Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

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 thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me, and I concur in his statement that this motion to recommit is acceptable on our side, and in accepting this motion to recommit, we are clearly acting in furtherance of the bipartisan rapport that underlays the construction of the Free Flow of Information Act and its consideration here in the House today. The motion to recommit provides that in performing the balancing test under the bill, which weighs whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in news gathering and dissemination, the court may consider the extent of any harm to national security. The extent of any harm to national security is clearly a relevant consideration when determining key questions relating to what is or is not in the public interest, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join with the gentleman from Michigan in urging acceptance of the motion to recommit.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for yielding this time to me. I want to thank Chairman Conyers also for his strong leadership and his persistent effort that has resulted in this bipartisan measure's coming to the floor of the House this afternoon. His leadership has been invaluable to the success that we will experience when this measure is approved by the House later today. I also want to commend the outstanding work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who has devoted his personal time and his commitment to this bipartisan undertaking. He is the lead Republican sponsor of this bill, and I want to say to him how much I appreciate the productive partnership that he and I have formed and the tremendous work that he has done in moving this measure forward. We truly would not be where we are today without the constructive work of Mr. Pence. He and I are joined by a total of 71 House cosponsors, who, on a bipartisan basis, believe that the time has arrived for the Congress to extend to journalists a privilege to refrain from revealing their confidential sources of information in Federal court proceedings. The privilege our bill provides is similar to those currently extended by statutes in 34 States and in the District of Columbia. The ability to assure confidentiality to people who provide information is essential to effective news gathering and reporting. Typically, the best information that can be received about events like corruption in government or misdeeds in a large private organization, such as a corporation or a large public charity, will come from someone on the inside who feels a responsibility to contact a reporter and bring that sensitive information to public scrutiny. But that person has a lot to lose if his or her identity becomes known. In many cases the person responsible for the corruption or the misdeeds can punish that individual through dismissal from employment or through more subtle means if the identity of that confidential source is disclosed. In most sensitive cases it is only by assuring anonymity to the source that a reporter can gain access to the information and bring that information to public light. By granting to reporters a qualified privilege to refrain from revealing their confidential news sources, we are clearly protecting the public's right to know. And public knowledge of misdeeds can lead to the corrective action of criminal charges or of the passage, perhaps, of legislation. While extending a broad privilege, we have included some exceptions for instances in which source information can and should be disclosed where a strong public interest compels that disclosure. The exceptions include disclosures to prevent an act of terrorism or to prevent an imminent and actual harm to national security, to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm, or to determine who has disclosed trade secrets or personal health or personal financial information in violation of law. An amendment that I will be offering shortly, along with Mr. Pence, will permit disclosure in a number of other instances, including the instance of the leak of certain kinds of classified information. In every instance, an exception to the privilege will only apply if the court determines that the public interest and disclosure outweighs the public interest in protecting news gathering and news dissemination. Our measure extends a needed privilege; it will protect the public's right to know. I again want to thank Chairman Conyers and his outstanding staff for the work that they have done which leads to this measure arriving on the floor today. And I thank my partner, Mr. Pence, for his outstanding efforts.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am pleased to offer at this time, along with the principal co-author of this legislation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), incorporates recommendations that were made to us by a number of members of the House Judiciary Committee and other interested Members of the House both during the extensive markup of this legislation in the committee and in the time intervening between then and now. The legislation was broadly supported in that committee and was approved by voice vote in that committee, and the recommendations that we have received now incorporated into this manager's amendment came from members of the committee and other Members of the House both on the Democratic and Republican sides. We have folded those various recommendations into the manager's amendment. These amendments that are folded into the manager's amendment further limit the scope of the privilege that is conferred by the legislation itself. First, the amendment expands the instances in which source disclosure can be compelled to include a leak by the source of properly classified information where the leak has caused a significant and articulable harm to national security. Secondly, source disclosure could be compelled when the reporter personally witnesses criminal conduct or when the reporter is himself involved in criminal conduct. Third, source disclosure could occur when necessary to identify any perpetrator of an act of terrorism against the United States or other significant and specified harm to national security. The amendment also narrows the definition of the individuals who may assert the privilege to refrain from revealing confidential sources in Federal court proceedings. Under the amendment, only people who are regularly engaged in news gathering and reporting and who receive substantial financial gain or receive a substantial portion of their livelihood from the journalistic activity will qualify. The amendment will also deny the privilege to journalists who have been designated as terrorists pursuant to law or who are employed by a terrorist organization as designated pursuant to law. We offer this amendment on a bipartisan basis, and we ask for its approval by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for the very fine and persistent work that he has performed in bringing this measure to the House floor today. Mr. Berman and I introduced an earlier version of this patent reform fully 5 years ago. And building on that early effort, Mr. Berman has worked tirelessly to build broad support for the patent reform, support externally and bipartisan support in this Chamber, to fine-tune the bill's provisions and to obtain Judiciary Committee approval of the measure earlier this year. That is truly an impressive accomplishment. There is an urgent need to improve the patent system. Patent examiners are burdened with many applications and are encouraged to move quickly on each one of them. And as they do their work, they are isolated from an important source of highly relevant information. That information source is the knowledge that individuals may have that the work that is the subject of the patent application may, in fact, not be original, that someone else, in fact, may have invented that particular object, and that that object has been in use prior to the time that the application was filed. That information we call ``prior art.'' The existing patent process contains no avenue for third parties who may possess information about prior art to submit that to the patent examiner while the application is being examined. Our reform bill corrects that flaw, and in so doing, will broadly operate to improve patent quality. Also in aid of patent quality is the provision which significantly strengthens the post-grant interparty's reexamination process through which the Patent Office can be required to take a more careful look at the patent and the application that accompanies it before that patent is issued in final form by the Patent Office. Our goal with this provision is to ensure that before a patent is issued, parties who contest its validity will have a full and complete opportunity to do so within the confines of the Patent Office itself. That should prove to be a very effective and less costly alternative than litigating the validity of the patent in the court process. Across its range of provisions, the reform measure before us makes long-needed changes that will improve the quality of patents, adjust aspects of the litigation process to the benefit of patent holders and those who license for use patented items. The bill before us contains a provision which I offered as an amendment in committee in partnership with my Virginia colleague, Mr. Goodlatte. Our provision prohibits prospectively the award of patents for tax planning methods. Madam Chairman, I strongly encourage that the bill, with that amendment, be approved. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me, and I commend him on his effective work, which brings the patent reform measure to the House floor today. Mr. Berman and I introduced an earlier version of this reform 5 years ago. Building on that early effort Mr. Berman has worked tirelessly to build broad support for patent reform, to fine tune the bills provisions, and to obtain Judiciary Committee approval of this measure. It is a truly impressive achievement. There is an urgent need to improve the patent system. Patent examiners are burdened with many applications and are encouraged to conclude each one quickly. And as they do that work they are isolated from an important source of highly relevant information. That information source is the knowledge individuals may have, that the subject of the patent application is not original, that in fact, the object may have previously been invented by someone else. We call that prior art. And the existing patent process contains no avenue for third parties to submit evidence of prior art to the patent examiner. Our reform bill correct that flaw, and in so doing will help to improve overall patent quality. Also in aid of patent quality is the provision which significantly threatens the past grant inter partes reexamination process through which the Patent Office can be required to take a more careful look at the proposed patent prior to its final issuance. Our goal with this provision is to assure that before a patent is issued, parties who contest its validity will have a full and complete opportunity to make their case. A meaningful Inter Pates proceeding can also be an expeditious, less costly alternative to litigating the validity of the patent in the courts. Accross its range of provisions, the reform measure before us makes long-needed changes, which will improve the quality of patents and adjust aspects of the litigation process to the mutual benefit of patent holders and those who license for use patented items. The bill before us contains a provision which I offered as an amendment in committee along with my Virginia colleague, Mr. Goodlatte. Our provisions prohibits prospectively the award of patent for tax planning methods. Approximately 60 such patents have been issued and at least 85 more are pending at the Patent Office. These patents limit the ability of taxpayers, and the tax professionals they employ, to read the tax laws and find the most efficient means of lessening or avoiding tax liability (contrary to said public policy). If someone else has previously read the tax law, found the same means of reducing tax liability and received a patent for it, that person is entitled to a royalty if anyone else tries to reduce his taxes by the same means. I frankly think that is outrageous. No one should have to pay a royalty to pay their taxes. No one should have sole ownership of how taxes are paid. Such a barrier to the ability of every American to find creative lawful ways to lessen tax liability is contrary to said public policy. Our amendment, now a part of the bill before us, will bar the future award of such patents, and I would encourage the Patent Office to reexamine those that have been issued to date. I also want to thank the bipartisan leadership of the Ways and Means Committee for expressing support for our provision on tax planning strategies. Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding, and I want to commend him on this amendment. His amendment recognizes the value of the Weatherization Assistance Program and proposes to increase the authorization levels to a higher point toward the levels that usefully can be spent in weatherizing homes. To the extent that the measure sends to the Appropriations Committee a signal that there should be an increase in appropriations for this program, I think it's highly valuable. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward and urge its adoption, and I thank him for yielding this time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, we continue to reserve our time.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House creates broad energy efficiencies. Taken together, our 29 separate energy efficiency provisions will reduce future greenhouse gas emissions by a total of 8.4 billion tons cumulatively through the year 2030. In the year 2030 alone, the reduction will be fully 700 million tons, and that is an amount equal to all of the vehicles on America's roads today. The efficiency provisions are truly a major step forward in advancing American energy policy. They set new standards for lighting that is many multiples in advance of today's standards. They set higher standards for future models of an array of consumer products, ranging from refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, residential boilers, electric motors and furnace fans. They promote green buildings, both in the public sector and also in the private sector. They create a process to capture much of the heat that today is wasted from industrial sites, enabling as much as 60 gigawatts of electricity generation from that energy. The bill before us is a landmark accomplishment. It will make America more energy efficient and more energy independent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I would say to the gentleman from Texas that we do not have other speakers on this side, except for the potential to close on this side at the end of this debate.

Mr. BOUCHER. If the gentleman would yield, we are reserving the balance of our time. We do not have additional speakers on this side for general debate. We do reserve the potential for a brief close in general debate, but that will be the extent of general debate on our side.

Mr. BOUCHER. If the gentleman from Texas would yield again for a moment, what we are attempting to do actually is facilitate the debate. At this point in time, if the gentleman is prepared to use his time, we would yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman hold for just one moment, please?

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I regret the delay. Let me commend the gentleman for two things. First of all, for his very helpful work as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and secondly, for bringing this amendment before the body today. Geothermal heat pump technology is a promising means of meeting heating and cooling needs with high energy efficiency. It uses the Earth itself, as the gentleman has described, as a kind of a heat battery, but also as a natural coolant during the summertimes. And that is a natural battery and also a natural coolant upon which we can draw with great efficiency. The amendment would direct the Federal Government to take the lead in adopting geothermal heat pump technologies. It would have the government lead by example, and I think it is an excellent addition to the measure. We are pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman from Maryland yield?

Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. A major purpose of our provisions in subtitle F of title IX is to provide that the Energy Information Administration begin collecting again important data that it once collected but discontinued collection of under budget or personnel constraints, and data on solid byproducts of coal use fell into that category. Mr. Murphy's amendment would simply require that this data on solid byproducts of coal use once again be corrected. We support it and urge that amendment be adopted.

Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for bringing this matter before the committee today. It is my understanding that he intends to ask that his amendment be withdrawn momentarily. Let me give assurance to the gentleman that we are sensitive to the valid concerns that he has raised about the need to have public participation in the processes of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and I want to pledge to him that we will work with him and with the FERC to ensure that his constituents are heard with regard to matters that affect them. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing this concern before the House.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding and commend him on bringing this amendment before the committee. It would establish a grant program for colleges and universities to invest in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I think this is a step forward for energy policy and I would encourage adoption of the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding, and I want to commend him as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing this matter before the House. I think it is appropriate to move along the process of having regulations issued with regard to offshore wind energy, and we support this amendment and would urge its adoption.