Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished resident of New Hampshire, Mr. Ronald Shaiko.

Sixteen Dartmouth students from all over the country have come to the Nation's Capital to serve as interns in various political positions throughout the District. This bright, energetic group has been led by a capable professor who shares their enthusiasm for governmental affairs. Mr. Shaiko has dedicated many years of service to higher education and has inspired many of his students to undertake successful ventures in their fields of choice throughout the country. He is the author of several political science publications and is currently acting as Visiting Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. Recently, Mr. Shaiko visited the West Bank and Gaza as part of a United States observer delegation to the Palestinian Legislative Council elections despite the American embassy's security concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Mr. Ronald Shaiko's service to New Hampshire and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim Mr. Norwood's time.

Mr. Speaker, following on my friend of Rhode Island, I had the pleasure of joining him and you, Mr. Speaker, in Atlanta a week and a half ago to witness the 15th international FIRST Competition. It was truly an extraordinary experience. There were 1,133 teams represented there, 904 of them were returning teams, and 229 new teams there.

Let me explain, as my friend from Rhode Island talked about how this works. What happens is a mentor or a company or a small businessman or anybody outside an engineer, outside of a school system, will go to a school, a high school and say they want to start a FIRST team there.

You get together a group of kids, the kinds of kids that you might not see on the football field or the baseball field, the kind of kid who might not be the biggest, most popular person in the school. You get together with them, and you tell them about how you could build a robot, go to a competition, win that competition, go to a regional, go to the nationals and really do something that is exciting.

This foundation was started by, as my friend from Rhode Island said, Dean Kamen, a constituent of mine from New Hampshire. Dean Kamen didn't get a college degree. He spent quite a bit of time in college, but he used the skills that were available to him to learn, what was important to learn in order to become successful, a business person, an inventor, an entrepreneur, and obviously an engineer and a physicist.

His dream is not only to be successful in his own life but to be able to communicate that kind of success to kids who may not have the kind of advantages that many of us enjoy. So he put together this organization which he called FIRST. It is designed to give kids, many of whom come from disadvantaged school systems and disadvantaged neighborhoods, and are from families that may have problems, but to give these kids the excitement that one gets from baseball or from football or from other sports, and, indeed, he succeeded.

My friend from Rhode Island went to the Boston regionals and saw how excited these children were, as I did, when I went to the regional in Manchester, New Hampshire, with their team screaming for them in the audience and the robots competing against one another in a ring with referees dressed in stripes judging them.

They handed out over 2,000 awards to these kids nationally this year. Dean Kamen himself made a beautiful clock out of Plexiglass, a beautiful grandfather clock that is given each year to the winner.

Indeed, Dean is a great entrepreneur, a great businessman, and he has brought a lot of great products to society. But his real passion in the world, I believe, is bringing education and excitement in engineering and physics to children.

Now you may ask, is this just the work of one individual and one person's dream? Well, back in 2002, the FIRST Foundation contracted with Brandeis University to do a study about what happens to their graduates. Here are some of their conclusions, key conclusions.

Participants in the FIRST program were more likely to attend college than an average high school graduate. Eighty-nine percent of the FIRST competition alumni attended college. That compares with a 65 percent national average. Once at college, a high proportion of FIRST alumni took courses at internships that were related to math, science, technology. Eighty-seven percent took a math course in college. Seventy-eight took at least one science course. That compares with a 66 percent average in these fields.

Perhaps the most striking finding is that 41 percent of the alumni that went to FIRST actually ended up majoring in engineering in college. Their educational aspirations were well above the national average; 78 percent of the FIRST alumni reported they expected to earn a graduate degree versus 58 percent among college students nationally.

FIRST alumni were more likely to pursue careers in science, technology and engineering. Compared to students in a comparison group, 45 percent versus 20 percent. FIRST alumni also reported continuing involvement in their communities. FIRST alumni were more than twice as likely to report volunteering in the community in the past years than were students in the matched comparison group, 71 percent versus 30 percent. Site visits indicate also that a variety of positive public impact in schools, including new classes, improve school spirit and other great benefits.

My friends, this is a wonderful program that is in its fifteenth year now, has handed out almost $8 million in scholarships, has business, educational institutions and students working together for science and education.

It is a great partnership. I have two challenges: I want my colleagues to get involved in their first regionals, and I want the first participants to contact their Members of Congress and get them involved. This is a great program that is good for America and good for education.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I thank Chairman King and his staff of the Homeland Security Committee and my own staff person, Jennifer Warren, for help on this.

This amendment would add another use of funds received under the new port security grant program created in H.R. 4954. I fully support the new grant program and want to emphasize that my amendment does nothing to change the prioritization in which awards are granted for port security that is based on risk and national economic strategic defense considerations.

What my amendment would do is to allow a State or local agency to petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use Federal funds from this program for any port security activity relating to prevention, detection, preparedness, responsiveness, or recovery from acts of terrorism that is a Federal duty usually performed by a Federal agency.

Additionally, an agreement between the State and local organizations and Federal agency would have to exist in order for the cost of activities to be eligible for reimbursement. This proposed change would allow State and local agencies to petition for reimbursement of expenses such as salaries, overtime, maintenance, and other overhead costs that a State or local agency is spending to perform the Federal port security duties that would otherwise not be covered by the existing language in the bill we have before us today.

I think it is really critical in ensuring that funds under this new program will be eligible to go to more resources than just Federal agencies. I will give you an example: in my home State of New Hampshire, the Port of Portsmouth, it is a busy port. Although small, it is busy. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, and the New Hampshire Marine Patrol does a considerable amount of surveillance and spends over $200,000 annually in additional costs relating to the port security duties that would otherwise not have to be covered by the U.S. Coast Guard. This is just one example.

The Port of Miami apparently has seen an increase in their responsibilities of almost $12 million per year over the past 5 years in annual operating security costs and has been advised by the U.S. Coast Guard that they now may be responsible for waterborne surveillance. So we do have situations in which those other than Federal agencies do actually perform these responsibilities and should be eligible for compensation under this bill.

So I hope that the committee will see fit to accept the bill and that it will be made a part of this legislation. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for recognizing me. I also thank her for her leadership in sponsoring this very important piece of legislation, and it would be a bright day in America and in this Congress if we could spend a minute or two working on issues that will increase supplies, assure honesty in the energy world in a difficult period of time and do so with a focus on policy and good sound legislation, rather than trying to make political points, speech after speech after speech.

What we have here before us today is a good piece of legislation, and it does four critical things. First, it directs the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging, to define what wholesale sales are and what retail sales are and to come up with rules that will implement those definitions.

It also provides for strong civil enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and the State attorneys general for criminal enforcement.

It provides strong civil penalties. Those penalties would be three times the ill-gotten gains for the retailer, plus an amount not to exceed $3 million per day for continuing violations.

It also provides for strong criminal penalties, and these penalties are $150 million and/or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, and on the retail side, $2 million and imprisonment not more than 2 years.

These are real penalties, and this will, with the proper rulemaking process, lead to a deterrent that will result, in my opinion, in energy prices reflecting true costs.

It is important to emphasize that this legislation does not upset State laws. It is enforceable by State attorneys general and, as I said a minute ago, does provide vigorous civil and criminal penalties.

There is no excuse for price gouging in energy, and with the passage of this

legislation, that will be more fully assured.

I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for her leadership in this area. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. As others have stated, it is clear that refinery capacity has not been able to keep up with demand. Although current refiners have been able to ramp up their production sometimes in excess of 100 percent, which is an interesting mathematical challenge, the fact of the matter is that our population has grown, our economy has grown, and the resulting demand for more energy across the board has created a situation where, when we have a disaster similar to the one we had last summer with Hurricane Katrina where refiners were clustered in one specific area of the country, they were running at full capacity, they were shut down for a period of time, we had a short-term crisis which we were able to get over, but it was not easy.

Historically, utilization has been much lower than it has for the last 20 or so years; and the reason for that is we have not built a new refinery.

I agree that this bill is not going to circumvent any of the procedural hurdles that need to be crossed in order to build a new refinery. But what it does do is something that is, in my opinion at least, is innovative and imaginative in that it establishes a coordinator that will help make sure that the process, although not shortened because you are circumventing any regulation, makes this process work coterminously rather than successively.

Nobody will lose the ability to have their voice heard. There will be no part of the process circumvented. But an investor, a developer, a refiner, will have the certainty of knowing that there is a master plan in place, that there is a Federal coordinator and that there is a process that can be more predictable.

And I don't see how you can be against a process that uses the current system and all of its hurdles that need to be crossed but simply makes it run more efficiently. That is all this bill is trying do.

Now, there is a provision that allows the President to simply suggest that three base closures be identified for possible location. There is no requirement that it be done. And it also contains a provision that allows for the same expedited process to apply to biorefineries as well. And as one who comes from New Hampshire, we need to develop biorefinery capacity in this country. We are moving away from MTBEs as an oxygenate for gasoline, and I have as a high-priority project the development of an ethanol refinery from cellosic fiber, in other words, wood products somewhere in the northeast. And this process, although not circumventing, as I said before, any particular rule or regulation, will make the process go quicker.

And I understand my colleague's concern about not having enough hearings and so forth. But this bill simply speeds up the process. And if you want the process to last as long as possible and not have any new refinery capacity in this country, vote ``no'' on this bill. I understand that. But I believe in the process, but I believe that it should be quick and expedient but fair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated May 3, 2006, from the National School Transportation Association, expressing their support for the pending bill.

National Association for Pupil

Transportation,

Albany, NY.

National School Transportation

Association,

Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2006.

Hon. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

school transportation interests around the country (both

public and private), I am writing to urge quick action on

H.R. 5254, to increase the availability of reasonably priced

fuel by streamlining the permitting process for new or

expanded refineries and H.R. 5253, to ensure that the Federal

government has the authority necessary to investigate price

gouging by fuel suppliers. Our industry is struggling with

staggeringly high fuel costs that are threatening our ability

to provide low-cost, safe transportation for 25 million

school children each day. Enactment of these two measures can

help drive down the cost of fuel in the long-run and we

support their approval by the House.

The nation's school bus fleet is the largest mass

transportation fleet in the country, 2.5 times the size of

all other forms of mass transportation including transit,

intercity buses, commercial airlines and rail, combined. This

system is also the safest way to transport children to and

from school every day. The National Academy of Sciences has

reported that there are approximately 800 fatalities per year

among children who do not ride school buses, while the school

bus related annual fatality rate is less than 20. Keeping our

school buses running is vital to the safety of our children.

In the wake of instability in crude oil supplies, Hurricane

Katrina and other factors, rising fuel costs have devastated

the industry and now threaten to force the involuntary

reduction of school bus transportation nationwide. In

addition, today's diesel fuel prices are significantly higher

than they were one year ago and are more than twice what they

were four years ago. This is proving to be a burden to public

and private operators alike.

Public school systems and their school transportation

providers are not able to pass

on the costs to the students they drive to and from school

every day. Instead, many school districts have responded to

this crisis by eliminating field trips and worse, reducing

transportation to and from school, forcing students to find

less safe and reliable ways to access their education or even

temporarily closing schools. For example, in Ohio school

districts have eliminated school bus service to 80,000 school

children a day and, just last week a local school system in

Tennessee closed for two days due to the inability to provide

school transportation due to the high cost of fuel for their

buses.

We understand that there are no easy solutions to this

problem, but are writing to ask for your help nonetheless. We

ask that Congress act quickly to help increase supplies of

fuel by ensuring that adequate refining capacity is available

as quickly as possible and that any allegations of price

gouging are fully investigated. We understand that the House

is preparing to act on H.R. 5254 and H.R. 5253 later today.

We welcome and support these initiatives and ask for broad,

bipartisan action to enact these important measures as a way

to help bring down prices for fuel as quickly as possible so

that school children will continue to be able to have access

to the safest possible mode of transportation. We also pledge

to work with you to find and advance other solutions that

might provide more immediate relief, such as H.R. 4158,

legislation introduced earlier this year to provide grants to

cover the cost of energy for financially strapped school

districts.

Sincerely,

Leonard Bernstein,

President, National Association of Pupil Transportation.

John D. Corr, Jr.,

President, National School Transportation Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want to correct the record if I could. It is my understanding that the bill only allows the President to identify a possible closed military base for a refinery location. It is only drawing attention, and it does nothing more than that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that it is interesting that my friend from California now is on the same side as ExxonMobil, which opposes this bill because they claim there is no need for new refinery capacity, and I would only point out that he makes a great argument for the passage of the bill, because what this bill does is take the argument that government red tape and bureaucracy is holding up the process completely off the table. And if that doesn't lead to more production, more construction after passage of this bill, I will be the first one to step forward and blast the industry for not creating more capacity.

So I appreciate the apparent support that my friend from California has for making sure that this process, permitting process, is sped up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

The date of the letter?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

This is a very odd debate. One of the previous speakers said that this bill would do nothing to lower gasoline prices. If you increase refinery production, you are going to have more supply, and obviously more supply is going to lead to lower prices.

Another speaker said that this bill would somehow create more environmental pollution. It does absolutely nothing to change any existing environmental rule or regulation. It just increases the time. So if you want less supply, higher prices and the only reason you are against that is because you think that an additional refinery would create more pollution, then you should vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

I will match my environmental record in this Congress with anybody else's and certainly my record in supporting the development of alternative energy resources. And, quite frankly, this bill does just that because the expedited permitting process, which does not in any way change the requirements for the process at all but simply makes it more organized and more manageable, also applies to coal to liquid and biorefineries. And this is critical for my part of the country. We cannot afford to wait 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years to increase our supplies not only of traditional motor fuels but also these alternatives. We need to remove the uncertainty that a successive permitting process creates and the chilling effect that has on the ability of investors where large amounts of money are involved to stick with the process year after year after year.

There is nothing in this bill that will reduce in any fashion the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, the States, or any other entity to go through the appropriate process in order to permit a new refinery. But what it does do is for the first time in 30 years is make it incrementally more possible that we will get more capacity.

So when your constituents call you and say that they are unhappy with the high cost of fuel, remember that part of that high cost is associated with the fact that we have a very, very tight inventory of fuel in this country. As the chairman of the committee said a few minutes ago, we are consuming considerably more gasoline in this country than we are producing domestically, so some of it is imported. Our refineries are clustered in one region of the country.

If you want to answer your constituents by saying that you voted against a bill that would not have any environmental impact but would simply make it possible for us to address this issue in a more timely, quicker fashion, that is your choice.

But we are doing what we can quickly and expeditiously and incrementally to address the issue of refinery capacity in this country. I hope the House will adopt this bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate New Hampshire resident Roger Easton for receiving the National Medal of Technology, America's highest honor for technological achievement.

More importantly, I would like to commend Mr. Easton for four decades of distinguished service to the field of navigation technology and to our Nation. His numerous inventions, from the Minitrack satellite tracking system to the ``Navigation System Using Satellites and Passive Ranging Techniques,'' provided the foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System (GPS) in widespread use today. This crucial technology initially advanced the capacity and effectiveness of U.S. satellites, in addition to providing a measure of increased security in the Cold War era by enabling our military to track unknown objects orbiting the Earth. Mr. Easton's ground-breaking inventions have subsequently inspired the use of GPS technology in the civilian sector, including the system's adaptation for usage in commercial airplanes and personal automobiles.

His contributions as a public servant are equally noteworthy, having served two terms as a colleague of mine in the New Hampshire State Legislature and three terms on the Board of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative. The National Medal of Technology could not have been bestowed on a more deserving individual, and it is an honor to offer this outstanding contributor to America's economic, environmental, and social well-being my heartfelt congratulations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I stand today in strong support of the Norwood Amendment, which will provide State and local law enforcement the necessary authority, resources, and intelligence needed to apprehend and detain illegal aliens that they encounter during their routine duties. The President in his recent comprehensive immigration strategy has called for an elimination of ``catch-and-release'' at our national border and it essential that this is expanded to include incidents within the interior of the country.

Over 400,000 alien absconders and more than 85,000 criminal illegal aliens are in our country. Tragically, many of these criminal aliens remain loose within our borders and continue to commit violent crimes in our neighborhoods, such as Eduardo Campos Rodriquez, an illegal immigrant wanted for four counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder. We can not allow cases like this to continue to threaten the safety of our citizens in their communities.

Illegal immigration is a national problem--not one only occurring in the communities along the southern border. Throughout the country, State and local law enforcement are confronted with this problem everyday from large urban cities to the smallest and most rural communities. Unfortunately, our State and local law enforcement officers lack the critical information, necessary resources, and clear authority to detain and process these individuals. Recently, my district has been in the national spotlight concerning the various strategies that local and State law enforcement are attempting to use to address their illegal immigration problem in the absence of federal guidance. Recent incidents in New Ipswich, New Hampshire and Hudson, New Hampshire forced police officers to release illegal aliens whom they had detained during the course of their normal duties due to a lack of assistance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. In response to having to repeatedly release illegal aliens, the towns' law enforcement officers attempted to apply New Hampshire trespassing laws to these illegal aliens, so they would have the authority to detain the individuals for a longer period of time in hopes that ICE would then be able to take custody. Even though this strategy has not held up in the courts, it illustrates the need for this essential amendment to give law enforcement the authority, resources, and intelligence to respond to the unique challenges presented by illegal aliens. It is important to point out these incidents happen in relatively small communities--the town of Hudson with a population of 24,000 and the town of New Ipswich with a population of 5,000.

Overall, State and local law enforcement are looking to Congress to provide them with the vital resources, information and authority to address this serious security concern. I strongly believe that the nation's security must remain our highest priority, and local involvement in security solutions is critical to achieving this goal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Norwood amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Nothing is more important than good border security for our national security. Nothing is more important than enforcing the law of the land. And we cannot go on indefinitely with immigration laws that nobody pays any attention to. Yes, indeed, this is a bill that is courageous. It is bold. Certainly, it is controversial. But it is a step in the right direction, and it moves this issue forward.

What I am most particularly interested in is the committee's acceptance of a provision that Congressman Norwood and I brought to the first responders bill that would allow States to use homeland security funds, State police, local police and so forth, to round up illegal immigrants and deliver them to the Feds. In New Hampshire, we spent over $650,000 in State police funds last year doing Federal duties and $200,000 from the Marine Patrol on the sea coast. I think this is a provision that adds flexibility to a bill that needs to be passed in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents and constituents all over the country are crying out for a just law to end this

process of having undocumented illegal aliens working and flaunting the law.

Mr. Speaker, today I commend and congratulate the Iraqi people on the occasion of the election which is going to be held there tomorrow. This election represents not only the successful liberation of the Iraqi people from decades of tyranny and oppression but it also is a great leap forward in solidifying democratic institutions in Iraq.

Perhaps more than our Constitution, our flag or our national anthem, it is our elections that best display the enduring success of our American democracy. From the formation of political parties and ideologies to spirited debates on critical issues, it is the symbolic act of casting ballots that continues to make our democracy a beacon of freedom and prosperity to the global community.

The Iraqi people will now have the opportunity to comprehend what Americans have learned over two centuries, that nations are more stable and more peace loving when a multitude of voices share in its operation.

I am confident that democracy will continue to flourish as Iraqis make their opinions heard, rally in support of their visions, and experience for the first time the many liberties that Americans hold dear.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am planning to speak in opposition to the bill, but I thought that I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that he planned to oppose it. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the bill. We passed a bipartisan campaign finance reform act 3 or 4 years ago to close huge loopholes in campaign spending, including the soft money loophole. Now the Internet is becoming an increasingly important medium for campaign spending and advocacy. According to some surveys, 37 percent of the adult population and 61 percent of Americans use the Internet to determine how they would vote in an election.

Now I do agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that, had this bill gone through the regular order, we probably could have worked out some compromises that would have protected the rights of individuals and bloggers and so forth, but we do not have that ability at this point, so it is either an up or down vote on a complete exemption.

In the absence of this compromise, we have to depend on the FEC for regulation. Because if we do not and if this bill passes, we will in effect have an exemption to BCRA that will allow for unlimited advertising and advocacy over the Internet.

I do not believe that bloggers or individuals will ever be fined by the Federal Election Commission. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill when it comes up later today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 220) recognizing America's Blood Centers and its member organizations for their commitment to providing over half the Nation with a safe and adequate volunteer donor blood supply, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material therein.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 220, a resolution recognizing America's Blood Centers and their member organizations and their commitment to providing over half the Nation with a safe and adequate donor blood supply.

Each year more than 4\1/2\ million Americans need a blood transfusion; and for many, donated blood will be a lifesaver. One out of every three people will need donated blood in their lifetime. For many of us, we do our part by participating in blood drives, but we do not fully recognize the significance of our action.

What can take 15 minutes to donate a pint of blood can literally save the life of a mother, a next-door neighbor, or a child. An ample blood supply is also critically important to ensuring we are prepared to respond to health care emergencies.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for offering this resolution. This is a great resolution, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time. I think I will thank him twice during this speech for what he has been able to do, which was to bring this bill to the floor quickly, along with my friend from Illinois.

As he mentioned, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act will double the penalties that the Federal Trade Commission can levy against individuals who commit fraud during times of Presidential emergencies or disasters if the offending action is associated with our response to the disaster.

This would be the third time that I have introduced this bill. It has passed Congress on two previous occasions, and I sincerely hope that it will pass again today.

Americans have opened their hearts and their wallets over and over again in the last 4 or 5 years, donating $2.2 billion in the wake of September 11; $1.3 billion for the tsunami victims; and as of now, over $1.7 billion for Katrina aid. In 2004 alone, charities raised $248.5 billion in the United States.

Americans should be proud that we can come together as a country over and over again even though oftentimes we have to dig a little deep in order to help people who are in trouble.

My hometown of Peterborough got together and adopted a town in Mississippi. We will raise close to $50,000 for this little town in Mississippi by the end of this week. I think that is enormously admirable. The money contributed is carefully accounted for, and it goes to the exact place it needs to go.

However, there is fraud. I understand that the Nation's first Internet charity fraud case involving Hurricane Katrina has been uncovered. An individual has been charged and a Federal indictment is pending for creating a consumer Web site that asked that donations be made on line, purportedly to support humanitarian airlift operations to get victims out of Louisiana. Two people in Los Angeles set up a table outside a big box department store in Burbank and displayed fliers that read, ``Help now. American Red Cross relief for Hurricane Katrina.'' It had no connection whatever with the Red Cross.

Now, as was mentioned before, Federal officials do have some power to prosecute those engaged in fraud, but if we double the penalties at times when Americans are most likely to be wanting to give without doing the proper research that is necessary before any gift is made, I think we will create an extra element of deterrence.

I want to thank again my friend from Florida and my friend from Illinois as chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for allowing this bill once again to come to the floor of the House. I want to thank Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass this bill out of the Congress, pass it through the Senate and send it to the President's desk. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the committee and in the House and the Senate and White House to make sure this happens quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 485) supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 485.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 485, which would resolve that the House of Representatives support the goals of Red Ribbon Week during the week of October 23 through October 31 in order to commemorate the services of DEA Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, who died in the line of duty in 1985 while engaged in the battle against illicit drugs.

I also understand that Red Ribbon Week encourages children and teens to choose to live a drug-free life, and I understand also that this resolution encourages all people of the United States to promote drug- free communities and to participate in drug-free prevention activities to show support for healthy, productive, drug-free lifestyles.

We know ultimately that education is the answer to drug abuse amongst children. As the father of a 14-year-old and a 12-year-old, I can assure you that education is key. What Red Ribbon Week does is recognize nationally the importance of keeping our youth off of drugs, and I am particularly pleased that we are commemorating this year and through this resolution Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great resolution. I urge Congress to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great resolution. I urge the Congress to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I would only point out that this bill, with the exception of one and maybe two changes, has already been debated by this House. I appreciate the fact that my friend from Florida would be concerned about it being a closed rule, but this is certainly not the first time that we have considered this bill. I think I have voted on it a number of times in the past.

The fact of the matter is all this bill does is the same thing the last version did that we voted on before and the one we voted on before that: it protects licensed and law abiding firearms and ammunitions manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits that seek to hold them responsible for the crimes that third-party criminals commit. It does not hold harmless unlawful, non-law-abiding arms manufacturers and sellers; but it simply allows for some immunity from the frivolous lawsuits that gun manufacturers have faced now for many years. Thirty- three States, including my home State of New Hampshire, have passed similar legislation at the State level.

Indeed, the argument is brought up that this does set a precedent of providing special protection to a segment of the industry; and I say, you are right. You are absolutely right about that. And sad to say, I wish this bill was not necessary. I wish that there were not adventurous trial lawyers that see deep pockets as a new way to line theirs. I wish we had not reached the day that we have to protect, as we may later on this week, restaurants and public schools from frivolous lawsuits related to obesity claims; but the fact of the matter is we need to do that. We need to do that because there is no direct connection now between gun manufacturers and crimes that are committed with guns unless there is negligence of one sort or another.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is a sad reality that legitimate industries in this country need special protection against entities that are looking to make money, to provide new sources of revenue outside of the tax base, and other ways of looking for people that can afford to settle on cases that they would never ever settle on under any other circumstance.

This bill has been debated. This is a good bill, and I urge the Congress to adopt it when it comes up on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for working so hard to accommodate those of us who represent the northeastern part of this country in this bill. I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I do so having worked hard to make sure that those of us who represent the northeastern part of the country are satisfied with what we have before us today.

I wish to make three points. The first is that the issue of new source review is gone. It is a debate for another day, and I think that is an enormous improvement to the bill. The issue of pollution in this country needs to be addressed, and the Clean Air Act definitely needs to be amended, but I felt for a long time a refinery bill was not the place to do that, and I commend my leadership for being able to work that out. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico mentioned in her speech, there is a wonderful provision on price gouging that will protect consumers against price gouging from the refinery on down.

The third point is that the only cost in this bill is the cost associated with increasing the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve from 2 million to 5 million barrels a day, which is critical to the northeast.

The bottom line is, if you are satisfied with higher gas prices, if you are satisfied with the concentration of refinery capacity in hurricane-prone areas, if you are satisfied with the fact that we have not built a new refinery in so many years, if you are satisfied with the status quo and if you think your constituents are satisfied with that, if you think that 2 million barrels is enough for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, if you think this bill is going to cost money even though it will not, then vote against it.

But this is your opportunity to support an energy bill that you can tell your constituents will help, over the short term and the long term, provide gasoline and heating oil to your constituents who need it badly.