Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker. I would like to ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) if he is prepared to close or if he has other speakers.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which makes the changes that truly need to be made in the laws governing the electricity markets. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his approach. His amendment is directed to the heart of today's problem, which is market manipulation and fraudulent conduct. The amendment assures appropriate recordkeeping in electronic form of wholesale market transactions. It increases penalties for misconduct. It substantially improves the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to monitor the gas and electricity markets and to act against those who engage in fraudulent and manipulative conduct. Around these principles, broad agreement can be achieved. I urge the adoption of these provisions now. The other electricity provisions, which are contained in the committee's comprehensive bill, can and should be considered separately and at a later time. The consensus to approve these broader measures has simply not been reached. And so, for today, I urge adoption of the Dingell amendment and deferring to a later time the other fundamental and controversial electricity market measures that are contained in the committee bill.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. I urge passage of this legislation by the House, and I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) as one of the principal cosponsors of the measure. Lawsuits which would impose liability on firearm manufacturers, distributors and dealers for misuse of the firearm by someone who comes into possession of it are thinly veiled attempts to impose gun control by judicial means. If liability is imposed on manufacturers in these circumstances, the result will be a large reduction in the availability of firearms for purchase by sportsmen and other law-abiding citizens. The rights of hunters, of gun collectors, and those who purchase firearms for self-defense must be considered. The lawsuits which this bill seeks to end leave little room for the consideration of those rights. The lawsuits are merely gun control by a nonlegislative means. I happen to oppose gun control, but even if I favored it, I would be for this bill which will remove gun control policy-making from the courts and return it to the legislative arena where it belongs and where all competing interests have an opportunity to be considered. Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves, and it has, broad bipartisan support. It will further the protection of gun-owner rights, and I urge its passage by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure and urge its adoption by the House. This reform proceeds from a sound premise. If someone can afford to repay a substantial part of the debts that he owes after accounting for his living costs, he should do so. The person who can repay debts should not use the complete discharge provisions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He should be directed into the supervised debt repayment plans contained in Chapter 13 of the Code. The bill makes this much needed reform. In doing so, it would also relieve the more than $400 annual hidden tax that the typical family pays on account of the widespread misuse of Chapter 7. That amount represents the increased costs of the credit and the higher prices of goods and services that arise from Chapter 7 misuse. The reform before us will also benefit consumers by requiring that credit card statements clearly state the consequences of only paying the required monthly minimums, and the spouse of a person taking bankruptcy is much better off under this bill than under current law. Today her claims are fifth in priority for claims against the bankruptcy estate, well behind other creditors. Under the bill she will become number one and her claim will receive clear priority. This measure will make long-needed changes in our Nation's bankruptcy law, and it is my pleasure to urge its passage by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge in the strongest terms that the administration pursue a multi national strategy as it takes the necessary steps to disarm Iraq. I share the administration's view that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction must be removed. In his present armed condition, he poses a significant threat to our Nation and to all peace loving nations around the world. I have no doubt that he possesses highly dangerous weapons, and based upon his past conduct, I also harbor no doubt that he would use those weapons against us or against our allied nations whenever he believes that doing so serves his interests. It is clear that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. However, it is essential that the disarmament take place in the proper manner. The best opportunity for obtaining the disarmament of Iraq without the necessity of armed conflict lies in the assemblage of a large group of nations who collectively will insist that the disarmament occur. If, under the auspices of the United Nations, most nations of the world are facing Saddam Hussein united in the determination to remove his arms peacefully if possible but by force if necessary, the best chance is achieved for a peaceful disarmament to occur. Then, if conflict is necessary, a broad assemblage of nations will share responsibility for taking the necessary steps. Moreover, that same large assembly of nations with United Nations participation, can then share both the cost and the responsibility for the administration and reconstruction of post-war Iraq. Ten years ago, under a United Nations resolution, Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. The diplomatic offices of this nation were put to good use in persuading our allies to participate with us in the exercise. That same course must be followed again, and I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to take the time which is necessary to assure that broad international support underlies our efforts to ensure our security and the security of other nations through the disarmament of Iraq.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Mr. Doolittle, in re-introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) tilted the balance in our copyright laws too heavily in favor of the interests of copyright owners and undermined the longstanding fair use rights of information consumers, including research scientists, library patrons, and students at all education levels. With the DMCRA, we intend to restore the historical balance in our copyright law that has served our nation well in past years. In order to reduce growing consumer confusion and to reduce a burden on retailers and equipment manufacturers caused by the introduction of so-called ``copy protected CDs,'' we have also included in the bill comprehensive statutory provisions to ensure that consumers will receive adequate notice before they purchase these non-standard compact discs that they cannot record from them and that they might not work as expected in computers and other popular consumer electronics products. Consumers shouldn't have to learn after they get home that the product they just purchased can't be recorded onto the hard drive of a personal computer or won't play in a standard DVD player or in some automotive CD players. As my colleagues know, we introduced the bill at the end of last year to make clear that enactment of the legislation would be a high priority this year. We are now prepared to start the debate in earnest. Background and Need for Legislation Before describing the provisions of the bill in detail, I think it useful to provide a general overview of what has occurred over the past five years and why we need to recalibrate the DMCA in light of that experience. As my colleagues may recall, in 1997 the Administration proposed legislation to implement two international copyright treaties intended to protect digital media in the 21st century. At the time, motion picture studios, record companies, book publishers, and other owners of copyrighted works indicated that the treaty implementing legislation was necessary to stop ``pirates'' from ``circumventing'' technical protection measures used to protect copyrighted works. As the bill was being formulated, it was clear that the proclaimed effort to crack down on piracy would have potentially harmful consequences for information consumers. Nonetheless, copyright owners asserted that the proposed legislation was not intended to limit fair use rights. At the time, libraries, universities, consumer electronics manufacturers, personal computer manufacturers, Internet portals, and others warned that enactment of overly broad legislation would stifle new technology, would threaten access to information, and would move our nation inexorably towards a ``pay per use'' society. Prior to 1998, the American public had enjoyed the ability to make a wide range of personal non-commercial uses of copyrighted works without obtaining the prior consent of copyright owners. These traditional ``fair use'' rights have long been at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American public, and have been critical to the advancement of important educational, scientific, and social goals. Congress was warned that overly broad legislation could have potentially harmful effects. Manufacturers of consumer electronic and other multiple purpose devices, for example, pointed out that a VCR or PC, among other popular devices, could be deemed to be an illegal ``circumvention'' device. In response to these concerns, the Administration limited the prohibition to devices that are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing; have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or are marketed for use in circumventing. Even with this modification, however, the provision still contained a fundamental defect: it prohibited circumvention of access controls for lawful purposes, and it prohibited the manufacture and distribution of technologies that enabled circumvention for lawful purposes. In apparent response to expressions of concern, the Administration proposed a ``savings'' clause (ultimately enacted as section 1201(c)(1)), which states that section 1201 does not affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use. However, as at least some of us understood at the time, and two courts have since confirmed, the fair use defense to copyright infringement actions is not a defense to the independent prohibition on circumvention contained in Chapter 12 of the DMCA. Since Chapter 12 actions are not grounded in copyright law, the so-called ``savings clause'' preserving fair use defenses to copyright infringement actions is meaningless in the context of actions under the DMCA. Other problems were seen with the Administration's original draft. As Congress became aware that the Administration's proposal prohibited many other legitimate activities, our colleagues agreed to graft numerous exceptions onto section 1201. The House Committee on Commerce, in particular, sought to more carefully balance the interests of copyright owners and information consumers by including provisions dealing with encryption research, reverse engineering, and security systems testing. We can now see in retrospect, however, that these provisions did not go far enough. Congress made other changes in an effort to right the balance. Principally at the urging of consumer electronics manufacturers, Congress adopted the so-called ``no mandate'' provision to give equipment manufacturers the freedom to design new products without fear of litigation. Section 1201(c)(3) provides that, with one exception (set forth in section 1201(k)), manufacturers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products are not required to design their products to respond to any particular technological protection measure. (The only requirement imposed on device manufacturers is to build certain analog VCRs to conform to the copy control technology already in wide use in the market.) The ``no mandate'' provision was essential to addressing the legitimate concerns of the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer industries, which feared that section 1201 otherwise might require VCRs, PCs, and other popular consumer products to respond to various embedded or associated codes, or other unilateral impositions by content owners without the assurance of corresponding protections for equipment consumers. Moreover, through legislative history, Congress also made clear that equipment manufacturers were free to make adjustments to products to remedy ``playability'' problems created by unilaterally developed technical measures. In the end, however, these changes were not enough to achieve the appropriate level of balance. In the end, the DMCA dramatically tilted the balance in the Copyright Act towards content protection and away from information availability. Given the breadth of the law and its application so far, the fair use rights of the public at large clearly are at risk. From the college student who photocopies a page from a library book for use in writing a report, to the newspaper reporter excerpting materials from a document for a story, to the typical television viewer who records a broadcast program for viewing at a later time, we all depend on the ability to make limited copies of copyrighted material without having to pay a fee or to obtain prior approval of the copyright owner. In fact, fair use rights to obtain and use a wide array of information are essential to the exercise of First Amendment rights. In my view, the very vibrancy of our democracy is dependent on the information availability and use facilitated by the fair use doctrine. Yet, efforts to exercise those rights increasingly are being threatened by the application of section 1201 of the DMCA. Because the law does not limit its application to circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright, all kinds of traditionally accepted activities may be at risk. Consider the implications. A time may soon come when what is now available for free on library shelves will only be available on a ``pay per use'' basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to technically enshroud material delivered in digital format and then to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time the password is used so that a digital book may be accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants the most basic access to only a portion of an electronic book to write a term paper would have to pay. The DMCA places the force of law behind these technical barriers by making it a crime to circumvent them even to exercise fair use rights. The day is already here in which copyright owners use ``click on,'' ``click through,'' and ``shrink wrap'' licenses to limit what purchasers of a copyrighted work may do with it. Some go so far as to make it a violation of the license to even criticize the contents of a work, let alone to make a copy of a paragraph or two. To address these and other concerns that have been voiced since enactment of the DMCA, the bill we have introduced would amend sections 1201 (a)(2) and (b)(1) to permit otherwise prohibited conduct when engaged in solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological protection measures. Current law permits circumvention of technological protection measures for the purpose of encryption research. The bill expands the exception to include scientific research into technological protection measures, some of which are not encryption. This change is intended to address a real concern identified by the scientific community. It does not authorize hackers and others to post trade secrets on the Internet under the guise of scientific research, or to cloak otherwise unlawful conduct as scientific research. Since September 11, 2001, we have all become more aware of the importance of improving the security of computer networks against hacking. Our computer scientists must be allowed to pursue legitimate research into technological protection measures to determine their strengths and shortcomings without fear of civil litigation or criminal prosecution under the DMCA. The public needs to know the genuine capabilities of the technological protection measures. The proposed amendment provides computer scientists with a bright line rule they can easily follow, and would encourage them to engage in research for the public's benefit. The bill we have introduced does what the proponents of section 1201(c)(1) of the DMCA said it did, namely, to preserve the fair use rights of consumers under section 107 of the Copyright Act and under section 1201. (In 2001, for example, the presidents of the Business Software Alliance and the Interactive Digital Software Associations citing the ``savings clause'' stated in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post that ``[t]he DMCA did nothing to upset existing fair use rules that still permit a variety of academic inquiries and other activities that might otherwise be infringing.'') The bill amends the ``savings clause'' to make clear that it is not a violation of section 1201 to circumvent a technological measure in connection with gaining access to or using a work if the circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work. In short, if a consumer may make a fair use of a copyrighted work, he may gain access to it and then make use of it without liability under section 1201. At the same time, if his or her conduct does not constitute fair use under section 107, liability may attach under section 1201. In this connection, I think it important to stress that, when the DMCA was being debated equipment manufacturers unsuccessfully sought to clarify the savings clause in section 1201. Since enactment of the DMCA, these same manufacturers have had to build business plans that incorporate copy protection technologies into their digital product offerings in order to ensure that content will be made available to consumers in digital formats. At the same time, these manufacturers have worked to ensure that those technologies are used in ways that are consistent with consumers' customary recording and viewing practices. I recognize that because the determination of whether or not a particular use is considered a ``fair use'' depends on a highly fact specific inquiry, it is not an easy concept to translate into a technological implementation. Our bill is not intended to encourage consumers to disable copy protection systems in order to gain increased access to protected works where the technology has been implemented in a manner that seeks to accommodate the consumer's fair use expectations. Instead, this proposal is in pursuance of a larger objective of ensuring that existing copy protection measures are implemented in ways that respect consumers' customary practices and ensuring that, as future technologies are developed, they incorporate means by which fair use of content can be made. As Congress demonstrated in developing section 1201(k) of the DMCA, there are ways to balance legislatively the interests of content owners and consumers when technological solutions that respect fair use practices can be agreed upon by all parties. In addition to restrictions on their fair use rights, consumers face a new problem as record companies increasingly introduce into the market non-standard ``copy-protected compact discs.'' As widely reported in the press, consumers have found that these ordinary-looking CDs do not play in some standard consumer electronics and computer products and that they cannot be copied on computer hard drives or in CD recorders. Without question, record companies should have the freedom to innovate, but they also have the responsibility to provide adequate notice to consumers about the ``recordability'' and ``playability'' of these discs. They have not done so. For that reason, I believe it is appropriate for Congress to now step in. Our bill will ensure that non-standard discs are properly labeled to give consumers adequate notice of all dysfunctionalities. In this connection, I think it is important to note that the conferees to the DMCA expected all affected industries to work together in developing measures to protect copyrighted works. As the conferees pointed out, ``[o]ne of the benefits of such consultation is to allow testing of proposed technologies to determine whether there are adverse effects on the ordinary performance of playback and display equipment in the marketplace, and to take steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate those effects before technologies are introduced.'' That process does not appear to have been employed with regard to the new unilaterally developed methods being used to protect compact discs. In closing, I think it important to stress that, for over 150 years, the fair use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and in education, and has advanced broad societal goals in many other ways. We need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. The DMCRA of 2003 will restore that balance. We urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I am pleased to rise in support of the rule for consideration in the House of the conference report to accompany the bankruptcy reform legislation. I urge approval both of the rule and of the conference report. The reform of the Nation's bankruptcy laws, which our actions today will accomplish, is well justified. This reform is strongly in the interest of consumers. It will significantly reduce the annual hidden tax of approximately $400 that the typical consumer pays because others are misusing the bankruptcy laws. That amount represents the increased cost of credit and the increased price of consumer goods and services occasioned by bankruptcy law misuse. This reform will lower that hidden tax. The reform also helps consumers by requiring clearer disclosures of the cost of credit on credit card statements. And the reform will be a major benefit to single parents who receive alimony or child support. That person today is fifth in priority for the receipt of payment under the bankruptcy laws. The reform before us today elevates the spouse- support recipient to number one in priority. This reform proceeds from a basic premise that people who can afford to repay a substantial part of the debt that they owe should do so. The bill requires that repayment while allowing the discharge in bankruptcy of the debts that cannot be repaid and in so doing responds to the broad misuse of chapter 7's complete liquidation provisions that we have observed in recent years. The reform measure sets a threshold for the use of chapter 7. Debtors who can make little or no repayment can use its provisions without limitation and can discharge all of their debts. Debtors whose annual income is below the national mean of about $50,000 per year are also untouched by the provisions of this reform. They can make full use of chapter 7 and discharge all of their debts even if they could afford to make a substantial debt repayment. And so, Mr. Speaker, the financially unfortunate and middle-income consumers are not affected at all by this reform. They can continue to use the bankruptcy laws as they can under current law. But upper-income consumers who can make substantial repayments will be expected to enter into court-supervised repayment plans under chapter 13. This modest requirement of personal financial responsibility is appropriate, and I am pleased today to urge approval of this well-justified reform which is contained within the conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to urge approval of the rule that brings that conference agreement to the floor as well as the conference agreement itself.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Mr. Doolittle, in introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2002 (DMCRA). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) tilted the balance in our copyright laws too heavily in favor of the interests of copyright owners and undermined the longstanding fair use rights of information consumers, including research scientists, library patrons, and students at all education levels. With the DMCRA, we intend to restore the historical balance in our copyright law that has served our nation well in past years. In order to reduce growing consumer confusion and to reduce a burden on retailers and equipment manufacturers caused by the introduction of so-called ``copy protected CDs,'' we have also included in the bill comprehensive statutory provisions to ensure that consumers will receive adequate notice before they purchase these non-standard compact discs that they cannot record from them and that they might not work as expected in computers and other popular consumer electronics products. Consumers shouldn't have to learn after they get home that the product they just purchased can't be recorded onto the hard drive of a personal computer or won't play in a standard DVD player or in some automotive CD players. Background and Need for Legislation Before describing the provisions of the bill in detail, I think it useful to provide a general overview of what has occurred over the past five years and why we need to recalibrate the DMCA in light of that experience. As my colleagues may recall, in 1997 the Administration proposed legislation to implement two international copyright treaties intended to protect digital media in the 21st century. At the time, motion picture studios, record companies, book publishers, and other owners of copyrighted works indicated that the treaty implementing legislation was necessary to stop ``pirates'' from ``circumventing'' technical protection measures used to protect copyrighted works. As the bill was being formulated, it was clear that the proclaimed effort to crack down on piracy would have potentially harmful consequences for information consumers. Nonetheless, copyright owners asserted that the proposed legislation was not intended to limit fair use rights. At the time, libraries, universities, consumer electronics manufacturers, personal computer manufacturers, Internet portals, and others warned that enactment of overly broad legislation would stifle new technology, would threaten access to information, and would move our nation inexorably towards a ``pay per use'' society. Prior to 1998, the American public had enjoyed the ability to make a wide range of personal non-commercial uses of copyrighted works without obtaining the prior consent of copyright owners. These traditional ``fair use'' rights have long been at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American public, and have been critical to the advancement of important educational, scientific, and social goals. Congress was warned that overly broad legislation could have potentially harmful effects. Manufacturers of consumer electronic and other multiple purpose devices, for example, pointed out that a VCR or PC, among other popular devices, could be deemed to be an illegal ``circumvention'' device. In response to these concerns, the Administration limited the prohibition to devices that are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing; have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or are marketed for use in circumventing. Even with this modification, however, the provision still contained a fundamental defect: it prohibited circumvention of access controls for lawful purposes, and it prohibited the manufacture and distribution of technologies that enabled circumvention for lawful purposes. In apparent response to expressions of concern, the Administration proposed a savings'' clause (ultimately enacted as section 1201(c)(1)), which states that section 1201 does not affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use. However, as at least some of us understood at the time, and two courts have since confirmed, the fair use defense to copyright infringement actions is not a defense to the independent prohibition on circumvention contained in Chapter 12 of the DMCA. Since Chapter 12 actions are not grounded in copyright law, the so-called ``savings clause'' preserving fair use defenses to copyright infringement actions is meaningless in the context of actions under the DMCA. Other problems were seen with the Administration's original draft. As Congress became aware that the Administration's proposal prohibited many other legitimate activities, our colleagues agreed to graft numerous exceptions onto section 1201. The House Committee on Commerce, in particular, sought to more carefully balance the interests of copyright owners and information consumers by including provisions dealing with encryption research, reverse engineering, and security systems testing. We can now see in retrospect, however, that these provisions did not go far enough. Congress made other changes in an effort to right the balance. Principally at the urging of consumer electronics manufacturers, Congress adopted the so-called ``no mandate'' provision to give equipment manufacturers the freedom to design new products without fear of litigation. Section 1201(c)(3) provides that, with one exception (set forth in section 1201 (k)), manufacturers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products are not required to design their products to respond to any particular technological protection measure. (The only requirement imposed on device manufacturers is to build certain analog VCRs to conform to the copy control technology already in wide use in the market.) The ``no mandate'' provision was essential to addressing the legitimate concerns of the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer industries, which feared that section 1201 otherwise might require VCRs, PCs, and other popular consumer products to respond to various embedded or associated codes, or other unilateral impositions by content owners without the assurance of corresponding protections for equipment consumers. Moreover, through legislative history, Congress also made clear that equipment manufacturers were free to make adjustments to products to remedy ``playability'' problems created by unilaterally developed technical measures. In the end, however, these changes were not enough to achieve the appropriate level of balance. In the end, the DMCA dramatically tilted the balance in the Copyright Act towards content protection and away from information availability. Given the breadth of the law and its application so far, the fair use rights of the public at large clearly are at risk. From the college student who photocopies a page from a library book for use in writing a report, to the newspaper reporter excerpting materials from a document for a story, to the typical television viewer who records a broadcast program for viewing at a later time, we all depend on the ability to make limited copies of copyrighted material without having to pay a fee or to obtain prior approval of the copyright owner. In fact, fair use rights to obtain and use a wide array of information are essential to the exercise of First Amendment rights. In my view, the very vibrancy of our democracy is dependent on the information availability and use facilitated by the fair use doctrine. Yet, efforts to exercise those rights increasingly are being threatened by the application of section 1201 of the DMCA. Because the law does not limit its application to circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright, all kinds of traditionally accepted activities may be at risk. Consider the implications. A time may soon come when what is now available for free on library shelves will only be available on a ``pay per use'' basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to technically enshroud material delivered in digital format and then to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time the password is used so that a digital book may be accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants the most basic access to only a portion of an electronic book to write a term paper would have to pay. The DMCA places the force of law behind these technical barriers by making it a crime to circumvent them even to exercise fair use rights. The day is already here in which copyright owners use ``click on,'' ``click through,'' and ``shrink wrap'' licenses to limit what purchasers of a copyrighted work may do with it. Some go so far as to make it a violation of the license to even criticize the contents of a work, let alone to make a copy of a paragraph or two. To address these and other concerns that have been voiced since enactment of the DMCA, the bill we have introduced would amend sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) to permit otherwise prohibited conduct when engaged solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological protection measures. Current law permits circumvention of technological protection measures for the purpose of encryption research. The bill expands the exception to include scientific research into technological protection measures, some of which are not encryption. This change is intended to address a real concern identified by the scientific community. It does not authorize hackers and others to post trade secrets on the Internet under the guise of scientific research, or to cloak otherwise unlawful conduct as scientific research. Since September 11, we have all become more aware of the importance of improving the security of computer networks against hacking. Our computer scientists must be allowed to pursue legitimate research into technological protection measures to determine their strengths and shortcomings without fear of civil litigation or criminal prosecution under the DMCA. The public needs to know the genuine capabilities of the technological protection measures. The proposed amendment provides computer scientists with a bright line rule they can easily follow, and would encourage them to engage in research for the public's benefit. The bill we have introduced does what the proponents of section 1201(c)(1) of the DMCA said it did, namely, to preserve the fair use rights of consumers under section 107 of the Copyright Act and under section 1201. (Just last year, the presidents of the Business Software Alliance and the Interactive Digital Software Associations citing the ``savings clause'' stated in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post that ``[t]he DMCA did nothing to upset existing fair use rules that still permit a variety of academic inquiries and other activities that might otherwise be infringing.'') The bill amends the ``savings clause'' to make clear that it is not a violation of section 1201 to circumvent a technological measure in connection with gaining access to or using a work if the circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work. In short, if a consumer may make a fair use of a copyrighted work, he may gain access to it and then make use of it without liability under section 1201. At the same time, if his or her conduct does not constitute fair use under section 107, liability may attach under section 1201. In this connection, I think it is important to stress that, when the DMCA was being debated equipment manufacturers unsuccessfully sought to clarify the savings clause in section 1201. Since enactment of the DMCA, these same manufacturers have had to build business plans that incorporate copy protection technologies into their digital product offerings in order to ensure that content will be made available to consumers in digital forrnats. At the same time, these manufacturers have worked to ensure that those technologies are used in ways that are consistent with consumers' customary recording and viewing practices. I recognize that because the determination of whether or not a particular use is considered a ``fair use'' depends on a highly fact specific inquiry, it is not an easy concept to translate into a technological implementation. Our bill is not intended to encourage consumers to disable copy protection systems in order to gain increased access to protected works where the technology has been implemented in a manner that seeks to accommodate the consumer's fair use expectations. Instead, this proposal is in pursuance of a larger objective of ensuring that existing copy protection measures are implemented in ways that respect consumers' customary practices and ensuring that, as future technologies are developed, they incorporate means by which fair use of content can be made. As Congress demonstrated in developing section 1201(k) of the DMCA, there are ways to balance legislatively the interests of content owners and consumers when technological solutions that respect fair use practices can be agreed upon by all parties. In addition to restrictions on their fair use rights, consumers face a new problem as record companies increasingly introduce into the market non-standard ``copy-protected compact discs.'' As widely reported in the press, consumers have found that these ordinary-looking CDs do not play in some standard consumer electronics and computer products and that they cannot be copied on computer hard drives or in CD recorders. Without question, record companies should have the freedom to innovate, but they also have the responsibility to provide adequate notice to consumers about the ``recordability'' and ``playability'' of these discs. They have not done so. For that reason, I believe it is appropriate for Congress to now step in. Our bill will ensure that non-standard discs are properly labeled to give consumers adequate notice of all disfunctionalities. In this connection, I think it is important to note that the conferees to the DMCA expected all affected industries to work together in developing measures to protect copyrighted works. As the conferees pointed out, ``[one of the benefits of such consultation is to allow testing of proposed technologies to determine whether there are adverse effects on the ordinary performance of playback and display equipment in the marketplace, and to take steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate those effects before technologies are introduced.'' That process does not appear to have been employed with regard to the new unilaterally developed methods being used to protect compact discs. In closing, I think it important to stress that, for over 150 years, the fair use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and in education, and has advanced broad societal goals in many other ways. We need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. The DMCRA will restore that balance.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), one of the sponsors of this measure.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of H.R. 3880, which will provide to the New York City metropolitan area a temporary and necessary waiver of Clean Air Act conformity requirements until September 30, 2005. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this measure by the House. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires that transportation activities conform to State air quality plans before the Federal Government is authorized to fund those transportation activities. The region-only mission analysis used to establish conformity and subsequent eligibility for Federal funding must be, under this statutory provision, less than 3 years old. New York's current regional emission analysis will reach its 3-year expiration date on October 1, 2002. Then, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the New York conformity determination will lapse, jeopardizing the area's Federal transportation funding for most projects. It is estimated that the region stands to lose up to $1 billion in Federal transportation funding, should a conformity lapse occur. The headquarters of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, and that is the agency that serves as the New York area's transportation planning office, was destroyed in the attacks of September 11. Due to the unprecedented loss of personnel, resources, and records, it will be impossible for New York to establish a current regional emissions analysis in order to meet the October 1, 2002 deadline for obtaining a conformity determination. In addition to the loss at the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council headquarters, the attacks of September 11 have significantly altered the distribution of jobs and transportation patterns within the New York metropolitan area. These changes add to the impossibility of the data collection necessary to develop an accurate regional emissions analysis during the near term. Given these extraordinary events, it is appropriate that we take action to provide temporary relief to the New York City area. The legislation before us today would grant a temporary waiver from the Clean Air Act transportation conformity requirements and selected metropolitan planning requirements of TEA-21 through September 30, 2005. The bill received unanimous approval in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it is supported by the Environmental Protection Agency and by the U.S. Department of Transportation. I urge that the House lend its approval to this necessary legislation, which will assist in easing the burden faced by the New York City area as the region continues to recover from the attacks of last September. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), in commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the other gentlemen from New York, Mr. Engel and Mr. Towns, for their sponsorship of this measure, which is most appropriate and deserves approval by this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3609 and to urge its approval by the House. The pipeline safety measure now before the House results from bipartisan discussions involving two committees and I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) of our full Committee on Energy and Commerce; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking committee member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, with whom I have been pleased to cooperate on this measure; and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for all of the efforts of these Members in achieving the consensus measure that is before the House today. The authorization for appropriations for the Federal pipeline safety program expired during the year 2000. The bill which we are considering today will take the necessary steps to reauthorize the program. The measure makes a number of improvements to existing pipeline safety requirements. It will direct the Department of Transportation to promulgate a rule requiring operators to develop integrity management plans which will include a pipeline safety inspection within 10 years of enactment and a reinspection within the following 7 years. The measure will also require operators to develop and implement written programs to ensure that all individual pipeline operators are qualified to perform their jobs and will establish a pilot program within the Department of Transportation for the certification of pipeline employees. In addition, the measure establishes a technical assistance grant program to enhance the knowledge of individuals who reside or conduct businesses in the general vicinity of pipelines. We worked very closely with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that the establishment of these grants is performed in such a way as to accommodate the concern of all stakeholders. In addition, the measure will improve the Office of Pipeline Safety's ability to enforce safety laws by increasing the cap on penalties. The bill will also improve existing one-call notification programs and develop a national pipeline mapping system. These are all very helpful steps that, taken together, will ensure greater pipeline safety for the Nation going forward. I again want to commend all of the Members who on a bipartisan basis have worked diligently to achieve the consensus that has embodied this measure. And, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to urge approval of this bill by the House. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing on our side, I yield myself the 2 remaining minutes. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us moves the process forward and enables the taking of the next step in evaluating the Yucca Mountain site. We have no realistic alternative to a secure, central repository for the permanent storage of high-level nuclear waste. The waste is now stored at 72 dispersed reactor sites around the Nation. Leaving the waste in its current storage poses threats, both to the environment and to national security. Permanent dry-cask storage at these 72 sites is not a realistic alternative to a central storage facility. The resolution before the House enables the taking of the next essential step in achieving the secure central storage, which is the best option before the country at this time. After the resolution passes, construction at the site could not begin until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts a thorough scientific and technical analysis and issues a construction license. I urge that the resolution before the House be approved so that the NRC can begin its work, so that the scientific and technical studies can go forward, and so that the Nation's best option, a secure, central repository for high-level nuclear waste, can be pursued. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pending measure and urge its approval by the House. The legislation takes the next necessary step in a statutorily prescribed process for establishing a site for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. I want to begin these remarks by commending Chairman Tauzin of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, subcommittee Chairman Barton, and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our full committee, for their diligence and their persistence in taking this necessary step. I am a cosponsor with them of the legislation which is pending that will move the process forward. A permanent secure site for the disposal of high level waste must be established. Forty-five thousand metric tons of waste now reside on- site at nuclear reactors in 72 locations across the Nation. This temporary siting of spent fuel at reactor sites poses both a security threat and an environmental threat. In my view, arguments that previously had been made that the permanent disposal of waste in dry cask storage at these 72 reactor sites as an alternative to the establishment of a secure central repository for the waste hold far less credence today after September 11 than they did before. I think we really have no alternative to the development of a central, secure disposal site. The passage of the measure that is now before the House is essential to the development of that site. While arguments will be made that more could be learned about the proposed Yucca Mountain site, I would note that the recommendation of the Secretary of Energy in January of this year that Yucca Mountain be chosen for permanent waste disposal is based on fully 20 years of scientific investigation. The site characterization work required under section 113 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has been carried out. The public hearings focusing on the Yucca Mountain site required by section 114 of the act have been held. If Congress passes the legislation now pending before the House, which overrides the disapproval of the President's site designation that was issued by Governor Guinn of Nevada on April 8, construction activities could not commence at the site until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completes a full technical and scientific review of the site and also a review of the proposed disposal methods at the site and then issues a license for site construction. No site will ever be found to be perfect for the disposal of high level nuclear waste, but I am persuaded that the studies which have already been conducted and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review that is still to come provides sufficient assurances that the appropriate nature of the Yucca Mountain site has been established and will justify approval of the legislation now before us. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to note that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long tradition of addressing many of our Nation's most important public policy challenges in a thoughtful and a bipartisan manner. With the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality having approved this resolution by a vote of 24-2 and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce having approved it by a majority of 41-6, nowhere has our committee's bipartisan tradition and cooperation been more in evidence than in our efforts to resolve the Nation's nuclear waste disposal problems. For that bipartisan cooperation, I again want to commend the committee's leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving expeditiously on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this resolution by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.)