J. Forbes

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. 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).

Mr. FORBES. 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).

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES. 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.

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

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES. 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. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FORBES. 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.

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

Mr. FORBES. I would yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. FORBES

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

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