Heather Wilson

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable organization from the State of New Mexico. The Heart Hospital of New Mexico was established in 1999, through a joint effort between the state's leading cardiology and cardiovascular surgery groups, as an entire medical facility dedicated to fighting heart disease. Located near downtown Albuquerque, it is the state's first free-standing heart facility, dedicated to providing the most advanced, patient-centered, family-centered care for the region. Recently, Quantum Research and the New Mexico Business Weekly sponsored a comprehensive employee survey to identify the ``best places to work'' in New Mexico. With 211 hardworking employees, the Heart Hospital was ranked first amongst New Mexico's largest employers. The award acknowledges a company's achievements in creating a positive work environment that not only attracts employees, but also retains them. Heart Hospital employees cited flexible work schedules, employee- driven work standards and commitment to superior patient care as critical to their job satisfaction. The Heart Hospital also offers reimbursements for licensures, certifications and tuition; reimbursement for nursing education for household members of employees; full vestment for the company portion of 401(k) upon enrollment and employee appreciation lunches and other recognition. Madam Speaker, no matter how you measure it, the Heart Hospital of New Mexico sets a standard of excellence. The hospital fills a crucial need in central New Mexico's community, and I am honored to recognize such an outstanding healthcare provider and its outstanding team of dedicated employees here today.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I have some sympathy with those on the Democrat side of the aisle tonight because you made a promise. You said you were going to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and now you have to at least appear to make good on that promise even if it doesn't make any sense. So you have come up with a way to do so that really doesn't implement or address the real concerns of the 9/11 Commission, but is actually going to make things a whole lot worse around here in terms of intelligence oversight. The 9/11 Commission recommended streamlining and combining oversight functions and budgeting functions and giving a single committee the power of the purse and the power to oversee our intelligence community. Now, the 9/11 Commission, in my view, had some good ideas and we implemented them, particularly in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2005, which was the most comprehensive reorganization of the intelligence community since the creation of the CIA in 1948. But they also came up with some ideas, as commissions do, that weren't such great ideas. They recommended putting the Director of National Intelligence inside the political ring of the White House. I think that is a terrible idea for independence of intelligence and keeping intelligence from being influenced by political considerations. They recommended that we reveal the size of the intelligence budget, which has always been secret. Both of those were bad ideas. I think there is also a danger in eliminating the checks and balances that are inherent in the fact that we separate appropriations from authorizing, particularly in a realm where almost everything is done in secret. The existence of those checks and balances within this institution is actually healthy with respect to oversight of the intelligence community. But they came up with a solution in this resolution that doesn't even do what the 9/11 Commission decided was the real problem. We have two boxes on the chart overseeing the intelligence community, so the resolution creates three. How does that streamline anything? And by adding these, when we add these boxes to the organization chart, we don't even in this resolution clarify who is responsible for what. So if you are interested in a particular program, its challenges, its prospects, its importance, who do I go to? The chairman of the intel community? The chairman of defense approps? The chairman of this new community that doesn't seem to have much authority at all? We have now divided it and made it even more confusing and messed up than the 9/11 Commission said it was in the first place. At least my colleague from Wisconsin was honest enough to admit this isn't what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, they are probably rolling their eyes as we speak. We have tied the intelligence oversight in knots with this proposal; and I would urge my colleagues if they can't stomach rejecting it now, at least fix it later when nobody else is looking. General Leave

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4766, the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006. H.R. 4766 will help to preserve all the indigenous languages that are still being spoken. It is estimated that only 20 indigenous languages will remain viable by the year 2050. Providing grants to Native American language programs consisting of language nests, survival schools, and restoration programs will help to preserve this important part of our Nation's history and culture. By encouraging a greater focus on Native language programs, we are not only striving to preserve the identity of the Nation's tribes, but we're encouraging greater academic performance among Native American students as well. H.R. 4766 requires that Native American language survival schools work toward a goal of all students achieving both fluency in a Native American language and academic proficiency in mathematics, reading (or language arts), and science. It is my intention that students in survival school programs demonstrate adequate progress in English proficiency according to their appropriate grade level. It is also my intention that the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Native Americans administer this program in such a way that Native American survival school grantees be required to obtain parental permission for students to enroll in the survival schools. Parents should be able to make decisions about their children's education, and H.R. 4766 provides Native American parents with new opportunities to do so.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out first by correcting a few misstatements and giving a few facts. The first is that somehow anything less than a warrant on an international phone call erodes civil liberties that we have enjoyed 219 years and does some violation to the Constitution. The truth is that limitations on gathering foreign intelligence in the United States is relatively recent. It was the FISA law passed in 1978 that really set out the first limitations on the gathering of foreign intelligence within the United States. In World War II, all international communications were subject to listening. In World War I, the government not only listened to international calls but opened the mail. Shortly after the invention of the telegraph during the Civil War we were intercepting communications. The constitutional test is reasonableness, and this bill is reasonable. I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing forward this rule today, but I think it is important to understand why we are here. We are trying to modernize the Electronic Surveillance Acts of this country so that we allow our intelligence agencies to collect the intelligence to keep us safe, while also putting in place rules of the road to protect American civil liberties. The provisions that we have put in the Act are completely reasonable and pretty commonsense because we are in a different situation. Intelligence is the first line of defense in this war on terror, and all of us 5 or 6 weeks ago now woke up to the news that in the U.K. they had arrested 16 people who intended to walk onto American Airlines airplanes at Heathrow Airport and blow them up over the Atlantic Ocean. Our intelligence agencies have to be faster than the terrorists who are trying to kill us. This bill will give them the authority and the rules and the tools they need to intercept international communications between a known terrorist and someone in the United States of America, at the same time requiring notification to different branches of government, putting time limitations in place so that we protect the civil liberties of Americans. We need to update our laws so that we protect the civil liberties of Americans and we keep Americans safe. The test is reasonableness, and I believe that the underlying bill passes the test.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for people to understand tonight why we are doing this. I believe very strongly that intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. It is hard to understand and hard to explain, frankly, the FISA law to people who do not deal day in and out with these things, but I have got to tell you this is how I have tried to explain it. I live in New Mexico very near Route 66. Route 66 is the mother road that went from Chicago to LA through every little town along the way. But then modernization came along, and we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very, very quickly. That is kind of like what we are trying to do here with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now, it bothers me a little bit that for 4 years Democrat leaders in this House, including the minority leader and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, were briefed on the President's terrorist surveillance program multiple times, and now, when I come to the floor of the House with a bill that proposes putting signs and rules of the road in place to protect American civil liberties, you object to the controls and protections. If there were concerns about the fourth amendment, those concerns should have been raised 4 years ago. The fourth amendment requires that people in America be free from unreasonable search and seizure. We have set in place rules of the road in the wake of a terrorist attack, when there is an armed attack on the United States or when an attack is imminent on the United States, rules of the road that are reasonable, that are constitutional, that protect civil liberties and that also keep us safe in the event of terrorist attack.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out this evening by correcting a few misstatements. First, the letter that has been referred to a couple of times here by Mr. Sessions and Mr. Webster refers to a bill introduced by Senator Specter in the Senate which is quite different than the legislation that we are considering here in the House tonight. Secondly, my colleagues should know that the White House does not approve of this legislation. In fact, they had not even seen the legislation before I introduced it in the House, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle had that legislation before the administration ever did. This is a House bill and a House product. I wanted to thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee, and my colleagues Dan Lungren and Nancy Johnson for their work and help in crafting this legislation that we are here to consider tonight. I think it is important for all of my colleagues to understand why it is important to move forward with the legislation. All of us in America remember where we were on the morning of September 11. Most of us remember it in fine detail. But none of us remember where we were when the Canadian Mounties arrested 17 people who had amassed the material for two Oklahoma City-size bombs across the river from Detroit. And very few of us remember where we were when 16 people were arrested in London who intended within days to walk onto American airlines aircraft leaving Heathrow and blow them up over the Atlantic. We don't remember because it didn't happen. It didn't happen because of exceptional intelligence. This bill strengthens oversight of all intelligence activities and reestablishes that the Congress is a separate coequal branch of government with responsibilities to oversee our intelligence agencies. It modernizes and simplifies the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that is well overdue. It takes into account 21st-century communications and 21st-century threats that are using those communications against us. And it sets clear rules for how we should act in the wake of a terrorist attack. There is no broad surveillance authorized by this program; but if a known terrorist calls America, we are going to say you should listen now. Listen now, not after the FBI develops a portfolio, not after legions of lawyers come up with petitions, not after you wake the AG or deputy AG in the middle of the night. Not after we have gotten all of the paperwork done. Listen now. Protect us now because it is reasonable to protect us now. Some people have said there is a 72-hour emergency provision in FISA, and there is. There is a 72-hour emergency provision, but it requires the AG to have all of the information that would go into a FISA application, and we don't often have that in this war on terrorism. If we have a number on a cell phone from an al Qaeda agent picked up in Pakistan, we want to be up on that number if the number is in the United States. We don't want to wait for the paperwork to get to the Justice Department. We want the terrorists hiding in their caves wondering if they can use a cell phone rather than Americans using their cell phones to call home one last time. That is why I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation in front of us this evening.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, there are two technical reasons to oppose this motion to recommit, and I do not think that the authors of the motion to recommit were entirely aware of what they would do, but I think the House needs to understand it. First, in the motion to recommit, there is no change to the definition of electronic surveillance. That means it is not technology neutral, and we would continue to have the odd situation when al Qaeda calls in to the United States over a radio we could intercept that communication completely outside of FISA, but if they call in on a wire, we still could not listen. This is why we need to update the Electronic Surveillance Act, as the base bill does. And, secondly, the exclusivity provision written into the motion to recommit says that the only way to collect foreign intelligence in the United States is through FISA. That is not current law. Under current law, under title XVIII, foreign intelligence information collected through criminal proceedings can be shared with the intelligence community. What this motion to recommit effectively does is rebuild the walls we have torn down between law enforcement and foreign intelligence.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. At a government-run boarding school for American Indians in the 1920s, Esther Martinez was not allowed to speak Tewa, her native language. Nor could she listen to the kinds of stories that her grandfather would tell her at her native San Juan Pueblo, now known as Owingeh. The goal of the school was to assimilate American Indians, and that meant leaving the past, the stories, and the language behind. But Mrs. Martinez never did. After graduating from high school, Mrs. Martinez raised 10 children on an income earned from working as a janitor and in other service industry jobs, and she taught her children Tewa. Esther took linguistics classes, and in her 50s she became a teacher. She taught Tewa in the local public schools. In 1983, her dictionary of San Juan Tewa was published, and just a little more than 2 weeks ago on September 14, Esther Martinez was honored as one of 12 2006 National Heritage fellows by the National Endowment of the Arts, the highest recognition in the folk and traditional arts in America. Two days later, as she returned to San Juan Pueblo, Esther Martinez was killed in a car accident in Espanola, New Mexico, caused by a suspected drunken driver. She was 94 years young. With the permission of her family and particularly of her grandson, Matthew, and the support of Governor Joe Garcia, I would like to honor Esther's efforts to preserve native languages by naming this bill for her. Our native languages are dying. Only about 20 of over 300 precolonial indigenous languages will be left by the year 2050. And I wanted to thank my colleagues Tom Udall, Rick Renzi from Arizona, and particularly Chairman McKeon and Mr. Petri, for taking a personal interest in this, and of course Ranking Member Kildee for his longtime leadership on Native American education. This bill will increase the support for Native American language so that we can create and recreate fluent speakers of native languages. It doesn't create a new program, but rather incorporates Native American needs for language nests and survivor schools and restoration programs into current authorized funds. Mr. Speaker, not too far from this House down at the foot of Capitol Hill, we have the newest building in the Smithsonian Institution. It is a beautiful building. It is the Museum of the American Indian, and inside it we are preserving Navajo rugs and bead work and beautiful pieces of art and kachinas and fetishes. We spend millions of dollars to preserve objects from the past. This bill I ask my colleagues to support tonight preserves a living culture through the preservation of language. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his support. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act (H.R. 1711).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 401 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the following high school students from the First Congressional District of New Mexico have been awarded the Congressional Certificate of Merit. These students have excelled during their academic careers and proven themselves to be exceptional students and leaders through their scholastic achievements, community service, and participation in school and civic activities. It is my pleasure to be able to recognize these outstanding students for their accomplishments. Their parents, their teachers, their classmates, the people of New Mexico are proud of them. Certificate of Merit Award Winners 2006 Lucero Perdomo, New Futures High School; Claudia Grajeda, School for Integrated Academics and Technologies; Amy Holmen, Sandia Preparatory School; Aidan Hamke, Albuquerque Academy; Christopher Anaya Moriarty High School; Holly Garcia, Albuquerque Charter Vocational High School; Laura Wilson, East Mountain High School; Melanie Garcia, Los Puentes Charter School; Talysa Ogas, Los Lunas High School; Lisa Herrera, Temple Baptist Academy; Leslie Copass, La Cueva High School; Lisa Domme, Sandia High School; Ariel Blea, Valley High School; Kayleen Foltz, Creative Education Preparatory Institute; Joseph D. Miranda, Sierra Alternative High School; Patricia D. Mooney, Southwest Secondary Learning Center; Kimberly Lauer, Menaul School; Christiana Baca-Bosiljevac, Menaul School; Janice Cribbage, Highland High School; Catherine Ames, Cibola High School; Crystal Vialpando, Mountainair High School; Desiree Cordova, Bernalillo High School; Carla Dozal, West Mesa High School; Grace Floyd, Hope Christian School.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is important for Americans to understand that the war on terror did not begin on a cool September morning, that this was something that had been building over a decade or longer, that in February of 1993, radical Islamist operatives drove a truck into the basement of the World Trade Center and blew it up. One thousand people were injured and six people died, and we treated it as a crime, not an act of international terror. On June 25, 1996, American airmen who were conducting operations in the southern no-fly zone in Iraq were settling in for the night in their quarters in Saudi Arabia in a building known as the Khobar Towers when a sewage truck drove into the compound, backed up to the wall of that building, and the people who drove it fled in a white car. They were seen from the roof of the building by the security forces, and they started evacuating the building. They were about three floors down when the truck exploded and 19 airmen were killed. In August of 1998, we were here in this House when we got word that our two embassies, one in Kenya and one in Tanzania, had been attacked by bombs. The U.S. Attorney in the District of New York got 17 indictments, one of them for a man whose name wasn't really well known at the time. His name was Osama bin Laden. In October of 2000, the USS Cole was in port in Aden, in Yemen when a small boat came up to it and exploded, tearing a gash 40 feet by 60 feet long midships on the USS Cole, and 17 sailers died. All of these actions we treated as isolated instances. We played defense ineffectively against a transnational, loosely connected movement against extremists who exploit Islam and use terrorism to bring about their dark vision of the future. The adherents to this movement are parasites who thrive in weak states and in failed regimes. That is why the terrorists made Iraq a central front in their war. If they could foment civil war, if they could keep self- government in Iraq from being born, then they could thrive in the chaos and continue their attacks on us. That is why it is important to see it through in Iraq. We made a decision after 9/11 that we would play offense and not defense. As Americans, we know the enterprise that we are engaged in is difficult and requires persistence and resolve. That is very hard on some days. It is very hard for us to understand why it is important to stay the course. But we know this. Our enemies are persistent and will stay the course. They will not stop if we ignore them. So that is the choice we face as a nation and why this debate today is so important. It is a choice between resolve and retreat. For me and my family, I choose resolve.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the following high school students from the First Congressional District of New Mexico have been awarded the Congressional Certificate of Merit. These are exceptional students that serve the community and participate actively in school and civic activities. It is my pleasure to be able to recognize these outstanding students for their accomplishments. Their parents, their teachers, their classmates, the people of New Mexico, and I are proud of them. Certificate of Merit Award Winners 2005: Juanita Martinez, Albuquerque High School; Robert Cardwell, Monzano High School; Britten Smith, Highland High School; Gary R. Stinnett, La Cueva High School; Robert Sanchez, Rio Grande High School; Cameron Banes, Creative Education Preparatory Institute; David Gullett, Temple Baptist Academy; Ashley Martin, West Mesa High School; Leanne Raskob, St. Pius X High School; Jane Yein Song, Sandia High School; Dorothy Billau, Cornerstone Christian School; Jordan Spence, Evangel Christian Academy; Makenzi Williamson, Hope Christian Schools; Aaron Sims, Menaul High School; Emily Wildsmith, Southwest Secondary Learning; Nicholas Trumbley, Albuquerque Evening School; Karl Nieman, Career Enriched Center; Takesha Haynes, New Future High School; Suzia Van Swol, East Mountain High School; Erika Anaya, Moriarty High School; Samuel Lujan, Charter Vocational High School; Jessica R. Siegel, Sandia Preparatory School; Felicia Fuentes, South Valley Academy; Maggie Elizabeth Crank, Albuquerque; Danielle Threadgill, Bernalillo High School; Ruth Ann Huning, Los Lunas High School; Marie Jiron, Career Academy; Jesse Rafael Torres, Mountainair High School.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I introduce the Veterans Identity Protection (VIP) Act. On May 3, 2006, a personally-owned computer was stolen from the home of a VA employee. The stolen files contained information that included the names, birth dates, and social security numbers of 26.5 million veterans. This represents data from every military veteran discharged since 1975. This legislation will ensure that our veterans are made whole as a result of any damages suffered by a veteran as a result of this theft. The VA's mission is to serve and honor our Nation's veterans. We must do more than just provide a call center and put the burden on our veterans to deal with the consequences of this blunder. This legislation will set up an independent Office for Veterans Identity Theft Claims to receive, process, and pay claims in accordance with this Act. I am here today to introduce a bill that will ensure that Veterans will be made whole if they are harmed by this release of information without spending years in court and thousands of dollars for lawyers.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to your attention Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy, James McGrane. Deputy McGrane was killed in the line of duty on March 22, 2006. He was only 38 years old and leaves behind his wife, Connie; his parents James and Rita McGrane; and his sister Ida. Deputy McGrane was killed while conducting a nighttime traffic stop. Law enforcement officers avoid using the word routine, because they are always exposed to danger during these events. James McGrane dutifully made that stop on the evening of March 22. Deputy McGrane knew that a dangerous traffic stop could come at any time, but he also knew it was his job to protect the people of Bernalillo County and he gave his last breath honoring his commitment. James McGrane always wanted to be in law enforcement. Even as a senior at Hope High School in Albuquerque, he talked about a career as a police officer. He joined the New Mexico State Police in 1992 when he was only 21 years old but he may not have been ready for his first assignment. James then went to work for the U.S. Postal Service, where he met the love of his life--Connie. But law enforcement was in his blood, so no one was surprised when he joined the Bernalillo County Sheriffs Department in 2002. It wasn't just a job, it was his hobby. Deputy McGrane was assigned to the East Mountain Area of the County. It was a natural fit because he enjoyed the style of community policing common to a rural area. While James McGrane was a model law enforcement officer, he had his eccentric side. For example, right before midnight, he would walk into the squad room with a large bowl of cold oatmeal, sit in the same chair and eat it as his Sergeant conducted the nightly briefing. His fellow officers would tease him about being a health nut, how he was concerned about his appearance and being scared of the supernatural. James would take the good natured ribbing and continue working. If he didn't have a call he would find something to do. He would look to help out his fellow deputies by looking for wanted felons or running a radar station. As his wife Connie so graciously stated, ``He was proud to put on that uniform.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me and all the residents of New Mexico in honoring our fallen hero, Deputy James ``Jimmy'' McGrane. This man never quit, never complained and in the end, gave his life for something he loved. We thank his parents and his wife for sharing their son and husband with us. We owe them a tremendous amount of gratitude for James's service and devotion to his community.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Michigan talks about the need to move quickly, and the truth is, I introduced a price-gouging bill in September of last year in the wake of Katrina. It was a bipartisan bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) as the lead cosponsor. In October, we passed price-gouging legislation combined with the refinery bill in what is called the Gas Act, and it is true my colleague from Michigan did propose an alternative which I opposed because I felt as though the definitions in his bill were unclear and would invite litigation rather than solutions. We are trying to move forward with a piece of legislation that will give real authority to the Federal Trade Commission that they do not currently have now. Twenty-three States have laws on price gouging. So we have got about close to half the States in the Nation have some form of law in price gouging, all with various provisions, definitions and so forth, but the Federal Trade Commission that is empowered at the Federal level with being the agency responsible for looking at consumers and consumer protection only has authority to look at gasoline and oil with respect to collusion. If there is collusion between two companies on setting the price of gasoline, then they have the authority to investigate, but they have no authority to investigate when it comes to unreasonable and unfair trade practices. This legislation we are offering today would give them that new authority at the Federal level. I think this is a good piece of legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it. H.R. 5253 would prohibit price gouging at any time. It is not limited to emergencies or in the wake of natural disasters. I will be very honest; the thing that caused me to introduce price-gouging legislation last September was what we all saw in the wake of Katrina: opportunists taking advantage of a terrible situation and a natural disaster to pump up the price of gasoline for people who were trying to flee for their lives. That is not right, and it is what spurred me to introduce the price-gouging legislation. The modification in the bill that is before us today is that the price-gouging authority for the Federal Trade Commission would not require a disasters trigger, but they could look at unfair trade practices at any time, not limited to emergencies. It also covers gasoline, diesel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels. So it goes across a wide variety of full types. It also sets pretty stiff criminal and civil penalties for price gouging and allows these investigations by the Federal Trade Commission as well as by the States. Under these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission would consider public comment in defining exactly what wholesale pricing is, what retail pricing is, and it gives them some regulatory authority to come up with definitions. The truth is, we have got 23 State laws. Some of those laws are very, very different, and I think it makes some sense to allow the States and those involved to come up with a national definition that will work best for consumers in the marketplace. The legislation we are offering today would not, however, preempt those State laws. So the States would still be able to use their State laws to address problems with price gouging in their own jurisdictions. This would give additional authority to the Federal Trade Commission and to States that choose to use the Federal law to investigate price gouging in their own States. It seems to me that this is one thing that we have to do. We have done it first in a larger bill, as a piece of a larger bill last October, but I think the approach we are trying to take here in the House of Representatives is to say we want America to be more energy independent, and that is going to take a long-term, balanced approach that deals with supply, demand and protecting consumers. This is one piece of that puzzle. We will be dealing with other pieces of that puzzle as we move along, everything from coal-to-oil gasification, encouraging more hydrogen-powered cars, encouraging more E85, using ethanol in our gas tanks, so both conservation and increasing domestic supply so that America becomes more energy independent. I encourage my colleagues to support this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. If I am incorrect on that, I apologize, Mr. Stupak. It was my understanding that your bill would require a trigger.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. I would yield 3 minutes to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection Chair from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I reserve our time, and I believe I also have the right to close.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for his support of this legislation. I introduced a bipartisan bill in September of 2005 about the same time that my colleague from Michigan did. Our approaches are different in some respects, but this legislation we are voting on today, a slightly different version of which was included in the October 2005 Gas Act that the House has already passed, is a good bill. It is a solid piece of legislation and deserves the support of the House. I also recognize that this is only one piece of the puzzle. We want to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate possible price gouging. But that is not going to solve all of our energy problems. This focuses on one piece of the problem. The bill that we will consider next on the floor of the House will also look at another piece of the problem, and we are going to try to pass some further legislation that deals with tax codes, that increases domestic supply, that invests in alternative sources, things like E-85. Since we passed the Energy Act in August and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came out to New Mexico to sign that landmark piece of legislation, there are 29 new ethanol plants that have requested permits so that we can use corn to fuel our vehicles rather than having to import oil from other countries. Mr. Speaker, this bill includes strong penalties, in fact stronger than the ones that my colleague from Michigan has in his bill. I think maybe if we would have worked together, we could have come up with a good bill that both of our names were on. It gives us good clear definitions and says, we have got 23 States that have price-gouging laws, we need to get a clear Federal definition of price gouging, and the Federal Trade Commission will give that to us. It also deals with every month of the year. The bill that we introduced in September, and my colleague from Michigan's bill as well, only deals with emergencies, when a disaster is declared. I think there is justification for saying the Federal Trade Commission should have authority to look at unfair trade practices, whatever time they may be.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank my colleague from Michigan. This is a piece of legislation that all of us have been working on for over 8 months now, and I look forward to working with him as we move forward. Also, this piece of legislation does not overwrite State law. In other words, those 23 States that do have some form of price-gouging legislation, that law stays in effect so that States can use the Federal law, the Federal Trade Commission can use the Federal law, or States can use their own law so that we don't preempt State law. I think this is a good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will help to address the problems that every American is feeling at the pump and help to make America more energy independent. I ask my colleagues for their support, and I urge adoption of H.R. 5253.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.