Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Cases that are truly national in scope are being filed as State class actions before certain judges who employ an almost ``anything goes'' approach that renders virtually any controversy subject to certification as a class action. In such an environment, defendants and even plaintiff class members are routinely denied their range of normal rights as there is a rush to certify classes and then a rush to settle the cases. Plaintiffs suffer a range of horrors. In order to prevent removal of the case to Federal court, the amount sued for is sometimes kept artificially below the $75,000 Federal jurisdictional amount even if individual plaintiffs would be entitled to recover more. In another effort to avoid removal to Federal court, the class action complaint will sometimes not assert Federal causes of action that could legitimately be raised, denying plaintiffs an opportunity for these Federal claims to be heard. Sometimes in the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs get coupons while their lawyers receive millions. And in at least one case, the plaintiff class members at the end of the settlement had a debit of $91 posted to their mortgage escrow account while their lawyers received $8.5 million for their services. The plaintiffs had a net loss because of the suit. They were worse off after the class action than before it was filed. Our legislation addresses these problems by permitting cases that are truly national in scope to be removed to the Federal courts even if the diversity of citizenship requirements of current law are not strictly met. Instead, we look to the center of gravity of the case. The target of these cases is usually a large out-of-State corporation. The plaintiffs are usually consumers who reside in many States. These cases are national in character and our bill would permit removal to Federal court even if a local defendant has been sued for the purpose of destroying complete diversity of citizenship. Our reform is truly modest. The procedural remedy it contains narrowly addresses a broad procedural abuse. I am pleased this afternoon to urge its passage by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in stating my opposition to this amendment. If the amendment is adopted, the basic reforms that we are seeking to achieve simply will not be achieved. Some cases simply should not be certified as class actions, either in the Federal or the State courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is narrowly drawn so as to protect the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants to traditional due process as their rights are litigated. Under rule 23, cases that are overly broad because of conflicting laws that establish the rights of individual class members, or because of the factual differences in the circumstances of the plaintiffs, will not be certified as class actions. Only through denial of certification can the rights of the plaintiff class members be protected. When cases are denied class action status, all of the individual plaintiffs are then free to file their individual claims, no one is denied a right to recover damages, and another class action can be instituted in State court if it is reconfigured to be a state-centered class action. I want to stress that denial of class action status in Federal court when the case is removed does not mean an end to the litigation. It does not preclude recovery by the plaintiffs, either in individual actions or in a reconfigured class action proceeding. But if the gentleman's amendment is adopted, any case which, because of its broad scope, cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule 23, and therefore is dismissed as a class action in Federal court, could then be certified as a class action in State court from which it was removed. The case would be free to proceed as a State class action, and no further removal to Federal court would then be allowed. Under the amendment, the cases that are truly national in scope would still be heard in State court, and some States would continue to apply their often unique laws to govern the rights of plaintiffs who live in States that have laws that would dictate that an opposite result be reached. This extraterritorial application of State law does serious damage to our traditional principles of federalism. It is a kind of reverse federalism that should not continue. But under the amendment that is now pending, it would continue. Our basic reform would not be achieved. The amendment is a recipe for a continuation of the status quo, and I urge that it not be accepted.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Tauzin- Dingell bill, H.R. 1542. Included as a part of that bill by means of the Manager's Amendment is an antitrust savings clause. This is an important addition to the bill and the authors, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, are to be congratulated on the development of this amendment. Regulatory and antitrust laws serve different functions. This amendment recognizes and embraces that fact as it preserves the antitrust laws and it indicates that these laws are not affected by H.R. 1542, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, nor the Communications Act of 1934. Second, and equally important, is the fact that it does not overrule nor affect any court case interpreting those laws including the Goldwasser case. The savings clause preserves this case law as well. Third, when the savings clause uses the term antitrust laws, such term includes antitrust defenses and immunities. Congress and the courts have recognized how ill-equipped antitrust courts are to serve as regulatory agencies. That's why the 1996 Act replaced judicial supervision under the AT&T consent decree with regulatory supervision of the process through which competition in the telecom industry would be jump-started. If we had simply abolished the AT&T consent decree and left all these details to antitrust enforcement agencies, private litigants, and the courts, five bad results would have occurred. First, the courts would have been flooded with regulatory tasks they are not suited to handle. It was a formidable task having one federal judge trying to micromanage the telecommunications industry under a consent decree. We did not repeat that experiment by authorizing many state and federal antitrust courts to undertake the same tasks. Second, the antitrust enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, would have been called on to duplicate, second guess, and perhaps contradict the telecommunications policy decisions Congress instead decided to entrust to the FCC and to the state commissions. We need the enforcement agencies to enforce the antitrust laws, not establish telecommunications policy or duplicate the regulatory expertise of other agencies. Third, incumbent carriers would not have been subject to many of the requirements they now face. By this bill, we limit regulation in the broadband segment of the industry, but we leave in place many regulatory requirements imposing on carriers duties they do not have under the antitrust laws. Fourth, as courts reached different and inconsistent conclusions in different cases, chaos would reign in an infrastructure industry critical to our economy and our nation's security. Fifth, we would bog down the deregulatory process through the protracted process of antitrust litigation in which cases often drag out for many years and, in some cases, decades. The 1996 Act assigns responsibility for working out the difficult details of interconnection and other transitional arrangements to private parties, state regulators, and the FCC. Antitrust laws are not expanded or diminished in any way by the 1996 Act or this Act. Among the antitrust laws preserved by the savings clause in the Managers' Amendment are the well-crafted and carefully applied judicial doctrines that govern the manner through which antitrust courts coordinate their activities with those of the regulatory agencies to avoid potential incompatibilities that might otherwise occur. We did not expand or diminish the antitrust laws, or the manner in which the courts apply those laws, when we enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We will not do so now by enacting this Act.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am the supporter of the Tauzin-Dingell measure, and I rise this morning to describe why its passage is in the public interest. I will take this time to make three points. First, passage of this measure will stimulate the deployment of broadband services by telephone companies. The 1996 Telecommunications Act contains an unbundling requirement that enables competitors to lease at highly favorable rates only a portion of a telephone company's network and then to combine that leased element with the telephone company's own equipment in order to offer a complete service. Now this provision is good policy if the goal is to promote competition in the offering of traditional voice telephone service, and I would note that many of the cities in the United States have as many as one-half of the lines serving businesses in the hands of the competitors to the local telephone companies. But the unbundling requirement is terrible policy if the goal is to encourage the telephone company to offer high speed Internet access service to a larger number of homes and businesses. The rate at which the network must be leased to competitors is below the cost of building and maintaining the network in the first instance for the telephone company. The lines and the other equipment necessary to provide these high speed services are costly, and that cost cannot be recovered by the telephone company under the dramatically reduced rate that is available for the lease of these facilities. Congress always intended this regulation to apply to local telephone service. It was not intended to be applied to high speed Internet access. But the Federal Communications Commission has applied it to these advanced telephone services nonetheless, and that is the problem that we are trying to resolve. The result of this action by the FCC is that the deployment of DSL by telephone companies severely lags the deployment of cable modem service which is completely unregulated. Of the 20 percent of American Internet users who have high speed access two-thirds are using cable modem service, and the DSL service offered by telephone companies has less than one-third of the market. The Tauzin-Dingell measure is needed to remove the unbundling requirement from advanced services to create a closer parity of regulation between DSL and cable and to encourage the broad deployment of DSL by telephone companies. The second point I would make is that this is a jobs bill. The head of our Nation's leading technology companies have said that a revival of the technology sector of our economy hinges on one pivotal development, and that is the mass and rapid deployment of broadband services. The Tauzin-Dingell bill will lead to that deployment. It will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in business investment. It will create more than one million new jobs. Third, all of our regulations now in place will remain for local telephone service. This bill does not affect traditional voice telephony. Unbundled network elements, forward-looking cost pricing, and terms- of-service regulation will remain for local telephone service. That is totally unaffected by this bill. The bill only affects the provision of high-speed Internet services. This market is competitive and telephone companies are the second entrants with only one-third of total customers. The dominant market participant, the cable industry, has no regulation and enjoys two- thirds of the share of this market. This regulatory disparity is unfair. It poorly serves the public interest because it dampens the deployment of broadband services. I urge support for the Tauzin-Dingell bill. That will create more even-handed regulation and lift the restraints of current law on broadband deployment.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. Strickland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Boucher asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3343, legislation amending title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and chapter 28 of the Atomic Energy Act to increase the authorization ceiling on the Federal share of cleanup costs at a thorium site in West Chicago, Illinois. Section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act establishes the responsibility of licensees for bearing the costs of decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation and other remedial action at active uranium and thorium sites where by-product material has been produced. However, the section also requires the Secretary of Energy to reimburse annually a licensee for that portion of the remedial cost that the Secretary has determined is attributable to by-product material generated as the result of sales to the Federal Government. In the case of the West Chicago site, DOE has determined that 55.2 percent of the remedial cost is attributable to government contracts. The money for the Federal Government's share of the cleanup comes from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established in Chapter 28 of the Atomic Energy Act from revenues collected from the utility industry and deposited in the fund by the Secretary of Energy. This fund also is used to pay the cleanup costs at 13 uranium mining sites and three uranium enrichment facilities. Therein lies the potential problem associated with raising the ceiling on the thorium cleanup: Competition between 17 cleanup sites for the finite, and probably insufficient, amount of money that will be deposited in the decontamination and decommissioning fund. Fortunately, as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, this legislation avoids that competition and hopefully leaves everyone at least a bit better off than they otherwise would be under current law. This compromise is the result of the dedication and hard work of a number of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. In particular, I want to express commendation to our full committee ranking member the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and to the chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for crafting this compromise language in a truly bipartisan manner. I also want to commend the outstanding efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the bill's sponsor the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for their fine work in arriving at the product that we are considering today. As always, I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his outstanding assistance in processing this measure. I will take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to point out the five main provisions of the compromise embodied in the bill now before the House. First, it accomplishes the original objective of the bill, to increase the total thorium reimbursement authorization from $140 million to $365 million and increase the total authorization for appropriations for title X programs from $490 million to $715 million. Secondly, it stipulates annual amounts to be authorized for thorium activities in each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007. The amounts for each year are sufficient to cover the likely receipts from thorium cleanup and structured in such a way that aims to prevent competition within the cleanups at the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee facilities. Third, the compromise language increases by $37.5 million the total amount currently required by law to be deposited in the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund each year. This provision increases the size of the fund by at least the additional amount of money that will be authorized for thorium cleanup in order to hold harmless the cleanups at the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee facilities and at the 13 uranium mine sites. Fourth, the substitute authorizes the Secretary of Energy to expend funds to keep the Portsmouth, Ohio uranium enrichment facility in cold standby mode. Maintaining the Portsmouth facility in this mode is wise because it allows the facility to be used again if needed to protect the continuity of domestic supply or to meet DOE's contract demands. I want to be sure to note that this authorization neither expands nor contracts the current universe of activities that can be paid for with monies from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. In fact, the cold-standby authorization was drafted to amend chapter 19 of the Atomic Energy Act, rather than chapter 28, in order to help make clear that Congress expects the Department to use money other than that deposited in the Decontamination Fund for the very worthwhile purpose of keeping the Portsmouth facility in cold-standby mode. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3343 requires the General Accounting Office to audit the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and the cleanups authorized to receive appropriations from the fund and report to us by March 1, 2003. The audit has two general purposes: first, to ensure that the fund is and will be sufficient to cover the costs of all the activities authorized, and, if not, to make legislative recommendations to maintain the adequacy of the fund; secondly, to look at the current and likely costs of cleanup activities at each site in order to project the total needs of the fund, identify the factors resulting in increased cleanup costs, and to identify potential sources of savings. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I encourage the Members to approve it. I want to commend all of the Members who worked to craft this compromise language, which is meritorious and deserves the support of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge support for this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues Mr. Shays and Mr. Waxman, in introducing legislation to protect the privacy rights of our nation's uniformed servicemembers. If enacted into law, the legislation we have put forward will clarify that the same right of privacy guaranteed to all other individuals under the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act shall apply to members of the uniformed services. The Privacy Act was established in 1974 to ensure that the information the Federal Government collected as part of the operations and practices of agencies is protected, and the agencies observe and safeguard the right to personal privacy. The need for this legislation arises from a September 2000 federal district court ruling which stated that military servicemembers cannot sue for damages when records containing information about them, which under the terms of the Privacy Act may not be released, are released by the government in violation of the Privacy Act. The Court based its ruling on the Feres doctrine, a 51 year old judge-made doctrine which states that servicemembers cannot bring civil actions against the government for acts incident to service because they have benefits available through their military health and other programs. As a result of this ruling, there is no effective way to prevent the unauthorized release of sensitive military personnel records and no way to compensate servicemembers for damages arising from acts by government agencies that are in violation of the Privacy Act. Congress enacted the Privacy Act with an unambiguous intent to make government responsible for the damages it causes when the law is violated. Our bill clarifies the intent of Congress to ensure that the right of privacy granted under the Act shall apply to members of the uniformed services and that military personnel may use the remedies of the Privacy Act, the Feres doctrine notwithstanding. A right without a remedy is no right at all. The merit of this legislation is clear. The government collects vast amounts of sensitive information from and about military servicemembers. Fairness requires that the information, once collected, be made secure. Moreover, such an assurance will be in aid of the recruitment efforts of all our volunteer armed forces. I urge the speedy adoption of this legislation.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Utah, Mr. Cannon, in the introduction of much-needed legislation to facilitate the rapid introduction of services which will meet the public demand for efficient delivery of music over the Internet in a manner which also assures that copyright owners receive compensation for the use of their works. I am among those who believe that most people are willing to pay a reasonable fee to be able to obtain musical selections over the Internet, and I applaud the planned introduction by the major record labels of websites that will make their music inventories available for streaming and downloading. There are a number of obstacles to the effective introduction of online music services in current copyright law. A recent hearing in the Judiciary Committee highlighted several of the problems in current copyright law which are impeding the deployment of innovative, legitimate Internet music services to an eager listening public. Some of these problems are practical, such as trying to locate and notify all of the publishers of a particular musical composition. Other obstacles are technical, such as needing to produce multiple copies of a song in different transmission speeds and different media formats. Current copyright law permits the placement on a server of only a single copy. The measure we introduce today, The Music Online Competition Act, is carefully crafted to remove these obstacles and thereby promote a legitimate online music marketplace that will benefit the public, the creators of copyrighted works and the technology industry. In particular, our bill makes the following changes: Updates the ``Ephemeral'' Recording Exemption: Our bill expands the law that allows broadcasters and webcasters to make a single in-house (or ``ephemeral'') copy of a transmission program to enable multiple copies so as to accommodate the need for different bit rates (e.g., dial-up, broadband), different formats (e.g., RealPlayer or MediaPlayer), and caching throughout the network to ensure efficient and timely delivery of music to consumers. Our bill extends the ephemeral copyright exemption to encompass not only the transmission program but also the individual songs. Expands the ``In-Store Sampling'' Exemption: Under current copyright law, ``brick and mortar'' music retailers pay no license fees to record CDs on a server so that customers may listen to music samples in the store. Our bill allows retailers to use a central server to serve multiple retail establishments and applies the exemption to online retail establishments (such as Amazon.com or CDNow) that offer music samples of 30 or 60 seconds to promote sales of the associated sound recordings. Clarifies the Status of Incidental and Archival Copying: Our bill adapts existing law to two situations particular to Internet technology. First, the bill exempts from copyright liability buffer copies made in the course of browsing or webcasting, as these buffer copies are mere technical incidents of the operation of the Internet and have no independent economic value. Second, the bill allows consumers to make archival ``backup'' copies of music that they lawfully acquire over the Internet in order to protect their collections against hard drive crashes, accidental damage or viruses. The bill leaves unchanged existing law with respect to computer programs. Facilitates Administration of the Section 115 Mechanical License: Witnesses at a recent hearing representing the major music labels, RealNetworks, and MP3.com uniformly urged the creation of an effective mechanism for administering the existing Section 115 statutory license for musical works, which is currently administered with paper submissions and notices to copyright owners. Under our bill, the administration of the statutory license would parallel the administration of other statutory licenses by permitting users to notify the Copyright Office of the use of the statutory license and to deposit royalty payments and accounting information with the Copyright Office, so as to ensure that funds and information are distributed to the owners of the copyright. Our bill specifically instructs the Copyright Office to develop an electronic filing system to receive such notices as a replacement for the current paper filing system. Assures Nondiscriminatory Licensing to Affiliated and Non-Affiliated Music Distribution Entities: Recording companies are now entering into the online music distribution business by establishing joint ventures with other record companies (e.g., MusicNet and Pressplay) and by acquiring well-known, formerly independent Internet services (such as CDNow, EMusic and MP3.com). It is anticipated that the distribution services owned by record companies will cross license each other, so that each site will be authorized to distribute over the Internet approximately 80 percent of all recorded music. If the major record companies do not also license independent non-affiliated distribution services, music will be distributed exclusively by a vertically integrated duopoly. In such a circumstance, there would be no competition in music distribution. In 1995, Congress had a similar concern with respect to cable and satellite subscription services, which Congress addressed by requiring vertically-integrated companies that both owned content and distribution services to offer nondiscriminatory license terms and conditions to all similarly-situated distribution services. Our bill extends this existing nondiscrimination provision to interactive performance services and digital distribution services. Requires an Examination of Programming Restrictions: The sound recording statutory license for digital cable, satellite and webcasting services includes programming restrictions that, for example, restrict the provider from playing more than 3 selections from a particular CD or more than 4 selections from a particular artist within a 3-hour window. Broadcast radio is not subject to these programming restrictions. Certain digital music services contend that some of these programming restrictions impose undue burdens upon their service, reduce their ability to compete with broadcast radio, and unfairly preclude their ability to take advantage of the statutory license to deliver the type of services that consumers expect from a radio offering. Our bill instructs the Copyright Office and the Department of Commerce jointly to study and report to Congress on the effect of these limitations upon such services, upon copyright owners and upon the public interest, and to make appropriate legislative recommendations. Requires Direct Payment to Artists: The sound recording statutory performance license provision specifies that royalty payments should be shared equally by performing artists and recording companies. Current law funnels these payments to artists through the recording companies. Our bill requires that these payments instead to be made directly to the artists or to a collective organization representing the artists. There is uniform agreement among record labels, online companies and consumers that changes to the copyright law are needed. Congress has a responsibility to promote an online marketplace which will allow legitimate, innovative services to thrive. I call upon my colleagues to join with us as we seek to facilitate the rapid introduction of legitimate online music services for the benefit of our constituents, the listening public, of the creators of copyrighted material and of the technology and other entrepreneurial companies which seek to deliver music to consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Mr. Cannon and me in supporting this measure.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I have had the pleasure of participating actively with other subcommittee members and with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in the construction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce titles in H.R. 4. It is my pleasure today to rise in support of the Committee on Energy and Commerce's provisions. They make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy policy. I want to commend the process that the Committee on Energy and Commerce employed in writing these titles. It was an open process. Both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) welcomed the participation of Democratic members of the committee at every step, and I would note that the committee approved its titles by the broad bipartisan margin of 50-5. The Committee on Energy and Commerce usually works in a bipartisan fashion, and this legislation is very much in that tradition, and I want to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for their cooperative work with us. The measure before us today does not address every energy-related concern. Some matters were not ripe for resolution given the rapid schedule set for completing work on H.R. 4. But this legislation does make a significant contribution to a strengthened national energy policy. It assures that the entire nuclear waste fund is expended for its intended purpose, the construction of a repository for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. While the Committee on Rules has removed that provision from this legislation, the provision in the original bill makes the important statement that this fund of ratepayer dollars should no longer be diverted to general government purposes. Another of our committee's titles makes major improvements in the process of relicensing hydroelectric facilities. Another provision embodies a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise on vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and the coal title will promote the introduction of a new generation of advanced clean coal technologies which electric utilities will be incented to use through a range of tax credits. While I have reservations about some titles in H.R. 4 that were added by other committees, I am pleased to commend the Committee on Energy and Commerce's work to the Members of this House and to urge support for these constructive contributions to a stronger national energy policy.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding, and I asked that he do so only for the purpose of saying that we have no objection to this provision on our side. I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for a constructive amendment. I am pleased to support it, and I encourage others to do so.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which, in my view, is necessary to assure that wholesale electricity rates in the Western States are just and reasonable. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a mandate in the Federal Power Act to ensure that wholesale electricity rates are reasonable. Notwithstanding this clear direction in Federal law, the agency has responded ineffectively as wholesale prices in California exceeded $1,600 per megawatt hour on some occasions during the past 9 months, and that charge of $1,600 per megawatt hour compares with an average price of about $25 per megawatt hour a mere 2 years ago. More recently, the FERC has imposed a restraint on wholesale prices pegged to the cost of the least efficient generator that is in service at any given time. But the cost of the least efficient generator can be quite high, and when those costs are translated into a wholesale price, an enormous windfall is provided to the more efficient generators, and prices for all parties concerned, in my opinion, are not reasonable. For that reason, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is necessary, I strongly support it; and I urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank the gentleman for his remarks and also for his strong support of finding ways to enhance the use of coal as a fuel for electricity generation. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia for bringing this amendment forward. I am pleased to support it strongly, and encourage other Members of the House to do the same. Coal gasification is a promising technology which can increase significantly the efficiency of electricity generators. It also produces useful by-products, such as hydrogen, that can be used in traditional manufacturing operations. In addition to that, because the carbon dioxide stream is brought off separately as a part of the gasification process, CO2 potentially could be sequestered, with all of the attendant environmental benefits that that promises. So I think the gentlewoman is making a constructive contribution. I thank her for bringing this amendment forward. I am pleased to encourage its adoption.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have joined with my colleague from California, Mr. Issa, in introducing the aptly named and numbered bill, H.R. 2100, the Twenty-First Century Distance Learning Enhancement Act. As my colleagues may know, the Senate has approved its own version of a distance education bill. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the House to move our bill quickly and to reconcile the two versions for the benefit of educators and students of all ages throughout the country. In 1976, when closed-circuit television was the ``state of the art'' distance learning technology, Congress amended the Copyright Act to help promote this new way of distributing knowledge by exempting qualifying television transmissions received in traditional classroom like settings. Over the next two decades, as technology evolved, it became evident that teachers could offer their students a richer educational experience, but only if the law kept pace with technology. It had become increasingly evident to me that expanded distance learning opportunities would be particularly important to our constituents in rural areas. With the advent of computers and the Internet, we finally have a way to connect them with the best learning the world had to offer--but we need to clear away some hurdles so that this new technology may be used in ways not imagined in 1976. In 1997, I joined with several members of the House in putting forward a proposal to update the law. It became clear that further study was necessary to ensure that Congress struck the appropriate balance between the interests of copyright owners and information consumers. As part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, Congress directed the Register of Copyrights to conduct a study and to make recommendations to enhance distance learning opportunities through the use of the most modern technologies. In releasing her study two years later, the Register of Copyrights supported changes to current law that would enhance distance learning opportunities. As she said in testimony before the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee in releasing her findings, ``Updating [current law] to allow the same activities to In general terms, our bill would amend sections 110(2) and 112(b) of the Copyright Act to ensure that educators can use personal computers and new technology in the same way that they now use televisions to foster distance learning. It would broaden the range of works that may be performed, displayed, or distributed to include the various kinds of works that might be included in a multimedia lesson. And it would broaden the educational settings subject to the exemption to include non-classroom settings (including the home) in which pupils could receive distance-learning lessons. Our bill differs from the Senate bill in three respects. First, we have explicitly included nonprofit libraries within the scope of the entities that may engage in distance learning activities without fear of being found to have violated the law. Second, our bill does not contain the Senate-passed provision requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to provide a report on certain technical measures that might be used to protect works delivered over the Internet. We trust that sufficient work is being done by the private sector to develop new technology, and don't see how a report about what is available or might be available really advances the goal of developing new technology. Finally, we did not adopt a last-minute addition to the Senate bill, made after the measure had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, that relates to the requirement imposed on qualifying organizations to adopt technological measures to prevent unauthorized use or further dissemination of works used for distance learning purposes. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill would have required qualifying institutions to apply technological measures that, ``in the ordinary course of their operations,'' prevent the proscribed activities. As amended on the Senate floor, however, the bill deleted this qualifying phrase and instead was rewritten to require these institutions to apply measures that ``reasonably'' prevent such activities. Before deciding which may be the better formulation, we believe it will be important for the House to understand the distinctions intended and the implications that one choice or the other may have for interpreting other laws, in particular Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We look forward to working with our colleagues to enhance distance learning opportunities by moving expeditiously with consideration of the bill.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty of reporting to the House the passing this morning of our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). For 18 years, Norman represented Virginia's 4th Congressional District with distinction in a manner that was highly effective for the interests of his constituents, for our State of Virginia, and for the Nation. His wit and his charm and his gracious manner endeared him to the Members of the House and to the Virginians who have been well served by his representations, first as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and more recently as a Member of this body. His many legislative contributions on matters ranging from national security policy to economic advancements to educational improvements have made his State and our Nation a better place. I have personally known Norman for many years and have been glad to name him among my personal friends. We began our public service together in the Virginia General Assembly and were elected for the first time to this House in the same year. I wish to express my deepest sympathy to his family and to his many friends. In the passing of Norman Sisisky, we have lost a dear friend; and this Nation has lost a valuable public servant. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 724, a bill that makes a needed technical correction to H.R. 2884, legislation which Congress enacted last year to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. It is particularly important that EPCA be extended at this point because it provides for the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a frontline protection against an interruption in our Nation's energy supplies. H.R. 724 ensures that the authorization for appropriations for the SPR is extended through September 2003. This measure conforms with the extension of the Department of Energy's authority to operate the SPR made by last year's legislation, and in so doing corrects a drafting oversight. I am pleased to support the passage of H.R. 724 and urge its approval by the House. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) if he would be willing to yield 1 additional minute to me.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding that additional 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bankruptcy reform legislation and urge its approval in the House. With this measure, we bring to conclusion a process that was launched 4 years ago to bring a much- needed reform to the Nation's bankruptcy laws. During the time of the generally strong economy, consumer bankruptcy filings should be rare. Contrary, however, to this expectation, there are now more than 1.2 million annual bankruptcy filings, representing a five-fold increase since the last major bankruptcy law revision that took place in 1978. The current level of annual filings is more than 90 percent greater than the number of 1 decade ago. Bankruptcies of convenience are driving these increased filings. Bankruptcy was never meant to be a financial planning tool, but it is increasingly becoming a first stop rather than a last resort, as many filers who can repay a substantial part of their debt use the complete liquidation provisions of chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code rather than the court supervised repayment plans that are contained in chapter 13. Our legislation will direct more filers into chapter 13 plans. Those who can afford to make payments will be required to do so. This is a consumer protection measure. The typical American family pays a hidden tax of $550 each year arising from the increased cost of credit and the increases in prices for goods and services occasioned by the discharge of $50 billion annually in consumer bankruptcy debt. By requiring that people who can repay a substantial part of their debt do so in chapter 13 plans, we will lessen substantially that hidden tax. Another key point should be made about the provisions of the bill. The alimony or child support recipient is clearly better off under our bill than she is under current law. At the present time, she stands seventh in the rank of priority for the payment of claims in bankruptcy proceedings. Under the legislation we are putting forward, the child support or alimony recipient will have priority number one. Her claim will be first in line for payment. Other provisions of the bill also make it easier for her to execute against the assets of the bankruptcy state. For this reason, our bill has been endorsed by the child support enforcement agencies of a number of States because of the better ability to collect child support payments which this bill provides. I will say again that the child support recipient is clearly better off under this bill than she is under current law. This is a balanced bipartisan measure which contains new consumer protections and requires greater debt repayment by those who can afford to make the payments. Responsible borrowers and all consumers will benefit from its passage. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the sponsor of this measure, for the leadership he has provided over the last 4 years as we have sought to make this important reform. The measure he brings to the floor today deserves the endorsement of this House.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at the end of October the House of Representatives will lose a loyal, long time employee to a much deserved retirement. Wilson Michael Scott, known as Mike, will be retiring after more than thirty years of working at the House Recording Studio. Mike's career with the House started in November of 1969 as a radio production technician. Mike was here when the House began televising its proceedings in March of 1979 and played an integral role in the launch of that project. Mike retires as the Technical Director of the House Recording Studio. His technical knowledge and expertise will be greatly missed by this institution. Although Mike is one of the many staffers who work behind the scenes to ensure the smooth operations of the House, many may recognize him as the gentleman receiving extra portions of barbecued ribs and greens every Thursday in the Capitol Carry Out. Mike has a colorful sense of humor which has helped keep his co- workers alert during late night sessions. Upon his departure, he will leave many fond and wonderful memories with those who had the honor to work with him during his career. Mike will return to his farm in Marion, Virginia to spend more time with his wife, Carol, daughters, Barit and Tracey, and his 1952 Ford tractor. We would like to take this opportunity to wish Mike Scott godspeed and much happiness for many years in his well-earned retirement.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

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