Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) who, with such distinction, chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, for his leadership and his very able assistance in bringing this measure to the House floor today.

Earlier this year, I introduced the legislation, along with other members of Virginia's House delegation. In fact, original cosponsors of this legislation comprise a majority of Virginia's House delegation, and it is a bipartisan majority of that delegation. And I want to express my appreciation to our colleagues from Virginia, Representatives Wolf, Davis, Scott and Moran for coauthoring the bill, along with me, and for their strong support of this effort. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation was coauthored by our recently departed colleague, Mrs. Davis as well.

Again, on a bipartisan basis, Virginia's United States Senators have introduced a measure identical to the bill that is under consideration today.

The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act offers needed protection to 53,000 acres of national forest land in the congressional district that I have the privilege of representing. It extends protection to approximately 550 acres of the Jefferson National Forest situated in our neighboring State of West Virginia, in the congressional district represented by Chairman Rahall.

Of the total acreage protected, 43,000 acres will receive the wilderness designation, and 10,000 acres will become new national scenic areas. These designations confer both economic and environmental benefits that are of great importance to our region.

Virginia's national forest provides an excellent outdoor experience with our State's highest mountains, fast-flowing rivers and superb hunting, camping, fishing, backpacking, winter sports and other activities.

Our existing wilderness areas are treasured by a growing number of travelers who collectively are boosting Virginia's tourism economy. In fact, tourism is among the fastest growing of all the industries in my congressional district; and our existing wilderness areas, which are a haven for outdoor activities and recreation of various kinds, are a significant contributor to that current growth in the economy within my region.

The protections we're extending today for lands containing rare treasures of Virginia's natural heritage and the permanent protection that will then be afforded will further enhance our region's travel economy. These designations also protect old-growth timber, wildlife habitat, and our region's clean water resources.

Virginia has a long and proud history of resource conservation and protection of our diverse ecosystems. We have continual awareness of the unique role that our natural landscape plays in our culture and in our State's history. That awareness is reflected in the bipartisan support for this measure in both our House and Senate delegations. It is reflected in the endorsement of this bill by local governments in my congressional district, and it is reflected in the endorsements for the bill of numerous civic organizations and literally of scores of local businesses.

With thanks to the six Virginia cosponsors, and all who have assisted us, and particular thanks to Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee, and his outstanding staff, I urge passage of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.

Over the last several weeks, I have been engaged in discussions with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from our neighboring Sixth Congressional district in Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) regarding the possibility of adjusting the boundaries of some of the areas receiving protection in this legislation.

Mr. Goodlatte will be offering an amendment shortly that reflects our conversations and our agreement to adjust some of those boundaries. I'll be urging the adoption of Mr. Goodlatte's amendment when that amendment is offered later this afternoon.

I, again, thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would say to the Speaker that I rise for purposes of claiming the time in opposition, although I will not actually oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the good work that we have been able to do together on the amendment that he offers this afternoon. I want to thank him for the time that he and I have expended in conversations about the subject matter the amendment addresses, and for the considerable amount of time that his very capable staff and mine have also expended on this matter. The staffs have focused on it a bit more than we have.

Collectively, I think we've done a very good job in addressing a range of the concerns that the gentleman from Virginia last expressed. These adjustments are being made in a manner which I think improves the bill, and it is my intention to urge that the amendment be adopted.

Under the amendment, 26 acres will be removed from the Brush Mountain East Wilderness Area in order to ensure that an existing power line is not within the wilderness boundary.

Another adjustment is of 1,263 acres, and that is in the Seng Mountain Scenic Area, which will carve out a motorcycle trail and an area appropriate for bear habitat management.

Another portion of the amendment provides greater flexibility for the Forest Service regarding trail construction adjacent to the Raccoon Branch designated area.

And as I indicated, these changes improve the legislation, and I urge adoption of the amendment which makes them.

As for the underlying bill, I would point out that this is truly a bipartisan measure. It is cosponsored in this body by a majority of Virginia's House delegation, including three original Republican sponsors, three original Democratic sponsors.

In the other body, both of Virginia's United States Senators, on a bipartisan basis, have introduced the identical measure. And so the construction of this legislation arises from a deep bipartisan conversation that has proceeded over a number of years.

It also strongly reflects the desires of the people in the district that I have the privilege of representing. It is true that some of the areas added for protection in this measure go beyond what the forest plan devised by the Jefferson National Forest management had recommended.

But nowhere is it written that Congress making ultimate public policy is in some way disabled from adding areas for protection that go beyond what the agency suggests it would like to see.

We have incorporated the recommendations made in the forest plan, and we have added selected additional acreages that have been endorsed by the local governments, by the elected boards of supervisors that reflect the will of the people and the counties where these added areas are situated.

I would also note that large numbers of civic organizations and scores of locally owned businesses have endorsed the passage of this measure. And it clearly, given that broad base of support, bipartisan here, and among elected representatives, local businesses, civic organizations, and others in the district that I represent, clearly represents the will of what the people in that part of Virginia would like to have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will join us in approving this legislation and in adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for yielding this time to me. I want to thank Chairman Conyers also for his strong leadership and his persistent effort that has resulted in this bipartisan measure's coming to the floor of the House this afternoon. His leadership has been invaluable to the success that we will experience when this measure is approved by the House later today.

I also want to commend the outstanding work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who has devoted his personal time and his commitment to this bipartisan undertaking. He is the lead Republican sponsor of this bill, and I want to say to him how much I appreciate the productive partnership that he and I have formed and the tremendous work that he has done in moving this measure forward. We truly would not be where we are today without the constructive work of Mr. Pence.

He and I are joined by a total of 71 House cosponsors, who, on a bipartisan basis, believe that the time has arrived for the Congress to extend to journalists a privilege to refrain from revealing their confidential sources of information in Federal court proceedings.

The privilege our bill provides is similar to those currently extended by statutes in 34 States and in the District of Columbia. The ability to assure confidentiality to people who provide information is essential to effective news gathering and reporting. Typically, the best information that can be received about events like corruption in government or misdeeds in a large private organization, such as a corporation or a large public charity, will come from someone on the inside who feels a responsibility to contact a reporter and bring that sensitive information to public scrutiny.

But that person has a lot to lose if his or her identity becomes known. In many cases the person responsible for the corruption or the misdeeds can punish that individual through dismissal from employment or through more subtle means if the identity of that confidential source is disclosed. In most sensitive cases it is only by assuring anonymity to the source that a reporter can gain access to the information and bring that information to public light.

By granting to reporters a qualified privilege to refrain from revealing their confidential news sources, we are clearly protecting the public's right to know. And public knowledge of misdeeds can lead to the corrective action

of criminal charges or of the passage, perhaps, of legislation.

While extending a broad privilege, we have included some exceptions for instances in which source information can and should be disclosed where a strong public interest compels that disclosure. The exceptions include disclosures to prevent an act of terrorism or to prevent an imminent and actual harm to national security, to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm, or to determine who has disclosed trade secrets or personal health or personal financial information in violation of law.

An amendment that I will be offering shortly, along with Mr. Pence, will permit disclosure in a number of other instances, including the instance of the leak of certain kinds of classified information.

In every instance, an exception to the privilege will only apply if the court determines that the public interest and disclosure outweighs the public interest in protecting news gathering and news dissemination. Our measure extends a needed privilege; it will protect the public's right to know.

I again want to thank Chairman Conyers and his outstanding staff for the work that they have done which leads to this measure arriving on the floor today. And I thank my partner, Mr. Pence, for his outstanding efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am pleased to offer at this time, along with the principal co-author of this legislation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), incorporates recommendations that were made to us by a number of members of the House Judiciary Committee and other interested Members of the House both during the extensive markup of this legislation in the committee and in the time intervening between then and now.

The legislation was broadly supported in that committee and was approved by voice vote in that committee, and the recommendations that we have received now incorporated into this manager's amendment came from members of the committee and other Members of the House both on the Democratic and Republican sides. We have folded those various recommendations into the manager's amendment.

These amendments that are folded into the manager's amendment further limit the scope of the privilege that is conferred by the legislation itself.

First, the amendment expands the instances in which source disclosure can be compelled to include a leak by the source of properly classified information where the leak has caused a significant and articulable harm to national security.

Secondly, source disclosure could be compelled when the reporter personally witnesses criminal conduct or when the reporter is himself involved in criminal conduct.

Third, source disclosure could occur when necessary to identify any perpetrator of an act of terrorism against the United States or other significant and specified harm to national security.

The amendment also narrows the definition of the individuals who may assert the privilege to refrain from revealing confidential sources in Federal court proceedings. Under the amendment, only people who are regularly engaged in news gathering and reporting and who receive substantial financial gain or receive a substantial portion of their livelihood from the journalistic activity will qualify.

The amendment will also deny the privilege to journalists who have been designated as terrorists pursuant to law or who are employed by a terrorist organization as designated pursuant to law.

We offer this amendment on a bipartisan basis, and we ask for its approval by the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me, and I concur in his statement that this motion to recommit is acceptable on our side, and in accepting this motion to recommit, we are clearly acting in furtherance of the bipartisan rapport that underlays the construction of the Free Flow of Information Act and its consideration here in the House today.

The motion to recommit provides that in performing the balancing test under the bill, which weighs whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in news gathering and dissemination, the court may consider the extent of any harm to national security.

The extent of any harm to national security is clearly a relevant consideration when determining key questions relating to what is or is not in the public interest, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join with the gentleman from Michigan in urging acceptance of the motion to recommit.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for the very fine and persistent work that he has performed in bringing this measure to the House floor today.

Mr. Berman and I introduced an earlier version of this patent reform fully 5 years ago. And building on that early effort, Mr. Berman has worked tirelessly to build broad support for the patent reform, support externally and bipartisan support in this Chamber, to fine-tune the bill's provisions and to obtain Judiciary Committee approval of the measure earlier this year. That is truly an impressive accomplishment.

There is an urgent need to improve the patent system. Patent examiners are burdened with many applications and are encouraged to move quickly on each one of them. And as they do their work, they are isolated from an important source of highly relevant information. That information source is the knowledge that individuals may have that the work that is the subject of the patent application may, in fact, not be original, that someone else, in fact, may have invented that particular object, and that that object has been in use prior to the time that the application was filed. That information we call ``prior art.'' The existing patent process contains no avenue for third parties who may possess information about prior art to submit that to the patent examiner while the application is being examined. Our reform bill corrects that flaw, and in so doing, will broadly operate to improve patent quality.

Also in aid of patent quality is the provision which significantly strengthens the post-grant interparty's reexamination process through which the Patent Office can be required to take a more careful look at the patent and the application that accompanies it before that patent is issued in final form by the Patent Office.

Our goal with this provision is to ensure that before a patent is issued, parties who contest its validity will have a full and complete opportunity to do so within the confines of the Patent Office itself. That should prove to be a very effective and less costly alternative than litigating the validity of the patent in the court process.

Across its range of provisions, the reform measure before us makes long-needed changes that will improve the quality of patents, adjust aspects of the litigation process to the benefit of patent holders and those who license for use patented items.

The bill before us contains a provision which I offered as an amendment in committee in partnership with my Virginia colleague, Mr. Goodlatte. Our provision prohibits prospectively the award of patents for tax planning methods.

Madam Chairman, I strongly encourage that the bill, with that amendment, be approved.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me, and I commend him on his effective work, which brings the patent reform measure to the House floor today.

Mr. Berman and I introduced an earlier version of this reform 5 years ago.

Building on that early effort Mr. Berman has worked tirelessly to build broad support for patent reform, to fine tune the bills provisions, and to obtain Judiciary Committee approval of this measure. It is a truly impressive achievement.

There is an urgent need to improve the patent system.

Patent examiners are burdened with many applications and are encouraged to conclude each one quickly.

And as they do that work they are isolated from an important source of highly relevant information.

That information source is the knowledge individuals may have, that the subject of the patent application is not original, that in fact, the object may have previously been invented by someone else. We call that prior art.

And the existing patent process contains no avenue for third parties to submit evidence of prior art to the patent examiner.

Our reform bill correct that flaw, and in so doing will help to improve overall patent quality.

Also in aid of patent quality is the provision which significantly threatens the past grant inter partes reexamination process through which the Patent Office can be required to take a more careful look at the proposed patent prior to its final issuance.

Our goal with this provision is to assure that before a patent is issued, parties who contest its validity will have a full and complete opportunity to make their case.

A meaningful Inter Pates proceeding can also be an expeditious, less costly alternative to litigating the validity of the patent in the courts.

Accross its range of provisions, the reform measure before us makes long-needed changes, which will improve the quality of patents and adjust aspects of the litigation process to the mutual benefit of patent holders and those who license for use patented items.

The bill before us contains a provision which I offered as an amendment in committee along with my Virginia colleague, Mr. Goodlatte.

Our provisions prohibits prospectively the award of patent for tax planning methods.

Approximately 60 such patents have been issued and at least 85 more are pending at the Patent Office.

These patents limit the ability of taxpayers, and the tax professionals they employ, to read the tax laws and find the most efficient means of lessening or avoiding tax liability (contrary to said public policy).

If someone else has previously read the tax law, found the same means of reducing tax liability and received a patent for it, that person is entitled to a royalty if anyone else tries to reduce his taxes by the same means.

I frankly think that is outrageous. No one should have to pay a royalty to pay their taxes. No one should have sole ownership of how taxes are paid.

Such a barrier to the ability of every American to find creative lawful ways to lessen tax liability is contrary to said public policy.

Our amendment, now a part of the bill before us, will bar the future award of such patents, and I would encourage the Patent Office to reexamine those that have been issued to date.

I also want to thank the bipartisan leadership of the Ways and Means Committee for expressing support for our provision on tax planning strategies.

Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to reserve our time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House creates broad energy efficiencies. Taken together, our 29 separate energy efficiency provisions will reduce future greenhouse gas emissions by a total of 8.4 billion tons cumulatively through the year 2030. In the year 2030 alone, the reduction will be fully 700 million tons, and that is an amount equal to all of the vehicles on America's roads today.

The efficiency provisions are truly a major step forward in advancing American energy policy. They set new standards for lighting that is many multiples in advance of today's standards. They set higher standards for future models of an array of consumer products, ranging from refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, residential boilers, electric motors and furnace fans. They promote green buildings, both in the public sector and also in the private sector. They create a process to capture much of the heat that today is wasted from industrial sites, enabling as much as 60 gigawatts of electricity generation from that energy.

The bill before us is a landmark accomplishment. It will make America more energy efficient and more energy independent.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I would say to the gentleman from Texas that we do not have other speakers on this side, except for the potential to close on this side at the end of this debate.

If the gentleman would yield, we are reserving the balance of our time. We do not have additional speakers on this side for general debate. We do reserve the potential for a brief close in general debate, but that will be the extent of general debate on our side.

If the gentleman from Texas would yield again for a moment, what we are attempting to do actually is facilitate the debate. At this point in time, if the gentleman is prepared to use his time, we would yield back the balance of our time.

No, I would say to the gentleman from Texas that we are prepared at this point to yield back the balance of our time.

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

Would the gentleman yield to me?

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding, and I want to commend him on this amendment.

The laws in a number of States today tie gas utility returns to the total gas sales volume, with the result that the greater the volume sold, the greater the financial return to the gas utility. That structure clearly serves as a disincentive to the making of efficiency investments by the utilities that would lessen sales volume at the expense of profits by the utility.

The gentleman's amendment directs States to consider decoupling sales volumes from economic return in a way that would encourage the making of efficiency improvements. I think it's a step forward in Federal policy, and I am pleased to encourage the adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Would the gentleman yield to me?

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding, and I want to commend him on this amendment.

His amendment recognizes the value of the Weatherization Assistance Program and proposes to increase the authorization levels to a higher point toward the levels that usefully can be spent in weatherizing homes. To the extent that the measure sends to the Appropriations Committee a signal that there should be an increase in appropriations for this program, I think it's highly valuable. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward and urge its adoption, and I thank him for yielding this time.

I thank the gentlelady from Oregon for yielding this time, and I also want to take this opportunity to thank her for the substantial contributions that she made to the legislation that is before the Committee today as it was considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And I want to commend her on this amendment which authorizes the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enter into an arrangement with the Secretaries of Education and Energy to conduct a study of how sustainable building features such as energy efficiency can promote indoor environmental quality in the Nation's K-12 schools. It is a significant contribution to our energy policy, will enhance elementary and secondary education, and I am pleased to urge its adoption.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding, and I commend him on bringing this amendment to the House today.

We all acknowledge the unique nature of our Amish citizens' way of life. They use a very small number of boilers, which accord with their principles of using no electricity. And it truly is a very small number of boilers that are involved in this matter. And given that small number and the respect that we all have for the way of life of the Amish community, I would encourage that this amendment be adopted. And I commend the gentleman for bringing it forward.

Will the gentleman hold for just one moment, please?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I regret the delay.

Let me commend the gentleman for two things. First of all, for his very helpful work as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and secondly, for bringing this amendment before the body today.

Geothermal heat pump technology is a promising means of meeting heating and cooling needs with high energy efficiency. It uses the Earth itself, as the gentleman has described, as a kind of a heat battery, but also as a natural coolant during the summertimes. And that is a natural battery and also a natural coolant upon which we can draw with great efficiency.

The amendment would direct the Federal Government to take the lead in adopting geothermal heat pump technologies. It would have the government lead by example, and I think it is an excellent addition to the measure. We are pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There are a variety of reasons that we should not impose a requirement for the use of renewables for electricity generation as a matter of Federal law that would be applicable across the country.

The renewable resources for electricity generation are truly regional in nature and not every region of the country has them in sufficient quantity. The Southeast, for example, is deficient in both wind and solar resources; and these are the two renewable resources that are the closest to commercial viability across the country.

Some proponents have said that every area of the country has biomass and biomass could be used as a renewable resource for electricity generation. But, Mr. Chairman, it simply cannot be a primary way that a large electric utility meets a renewables requirement of 15 percent of its total generating capacity.

In fact, one utility estimated that it would have plant and harvest biomass from an area the size of the State of Connecticut if it is going to meet its 15 percent obligation using biomass. So it simply is not practical. That utility has little wind or solar potential. It would simply have to pay a large penalty that is estimated at about $20 billion between 2020 and 2030 to the Federal Government for its failure to meet its obligation to use renewables to the extent of 15 percent of generating capacity, and that is money that would ultimately have to be paid by the ratepayers.

Twenty-five States where renewable resources exist have their own renewables mandates. That is the way it ought to be handled, State by State, not through a one-size-fits-all national solution. In fact, one can hardly imagine a circumstance that is better suited to State by State decisionmaking and less well suited to a national mandate.

The 25 States with their own programs have local renewable resources, and they have tailored their State laws to fit that resource availability. Their State laws make eligible a variety of different kinds of fuels and other kinds of offsets in order to meet that 15 percent requirement. That is all tailored based on their local resources available.

Virtually all of the States with programs make a broader range of fuels eligible for inclusion under the mandate than does the amendment that is pending before the committee for national application.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the House not to penalize ratepayers who happen to live in areas that have few renewable

resources. I think that renewables should be encouraged, and in fact I would like to see them encouraged to the greatest feasible extent. The way to do that is State by State, not as a national mandate.

Would the gentleman from Maryland yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments. I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this amendment before the committee today.

Home energy audits can be extremely helpful in encouraging energy efficiency. Most people are very surprised to learn just how energy inefficient, how leaky their homes actually are, and how inexpensively those energy leaks can be remedied and plugged simply by putting sealing and other kinds of technologies around doors and windows and around the roof.

Requiring States to consider holding their utilities to a Federal standard that would enable them to offer home energy audits, and in fact require that, to educate consumers and to publicize low-interest loans to finance these improvements could lead to many audits that otherwise are not likely to occur. Those audits in turn would lead to major energy savings we are not currently obtaining.

As long as implementation of the amendment takes into proper account any potential to create undue competition between utilities that are offering home energy audits and the private entities that are already doing so, this amendment would create an excellent standard for consideration by the States. I am pleased to urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of her amendment and am pleased to urge its adoption.

The Environmental Protection Agency has criteria presently assuring that any conferences that the EPA conducts are held at the highest standards for energy efficiency and for minimum environmental impact. This amendment would simply require all Federal agencies holding conferences and meetings to consider meeting these criteria. It's a step forward, and I'm pleased to urge its adoption.

I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire for yielding, and I commend him on bringing the amendment before the committee.

Mr. Chairman, his amendment to title IX would order the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of the Renewable Energy Rebate Program for homes and small businesses as that program is defined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The study would require the creation of a plan for the program and also determine a minimum amount of funding that the program would need to be viable. It is a helpful addition to energy policy, and I encourage its adoption.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Albright has performed a tremendous public service in the years that he has served as staff director on the Republican side of the committee, both in the majority and now in the minority.

He now embarks on another phase of his career, and I am pleased to note will be continuing in public service. I know he will do a fine job. We are going to miss him, and I join with the other Members in wishing him well.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A major purpose of our provisions in subtitle F of title IX is to provide that the Energy Information Administration begin collecting again important data that it once collected but discontinued collection of under budget or personnel constraints, and data on solid byproducts of coal use fell into that category.

Mr. Murphy's amendment would simply require that this data on solid byproducts of coal use once again be corrected. We support it and urge that amendment be adopted.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for bringing this matter before the committee today. It is my understanding that he intends to ask that his amendment be withdrawn momentarily.

Let me give assurance to the gentleman that we are sensitive to the valid concerns that he has raised about the need to have public participation in the processes of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and I want to pledge to him that we will work with him and with the FERC to ensure that his constituents are heard with regard to matters that affect them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing this concern before the House.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him on this amendment that would simply express the sense of the Congress, recognizing the benefits of both large-scale and small-scale hydroelectric projects. We accept the amendment and urge its adoption.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding and commend him on bringing this amendment before the committee. It would establish a grant program for colleges and universities to invest in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I think this is a step forward for energy policy and I would encourage adoption of the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding, and I want to commend him as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing this matter before the House.

I think it is appropriate to move along the process of having regulations issued with regard to offshore wind energy, and we support this amendment and would urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Community Broadband Act of 2007 in which I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. I appreciate his co-authorship of the measure and the steps we have taken together to construct the bill.

Our legislation will encourage the deployment of high speed networks by ensuring the ability of local governments to offer community broadband services.

Broadband has changed the way that people in our Nation live, work, transact business and obtain information. The ways people work and play today are fundamentally different from a decade ago, due in significant part to the growth and development of the Internet, faster and more efficient ways to access it and the broad new range of Internet based services now in common use.

But for our citizens to be able to reap the benefits of this transformation, they must have access to broadband, and the United States has fallen woefully behind other developed nations in its deployment. According to the most recent statistics released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has dropped from 12th in the world to 15th for broadband penetration. The nation that invented the Internet and today creates its most popular globally utilized applications can and for the sake of our national economy must do better than that.

Most of the areas in the U.S. that lack broadband are lightly populated rural regions. Almost 20 percent of households nationwide are not served by a broadband provider, and others are served by a single provider that may charge higher rates for the service given the absence of competition. In my district, for example, we have a county with a population of 16,000 people where the most populous town has 614 residents. That county has no broadband service. I represent dozens of small communities with populations measuring in the hundreds of people where broadband is absent. That pattern is replicated across rural America, and our current global standing is a reflection of it.

It is no surprise that building out broadband to such areas is a low priority for cable and telephone service providers, but that reality does not make broadband any less essential to the lives of unserved rural residents. If the commercial broadband providers are not willing to deploy in particular areas, local governments should be able to step in and fill the gap.

At the turn of the last century, when the private sector failed to provide electricity services to much of America, thousands of community leaders stepped forward to form their own electric utilities. At that time, opponents to municipally-operated electric utilities argued that local governments were not qualified to meet this task. They also argued that competition from the private sector would be hindered by the entry of municipalities into the market. Those arguments did not prevail because it was deemed to be in the public interest to deploy the then new ``essential infrastructure'' universally, and today we have thriving municipal electric utilities nationwide that have well served their localities for the past century .

I believe that broadband today is the new essential infrastructure. It is every bit as necessary today as electricity service was 100 years ago, and just as with electricity service 100 years ago, in many instances, the only entity willing to provide the service today is the local government.

The Community Broadband Act of 2007 ensures that local leaders can bring broadband technology to their communities, just as local leaders did with electricity a century ago. More than 14 States have passed laws restricting public communications services. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the power of States to enact these barriers. Our legislation removes the barriers. It leaves room for States to enact reasonable terms and conditions under which local governments can deploy broadband, but it overturns absolute bars to localities offering the service.

The bill includes competitive safeguards to ensure that public providers cannot abuse governmental authority by discriminating in favor of a public service to the disadvantage of private competitors.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs and increase economic development, enhance market competition, and accelerate universal, affordable Internet access for all Americans. Let's give localities the freedom to create arrangements that work for them, whether they own the infrastructure and offer the service or whether they deploy the facilities and lease the lines to private service providers. The national interest requires that we harness the willingness of localities to elevate our world standing and to enrich the lives of their constituents and the economic prospects of local businesses that urgently need broadband services.

I encourage our colleagues to join Congressman Upton and me in enacting the Community Broadband Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me.

I rise in support of the legislation, which I'm pleased to be cosponsoring with the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Dingell. And I want to thank both of my colleagues for their careful and constructive work that has brought this measure to the floor today.

The bill before the House is a well tailored response to the tragedy that occurred earlier this year in the Congressional District which I represent, in which is located Virginia Tech University.

It also meets a nationwide need for better reporting of mental health records to the National Instant Criminal background check system, against which prospective gun purchasers are checked to determine their eligibility to purchase firearms.

Under existing Federal law, which was also in effect at the time of the Virginia Tech tragedy, persons who have been adjudicated to be a risk to others or to themselves because of a mental condition are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech tragedy had been adjudicated by a State court in Montgomery County, Virginia, to be a risk to himself and committed for outpatient mental evaluation.

Accordingly, under Federal law that was in effect at the time, he should have been barred from purchasing the firearms that he used. However, at the time the purchases were made, Virginia did not submit to the national background check system mental health records of persons who were committed for outpatient as opposed to inpatient mental health evaluation. Therefore, the disqualifying adjudication that the perpetrator was a risk to

himself was not submitted to the background check system, and he was able to purchase firearms.

Ironically, at the time, our State of Virginia had the best record among all the States in submitting mental health records to the national background check system. And so clearly, there is a large nationwide need for improvement in the submission of these records, both in Virginia, but elsewhere across the country.

Since the tragedy, Virginia's mental health submissions have been made much more thorough by an executive order that was signed by Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine. The bill that we will pass today will improve the submission of mental health records in other States by providing grants to the States which undertake projects to make more thorough record submissions.

The bill also imposes financial penalties on States that elect not to do so. This is a measured response to a truly terrible situation. It will improve the accuracy of the national background check system, and I want to commend Mrs. McCarthy, in particular, for her longstanding advocacy of these improvements, my colleague on the House Energy and Committee, John Dingell, for his outstanding work on the legislation, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who so ably chairs the House Judiciary Committee, for moving this measure rapidly to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Members may know, Governor Kaine of Virginia has asked that today be a national day of mourning for the students and the faculty members who lost their lives at Virginia Tech on Monday of this week. In observance of Governor Kaine's request, I ask that the House join our Nation for a moment of silence at this time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding this time, and I thank him for his remarks and also express that same appreciation to the gentleman from California for the eloquent remarks that he just rendered on the floor. It is with a heavy heart that I offer these comments today.

The tragedy on Monday of this week was of a scale and a senselessness that defies explanation. And it came to a university campus that is known across our Nation for its friendliness, its peacefulness, and the close association among the faculty and the students.

Yesterday afternoon a campus-wide convocation demonstrated to the world that Virginia Tech's unity and sense of purpose will be maintained and strengthened. The convocation was attended by President Bush; by Virginia's Governor, Tim Kaine; and by the members of Virginia's congressional delegation, both House and Senate. And I want to express my appreciation to the Members of the House who traveled yesterday to Blacksburg to show support for the Virginia Tech community and to comfort those who have lost loved ones.

I also want to take the opportunity in these remarks to offer some personal thoughts. To Virginia Tech President Charles Steger and the professional staff of the university, thank you for the poise, the dignity and the strength that you have demonstrated under the most difficult and challenging of circumstances.

To the skilled first responders of Blacksburg and Montgomery County, thank you for your dedication and for your outstanding service on Monday that saved lives and prevented our loss from being even greater.

To the families and the friends of the victims, profound sympathy for your loss of young lives full of promise and mature lives of major contribution.

The resolution before the House this morning is sponsored by all of the Members of the House delegation from Virginia. Through the resolution, Congress offers its heartfelt condolences to all who have suffered loss, and it recognizes that Virginia Tech has served as an exemplary institution of teaching, of learning and of research, and that the university's proud traditions will continue.

Today, we mourn an enormous loss from a violent and senseless act. Tomorrow and in the months to come, the resilience of southwest Virginians and the spirit of our region that has helped to make Virginia Tech a great institution will assure that that university has an even stronger future. To that end, we in the House today pledge our support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing the Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007. Like other bills I have introduced in earlier years, the FAIR USE Act of 2007 is intended to promote innovation, encourage the introduction of new technology, enhance library preservation efforts and protect the fair use rights of consumers.

As more fully described in the attached section-by-section analysis, this bill differs fundamentally from H.R. 107 and H.R. 1201, as proposed in the 108th and 109th Congresses, respectively. For example, the revised bill does not contain the provision which would have established a fair use defense to the act of circumvention. I continue to believe that there should be such an exemption in the law, but content owners have expressed concern that enactment of such a provision could lead to widespread redistribution of audiovisual and other works.

In an effort to address their concerns, I have instead crafted specific exemptions to section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which do not pose a comparable potential threat to their business models. For example, the proposed legislation would codify the decision by the Register of Copyrights, as affirmed in a determination made by the Librarian of Congress under section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA, to allow consumers to ``circumvent'' digital locks in six discrete areas. The bill also contains six narrowly crafted additional exemptions that are a natural extension of these exemptions. For example, given the central role that libraries and archives play in our society in ensuring free speech and continuing access to creative works, the bill includes a provision to ensure that they can circumvent a digital lock to preserve or secure a copy of a work or replace a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen.

The bill contains other new elements. For example, it would limit the availability of statutory damages against individuals and firms who may be found to have engaged in contributory infringement, inducement of infringement, vicarious liability or other indirect infringement. Given the increasing extent to which content companies are on the receiving end of lawsuits, I would hope they would see the value of this element of the bill.

I have more narrowly crafted the provision codifying the Supreme Court's Betamax decision to eliminate any uncertainty about a potential negative impact on the Supreme Court's holding in the Grokster case.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and all interested parties in an effort to properly balance the rights of content owners, consumers and other constructive users of content.

I will welcome their suggestions about how the measure might be further improved as it moves forward in the legislative process.

fair use act of 2007

Section 1 sets forth the title of the bill, the ``Freedom

And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of

2007.''

Section 2 would make two amendments to the Copyright Act.

Subsection (2)(a) would limit the availability of statutory

damages against individuals and firms who may be found to

have engaged in contributory infringement, inducement of

infringement, vicarious liability, or other indirect

infringement. Congress developed the statutory damages award

process in a world of physical works, principally paper and

vinyl. Today, in a world in which silicon is the principal

medium of storage, statutory damages can be so large and

disproportionate that entrepreneurs and consumer electronics

and information technology companies are declining to bring

new technology to market out of fear that they could be

bankrupted by an adverse finding of secondary liability--even

in cases in which they believed on the advice of counsel that

their new innovative hardware or software products would be

found legal if they survived costly litigation with its

highly intrusive discovery. Under the bill, statutory damages

would remain available for conduct that no reasonable person

could have believed to be lawful. With this condition in the

law, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and consumer

electronics and information technology companies would feel

more confident in going to court, if necessary, for a fair

hearing on the merits, and aggrieved parties could get relief

from scofflaws. Moreover, actual damages would continue to

remain available to a person harmed by secondary

infringement.

Subsection (2)(b) would effectively codify the Supreme

Court's holding in the Betamax decision with respect to

hardware devices. In Sony Corp. v. Universal Ciry Studios,

Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Court held that because the

Betamax videocassette recorder was capable of substantial,

commercially significant non-infringing uses, two studios--

which were concerned about consumers making in-home off-air

tapes of television broadcasts--could not hold Sony

contributorily liable for copyright infringement based on

other possible or even predominate infringing uses. To

provide greater legal certainty to legitimate CE companies

bringing new products to market in the wake of the

uncertainty created by the Supreme Court's decision in Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005),

subsection (b) would immunize these and other hardware

companies, as well as entrepreneurs, from copyright

infringement liability based on the design, manufacture or

distribution of hardware devices (or components of those

devices) that are capable of a substantial, commercially

significant non-infringing use. The enactment of this

clarifying provision, for avoidance of doubt with respect to

hardware devices, is not intended to have any negative effect

on the continued availability and application of the Betamax

standard with respect to services and software products or to

non-commercial activities.

Section 3 would amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Subsection (3)(a) would codify the decision by the Register

of Copyrights, as affirmed in a determination made by the

Librarian of Congress under section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA,

to allow consumers to ``circumvent'' digital locks in six

discrete areas. The determination was made after a thorough

rule making process, in which the Register took extensive

testimony from rights holders, consumers, and other

interested parties. By codifying the Librarian's

determination, Congress would ensure that these practices may

continue, without the need for extensive review by the

Register and the Librarian under section 1201(a)(1) three

years from now. The importance of these exemptions was

demonstrated by the Register's extensive supporting

analysis. Making them permanent would create greater

certainty among various user communities. The need to

codify the exemptions is all the more compelling now that

TracFone has challenged the entire DMCA rulemaking process

as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.

As determined by the Librarian in the Final Rule published

in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, persons making

non-infringing uses of the following six classes of works

will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing

access controls of the DMCA:

1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of

a college or university's film or media studies department,

when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making

compilations of portions of those works for educational use

in the classroom by media studies or film professors.

2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats

that have become obsolete and that require the original media

or hardware as a condition of access.

3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent

access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.

4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all

existing ebook editions of the work contain access controls

that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud

function or of screen readers that render the text into a

specialized format.

5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable

wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless

telephone communication network, when circumvention is

accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a

wireless telephone communication network.

6. Sound recordings distributed in compact disc format and

protected by technological protection measures that control

access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit

security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the

security of personal computers when circumvention is

accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing,

investigating, or correcting such security flaws or

vulnerabilities.

As an extension of the Librarian of Congress's

determination, subsection (3)(b) of the FAIR USE Act would

enable individuals in six narrowly defined circumstances to

circumvent technological protection measures:

Paragraph (i) would extend the Librarian's determination

with respect to excerpts of audiovisual works for use in all

classrooms (instead of just in college media studies

classrooms). Under the provision, an instructor could

circumvent a digital locks on audiovisual works included in

the collection of a library or an archives in order to make

compilations of portions of those works for educational use

in a classroom at all grade levels.

Paragraph (ii) would authorize consumers to circumvent a

lock on a DVD or other audiovisual work in order to skip past

commercials at the beginning of it or to bypass personally

objectionable content (such as pornographic scenes) contained

in the work. The provision does not authorize consumers to

make back up DVDs for archival or any other purpose.

Paragraph (iii) would authorize consumers to transmit a

work over a home or personal network but not to circumvent

for purposes of uploading that work to the Internet.

This provision would ensure that consumers can make fair

use of content they have lawfully acquired, as long as they

do not engage in the mass, indiscriminate redistribution of

that content over the Internet.

Paragraph (iv) would allow individuals to access public

domain works that are in a collection of works made up

primarily of public domain works. It thus would preclude

content owners from denying the public access to public

domain works simply by repackaging them with one or more

copyrighted works and then applying a digital lock to

restrict or deny access to all of the works.

Paragraph (v) would advance long-established First

Amendment rights by authorizing reporters, teachers, and

others to circumvent digital locks blocking access to works

of substantial public interest, when circumvention is

accomplished solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news

reporting, scholarship, or research.

Paragraph (vi) would authorize circumvention of

technological measures that effectively control access to

copyrighted works for the purpose of enabling a library or an

archive to preserve or secure a copy of a work or to replace

a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen. This

would ensure that libraries and archives can continue to

engage in activities specifically authorized by section 108

of the Copyright Act.

The exceptions to the DMCA set forth in subsections (3)(a)

and (b) are based on extensive comments and testimony

received by the Copyright Office and the Congress. Their

enactment is not intended and should not be construed as in

any way limiting other rights or interpretations of either

the Copyright Act or the DMCA as to which consumers and other

users have had their rights vindicated in the courts or those

which have not been addressed by the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I hope that its adoption by the House will send yet another powerful message that a change in the direction of our Iraq policy is required.

Sending an additional 21,000 troops into Baghdad only serves to put more American forces in harm's way. The troop increase will not bring long-term stability, it will not halt the sectarian strife which has plunged Iraq into a civil war, it will do nothing to speed the day when U.S. forces can hand over the mission to the Iraqis and come home. But there is a better way.

Our Virginia colleague Frank Wolf originated the formation of the commission that was chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and by Lee Hamilton, who for years, with distinction, chaired the Foreign Relations Committee in this House. I commend Congressman Wolf for his foresight and for the public service that he provided to our Nation when he originated the formation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. That commission was bipartisan. It was composed of our most experienced foreign policy experts, spanning administrations of both Republican and Democratic Presidencies. Its recommendations were unanimously presented by the members of the Commission. They embody the collective wisdom of these highly experienced Americans for the best course that our Nation can take for a new and more promising direction in Iraq.

At the core of their proposals was a bold recommendation: that the United States begin a dialogue with Iraq's neighboring countries about a way to achieve regional stability and, most particularly, stability in Iraq.

Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia all have influence with the various warring factions in Iraq. Iran and Syria in particular have a strong interest in a more normal relationship with the United States. All of these countries have a long-term interest in a stable Iraq. The Baker- Hamilton Commission's direction for a U.S.-led negotiation among these nations is the only real option we have left in order to achieve under United States guidance a peaceful Iraq. President Bush has rejected this recommendation. He has acted, in my view, very unwisely.

More United States troops are not the answer. Blind faith in the Iraqi Prime Minister with his ties to the Shia militia leader, al-Sadr, is not the answer. A military solution standing alone is not the answer. The only path to success lies in diplomacy and accepting the wise counsel of the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Finally, the administration decided to try real diplomacy in North Korea, and it is working. It is also the only hope we have for stability in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, today my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and I introduce a bill to amend Section 119 of Title 17 of the United States Code. This modest, consumer-focused measure would simply allow a court to accept a negotiated settlement between parties to a lawsuit in which it is alleged that a satellite television provider has engaged in copyright infringement by providing the signals of out-of-market television stations to ineligible homes.

I, like many of our colleagues, have been flooded with phone calls over the last several weeks from concerned constituents who subscribe to EchoStar's DISH network satellite television service. They are upset and confused because their access to the signals of out-of-market network television stations was suddenly cut off, and many of them are now unable to receive any network television service from DISH. Many of the affected households are in rural and underserved areas with a limited choice of alternative video programming providers to turn to. In my district alone, thousands of people have lost service, and nationwide, 800,000 are affected.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), which was enacted with my support in 1988, allows residents to receive by satellite the network signals they cannot receive over-the-air from their local broadcast television stations. As a result, thousands of Southwest Virginians and millions of Americans who cannot view local television signals over the air today receive by satellite ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC network channels that originate from markets outside of their own communities. In some areas of the United States, particularly in mountainous regions like Southwest Virginia, a home may be predicted to receive a strong over- the-air signal from a local television station but not actually get a quality picture. Receipt of good local television signals is effectively blocked by obstructions between viewers' homes and the local station. These households have come to depend on the distant network channels for important news and emergency information, as well as network programming. Without SHVA, millions of Americans, particularly those in remote areas, would be denied network television programming.

Since December 1, 2006, EchoStar's DISH network has been prohibited by a permanent injunction from providing out-of-market signals to any of its subscribers due to violations of SHVA. The court which enjoined EchoStar also rejected a settlement negotiated by EchoStar and affiliates of the ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC networks which would have avoided mass consumer disruption by allowing DISH to continue to provide most out-of-market channels. I am deeply disappointed that the court found that it could not accept the settlement, an outcome which was acceptable to the defendant and four of five plaintiffs in the case and which would not have prevented the fifth plaintiff from availing itself of the remedies provided by statute. In virtually any other lawsuit, the parties may settle at any time, even after the jury or judge has rendered its decision. I am gravely concerned that the result of the court's action has been a denial of network programming to hundreds of thousands of households located primarily in remote areas.

The simple, straightforward measure we introduce today would merely clarify that the court has the option of accepting a settlement between the parties to a distant signal copyright infringement lawsuit. It would enable the court to protect consumers, who are the true victims here, from the abrupt cutoff of all network television service. The ability to receive network television programming is important to Southwest Virginians, and I am committed to assuring its availability by satellite throughout my district.

I therefore urge my colleagues to protect rural households by adopting this measure and clarifying that a court may adopt a settlement to which the parties in a lawsuit have agreed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support this evening of H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, and urge its approval by the House. This measure is both important and timely. It modernizes the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002, which, while regarded as successful, now should be expanded to address some new urgent needs.

For example, there have been two instances in the recent past of major oil spills from low pressure transmission lines in Alaska. The most recent spill necessitated shutting down for an extended time a substantial portion of the oil flow from Alaska to the lower 48 States. These spills, which were much publicized, highlighted the need for regulation of the low stress transmission lines which are currently exempt from all regulation. The bill before us today subjects low stress transmission lines to Federal regulation and addresses that urgent need.

As another example of needed change, the bill contains incentives for all States to adopt programs to prevent damage to pipelines from excavation work. The damage prevention program that is now in place in my State of Virginia has been a demonstrated success in dramatically reducing the incidents of excavation damage to pipelines.

The bill before us specifies that the nine elements that are found in this very successful Virginia law, which are widely recognized as enabling that success, should be included in State damage prevention programs as a condition for States being certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation to regulate and enforce their States' pipeline standards.

The bill also creates a new grant program for States to implement excavation damage prevention programs which include each of those nine elements.

Another new provision will require the implementation of integrity management plans for natural gas distribution lines, which are currently exempt from regulation. Distribution lines account for more than 85 percent of all natural gas lines in the United States. The bill before us directs that in 2007 the Office of Pipeline Safety publish a rule addressing integrity management for distribution lines.

To its credit, that office has work well under way to create the first management plan for natural gas distribution lines, and I commend the consensus-based approach that the office is taking to achieve its goal, and the fine work that the office has performed so far in pursuit of that effort.

At my urging, the 2002 act included a provision authorizing technical assistance grants for local communities so that they will have the expertise to participate meaningfully in regulatory proceedings that affect transmission lines and other pipelines. I have been disappointed that during the past 4 years no grants have been awarded under that authority. The bill before us directs the Department to publish criteria for the award of grants and to make at least three demonstration community assistance technical grants in the near term.

Finally, the bill authorizes the funding necessary for the Department of Transportation to hire an additional 45 safety inspectors so as to augment the safety advances the bill otherwise makes.

In September, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which shares jurisdiction over pipelines and over this measure, approved this measure by voice vote. That effort was truly bipartisan, and I want to commend Chairman Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Dingell of the full committee for the constructive work that produced H.R. 5782.

I also want to commend Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Mr. Petri and Mr. DeFazio of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which shares jurisdiction over this measure with the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for their fine work in bringing this measure to the floor today.

The 2002 law has produced positive results with an increased emphasis on safety and accident prevention, both by the agencies of enforcement and by industry. The bill before us usefully builds on that success.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its approval by the House.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for moving this measure through the committee and bringing the bill to the House floor today.

The Lutheran Girls School building in Konnarock, Virginia, is a historic structure; and it is presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was constructed of wood and stone, hewed from the mountains where the building is located during the 1920s, and has graceful architecture that is typical of the rustic buildings constructed during that era.

It was constructed by the Women's Missionary Society of the Lutheran Church in America and was operated by the Lutheran Church as a girls school from the middle 1920s until 1959. At that time the school was closed and the building at that point entered a very long period of disuse.

In 1967 the Forest Service acquired that building as part of a much larger acquisition of 680 acres, all of which bordered the national forest. Today, the building has fallen into a severe state of disrepair and is in danger of collapse unless substantial remedial work is performed in the very near future.

The bill before us would convey the building and up to 6 acres of lands, the exact amount to be determined by conducting a survey, from the Federal Government and to the Evangelical Lutheran Coalition for Mission in Appalachia. That is an organization that is affiliated with the Lutheran Church.

The Lutheran Coalition intends to restore and renovate the property in a manner consistent with its historic status. Its future use will be as a retreat center for the Lutheran Coalition, and it will be available for use as a retreat center and by other nonprofit entities and faith-based organizations.

The coalition also plans to partner with area colleges to establish exhibits and a learning center for matters relating to the unique mountain environment in which this building is located.

Through this conveyance, we can assure that the restoration and future maintenance of this historic structure will occur. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Peterson for their work in bringing this bill to the floor. I join with them in urging its approval by the House