Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to partner today with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) with whom I have the privilege of co-chairing the Congressional Internet Caucus in authoring this resolution, which will express our view that the Internet remain open, available for all to use, global and seamless.

It expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States has been a good steward in its management of the root server and the system for Internet domain name assignment.

We carry out this mission by entrusting day-to-day decision making and management to a private nongovernmental, not-for-profit corporation known as ICANN. The Internet address list is kept up to date, new domain names are assigned as they are needed in a fair and an equitable and predictable manner.

No one has demonstrated any problem with the way this system operates. No one has asserted that a needed domain name has been withheld and not assigned. There are no examples of ICANN, or the U.S. Department of Commerce, which has oversight responsibility, having acted in any way inappropriately.

As a result of efficient and even-handed American management, the Internet has become a global pathway of instant communications, which has spurred economic growth, improved the quality of people's lives and strengthened democratic institutions here in this Nation and across the world. Citizens of many nations in the lesser-developed world rightly say that they aspire to better access to computers in their homes or in community centers where computers would be available to all.

They rightly ask that Internet service providers bring the Internet and all that it offers to their localities. They rightly urge that basic dialup services be upgraded to broadband where only the most basic form of Internet access is available today.

None of these legitimate aspirations are related in any way to the manner in which ICANN assigns domain names and updates the global Internet address system. A change in these critical management functions would do nothing to expand Internet availability deeper into the developing world.

Unfortunately, the U.N. Summit on the Information Society, which began in Geneva, as a forum for discussing ways to bring Internet access to developing nations, over time morphed into a forum focusing on Internet governance and specifically focusing on management of the well-functioning domain assignment system and the Internet address management work of ICANN.

Fortunately, in Tunisia yesterday, a sensible outcome was achieved. Any change in Internet management was put aside in favor of the creation of an international forum where other kinds of Internet- related concerns can be discussed, perhaps including ways to bring the Internet to more of the world's population, and to address Internet problems that are common to all Internet users, including viruses, spam and security-related matters.

This outcome is a victory for Internet functionality. It is a validation of the careful role the United States has

played and will continue to play in management of the global address system. It is a reflection of the skill exhibited by our ambassador, David Gross, who led the American team at the summit in negotiating with many who have deep-seated disagreements over aspects of American foreign policy.

I want to congratulate Ambassador Gross for what he has achieved. I congratulate ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce on a job well done, which enabled the outcome in Tunisia.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for their leadership on this measure which describes the role that our Nation plays in Internet address management and urges that role be maintained.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who is co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and one of the coauthors of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the outcome in Tunis is a victory for an open, globally, seamless Internet. It is a strong validation of the thoughtful way in which ICANN with oversight from our U.S. Department of Commerce has managed the Internet address system.

In Tunis yesterday, a decision was made to create an international forum that could be a discussion focus for issues relating to the Internet that are common to all Internet users, including matters such as spam, viruses and other security-related concerns. It seems to me that the United States now should seize the opportunity of this new international forum, the first meeting of which will take place in Greece during the middle part of 2006, in order to enlist assistance from other countries and achieve a number of very admirable goals. The first of these is to encourage investment that will extend the Internet into places where an Internet presence is not presently found, and in particular into the developing world.

Secondly, these problems that are coming to all Internet usage can be addressed in a way where we can enlist global participation in helping to find answers. I look forward to working with Ambassador Gross, others within the administration, and my colleagues in the Congress as we undertake that work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents. On November 17, 2005, Jack Curtis Smith, founder of K-VA- T Food Stores, Inc., will mark his 50th year in the grocery business in southwest Virginia, and I would like to take this occasion to recognize his many contributions to my Congressional District. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. is an important asset in southwest Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and northeast Tennessee, employing more than 11,000 residents and honoring a strong commitment of service to the region.

Jack C. Smith returned to his hometown of Grundy, Virginia, in 1954 after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and serving in the U.S. Navy for 10 years. While standing in a lengthy line at Grundy's only grocery store, Jack Smith decided that his hometown needed a larger, more convenient supermarket with an emphasis on customer service. Earl Smith, Jack's uncle, Ernest Smith, Jack's cousin, and Curtis Smith, Jack's father, shared the vision that Jack could meet this need. These four local businessmen formed a partnership and began work with the Piggly Wiggly Corporation to construct a new, state-of-the-art grocery store, and on November 17, 1955, Jack Smith and his partners opened the Piggly Wiggly supermarket in the town of Grundy.

After experiencing great success with his Grundy store, Jack Smith acquired grocery stores in eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and east Tennessee from grocery chains such as White Stores, Food City, Winn Dixie, and Piggly Wiggly. Retaining the Food City name, Smith remodeled and modernized the stores, adding features such as wide aisles, larger selection of products and computerized check-out systems, designed to provide the customers greater accessibility to the products and to facilitate an easier shopping experience. Smith soon created K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., as the organization under which his supermarkets would operate. K-VA-T is an acronym for Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, the States in which his grocery stores are located.

The work begun 50 years ago by Jack C. Smith has borne fruit. Today K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., operates nearly 100 Food City stores. K-VA-T has grown to become the largest employer in the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee and Virginia and the fifth largest employer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Despite its development as a large retail grocery chain, the headquarters of K-VA-T as well as its distribution facility remain in southwest Virginia near the location of its first supermarket.

Most importantly, K-VA-T has adopted a policy of improving the lives of the residents in the communities it serves. The company is 16 percent employee owned. Jack Smith once stated, ``The ultimate objective of K-VA-T Food Stores is to fulfill its ongoing commitment to planned growth. My wish is that the public, our corporate officers, associates and patrons can find their lives enriched because of this company's existence and its efforts. But first, and foremost, let us remember that the friendship of those we serve is the foundation of our progress.'' For 50 years, Jack Smith has been making investments in the communities his stores serve in cities such as Knoxville, Tennessee, as well as small, rural towns such as Grundy, Virginia.

K-VA-T supports local farmers and produce vendors by selling locally grown produce in its stores. Through the Apples for Students program, K-VA-T has provided over $9.2 million in computers and computer equipment to over 700 schools. The company regularly participates in local food drives and provides assistance to chapters of the Second Harvest food bank network. Semi-annually, K-VA-T sponsors Food City Family Race Night, which occurs during the week before the NASCAR races the company sponsors. Food City Family Race Night draws over 40,000 race fans,

and the proceeds from the event are contributed to local charities. These are just a few of the many ways K-VA-T supports its communities.

The outstanding work of Jack C. Smith and K-VA-T Food Stores has improved the quality of life of thousands of citizens in my Congressional District in southwest Virginia as well as throughout eastern Kentucky and northeast Tennessee. The affects of his dedication to shaping the communities in this region will be lasting. I applaud the efforts of Jack C. Smith, and it is with great pleasure that I congratulate him on 50 years in the grocery business.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk which I offer on behalf of myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boucher-Rohrabacher- Mack motion to instruct the conferees to recede to the Senate with respect to sunsetting in 4 years the libraries and book stores, roving wire taps and loan wolf provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The most effective way for Congress to maintain oversight of the most controversial powers that the PATRIOT Act conveys is to sunset those provisions within a reasonable period of time. In past years, well before the December 2005 sunsets contained in the original PATRIOT Act, we asked the Department of Justice how it was using the authorities that had been granted to the Department by the original act. Some questions simply went unanswered. Other questions were rebuffed, and we were told that the information was classified. And still others were avoided by telling us that the information simply was not available.

All of that changed in April of this year when the Department of Justice realized that straight reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act would not happen without serious answers to our reasonable questions. Suddenly, numbers and examples were no longer unavailable. Suddenly, the information we had long been seeking was provided. I have no doubt that if 16 provisions of the original act were not scheduled to sunset at the end of this year, we would still have little information on how these new authorities were being used.

If we have learned one thing over the last 4 years, it is that we will not get answers to our questions unless the Justice Department is compelled to come before us and justify its use of the more dangerous and intrusive powers that the law confers. Remember, sunsets do not in any way hinder law enforcement's use of the powers the PATRIOT Act confers. They merely ensure accountability and oversight, which are particularly important with respect to the three controversial provisions that are at issue today.

Section 215 of the law puts personal records, including library, bookstore and medical records, up for grabs by law enforcement with no requirement that the person whose records are sought be suspected of involvement in a crime. All law enforcement has to say is that the information is relevant to an investigation. It could be an investigation of someone the person has never met and about whom the person has no knowledge.

Moreover, an organization may not tell someone they have turned over his private information. So people have no way of knowing when their privacy has

been intruded upon. Earlier this year, the House, by a wide margin, voted to bar enforcement of this overly broad provision. But the House bill reauthorizing the act with some changes perpetuates it for 10 years, and I think that that is inappropriate. The Senate bill sunsets this provision in 4 years. Our motion to instruct directs conferees to adopt the 4-year sunset provision.

Section 206, John Doe roving wiretaps, allows law enforcement to obtain a single court order to tap any phone it believes a foreign agent would use, instead of getting separate orders for each phone. Moreover, the government is not required to name the target which allows wiretaps on phones of virtually anyone meeting the description of a John Doe. The combination of allowing blanket tapping of, for example, all of the pay phones in a target's neighborhood or the phones of all of his friends and relatives, combined with the ability to wiretap a vaguely described John Doe, means that roving John Doe wiretaps require so little specificity that they can easily be abused.

Sunsetting this provision in 4 years will allow Congress to revisit how this authority is being used and whether it continues to be necessary.

Reinstating is about accountability. This motion to instruct would simply assure that we have the authority to carry it out.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

For basis of clarification, the motion to instruct that we have put forward applies to lone wolf, as the gentleman from Wisconsin indicates.

But it also applies to sections 206 and 215. The House sunsets those in 10 years, and we would instruct conferees to adopt the Senate 4-year sunset. I wanted to be sure that was well understood.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Intelligence, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), another distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) for

partnering with us and structuring this motion to instruct conferees. I want to express appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his constructive comments and for his support of the motion to instruct.

The motion to instruct promotes accountability. It assures that we remain in a strong position in our oversight function. Recent history clearly shows that in the absence of a near-term sunset we will not get answers to our questions about how controversial law enforcement powers are being used. In the absence of a near-term sunset, we cannot ensure that civil liberties are being protected.

This is not a matter about what the Department of Justice has done in the past, and I differ with the gentleman from Wisconsin on this matter. This is all about what the Department of Justice may do in the future. And having near-term sunsets will ensure that we can perform oversight over that performance.

Sunsets do not prevent law enforcement from using the broad powers the PATRIOT Act confers, but sunsets promote accountability. They ensure we get the information necessary to conduct oversight and to make decisions about whether powers that are subject to abuse should be contended.

Adopt this motion, let us adopt the Senate's 4-year sunsets and, in doing so, further the cause of protecting Americans' civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to honor Rebecca K. Blood on the occasion of her retirement from the American Public Power Association (APPA) after 13 years of work to advance policies of great importance to our Nation's economy and consumers. Throughout her service on behalf of consumer-owned utilities across the country, Ms. Blood has been a highly effective advocate of Federal policies that promote the development of renewable energy sources.

Ms. Blood has many important successes to point to in her distinguished career, including the establishment of the Federal Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which was enacted due in large part to her tenacious leadership.

This provision of the Act encouraged significant new development of renewable energy programs in public power communities throughout the country. As well, she has been an important voice for sound Federal licensing processes for our country's hydroelectric facilities, with the goal of ensuring rigorous environmental review within a workable and timely agency process. Ms. Blood has also been intricately involved in clean air issues throughout her career--and is exceedingly knowledgeable of the policy issues related to air emissions and climate change. In all of these areas, she has shown a great ability to develop strong and successful coalitions on behalf of key consumer and environmental interests.

A native daughter of the great State of Michigan, Ms. Blood came to Washington, DC as a graduate of Michigan State University. In the 80's, she served on the staff of Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Phil Sharp of Indiana. She also worked tirelessly for the two-term Governor Richard Celeste of Ohio, during the development of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, before going on to make a career in the electricity industry. Throughout her remarkable career, Ms. Blood has always made a point to mentor others, who have greatly benefited from her experience and insights.

Ms. Blood is well known in this town for her integrity, forthrightness, good humor, and unwavering commitment to the many public power communities across the country that she has so ably represented over the past 13 years. I join her many dear friends and colleagues here in Washington, DC in expressing

our gratitude for her legacy of work and her steadfast friendship--and wish her all the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

It will prohibit lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, legal distributors, dealers or importers for damages resulting from the misuse of a firearm by a third party.

The bill is very similar to a House bill that I joined with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) in sponsoring earlier this year. Our House bill achieves the same objectives as the Senate bill now before us, and the House bill has been cosponsored by 257 Members of this body.

The lawsuits against the firearms industry are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to circumvent the legislative process and achieve gun control through litigation.

Frustrated that Congress and most State legislatures have rejected repeated attempts to have gun control imposed, some have now turned to the courts in their effort to limit the legal availability of firearms.

I want for my constituents and for all Americans to be able to purchase guns for lawful purposes. The vast majority of gun owners use their firearms responsibly. They should not be restricted in their future purchases because the threat of lawsuits has rendered the American market economically unattractive for the manufacturers.

While the bill before us will prohibit lawsuits against manufacturers and others in the chain of distribution based upon misuse of the firearm, it does not interfere with traditional remedies for damages resulting from defects or design in the manufacture of products.

The bill provides no shelter to those who would sell firearms illegally. It does not affect suits against anyone who has violated other State or Federal laws.

This bill is a commonsense measure to eliminate lawsuits which unjustly interrupt the legal sale of a legal product.

A majority of States, including my home State of Virginia, enacted similar laws prohibiting these suits.

With our votes today, we will provide a much-needed additional response. I urge approval of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today was rushed through the committee. It did not receive a single legislative hearing. It would weaken environmental protections but would do nothing to reduce the price of gasoline.

There has been much attention given to the fact that our Nation's refinery capacity is limited, but there has been no substantial evidence presented to conclude that the reason for this shortage is difficulty in siting or obtaining the environmental permits necessary in order to build a new refinery. In fact, there has been some evidence that suggests the reason for the thin refinery capacity is that refiners are reluctant to build new facilities since they are enjoying record profits under the current regime.

The bill before us would seek to increase refinery capacity by easing environmental requirements and providing additional Federal authorities for siting new facilities. Based on the evidence before us, that would be the wrong remedy. There is a better approach.

Later today I will be joining with our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), in offering a substitute for the bill. Our substitute would address the refinery capacity issue by creating a strategic refinery reserve. The new reserve would build on the success of the strategic petroleum reserve and would provide the Nation with a reserve refinery capacity that could be used in times of national emergency to increase the supply of gasoline and minimize supply disruptions and price spikes.

Given the choices that are before us today, the substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I will be offering is far more likely to address our real gasoline supply problems than the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Mr. Stupak in offering this substitute which would replace the underlying bill with two targeted provisions aimed at increasing our Nation's refinery capacity and giving the Federal Government the tools necessary to investigate, deter and punish price gouging. Together, these two provisions would be an effective response to problems in our gasoline market.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has drafted the price- gouging provisions of our amendment. I fully support those provisions, and I commend the gentleman for his outstanding efforts.

I will direct my remarks today to the refinery specific provisions of our substitute. We would create a strategic refinery reserve. In doing so, we would build upon the success of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by creating a natural extension of that successful program of refinery reserve. Under our amendment, the Secretary of Energy would establish refineries with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total United States demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products. The location of these refineries would be out of harm's way at places to be designated by the Secretary of Energy.

During times of nonemergency, the refineries which make up the strategic reserve would produce refined gasoline for use by the Federal Government. In addition, State and local governments could choose to purchase refined products from the reserve. Keeping the refinery reserve operational in that fashion would ensure that there would be no lag time in it going on-line when needed to address a national emergency.

Weakening the clean air laws and providing incentives to the refinery industry as proposed in the underlying bill is not the best way to ensure new refinery construction. There has been no evidence that environmental permitting is the problem that leads to no new refinery capacity.

The truth is that the refinery owners are benefiting enormously from the current limited capacity, with profits increasing 255 percent during the past year alone, 255 percent of profit increase in a single year. Simply put, the refiners are making more money by refining less gasoline.

The substitute which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I are offering is a commonsense approach to our problems, establishing a Federal mechanism to investigate and punish price gouging and creating a strategic refinery reserve to assure adequate refining capacity during times of emergencies.

I support strongly the substitute, and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. Speaker, next week, the American Chiropractic Association--the nation's largest professional association for doctors of chiropractic--will elect a new Chairman of the Board of Governors at their annual conference in St. Paul, Minnesota. The outgoing Chairman, the chair since 2003, is a constituent of mine who practices in Christiansburg, Virginia: Doctor of Chiropractic, George B. ``Mac'' McClelland.

Dr. McClelland is a 1969 graduate of National College of Chiropractic and has practiced chiropractic for more than 30 years. He was elected chairman of the Board of Governors during ACA's 40th Annual Business Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, September 20, 2003.

Dr. McClelland has been extremely involved in the chiropractic profession for many years. He has served on the ACA Board of Governors since 1999, and on its executive committee for the past two years. Prior to being elected to the Board, Dr. McClelland served as ACA's Virginia Delegate for 18 years. In addition, Dr. McClelland is a current member of ACA's Council on Orthopedics and has been a member of ACA's Council on Roentgenology and its Council on Sports Injuries. He served as national chairman of ACA's Managed Care Committee from 1996 to 1999.

Dr. McClelland has also been extremely active with the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) and currently serves as its vice president, as well as a member of its Research Committee, Board of Trustees and President's Council. In addition, he was FCER president from 1990 to 1996.

Dr. McClelland has been recognized for his service and significant contributions to the chiropractic profession. He is a two-time recipient of the VCA Chiropractor of the Year Award and has also received a Special Service Award and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the VCA. In 1997, he received ACA's first Delegate of the Year Award, and he has also received the Chairman's Award, the President's Award, a Meritorious Service Award and a Distinguished Service Award from the ACA. In 1985, he was awarded an honorary Fellow of the International College of Chiropractic degree.

Dr. McClelland, a Vietnam veteran and avid golfer, lives in Blacksburg, Virginia with his wife, Susan. He has two children. Fall Saturdays find Mac and Susan's home decked out in Virginia Tech maroon and orange.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have Dr. McClelland as a constituent and even prouder of his more than 30 years of service to patients throughout Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

It is our intent also to join with the gentleman from Texas in yielding some time to the opposition to this measure this morning.

I want to begin by commending the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our House Committee on Energy and Commerce, for the strong leadership that he has provided as our committee has considered this measure over the past 4 years. And I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of our committee. He has presided over the House-Senate conference on this measure with grace. It was truly an open process. It was truly a bipartisan process. And the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which we will accomplish today, will be a lasting tribute to the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) skill and to his leadership.

Today we demonstrably advance our Nation's energy policy. Long-needed reliability standards will add stability and security to the electricity transmission grid. Modernized provisions will encourage cogeneration and other distributed means of producing electricity both efficiently and with improved environmental performance. The bill opens the door to a new generation of smart meters and real-time pricing plans so that electricity consumers can save money by operating appliances during times of lighter electricity demand. And we take meaningful steps to deploy advanced clean coal technologies that will encourage a greater use of coal for the electricity generation with superior environmental performance.

Coal is our most abundant domestic energy reserve. Within our borders we have 250 years of proven coal reserves. Our bill encourages electric utilities to make coal, rather than natural gas, the fuel of choice for new electricity-generating units, with an easing of the escalating pressure on natural gas prices. The bill is a balanced measure which deserves our support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of our time be yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), with the result that the majority will have 20 minutes, we on our side will have 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will also have 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), one of the conferees on the energy conference.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), another of our conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a valuable member of our Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him on his previous eloquent statement.

I rise this afternoon in opposition to this measure which would perpetuate the invasions of civil liberties that are embedded within the 4-year-old PATRIOT Act. I have deep concerns about many provisions of the original law, such as the use of the appropriately named sneak- and-peek warrants that allow secret searches of homes with delayed notification to the homeowner that a search has occurred. The secret search can be in almost any kind of investigation, and the notification to the

person whose premises are searched can be delayed almost indefinitely.

But I am going to focus my remarks this afternoon on the two provisions of the original law which I think cause the deepest civil liberties invasion and which the measure before us does not, in my opinion, appropriately reform.

In my view, the single most troubling provision confers on law enforcement the ability to use so-called national security letters. No prior review by a court is required. The FBI can issue a national security letter and then demand records from a business or from another record custodian. There is no requirement that the object of the search be an agent of a foreign power. The only requirement is that the seizure be relevant to a terrorism investigation, but there is no procedure by which a court would make that finding of relevance before the seizure occurs. Frankly, there is no meaningful way through the use of this provision to ensure that privacy and fundamental civil liberties are protected. It is the unilateral ability of law enforcement to issue these letters and seize records without prior court review that I find to be the most troubling.

I would note that one Federal court has found the section 505 national security letter provisions to be an abridgement of both the first and the fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The bill before us does nothing to address this egregious provision or limit its use in any way.

Secondly, I strongly oppose the PATRIOT Act's grant to law enforcement of the ability to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtain an order permitting the seizure of library, bookstore, bank, or medical records of a person who is not even the subject of an investigation. Moreover, the library or other institution is barred from telling its customer that his records have been seized. All law enforcement has to do is say to the court that there is a reasonable expectation that foreign intelligence about a non-U.S. person will be obtained or that the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation and the records can be seized. Virtually anyone could have their records seized. You could be sitting in a concert near someone who is a suspected foreign agent, and potentially your records could be seized. You would never learn that seizure has occurred.

While the custodian of the records could challenge the seizure, the library, the hospital, the bookstore, or the bank in possession of those records has a lot less incentive to spend resources hiring a lawyer in order to resist the seizure than would the person whose records are about to be seized; but that person, the real party of interest, never knows that the seizure is about to occur.

The House recently voted by a margin of 238-187 to bar enforcement of this overly broad provision, but the bill before us with minor changes perpetuates it and, I think, in an inappropriate way.

Mr. Chairman, there is no need to short-circuit our normal processes that are designed to protect privacy and protect civil liberties. Law enforcement could go before a court and present evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed, and by that showing obtain the records that it needs in both of these situations. These powers conferred by the original PATRIOT Act under sections 505 and 515 are designed primarily for the convenience of law enforcement, but mere convenience should not be a reason for a deep abridgement of privacy and individual rights.

The protection of our freedoms does not require surrender of our long-held civil liberties. For these reasons, I oppose the measure before us, and I urge others to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to ask that the House retain its oversight authority by inserting 4-year sunsets into H.R. 3199.

In the past year, we have asked the Department of Justice how it is using the authority granted to it under the PATRIOT Act. Some of our questions simply went unanswered. Other questions were rebuffed, and we were told that the information was classified. And still others were avoided by telling us that the information simply was not available.

However, all of that changed in April of this year when the Justice Department realized that a straight reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act would not happen without serious answers to our reasonable questions. Suddenly, numbers and examples were no longer unavailable. Suddenly, the information we had long been seeking was provided.

I have no doubt that if 16 provisions of the law were not scheduled to sunset at the end of this year, we would still have little information about how these authorities have been used.

Members of the majority have stressed today that the Committee on the Judiciary has held 12 PATRIOT Act hearings in recent months. That extensive inquiry would not have occurred had the sunsets in the law not been in place. For these reasons, we should reinstate the sunsets for an additional 4 years. All 16 of the sunsets that were contained in the original law would be reinserted through this motion to recommit. The FBI will still have all the powers that the bill gives it. It will simply have to come back 4 years from now and answer our legitimate questions about how those powers have been used.

Reinstating the sunsets is about accountability. Our colleagues across the aisle will say that no abuses have occurred by the powers granted to the government under the PATRIOT Act. That point I think is open to debate. I think most would agree that the breadth of many of these provisions creates, at a minimum, the potential for abuse and we, therefore, have an obligation to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure that civil liberties are protected. Inserting the sunset provisions into the law once again will be the way to ensure that we can conduct that vigorous oversight. I urge approval for this motion, which will simply assure that we remain in that strong position.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005. Southwest Virginia possesses the State's best outdoor experience, with the highest mountains, most interesting rivers and superb hunting, camping, fishing, hiking and backpacking opportunities. With the preservation of our region's natural assets in mind, I have joined with U.S. Senator John Warner in introducing the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005. If enacted, the legislation would create 7 new Wilderness Areas, 2 new National Scenic Areas and would expand 6 existing Wilderness Areas. The new or expanded areas would be designated in portions of Bland, Craig, Grayson, Giles, Lee, Montgomery and Smyth Counties within the Jefferson National Forest.

Designating a tract of land as wilderness enables the U.S. Forest Service to preserve the scenic and undisturbed character of the landscape. Recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, picnicking, backpacking, bird watching, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, spelunking, rock- climbing and many other outdoor activities would be continued and encouraged in the new Wilderness Areas. At the same time, motorized traffic and mechanized equipment would be banned to prevent any disruption to the ecosystems and diverse wildlife in the areas.

The seven proposed Wilderness Areas are:

Stone Mountain (Cave Springs)--The Stone Mountain proposed Wilderness Area is a 3,270-acre tract of land adjacent to the North Fork of the Powell River in Lee County. The property is considered to be the least disturbed forest in all of Southwest Virginia and is home to populations of two rare salamanders. The Stone Mountain and Payne Branch trails are included as part of the proposed Wilderness Area and provide convenient access for hikers and hunters wishing to visit the Wilderness Area. The trails are also connected to an adjacent campground at Cave Springs.

Raccoon Branch--The Raccoon Branch proposed Wilderness Area is located in Smyth County in the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area. The property contains 4,223 acres of extremely rugged country characterized by high ridges and low streams. Eight major trails provide excellent access for hunters, fishermen, hikers and horseback riders and two nearby campgrounds serve as convenient trailheads. In addition, 4.5 miles of the Appalachian Trail also traverses the proposed Wilderness Area.

Garden Mountain--The Garden Mountain proposed Wilderness Area contains 3,291 acres of land which lies on the southern flank of Garden Mountain in Bland County. The area borders the unique geological structure of Burkes Garden and possesses two developed trails, totaling 8 miles when combined. Along the northern boundary, the Appalachian Trail leads across the summit of Garden Mountain, while the Lick Creek Trail provides access to the area along the valley bottom.

Hunting Camp Creek--The Hunting Camp Creek proposed Wilderness Area encompasses the headwaters of both Hunting Camp Creek and Little Wolf Creek in Bland County and is characterized by its exceptionally pristine nature. The area consists of 8,470 acres that stretch from ridge top to ridge top. The Appalachian Trail traverses the area in addition to two informal trails along an old logging railroad grade next to Hunting Camp Creek and along the crest of Brushy Mountain. Brushy Mountain forms the Southeast boundary of the proposed wilderness, and Garden Mountain forms the northwestern edge. Virginia Routes 623, 615 and 610 complete the area's boundary.

Lynn Camp Creek--The Lynn Camp Creek proposed Wilderness Area is also located in Bland County and is 3,226 acres in size. The area is characterized by three parallel ridges which enclose the major stream valleys of Lick Creek and Lynn Camp Creek and provide the opportunity for good views. From the top of Lynn Camp Mountain, hikers can view Chestnut Ridge and the Beartown Wilderness. From Brushy Mountain, hikers overlook the valley of Lynn Camp Creek on one side and Big Walker Mountain on the other side. In addition, both Lick Creek and Lynn Camp Creek are excellent brook trout waters.

Brush Mountain--The Brush Mountain proposed Wilderness Area is located in Montgomery County, adjacent to the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech. The area is 4,794 acres in size and extends approximately 8 miles along the northwest slope of Brush Mountain. The property is characterized largely by its remoteness, despite its proximity to the suburbs of Blacksburg, providing hunters and hikers with a feeling of true wilderness solitude.

Brush Mountain East--The Brush Mountain East proposed Wilderness Area is adjacent to the Brush Mountain proposed Wilderness Area and is located in Craig County. This tract is 3,769 acres in size and shares many of the characteristics of its neighboring proposed Wilderness Area. Brush Mountain East also possesses excellent views along Craig Creek and Brush Mountain's steep mountain face.

The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act also includes the designations for two new National Scenic Areas. Differing from Wilderness Areas, the guidelines protecting National Scenic Areas allow mountain biking and limited motorized access in certain portions of the Scenic Areas. At the same time, the natural and historic resources within the proposed National Scenic Areas would be protected to preserve the landscape.

The proposed National Scenic Areas designated in the legislation are:

Bear Creek--The Bear Creek proposed National Scenic Area is located in Smyth County and includes 5,503 acres. The area extends from the crest of Walker Mountain southward to the crest of Brushy Mountain and includes the enclosed valley of Bear Creek between the two mountains. An extensive network of trails is included in the proposed area, including more than four miles of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Seng Mountain--The Seng Mountain proposed National Scenic Area is 6,455 acres in size and is located in the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area in Smyth County. Rowland Creek Falls, a 45-foot cascading waterfall is a major scenic attraction in the area. The area also includes a network of recreational trails and convenient access is provided to visitors via the Hurricane Campground and Skulls Gap Picnic Area.

Finally, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act would expand six existing Wilderness Areas to further protect the unique and undisturbed landscape of the region.

Lewis Fork Wilderness Area in Smyth and Grayson Counties will be expanded to include an additional 308 acres.

Little Wilson Creek Wilderness Area in Grayson County will be expanded by 1,845 acres.

Kimberling Creek Wilderness Area in Bland County will be expanded to include 612 additional acres of wilderness.

Peters Mountain Wilderness Area, which is located in Giles County, will be expanded to include an additional 1,203 acres.

Mountain Lake Wilderness Area in Giles and Craig Counties will be expanded by 5,476 acres.

Shawvers Run Wilderness Area in Craig County will be expanded to include an additional 2,456 acres.

I am pleased to report that the new proposed designations which are included in the legislation which Senator Warner and I have introduced have received local support. Each

of the proposed Wilderness and National Scenic Area designations has been endorsed by either the U.S. Forest Service or the Board of Supervisors of the County in which the area would be located.

The legislation has also garnered significant support in the U.S. House of Representatives by several other Virginia Congressmen. U.S. Representatives Bobby Scott (VA-03), Jim Moran (VA-08), Frank Wolf (VA- 10) and Tom Davis (VA-11) are original co-sponsors of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. I look forward to working closely with my Virginia colleagues in both the House and the Senate to obtain approval for this worthy legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me and commend him on his outstanding leadership with regard to the energy bill now before us.

I have supported the passage of comprehensive energy legislation for the last two Congresses, and I rise in support of the measure that is before the House this afternoon. While I do not support all of the sections of the bill, there are a number of provisions in the energy measure that I believe will enhance our Nation's energy policy and energy security. For example, the legislation makes valuable improvements in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy and would make permanent the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.

Of particular interest to me is the title on coal which would provide for the implementation of the Clean Coal Power Initiative to develop projects that would utilize clean coal technologies. The coal title also provides for the clean air coal program to enhance the deployment of fully developed clean coal technologies. Coal is our Nation's most abundant natural resource for energy production, and it is appropriate that we take steps to accomplish the goal of incenting coal use and thereby relieving to some extent the pressure that we are experiencing at the present time on natural gas prices. The Clean Air Coal Program would help to advance that objective.

The electricity title in the energy bill contains some beneficial provisions, and I particularly want to call attention to the smart metering title which I proposed 2 years ago in order to accelerate the deployment of real-time metering. When consumers have knowledge of the savings they can realize by using appliances during offpeak

hours, the peaks can be flattened and the utilities can avoid the necessity of having to build some very expensive new generating facilities.

I am pleased that during the last Congress, we were able to reach a compromise which is also reflected in the bill before us today regarding the application of section 210 of PURPA, and the legislation contains the noncontroversial and much-needed section that would make transmission reliability standards mandatory.

I am concerned, however, that the bill before us includes a provision that would cap spending on the implementation of the reliability standards. I am concerned about that and would hope that when this measure becomes law, enough money will be available for adequate enforcement.

I also remain concerned about the total repeal of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act without ensuring that adequate consumer protections remain in place. And I have not been convinced that there is a need to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the ultimate authority to site transmission power lines.

I support the legislation and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I want to conclude these remarks by complimenting again the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on his outstanding leadership and also complimenting the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He was willing to work in a bipartisan fashion in order to establish consensus on a number of these measures. I applaud him for that willingness and for the effective work that he has done in bringing this measure to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage the passage of the bill.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this very important substitute for the electricity title in the bill before the House this afternoon. I strongly support the substitute for the electricity provisions in the bill put forward by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

The Dingell amendment would improve current law in a number of ways. It would enhance the FERC's ability to deter and punish parties that engage in fraudulent activities that harm consumers. It would create reporting requirements based on the record-keeping requirements under the Federal securities laws for all wholesale energy transactions. It would increase civil and criminal penalties under the Federal Power Act modeled on the penalties established in the Sarbanes-Oxley law. It would direct the FERC to review approved market-based rates on an annual basis to remain sure that they are fair and reasonable as circumstances change.

Unfortunately, one of the things that we have learned during the last few years is that the energy markets are ripe for manipulation. The Dingell substitute would modernize our laws to give the FERC the necessary tools to prevent and, if necessary, punish the entities that engage in fraudulent conduct.

In addition to the strong consumer protection and antifraud provisions, the Dingell amendment also retains the less controversial and very useful parts of the electricity title, including the much- needed reliability provisions for transmission lines, the net metering and smart metering provisions and FERC Lite, to name other provisions.

The Dingell substitute would be a positive addition to the Federal law, ensuring that wholesale electricity markets operate in an efficient and equitable manner. I strongly support the Dingell substitute and urge its approval by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the reform of the nation's bankruptcy laws which our actions today will accomplish is well justified. This reform is strongly in the interests of consumers. It will significantly reduce the annual hidden tax of approximately $400 that the typical consumer pays because others are misusing the bankruptcy laws. That amount represents the increased cost of credit and the increased price of goods and services caused by bankruptcy law misuse. This reform will lower that hidden tax.

The reform also helps consumers by requiring clearer disclosures of the cost of credit on credit card statements, and the reform will be a major benefit to single parents who receive alimony or child support. That person today is fifth in priority for the receipt of payment under the bankruptcy laws. The reform before us today elevates the spouse support recipient to number one in priority.

This reform proceeds from the basic premise that people who can afford to repay a substantial portion of what they owe should do so. The bill requires that repayment while allowing a discharge in bankruptcy of the debts that cannot be repaid. In so doing, it responds to the broad misuse of chapter 7's complete liquidation provisions that we have observed in recent years.

The reform measure sets a threshold for the use of chapter 7. Debtors who can make little or no repayment can use its provisions and discharge all of their debts. Debtors whose annual income is below the national mean of about $50,000 per year are untouched by this reform. They can make full use of chapter 7 and discharge all of their debts, whether or not they can afford to make repayments.

This reform imposes a modest measure of personal responsibility that is well justified, and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the most effective use of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program. H.R. 3, contains provisions which enable the continuation of CMAQ; however, these provisions do not include language included in the bill by the Senate in the last Congress which would alter CMAQ to ensure that new technologies which improve air quality are eligible for the funding. For example, diesel retrofits and anti-idling technologies are being used to achieve positive environmental results around the nation. Diesel retrofits, which operate much like the catalytic converter on a car, remove between 80 and 90 percent of pollutants from the exhaust stream of a diesel engine.

Because such technologies can remove pollution at a relatively low cost--approximately $5,000 per ton of pollution removed--they would be an appropriate addition to the CMAQ program. Last year the Senate added to its

version of the transportation bill a provision which would begin to focus CMAQ on more cost-effective applications including deployment of diesel retrofits and anti-idling technologies, to reduce the emissions caused by construction equipment. That provision will likely be included by the Senate again this year, and the Administration has endorsed the provision.

Use of new technologies such as diesel retrofits and anti-idling technologies could make significant improvements to the CMAQ program and reduce pollution in many areas, and I urge my colleagues to favorably consider adopting such provisions as this legislation moves forward.