Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.)

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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