Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

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

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.