend from Virginia, Congressman Scott, said, when she was running for Congress, she was a 40-1 financial underdog and nobody thought she could win, and she proved them wrong.

Who would have ever thought she would have served on the Armed Services Committee, been the ranking member of one of the subcommittees, that she would serve on the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives, and as so many people mentioned, she became a national leader on shipbuilding and defending the shipbuilding trade.

She was a tireless advocate for our veterans and men and women in uniform. She loved her husband, Chuck, and firefighters and would stand with firefighters in almost every issue that they brought forward, both in the Virginia House of Delegates when she served there and here in Congress.

She loved her family, and she was proud of them. And she loved her constituents, and she fought for them. And nobody, and I emphasize ``nobody,'' ever told her what to do. She always did what she thought was right for Virginia, and what she thought was right for the country.

And two final things that I think you don't hear people reflect here today, but we need to just mention, she loved horses. And I remember her and I talking many times about the fact that we were probably two of the only Members of Congress that actually had to go home on weekends and clean out horse stables; and yet Jo Ann was the kind of person that was humble enough not only to do it, but to love it.

But above everything else, I am absolutely convinced that she would also want us to say today, and this is what Congressman Wolf alluded to a little bit earlier, that she absolutely loved, above anything else in her life, her faith in Jesus Christ. And I have no question that today she has heard those words that Congressman Wolf mentioned, and that is, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have offered is straightforward. It preserves the ability of our intelligence community to protect America's national security.

We all agree that it is important to hold contractors liable for criminal acts that they commit while working overseas. No one is above the law. But, unfortunately, H.R. 2740 in its present form will have significant dangerous consequences to the intelligence community and the vital role it plays in protecting America. The motion to recommit clarifies the application of H.R. 2740 to ensure that critical intelligence activities will be able to continue.

The majority in its haste to score political points has ignored the intelligence community's concerns about the implications of the bill. Let me take a moment to outline some of the specific concerns that the majority has ignored.

First, H.R. 2740 covers all agents of any Department or agency of the United States, including clandestine assets. If a clandestine asset was implicated in a crime, investigating and arresting that asset under traditional criminal procedures could expose other assets and compromise critical intelligence activities.

Second, H.R. 2740 extends United States criminal jurisdiction without regard to the nationality of the offender. Host country nationals serving or assisting sensitive assets could become criminally liable for a felony violation of U.S. law and undermine critical intelligence activities.

Third, H.R. 2740 applies the entire criminal code to the new category of potential offenders and could implicate the authorized business of the intelligence community employees and contractors.

The bill also does not limit criminal liability to activities that occur in the course of employment, whether committed on duty or off duty, and increases the risk of exposing intelligence activities.

We agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we must hold everyone accountable under the law. Our criminal code is aimed at ensuring peace and order in our country and should not be applied internationally to every aspect of our Nation's foreign activities.

Our country relies on our intelligence community to preserve our national security and protect our citizens. We must legislate responsibly when it comes to applying our criminal code to overseas activities. Preserving our critical intelligence operations is paramount. Politics has no role in this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

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

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

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairwoman, when I walk into this great body, I understand often why our approval ratings are so low with the American people, because they tune in and they listen to our debates and they listen to us talk about problems, and then they actually read the legislation and they look at the proposed solutions and they scratch their heads and oftentimes say there's a huge disconnect between the two.

The other thing that they see is they see Members on this side of the aisle and certain Members on that side of the aisle who scratch our heads and wonder why we can't come together in a bipartisan manner to create solutions that actually work. And this piece of legislation is exactly why that isn't able to happen. Because when this bill came through the Judiciary Committee, the minority and the majority both agreed, it was voted out by voice vote because the intent that you will hear discussed today was supported by both the majority and the minority. But we were given assurances, and we certainly had the expectations, that the absolutely poor drafting of this legislation would be corrected before it came to the floor. And we had opportunities to do that, Madam Chairwoman, but they didn't happen.

And so today we have a bill that Members are in somewhat of a quandary over how they vote because they can either vote on this bill and vote against the bill to send a message to the Senate that it needs work and it needs to be corrected, even though they support the intent of the bill and hope the Senate will do what we cannot do, and that is, correct the poor draftsmanship, or they can vote for the bill because they support the intent of the bill, and again, hope springs eternal, and hope that the Senate will be able to correct the poor draftsmanship and send us back a better bill in conference.

I am not going to suggest which way they should vote, but let me try to correct the disconnect between the problems that are alleged and the actual legislation, because it's an intent that's important for us to get right, but it's important for us to get right with proper drafting.

First of all, under MEJA, which was passed under the previous majority, let me tell you who was actually covered. Under that bill, which is the reach we have to reach out for individuals who may be Americans who do stuff that's wrong overseas under contracts at that time, every Member of the Armed Forces that was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice was covered. Every civilian employee of DOD was already covered. All the employees of every other Federal agency and every provisional authority who was supporting a mission of DOD was covered. Every contractor of DOD, covered. All contractors of any Federal agency or provisional authority supporting missions, and their employees, covered. The dependents of the members of the Armed Forces, covered. The dependents of the civilian employees of DOD, covered. And the dependents of DOD contractors, all covered under current legislation.

Now, what does this legislation purport to do? What it purports to do is to add contractors of other Federal agencies who are not supporting DOD missions but who work in, according to the language of the bill, close proximity to a contingency operation. Well, Madam Chairman, the problem is that we've actually reduced some of the jurisdiction as opposed to increased the jurisdiction under this particular legislation.

First of all, there is no defining of what ``close proximity'' actually means. And there is no carve-out for those who are supporting a DOD mission who might not be in close proximity to a contingency operation.

So, Madam Chairwoman, under the proposed legislation, if we have a contractor who was doing something that would have been covered because they were in support of a DOD mission, but let's say they were on a base in Germany, because they were not in proximity or close proximity to an area of contingent operations, under the previous jurisdiction they've been covered; under this jurisdiction they would no longer be covered. That's something that could have easily been corrected in the draftsmanship if we had been given the opportunity to do that prior to coming to the floor.

The second thing, Madam Chairwoman, is when it comes to intelligence operations, which will now be brought under this particular bill, there is no carve-out under this bill for employees who may be working in operations that are involved in intelligence. If they are accused of doing a particular criminal act and they are then exposed and the linkage is because they're hired to do intelligence activities somewhere else, that entire network could then be exposed and the security of this country jeopardized, which certainly shouldn't be the intent of what we want. Again, that could have easily been corrected if we could have just written that in and corrected it before it came here.

The other thing, Madam Chairman, is there is no carve-out for residents and nationals of other countries. In the current bill there is, but under this particular legislation and the way this bill came to the floor, it may not be. We can actually have an employee of a company from another country, not even a resident of the United States, who could be employed by one of our corporations doing work for the United States, and because of the way this bill is drafted, when they say just because they're in the employ and they didn't put a scope of employment definition in the bill, then even if that person was outside of his employment, even if he was off the job, even if he wasn't working then, if he committed an act that might be a criminal offense in the United States, even if it wasn't a criminal offense in the country in which he did it, under this bill there would be jurisdiction, but there are all kinds of questions as to whether or not we could pick him up, arrest him and detain him.

The final thing, Madam Chairman, that could have easily been corrected and wasn't done is this bill sends the FBI to do these investigations in theater of operations, and there is no definition for what theater of operations actually is. We are now putting our agents in danger to do investigations in areas of military conflict where they primarily do investigations domestically at home, but we don't give them any funding to do it; we just mandate that they do it. And some of the estimates of cost that were given in the committee were as much as $5 million just to do the investigations. That means that we will have FBI agents that will be doing investigations of employees who could be doing illegal activities overseas, but we may be taking them away from activities here domestically that they could be protecting American citizens here against terrorist activity, against gang activity and against things that are going on in the United States, and this bill doesn't give a dime of funding to do that.

So, Madam Chairman, this is a bill, the intent of which is a good intent; unfortunately, the draftsmanship is horrible. It is unfortunate that we couldn't have worked in a bipartisan way to have corrected those issues before they got to the floor.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would have responded to the gentleman from North Carolina had he yielded to me when he asked me the question what I would do that we support the intent of this bill, but it doesn't justify writing a poor bill. It doesn't justify taking away existing jurisdiction. When we have contractors that are committing bad actions, whether they are in Iraq or whether they are in Germany, we want to hold them accountable. Why in the world we would draft legislation which could reduce that jurisdiction is beyond me.

I would like, Madam Chairman, to yield at this time 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, once again we hear the intent, but why in the world we would want to reduce the current jurisdiction that we have, which is what we see reflected in this piece of legislation that could have been corrected, still is beyond me. If we have a contractor who is having employees doing illegal acts in a base in Germany in a mission for DOD, we would want to prosecute them every bit as much as we would if they were in Iraq. Why we want to reduce that, I just don't understand.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, once again we hear the reasons and the policy reasons why we would like to have legislation, but it doesn't suggest why we need poorly drafted legislation.

My good friend from Virginia, for whom I have the utmost respect, mentioned that there were 17 pending cases of detainee abuse, including some that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But we already have jurisdiction for those. This isn't a bill that deals with prosecutorial discretion or whether or not we are going to have prosecutors prosecute those cases. This is a jurisdictional bill.

The second thing, my good friend mentioned the fact that some of the deficiencies in this bill were corrected by the manager's amendment. The only thing the manager's amendment has done is to say with our security concerns for our FBI agents, who normally do not do investigations in war zones, they do them domestically, we have a manager's amendment that says that they can request assistance from the Secretary of Defense.

Madam Chairman, requesting assistance and security and getting it are two different things. We had the ability to request bipartisan cooperation in redrafting this legislation. It didn't happen.

So our concern, Madam Chairman, is not again all that we hear in the debate about getting at bad apples, but it is why we want to reduce the jurisdiction that we currently have for some of those bad apples; and, secondly, why we are going to expose and create vulnerabilities for our intelligence network and also for our FBI when it is so easily corrected, if we could just sit down and do that with the proper amendments.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, once again I scratch my head as I listen. The gentleman has just stated on the one hand that the legislation does not reduce the jurisdiction and then 30 seconds later he says, oh, but there are differences between the bases in Germany and the bases in Iraq and it's okay if we don't prosecute the ones in Germany. We can't have it both ways.

Madam Chairman, this significantly does do it. The bottom line on this is that we have created a new standard which is proximity to contingency operations before we could reach in and get those bad actors in Germany and

many of the bad actors that were in the contingency operation areas.

I want to emphasize again on the FBI, it's not that we mind the FBI doing the work. We want to make sure that they are secure when they do it, and give them the funds to do it because they are stretched so thin defending us here against terrorists and defending us against gang and other criminal activities here, that it makes no sense for us to mandate that they would take those resources and spend them overseas without giving them the funds to do it.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, once again my good friend from Virginia talks about equal justice; we agree. He talks about not acting with impunity; we agree.

That's why this minority when it was the majority passed the MEJA legislation in the first place. That is why we have covered the DOD contractors, their employees and dependents and the Armed Forces members. All of these individuals are already covered at this point in time if they are supporting a mission of DOD.

And we agree, the American people and most people in this House want us to reach out and get the bad actors. The only thing that they don't want us to do in the process is, one, jeopardize the intelligence operations that we could have, which this bill could easily do.

Number two, they don't want us to divert resources here from the United States in dealing with terrorism and gang activities and criminal activities here, or put our FBI agents in harm.

The third thing they don't want us to do is let bad actors do these things in Germany and Haiti wherever they may be sent just simply because we couldn't get the drafting right.

That is our point that we have been saying from the beginning. It is easy to have equal justice, not let contractors act with impunity, but write it in a good, rational basis that can be enforceable and not the kind of drafting that we have had brought forward in this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, once again we hear the words that we can and we must do this, and we agree. The only thing, we must do it with proper legislation. Once again, as we pointed out, I don't see how any Member of this Congress or many of our citizens across the country want us to take individuals who may be employees doing intelligence operations for us in any area, and simply because they have an allegation of a criminal act that may not even have been criminal in that area, that they may be doing it on an undercover basis, that we then have to have them exposed which this act could very easily do, and the linkage would only be because they were hired to do that particular act; and, therefore, expose the entire network in that intelligence operation.

They are the kinds of things that we could easily correct so that we could do this legislation and accomplish the intent of the legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Chairman, first of all, I am appreciative of all of the people who have worked on this legislation. I am appreciative of the comments we have had here. I think if we try to pick through the apples and the oranges and we look at what we have, we find that the intent of what we are trying to do is an intent that is shared by both sides of the aisle.

We don't want bad contractors. We don't want bad actors. We don't want people working in the name of the United States anywhere in the world that we aren't able to reach out and make sure that they are accountable. That's why this Congress previously on two different occasions has, one, passed the MEJA legislation and also expanded it. That's why we have already reached out and said if you are a member of the Armed Forces, we are going to reach out to you under MEJA and make sure that we hold you accountable.

That is why we have already said if you are an employee of DOD, we are going to reach out and hold you accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a civilian employee of any Federal agency in support of a DOD mission, we are going to hold reach out and hold you accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a contractor of DOD, we are going to reach out and hold you accountable. That's why we have said if you are a contractor of any other Federal agency and you are in support of a DOD mission, we are going to reach out and hold you accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces, we are going to hold you accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a dependent of a civilian employee of a DOD contractor, we are going to hold you accountable. Or if you are a dependent of a civilian employee of DOD, we are going to hold you accountable.

We do not have a problem, we encourage the reach-out, to hold accountable other contractors who might be working for other Federal agencies. But we think the wording in this bill, we could do much better. We hope that our friends in the Senate will sit down in a more bipartisan manner and correct those defects before this bill becomes law.

We believe a reading of the law does narrow the existing jurisdiction because we have added a phrase which is a limiter which means that it is within the proximity of the contingency operation. To many people listening to that debate, it is just words. But to the courts, it is litigation over what ``proximity'' means and it is a limiter which we believe could allow bad actors who could currently be brought under MEJA to escape liability.

In addition, we are very, very concerned in a world and in a day when we know that terrorists are out to get the United States that we not limit our intelligence operations. Why in the world we would want to expose some of those intelligence operations and the contractors that we have to hurting those intelligence networks when we could easily correct that is beyond me, especially in a day and age where we know that intelligence is so vitally important to the defense and the protection and the security of American citizens across the country.

Finally, Madam Chairman, it is of grave concern to us in what we are doing to the FBI, to enforce upon them, whereas before we have given them discretion. This is a mandate that they do investigations. It is a mandate that they furnish adequate personnel to do that. And to put them in a situation in a military conflict where they have to do these investigations is a concern for their security.

The second thing that it is a major concern of is diversion of assets that they are currently using in the United States to keep our citizens safe, to protect us from terrorists and gang activity, to protect us from other criminal activity here. If we are going to mandate that for them, at least let's put the funds there and make sure that we do it.

That is why I simply close the way I began by saying this is a bill that individuals will have to determine: Do they just simply want to vote for this bill in the hopes, and realizing that hope springs eternal, that perhaps the Senate can correct these defects before they become law and cast their vote because they agree, as I do, with the intent of this bill? Or do they cast a ``no'' vote even though they agree with the intent of the bill because they want to make sure that they have sent that signal over to our friends in the Senate that they want to protect our intelligence networks, protect the FBI, and make sure we expand, not decrease, the jurisdiction that we have.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the manager's amendment purports to correct several flaws with this legislation. Unfortunately, the amendment offered by my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, misses the mark. It is one of those things that had we had the opportunity to work in a bipartisan way we could have corrected it. I don't have any pride of authorship, don't care who writes it. We just need to get it written correctly, and unfortunately, it's not written correctly as it's before us today.

H.R. 2740 imposes an unworkable and unnecessary geographic limitation on Federal jurisdiction to areas in ``close proximity'' to a contingency operation. The manager's amendment fails to correct this flaw. If the majority were serious about passing a good bill, it would have heeded the concerns of the Department of Defense that establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction based upon a tenuous link to geographic locations where a military presence can be found is impractical. Civilian criminal jurisdiction based on a nexus dependent upon a military ``contingency operation'' is ill-advised.

For instance, Madam Chairman, if the majority had consulted the Department of Defense, it would have learned that Secretary-designated contingency operations are rarely, if ever, used and are limited to operations with a view toward an enemy or opposing military force.

By-law designations, however, result from automatic actions during a war or a national emergency declared by the President or Congress, the scope of which may be unannounced, generally unknown, or imprecisely defined.

Thus, it will be next to impossible for Federal prosecutors to establish jurisdiction in a U.S. court based upon an indefinable proximity to a contingency operation at the time the offense occurred.

Moreover, the majority clearly did little to educate itself as to how the government currently investigates fraud or violent crimes committed by U.S. military personnel or contractors overseas. If it had, it would have learned that such investigations are not conducted solely by the

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for my good friend from Virginia and the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. However, that offer was extended to us when we had the bill come out of the Judiciary Committee, and we thought we were going to be able to make those corrections between then and the time it came to the floor. They weren't.

The manager's amendment that was ultimately filed was filed right before we could even file amendments, and I certainly was never presented with that amendment.

So we hope that the Senate will make these changes, Madam Chairman. We look forward to that. I think it's important for the American people and for the individuals that are defending this country.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I'm not opposed to it.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment, Madam Chairman, expands the reporting requirement of the Department of Justice Inspector General to include a list of charges that have been brought against contractors and contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a list of all criminal investigations and reports made with respect to contractors and contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan in cases where no criminal charges were ultimately brought, and a description of the legal actions taken by the United States Government against contractors and contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of a criminal charge or criminal investigation.

This is important information that Congress should be provided in order to make informed and accurate decisions regarding the investigation and prosecution of offenses by contractors overseas. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment requires the FBI to report annually to Congress the number of reports received of criminal misconduct by contractors, the number of reports received of fatalities caused by contract personnel, the number of cases referred to the Attorney General, and statutory changes necessary for the Director to carry out the duties entailed by this bill.

As I mentioned earlier in this debate, the creation of Theater Investigative Units within the FBI will hinder rather than help the investigation and prosecution of overseas crimes under MEJA. The creation of such units ignores the current framework of interagency cooperation amongst the Departments of Justice, Defense and State.

More importantly, these investigative units are in direct conflict with statutory mandates under other portions of MEJA. For instance, MEJA, under title 10, section 3262, requires the Secretary of Defense to authorize a person within the Department of Defense to arrest persons subject to MEJA.

H.R. 2740 does nothing to address this requirement with the conflicting requirement that the FBI establish Theater Investigative Units. Which agency will take custody, detain and transfer suspects arrested under MEJA?

MEJA allows suspects to be transferred to authorities of a foreign country for trial in certain circumstances. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for determining which officials of a foreign country constitute appropriate authorities. Will the Secretary now be required to make this decision for contractors not associated with military operations or will this decision fall to the FBI and, if so, under what authority?

MEJA allows initial court proceedings to occur while the covered person is outside of the United States. When this occurs, MEJA requires that a suspect be appointed counsel by a Federal magistrate judge. Such a counsel is designated a qualified military counsel, which is designed as a judge advocate made available by the Secretary of Defense. So now will a contractor who isn't associated with military operations be assigned a military judge advocate to be his counsel? Or will the Department of Justice be required to designate qualified civilian counsel for nonmilitary contractors and under what authority?

Clearly, there are numerous flaws with the creation of FBI Theater Investigative Units. This amendment does not alleviate any of these concerns.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 694, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2007, and I would start by thanking House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall for their work to pass this bill. Additionally, Representative Ed Towns has been a tireless advocate in moving this bill forward and it has been a pleasure working with him to pass this legislation.

This bill would establish a new grant program to provide funding of specific technologies to help ensure institutions like historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges have the tools necessary to prepare their students to engage and participate in the increasingly global and competitive economy.

Now, more than ever, we are seeing other countries become increasingly competitive with the United States, with science and math scores equaling or exceeding average scores for American students.

Additionally, another example of the nature of the problem we face globally can be seen in the engineering field. By 2008, India is expected to increase to a little over 700,000 young engineering professionals and China is expected to increase to 2.1 million. Conversely, the U.S. is predicated to stay stagnate at 700,000 engineering young professionals by 2008 and other fields like life sciences are declining. This is a trend that cannot be allowed to continue if the United States wants to maintain its leadership role in the future global economy and graduate students that have the capacity to be this world's best and brightest.

One of the realities that we need to address in order to ensure this happens is to make sure all populations in this country have access to basic technologies, something that is currently not the case for all segments of the American population. Although 55 percent of the U.S. population has internet access at home overall, only 36 percent of African-American and Hispanic households do, according to a U.S. Census report issued in October 2005.

This bill would work to eliminate this ``digital divide'' by establishing a new grant program within the Department of Commerce to strengthen the ability of minority-serving institutions to purchase infrastructure and provide technology education services, providing students with the same access to technology as their peers at other colleges and universities.

This legislation is about even more than just equality in education; it is about economic advancement and ensuring that America retains its edge in the math, science and technology fields--a critically important requirement in today's global economy.

Offered By: Mr. Forbes

Amendment No. 21: Page 4, line 2, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, while nearly all Members of this body have benefited from the application of modeling and simulation, or M-and-S, technology in one way or another, I want to briefly describe what we are talking about when we discuss Modeling and Simulation technology. ``Modeling and Simulation'' simply refers to replicating a system on a smaller scale or on a computer for extensive analysis.

For example, we can test a new airplane in a wind tunnel without risking human life and without building full-scale airplanes. The benefits and applications of this technology are immediately obvious: we can learn about a system in a more cost-effective, timely, and safer manner than analyzing the real thing. And furthermore, we can simulate thousands of scenarios over and over again on a computer when it is too hazardous, expensive, or impossible to perform a real-world experiment.

So in short, M-and-S tools allow us to understand complex interactions that would otherwise be impossible to comprehend using other means. If modeling and simulation technology sounds like it has the promise to dramatically change the way we apply science in the world, the fact is, that is has already done so--and this resolution seeks to recognize the countless efforts of the professionals who have taken this technology and applied it to make the United States a safer and more prosperous Nation.

The impact of Modeling and Simulation technology is felt in the private sector, academia, government, and across all disciplines. M- and-S tools have streamlined the design and manufacturing of cars, homes, boats, and airplanes.

M-and-S software designed in Illinois is assisting automotive engineers to design engines that are more efficient while reducing emissions. M-and-S analysis is also used in the engineering of major roads, bridges, harbors, railways, and airports--all of which lead to increased transportation capacity and safety.

At the United States Joint Forces Command in the Fourth Congressional District in Virginia, M-and-S tools have accelerated the effectiveness of joint and interagency exercises run by the Command. One of their experimentation projects is to enhance our national security by running scenarios in an urban combat environment. Their goal is to provide ``lessons learned'' for our troops in theater before they encounter the same situation on the ground.

Because of these kinds of valuable contributions, this resolution honors modeling and simulation by recognizing it as a National Critical Technology. A National Critical Technology refers to those technologies that are essential to develop in order to ensure the long-term national security and economic prosperity of the United States. I have already mentioned how modeling and simulation has broadly contributed to our national security and the economic prosperity, but let me name a few specific examples:

During the Manhattan Project, it was early models and simulations that allowed scientists to a developed understanding of nuclear chain reactions that ultimately led to the end of World War II.

America's military have used simulators to train personnel for flying aircraft and ships, and now they use simulators to train soldiers and marines to detect roadside IEDs.

Additionally, in the past, medical malpractice insurance rates have included artificially high premiums because it was difficult to reduce the number of medical errors for certain medical procedures that were not routinely performed. Today, however, insurance discounts are being provided to anesthesiologists and obstetricians who include simulated procedures in their biennial training requirements.

I commend those that have used M-and-S tools to make great contributions to this country.

Madam Speaker, in addition to formally recognizing modeling and simulation contributions, H. Res 487 urges Congress to continue to invest in critical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM education--disciplines that are essential to the expansion of modeling and simulation technology. Previous Congresses, as well as this Congress, have demonstrated a deep commitment to furthering STEM education. Because the skills required for modeling and simulation develop over a long period of time--it is essential that we begin to develop these critical skills in our children now.

Already, academic programs for modeling and simulation have sprung up across the country, at places such as Texas A&M and at the Virginia Modeling and Simulation Center based out of Old Dominion University. There, nearly 100 modeling and simulation professionals seek new ways to apply this technology.

We must invest now rather than later, and I applaud the efforts of the Administration and this House towards that end. This investment is particularly valuable as other countries continue to produce more engineers than we graduate each year.

This resolution is also meant to bring to the attention of this body, that policy decisions made in Congress and in the Administration can either accelerate the implementation of this technology, or unnecessarily slow its growth. That's why for the past 2 years, leaders in modeling and simulation from government, academia, and the private sector from around the country have come together in Virginia to identify the key policy challenges that are affecting the modeling and simulation industry.

For example, since last year, there has been a prohibition in place that prevents the Department of Defense from purchasing any flight simulator using a services contract. Now, if that prohibition had been in place just one year earlier, the Army's Flight School Twenty One at Fort Rucker, Alabama, would not have had the chance to revolutionize the way the Army's future aviators train. Because the prohibition came into affect after the service contract was signed, the Army was able to incorporate modern simulations into the heart of the training curriculum. As lawmakers, we ought to be aware of these policies, how they came about, and whether they are still valid or have outlived their usefulness.

When we recognize a technology that has been instrumental to our Nation, it follows that we should also understand the workforce that is producing these accomplishments. The professionals who make up the modeling and simulation community are scientists, mathematicians, programmers, and analysts. And unfortunately, we do not know much about them in part because they do not fit neatly into any current category as defined by the Department of Labor. There is also no nationwide estimate of how large the modeling and simulation community is; or whether our education system is producing an adequately technical workforce. So the government's classification of occupational codes is another area where Federal policy impacts modeling and simulation technology.

As many of my colleagues know, the Department of Labor uses classification codes to identify and describe many occupations. The codes identify the projected job market, and the typical skills, education, and experience requirements. Particularly for occupations related to critical technologies such as modeling and simulation, it is important that we identify these details. With this information, we can learn if the number of technical graduates each year can match expected modeling and simulation job growth, and we can identify the economic impact this industry has had across the country.

Madam Speaker, as Members consider their vote on this measure today, I would encourage my colleagues to keep in mind how this technology can break some of the logjams that seem to know no solution. For instance,

medical errors persist even in the best hospitals. But, these errors could likely be reduced if we can train our medical professionals in situations that replicate the most common errors or scenarios without ever seeing a patient. Simulation can also extend the value of each defense dollar, which will only become more important as rising entitlement spending squeezes overall discretionary spending, which includes defense spending.

We can increase the opportunity for interagency cooperation by decreasing the financial and time costs associated with exposing department-long bureaucrats to other agencies. One way to do this is through simulated exercises and interagency education and training. Just five years ago, a large scale defense exercise was run with many personnel in real-time. It required 5 years, 14,000 personnel, and 250 million dollars.

This year, a recent interagency exercise at U.S. Joint Forces Command was conducted to practice responding to a natural and a man-made disaster. It required only 5 months, 140 personnel and 2 million dollars to develop. Madam Speaker, the price of many things that the government buys only goes up with time. But, with modeling and simulation, we can improve the value of each taxpayer's dollar by saving money on personnel costs, equipment, and time.

Modeling and Simulation also contributed to finding a solution to the concerns of nuclear testing. For a long time, there was a tension between wanting to have certainty in the reliability of our nuclear stockpile that at the time, was believed to only be achieved by live testing. But there were also concerns that more testing by the United States would negatively impact our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Fortunately, an acceptable solution came in the form of modeling and simulation.

At the Government's Department of Energy national laboratories in California and New Mexico, modeling and simulation tools serve as a foundational element of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program, which enables the President of the United States to certify the safety security and reliability of nuclear stockpile for more than 10 years without the use of live nuclear testing. So, we are able to have full certainty as to the readiness of our primary deterrent, while also demonstrating the Nation's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

Madam Speaker, we are at the tip of the iceberg as to what other issues modeling and simulation can address. I urge passage of this resolution that commends past modeling and simulation successes, and which presents a glimpse of the kinds of issues this House must address in the future to advance the benefits of this technology for the security and economy of this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Richard J. (Jim) Bailey, who will retire from the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA), Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Richmond, VA, on July 31, 2007. Mr. Bailey's distinguished government career spans 32 years, and his record of achievement during this period reflects greatly upon himself and upon the organizations with which he has served. His contributions to national defense will be missed as he moves on to new and exciting opportunities.

Mr. Bailey was appointed to the Senior Executive Service position of Deputy Commander, DSCR in July 2000. The DSCR is DLA's Managing Center for the Aviation Supply and Demand Chain that manages more than 25 percent of DLA's 4 million consumable items. He provided leadership to more than 2,900 civilian and military personnel, located at 11 different locations, performing logistics support management for over 1.25 million national stock numbers. The customer base for the Aviation Supply and Demand Chain reaches worldwide with over 24,000 customers throughout the Department of Defense (DOD), other government agencies, and foreign militaries.

A native of Philadelphia, PA, Mr. Bailey has followed a diverse career path of increasing responsibility culminating in his appointment as Deputy Commander. In 1975, he entered the Federal service as an inventory management specialist trainee a the Defense Industrial Supply Center in Philadelphia, PA, where his assignments included inventory management specialist, supply systems analyst, and senior supply systems analyst. In 1986, Mr. Bailey moved to the Defense Supply Center Richmond to serve as the Chief of the Requirements Systems Management Branch of the Supply Operations Directorate. He subsequently held positions as Chief of the Distribution Systems Management Branch, the Logistics Programs Division Chief, and Deputy Director.

In 1995, Mr. Bailey became the Director of the Business Management Directorate, where he served for 2 years. He moved to become the Director of Planning and Resource Management in 1997. Mr. Bailey was selected as Deputy Executive Director for Procurement in 1998 and then Deputy Director of Business Operations. He also served as the Deputy Administrator of the Information Processing Center, Richmond, before this mission was transferred to the Defense Information Systems Agency.

In 1999, Mr. Bailey was appointed as DSCR's Business Supply Manager and served as DSCR's representative on the core integrated processing team for Business Systems Modernization. In this capacity, he played an important role in developing a recommendation for using Commercial-Off- The-Shelf software for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system to replace the Standard Automated Material Management System. Today, DLA is the only agency in the entire Department of Defense that has a successful ERP implementation, and Mr. Bailey played a critical role throughout the entire process.

Mr. Bailey attended St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, graduating in 1973 with a bachelor of science in Marketing-Management. He earned a master of business administration from La Salle University in 1988. He attended the Office of Personnel Management Federal Executive Institute in 1995 and the Senior APEX Orientation Program in 2002. He is the recipient of numerous special achievement and performance awards.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jim Bailey on his retirement from Federal civil service. He is a remarkable public servant who has served our Nation, the Department of Defense, and the Defense Logistics Agency and continually epitomized the dedication and professionalism that make our Federal Government a model all over the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2286, the Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. Bail bonds are rare in Federal court, and this bill will ensure that bail bondsmen and defendants are treated fairly.

This legislation amends the Federal code to prohibit a judicial officer from forfeiting a bail bond when a defendant violates a performance condition other than failing to appear in court. On balance, I think it is unfair to hold bail bondsmen accountable for compliance with performance conditions such as drug testing, curfews and other nonappearance-related conditions.

A bail bondsman should be held accountable for ensuring the defendant appears at all court dates. It is hard to justify authorizing a court to forfeit a bond for performance conditions that a bail bondsman cannot enforce.

I want to acknowledge the commitment of my colleagues, Congressman Wexler and Congressman Keller, who sponsored this bill and have demonstrated leadership on this issue. For these reasons, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you have heard from the other speakers here today about the fairness of this measure, and it certainly is a measure of fairness, how we treat bail bondsmen. And also as the chairman has pointed out, this is a matter of fairness of how we treat individuals who need bond, which they may not otherwise may have.

Even though this is a measure that is very fair, even fair measures don't make it into law without the hard work of individuals. That's why I want to compliment Congressman Wexler on the good job that he has done. Congressman Keller, who wanted to be here today to speak on this bill, has worked very hard and tirelessly for it in the committee. Unfortunately, his flight has been delayed, and he won't be here today. But I know if he were here, he would speak on the record here as he has spoken in the committee on this bill.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the gentleman from Illinois talk about having made the trip to Selma with John Lewis this year. I had the privilege of doing that several years ago and learned the experiences that you can learn only by being there and walking down the avenues that great men like John Lewis traveled.

One of the things that is important for us to remember is we have heard discussions here today about the denial of the right to vote, and that denial changes from generation to generation in the methodology used to deny people.

At one time we heard discussions about the denial by the State of individuals' right to vote. We have also heard discussions about it is a denial to vote if you fraudulently give information to individuals about their voting rights. But it is equally a denial if you are here illegally and you are voting by non-citizen, and that is a denial to individuals legally voting in elections, and that is just as much of a problem. It is also a denial if we have people voting in elections when they are not legally entitled to do so.

So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1281 addresses the very serious issue of integrity in the election system and it provides that whoever knowingly communicates false election-related information about that election with intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote in that election or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.

We all want fair elections and we all want people to vote based on facts and not false rumors. I hope one day we will be able to reach the point where we are able to take away those false rumors. This legislation can't do that. But I am glad this legislation addresses the problem of knowingly and intentionally trying to give false information, and I support that approach.

I am also glad to see that ranking member Smith's amendment to strike the part of the bill as it was originally introduced that would limit its prohibition on voting fraud to fraud committed within 60 days of a Federal election was adopted by the committee. If it is fraud, it is fraud, and it shouldn't have been limited to just 60 days. That amendment is included in this legislation on its floor here today.

Illegal voting by non-citizens can occur when voting registration forms are filled out more than 60 days before a Federal election. It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in Federal elections, and that raises an important issue of interpretation that I would like to take just a moment to address, Mr. Speaker.

We have to ensure that the courts give this bill its full intended scope to protect our elections from all fraud, all denial of people's right to vote.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires that a person registering to vote affirm that they are a U.S. citizen. If a non- citizen signs or attempts to sign any form that can be used for voting purposes, including a voter registration form, and that form states that they are a citizen when they are not, then that is a false statement.

This bill specifically defines election-related information to include ``information regarding a voter's registration status or eligibility.'' If a non-citizen fraudulently votes for, say, candidate Jones, they will necessarily negate the legitimate vote of a legal voter that voted for candidate Brown. That effectively denies the legal voter's right to vote.

In the landmark case Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court stated ``the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.'' So an illegally voting non- citizen in that case would violate the clear terms of H.R. 1281 and be subject to up to 5 years in jail.

Regarding the issue of intent, Black's Law Dictionary defines ``constructive intent'' as ``a legal principle that actual intent will be presumed when an act leading to the result could have been reasonably expected to cause that result.''

If someone knows they are not a citizen but they sign a voter registration form that states that they are a citizen, and then that person votes illegally and knows they are voting illegally, then they obviously know that their illegal vote is going to cancel out the vote of another legally voting citizen. That knowledge constitutes intents to deny another voter their right to exercise their vote, and it is properly punished under this legislation.

I certainly support that result, and I believe the court should interpret this legislation accordingly. After all, the bill is designed to protects the rights of legal voters, not illegal ones.

At the committee's markup, I offered a sentencing enhancement amendment to enforce this principle. However, I was deeply disappointed that it was ruled nongermane. It provided that, ``if the offense results in voting in a Federal election by more than 10 persons who are not citizens of the United States, the offender shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.''

If we really want to stop this, we can get serious by making those penalties meet the crime. I believe that this was an incorrect germaneness ruling based on the rules and precedents of the House. I had certainly hoped to have a vote on this amendment before we got to final consideration here on the floor.

Increasing the penalties for those whose fraudulent, illegal voting negates the legal votes of more than 10 citizens is common sense, and I thought it would have bipartisan support.

Despite my disappointment on that score, I support this legislation because it provides another mechanism for punishing illegal non-citizen voting and other forms of fraud. However, this legislation does not go nearly far enough. It fails to address what the American people want, more reliable and accurate forms of voter identification. A better system of voter identification would increase confidence in the integrity of elections by preventing more illegal voters from denying citizens the right to vote by negating their legal votes with fraudulently cast ballots.

I hope some day both sides of the aisle can work toward that end. But, Mr. Speaker, as to today, we support this legislation and we are especially pleased with the fact that it reminds us that if we are denying the right to vote, it doesn't matter if it is the State denying it, it doesn't matter if it is done because of fraudulent information, it doesn't matter if it is done because someone is illegally voting and negating the vote of someone who is legally voting, or if someone is entering a voting booth who is not legally entitled to do so and they cast an illegal vote.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted today that we can come in here on an issue that we agree on and recognize, as the gentleman just stated, that this is not the end all legislation. It is a small step, but it is a step. No matter what the legislation is that we pass, it is only going to be as good as the enforcement that goes behind, and we want to send out a message to prosecutors across the country who might get an opportunity to enforce this of how excited we are to put at least another tool in their hand where they can have

the possible imprisonment of up to 5 years for denying people the right to vote, whether it is by fraudulent information, or whether it is individuals that are illegally voting by noncitizens.

We have had reports to our committee of thousands of voters who are registered in as many as four States. While this may not be a perfect piece of legislation, it at least takes us a step in the direction we want to go.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk is a simple, straightforward amendment. This amendment says that none of the funds under the Economic Support Fund may be made available to Ethiopia.

In 2005, Ethiopia held democratic elections for the first time. As in any election, there were winners and losers. The opposition party won so many seats in that election that the ruling party immediately moved to limit the power of the parliament, stripping it of the power to craft a budget and allowing discussion exclusively on issues approved by the prime minister.

When protests grew after several members refused to participate in the new government, violence ensued; and the opposition political leaders were arrested. Thousands of protesters were arrested since October 31, 2005; and, thankfully, most of them have been released. However, nearly 2 years later, 38 prisoners from the protest remain incarcerated.

I would yield to the chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is both humbling and an honor to speak on this bill after the distinguished gentleman, Congressman Lewis, has just spoken. And I join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act OF 2007, and also compliment Chairman Conyers for his leadership and work on bringing this bill forward.

It is important that Congress adopt this legislation as quickly as possible; 30 to 40 years have passed since many of these murders were committed.

Under normal circumstances, trying a murder case is difficult and costly. Add to that the loss or destruction of evidence, witnesses who have died or are unavailable, and numerous procedural hurdles, it only increases the difficulty and cost of prosecuting these crimes. But law enforcement officers and prosecutors are continuing to pursue these cases, and we applaud their efforts.

In 2006, the FBI directed all 56 of its field offices to comb through their own cold case files and assess how many could be prosecuted. The FBI identified roughly 100 such cases. Many cases are confined to a handful of field offices that must complete rigorous in-depth investigations before it's too late.

H.R. 923 directs the Attorney General to designate a deputy chief within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights- era murders. The bill also directs the Attorney General to designate a supervisory special agent within the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI to investigate these outstanding cases.

Mr. Speaker, most of these cases, if viable, will lack the requisite Federal nexus for prosecution by the Department of Justice. Yet, the Department and the FBI are able to provide valuable assistance to State prosecutors in their investigations. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act provides additional resources to fully assess these cases and bring the offenders to justice.

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 distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, this bill, partnered by the gentleman from Georgia, a Democrat, and the gentleman from Missouri, a Republican, shows what we can do when we just pause and take a breath from the partisanship, the finger pointing, the negative attacks by the press and even some Members of our own body against this great body and join together to move this country forward.

I want to thank all of the individuals who worked on this bill, especially the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

At this time I would like to yield to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Mr. Speaker, the chairman should have the last word on this, and so he has.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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