J. Forbes

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join those voices in support of H.R. 3791, the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online Act of 2007, otherwise known as the SAFE Act. Child pornography is a profitable, global criminal enterprise and is growing rapidly in technical sophistication in response to efforts to detect and disrupt these criminal operations. It is despicable in its scope and in its vicious victimization of children. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 50,000 child predators are online at any time searching for potential victims. The Internet is a virtual playground for sexual predators, who satiate their desire for child pornography with relative anonymity. H.R. 3791, the SAFE Act, would, first of all, strengthen the requirements applicable to Internet service providers to report violations of child pornography laws, and second, provide limited liability to ISPs, telecommunications carriers, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in connection with the reporting to law enforcement agencies of child pornography violations. This legislation is a good first step in addressing the problem of child pornography. However, there is much more that needs to be done. In February 2007, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Smith and I introduced H.R. 837, the Internet SAFETY Act of 2007, a comprehensive proposal to provide law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to deal with the problem of child pornography. Unfortunately, the majority has chosen not to consider this vital proposal. I am hopeful that the majority will bring H.R. 837 up for consideration by the Judiciary Committee and then to the House floor. Our children deserve as much protection as we can provide. They are vulnerable victims of the child pornography industry. We need to do more. A first step is good, but we cannot stop here. We must keep moving forward to keep our children safe. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, at this time yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio, Congressman Chabot, who was an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. In its present form I am.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

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

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

Mr. FORBES. I would object.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. 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 FBI. The FBI does not operate theater investigative units. Rather, legal attaches assigned to 70 embassies worldwide are the first point of contact for any overseas crime investigated by the FBI. The largest of these offices is currently in Baghdad, which operates the Iraq Contracting Fraud Task Force. In addition, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the DOD Inspector General, has been engaged in investigating DOD-related matters pertaining to the Iraqi theater, to include Kuwait, since the start of the war. Likewise, the International Contract Corruption Task Force, which is known as ICCTF, combines the Department of Justice and FBI with Army CID, DCIS, SIGIR, IRS CID and other Inspectors General to investigate and prosecute procurement fraud. Requiring the FBI to establish individual theater investigative units will disrupt the existing law enforcement partnerships and task forces. This bill will also impose a heavy financial burden on the FBI with no additional funding from Congress and will most certainly detract from the FBI's duty to dismantle gang networks, combat child pornography and exploitation, and protect Americans from another terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

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