Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also rise in support of this conference agreement, primarily because it contains the Local Signal Act and is the only opportunity by which the residents of rural America and the small- and medium-sized cities around the Nation will have the opportunity to receive by their satellite dishes the new local-into-local television service. I introduced the original version of this measure with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It serves a very urgent local need for rural Americans, and because this conference agreement contains that provision, I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the electricity price spikes in California have gained national attention and have moved to the center of the debate on the question of electricity industry restructuring. Consumers in some California communities have faced unprecedented electricity prices and are rightly asking what the Federal Government might do to help bring down the price of this vital commodity. This evening we consider a resolution which expresses the sense of the House that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should make public its findings and recommendations regarding California's electricity price problems by November 1, 2000. It is, to say the least, a modest measure. I will take the occasion of these comments, Mr. Speaker, to note for a moment the very fine work which has been done during the course of the last 2 years by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Under his able guidance, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power reported a number of measures which, taken together, would have achieved substantial progress toward the creation of a national energy policy. Unfortunately, on the most significant of these topics, nuclear waste disposal and electricity industry restructuring, the legislative process stalled following the reporting of the legislation from the subcommittee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). And that happened despite the sound efforts of the gentleman to move the process forward. As a result of this legislative inaction, we find ourselves no closer to having a national energy policy today than we were finding ourselves when this Congress convened approximately 2 years ago. And I think that is sad. And so, today we find ourselves debating relatively modest policy initiatives, such as the measure that is now before us, which is a nonbinding resolution that merely expresses an opinion. While the measure might have some marginally beneficial effects, I would suggest that it is no substitute for leadership on energy policy. MR. COX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I have long had a keen interest in how the Internet revolution is affecting the relationship between citizens and their government. In my own district, we have held an annual conference at which we discuss what government can do better to improve the way it delivers services and information to the public via the Internet. As we seek to find ways to better connect with our increasingly Internet-savvy constituents, I think our colleagues may learn much by looking at how state and local governments are using electronic means to deliver services to the public. For this reason, I thought my colleagues would be interested in the results of a study entitled, ``Benchmarking the eGovernment Revolution: Year 2000 Report on Citizen and Business Demand.'' I understand this to have been the first national survey that asked citizens and businesses what state and local government services they want to access online. The survey found that citizens rank renewing their driver's license and voting online highest among the electronic government services they wish to perform. Businesses are most interested in searching court records and obtaining or renewing professional licenses online. Perhaps surprisingly, both citizens and businesses expressed a high degree of willingness to pay modest transaction fees in return for the convenience of being able to access government services via the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The survey also confirmed that trust is the most critical issue facing government in providing online services to constituents. The survey found, for example, that only one-third of current Internet users trust the government to keep their records confidential. Clearly, government agencies are going to have to work harder to develop the level of trust necessary for citizens to increase their use of the Internet for accessing electronic government services. As part of the work of the Congressional Internet Caucus next year, we will undertake an effort to educate Members about how this ``eGovernment'' revolution is proceeding at the state level, as well as how they can better connect with their constituents through electronic means. As part of this effort, we need to assess ways to bridge the digital divide so that all of our constituents can participate in the Internet Century. I anticipate that we also will continue to offer a series of sessions on the most pressing Intellectual Property issues of the day, such as the award of business method patents and ways to update the Copyright Act so that it continues to reflect evolutions in technology. We will of course welcome the participation of all Members in the Caucus and their suggestions on developing new means of connecting with our constituents.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time, and I want to congratulate him on his fine work in bringing this measure to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the conference agreement and to urge its approval by the House. With this measure, we bring to conclusion a process that we launched 3 years ago to bring a much needed reform to the Nation's bankruptcy laws. In an era in which disposable incomes are growing, unemployment rates are low, and the economy is strong, consumer bankruptcy filings should be rare. Contrary, however, to this expectation, there are now more than 1.4 million annual bankruptcy filings, a 40 percent increase from 1996 and a 95 percent increase over the number of filings 1 decade ago. Bankruptcies of convenience are driving this increase. Bankruptcy was never meant to be used as a financial planning tool, but it is increasingly becoming a first stop rather than a last resort, as many filers who could repay a substantial part of what they owe are using the complete liquidation provisions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code rather than the court supervised repayment plans that are provided for in Chapter 13. The legislation that we bring to the floor today would direct more filers to use Chapter 13 plans. Those who can afford to make a substantial repayment of what they owe would be required to do so. This is a consumer protection measure. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just indicated, the typical American family is paying a hidden tax of at least $400 every year arising from the increased cost of credit and the increases in the prices for goods and services occasioned by the discharge of more than $50 billion annually in consumer bankruptcy filings. 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 this conference report. The alimony or the child support recipient is clearly better off under this conference agreement than she is under current law. At the present time, she stands number seven in the rank of priority for payment of claims in bankruptcy proceedings. This conference report places her number one. Her priority is elevated from number seven in current law to number one in this conference agreement. Her claim will be first in line for payment, and other provisions of the conference agreement make it easier for her to execute against the assets of the estate of the bankrupt person than under current law. In May of last year, this reform passed the House by the overwhelming vote of 315-108. A similar reform was approved in the other body by the vote of 83-14. The consensus in support of this reform is broad and it is bipartisan. I would note that the conference agreement we consider today actually moves in the direction of the bankruptcy filer. It contains a means- testing threshold for the use of Chapter 7 that is more generous to bankruptcy filers than the provision in the House bill. It provides that the filer can still use Chapter 7 if he cannot repay at least 25 percent of his unsecured debt over a 5-year period, and that is after accounting for his normal and necessary living expenses. The House provision was a somewhat less generous 20 percent. The conference agreement also provides that the filer can still use Chapter 7 unless he can repay at least $6,000 of what he owes over a 5- year period, and that also is after necessary living expenses. And that $6,000 figure over 5 years is compared to the less generous $50 per month over that same period in the House bill. The conference agreement also contains the credit card consumer disclosure guarantees that were in the Senate bill and assure that consumers have a better understanding of the consequences of only paying the minimum amount on their credit card statement. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his leadership on this and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who I was pleased to join as the original cosponsor of the first bankruptcy reform that we introduced. I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his excellent work in support of this effort and say that this is a balanced bipartisan measure which will provide a substantial reform and deserves the support of this House. I am pleased to urge approval of the conference report.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2415. I also rise in support of the inclusion of the bankruptcy reform legislation as a part of this measure. Inclusion of the legislation as part of this act will enable us to move forward with a much-needed reform of the bankruptcy laws. That reform was approved in this House in May by the overwhelming vote of 315 to 108, and I would suggest that that strong vote underscores the broad agreement among Members of the House on both sides of the aisle that we need a bankruptcy reform that restores an element of personal responsibility to the bankruptcy process. In February of this year, the Senate approved a similar measure by the vote of 83 to 14. Unfortunately, due to procedural hurdles in the Senate, it has been difficult to reach an agreement between the two bodies so that uniform legislation may be considered by both Chambers. The hurdles encountered in the other body have created the need to utilize the procedure that we are considering today. The legislation takes a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform. Our main goal in passing the legislation was to encourage those individuals who can repay a substantial part of what they owe to use the reorganization procedures of Chapter 13 rather than the complete liquidation procedures of Chapter 7. That is a modest and needed reform endorsed broadly in this House, endorsed broadly in the other House. All that we are asking now is the opportunity to have a conference to bring final agreement to this much- needed measure. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this House approve the motion to go to conference.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Mr. Berman, in introducing the Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000. As we look forward to shaping intellectual property law for the 21th Century, few issues in the 107th Congress will be more important than deciding whether, and under what conditions, the government should be issuing ``business method'' patents. Two years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in the State Street Bank decision that a patent could be issued on a method of doing business. Since then, the Patent and Trademark Office has been deluged with applications for business method patents. Unfortunately, the PTO has granted some highly questionable ones. Last year, it awarded a patent to Amazon.com for its ``one-click'' method of shopping at a web site. The press recently reported that the PTO is now on the verge of awarding a patent covering any computer-to-computer international commercial transaction. Something is fundamentally wrong with a system that allows individuals to get patents for doing the seemingly obvious. The root of the problem is that the PTO does not have adequate information--what is called ``prior art''--upon which to determine whether a business method is truly non-obvious and therefore entitled to patent protection. We're introducing this legislation in an effort to repair the system before the PTO awards more monopoly power to people doing the patently obvious. Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of concern in the high- tech community that the continued award of business method patents could lead to a significant amount of wasteful litigation, could stifle the development of new technology, and could retard the development of the Internet. Consider for a moment a few of the more extreme cases now in the courts: Amazon.com has sued Barnesandnoble. com, alleging that it infringed its ``one click'' shopping method, forcing its principal rival and other website merchants either to pay Amazon.com royalties for the use of any one click method or to use a ``two click'' means of selling books and records; Priceline has sued Microsoft for offering a ``name your price'' service on its Expedia travel site, even though the market economy of the Western world and the theory of microeconomics is predicated on individuals setting a price at which they are willing to purchase something; and The Red Cross has been sued for using computers to solicit contributions and donations from the public at large, even though philanthropy in this country has always depended on organizations making requests for contributions, whether by phone, in person, or through other means. It should be said that in these instances, the patent covers the basic concept of the business method, such as the one click to checkout or using computers to solicit donations or accomplish commercial transactions across international borders. The creator of the intellectual property can always obtain a copyright on the software that implements a particular method of doing these things, and no one would complain. What is new and disturbing is obtaining ownership of the entire concept of performing seemingly obvious acts whatever individual method of implementation is used, foreclosing the opportunity for competitors to develop new and different means of entering the business. I am hard-pressed to understand how the award of these kinds of patents will advance the greater public good. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to grant inventors exclusive rights to their discoveries ``[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. . . .'' Rewarding someone for ``inventing'' a method of doing something obvious on its face hardly seems to meet standard. In fact, rather than encouraging innovation, which is the purpose of the patent laws, it has the opposite effect by foreclosing entire markets to competition. Our purpose in introducing this bill today is threefold. First, given the importance of the subject and the critical need to support the development of new technology and the growth of the Internet, we believe it is important to begin a public debate now about how Congress should respond to the State Street Bank decision. Second, we want to develop through legislation an appropriate framework for the PTO to assess the claims asserted by would-be business method inventors and to give the public a meaningful opportunity to participate before--not just after--a patent is awarded. And finally, we hope to force business method patent applicants to disclose all the relevant prior art to the PTO, rather than hiding the ball as some do now. I want to stress that our bill does not outlaw or prohibit the award of business method patents. Rather, it is designed to ensure that these kinds of patents will only be issued when they truly represent something new and innovative--in other words, something that deserves protection. Our bill makes one important substantive change to the law and addresses two fundamental procedural defects in the current system. And in doing so, it will help create an urgently needed database of prior art so that patent examiners will have a better basis for evaluating claims made by applicants in the future. On substance, our bill would create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable. In these cases, the burden would be on the applicant to rebut the presumption of obviousness. On procedure, we would add new protections at the beginning and at the end of the current process. Unfortunately, the public rarely knows when the PTO is evaluating a proposed business method patent application, and thus has no opportunity to bring prior art and other information to the attention of a patent examiner or to argue that the statutory criteria for the award of a patent is for other reasons not met before it is too late to do any good. We, therefore, would require the PTO to give the public at large an opportunity early in the patent review process to submit prior art information and evidence that the claimed invention is already in public use or is obvious. In addition, if asked, the PTO would be required to conduct a proceeding comparable to the discretionary public use proceeding already on the books. At the end of the process, we would establish an opposition procedure so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit. Decisions in these proceedings would be made by an administrative opposition judge chosen from a panel of examiners with special expertise in evaluating business method patents. The bill makes two other important procedural changes. In cases involving business method patents, the burden of proof on the party seeking to show invalidity would be lowered from the current ``clear and convincing evidence standard'' to the ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard. And because we share the concern the PTO has about the lack of prior art being accessible to examiners, our bill would require an applicant for a business method patent to disclose the extent to which the applicant has searched for prior art. Taken together, these changes will enable the PTO to do a better job when examining business method patent applications, and they will ensure that the American public has an opportunity to participate more fully in the process, which should reduce the risk of the PTO awarding any more patents on the patently obvious.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2641, which makes constructive and noncontroversial changes to title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) of our Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), and their respective staffs for working with us at the subcommittee level and at the level of the full House Committee on Commerce to address a range of concerns that the minority originally had concerning these provisions. As the gentlewoman from Wyoming indicated, the bill reported by the Committee on Commerce makes a number of useful administrative changes to the uranium and thorium mill tailings cleanup program. First, it extends for 5 additional years the period during which licensees may apply to the Department of Energy for reimbursement of their share of the costs of approved cleanup projects. Secondly, the bill eliminates the requirement that certain funds be placed in escrow which will benefit all licensees by providing more flexibility to provide reimbursements for completed projects. And third, the bill extends the date by which the Secretary of Energy must determine that there are excess funds for cleaning up the gaseous diffusion plants. These changes reflect the reality that while the title X cleanup program has been largely successful, the work has taken longer than expected. I would stress, however, that the bill does not alter the formula for Federal reimbursement or in any way increase the program's previously authorized spending ceiling. The bill reported by the Committee on Commerce is supported by both the administration and industry. It has bipartisan support, and I am pleased to join with the gentlewoman in urging the approval by the House of this measure. I want to thank her, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) of our Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and the leadership of the full Committee on Commerce for their cooperation in addressing the concerns we originally had. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Representatives Burr, LaHood and Upton, in the introduction of legislation to reform our copyright laws so that individual consumers can store their own music on an Internet site and gain quick access to it anytime they choose, from anywhere they choose. The introduction of this legislation is a necessary step in addressing the growing chasm between new technology and old laws. It is a matter of high importance to Internet users. A new poll found that 79 percent of frequent Internet users believe that ``copyright laws should not infringe on an individual's access to the music that they have legally purchased.'' Our legislation will ensure that this wholly legitimate public expectation is not thwarted. Those same Internet users understand the responsibility that consumers have to pay legitimate royalties to the artists whose music they enjoy. Approximately the same majority of those surveyed (78 percent) said that the sharing and swapping of music which has not been purchased or without the consent of the artist or record company should not be permitted. Our legislation, the Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000, makes the Internet based transmission of a personal interactive performance (PIP) of a sound recording acceptable under copyright law. Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing. This technology makes it possible for people to travel from one place to another without needing to carry their record collection with them. Instead, they will be able to turn on a computer or other Internet connection device and gain immediate access to their music through the services of an Internet music provider. After the consumer shows proof of ownership of the music, he will be able to listen to it streamed to him over the Internet from any place that he has Internet access. Consumers would not be able to transfer music to someone else or use the music for commercial purposes under the provisions of our legislation. Since the only people who will be able to use the provision we are proposing have already purchased the music, the song writers, recording artists and record labels will lose not a penny in sales. The person who purchases music will, however, have a new opportunity to listen to his music from any place that he has Internet access. The new Internet application that enables purchasers to listen to their music from a variety of locations is a major advance. It offers greater mobility and convenience to those who purchase music while not depriving music creators of sales. We believe that the technology which gives rise to this new convenience should be encouraged, and our legislation will remove legacy copyright restrictions which were written for a different era and that threaten to strangle the technology in its infancy. It is our hope that other Members of the House will join us in recognizing the significant opportunities this new generation of technology holds and in recognizing the tremendous new consumer convenience this new Internet application makes possible. The co-sponsorship of our measure by other Members is welcome.

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 rise today in support of this measure. I want to congratulate our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), for his efforts on this measure. He has made an excellent case to the House for its approval, and I am pleased to urge its approval today. The legislation directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the deadline for commencement of construction on the Andrews project, which is a 24 megawatt hydroelectric facility to be located on the Chattahoochee River in Houston County, Alabama and Early County, Georgia. The construction deadline for the project expires on September 21 of this year, and it is the purpose of this legislation to extend that deadline. The legislation will extend the deadline for up to 3 additional 2-year periods. Congress has enacted similar legislation in past years extending construction deadlines on projects of this nature, and this particular legislation was reported unanimously by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power and by the full Committee on Commerce. I know of no objection to this legislation, either from any of our colleagues or from any States that have an interest in the project; and I am, therefore, pleased to urge its passage by the House. 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 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 want to begin this afternoon by commending our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his truly excellent work in bringing this measure forward. I think he has performed an important public service. I am pleased to lend my support to the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is cosponsored by 11 Democratic Members, including three Democratic members of the Committee on Commerce: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce and was passed by the full House by voice vote. It also was approved by the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. And today we consider that Senate amendment, which I am pleased to endorse and with regard to which I am pleased to urge approval. In 1996, the Committee on Commerce reported legislation which became law establishing minimum health and safety standards for professional boxing. The bill that we are considering today addresses abuses that occur on the business side of boxing. The bill contains protections for professional boxers against coercive contracts they may be pressured to sign by nonscrupulous promoters. The amendment to the bill added by the other body applies this same protection against coercive contracts that may be presented by broadcasters. In addition, the bill requires sanctioning organizations and promoters to disclose to the State boxing commissions any agreement that they may have with the boxer and any fees they charge the boxer in the case of a fight of 10 rounds or more. These, I think, are helpful provisions. Mr. Speaker, this bill has enjoyed broad support throughout the entire process, and I am pleased today to urge our colleagues to adopt the Senate amendment and give approval to this measure. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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 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 am pleased to rise today in support of this measure, which has been well described and characterized by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property; and I commend him for his leadership in bringing this measure to the floor today. The Federal Courts Improvement Act makes a variety of changes requested by the Judicial Conference to improve administration and operation of the United States courts. Among other measures, the bill harmonizes a variety of court fees, grants magistrate judges the power to exercise contempt authority in several instances, gives presiding judges the authority to allow media coverage of court proceedings in appropriate cases, and removes the automatic excuse from jury service for certain State and local employees and officials. These changes will improve the operation of the United States courts, and I am pleased to endorse them this afternoon and to encourage our colleagues to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 rise in support today of S. 1236 as reported by the Committee on Commerce. In its original form, this legislation would have authorized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend for 6 more years the deadline for commencing construction of the Arrowrock Dam Project in the State of Idaho. In his testimony before the subcommittee on the legislation, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stated his opposition to the bill in the form in which it was then pending before the committee because it would have extended the construction deadline on the Arrowrock Project for a total of up to 16 years. Traditionally, Congress extends these licenses for a total of only 10 years; and in those instances in which FERC does not object, licenses have been extended for up to that period. I am only aware of one instance in recent memory in which a license has been extended for as much as 16 years. When an entity holds a license but fails to develop a project, it is potentially preventing others from developing and exploiting that site for hydropower or for other uses. Sometimes a licensee who is not developing a site may be purposefully using license extensions for the very purpose of preventing other potential applicants from developing the site, and that is a process that is known as site banking. When those rare instances occur in which we extend the license beyond the traditional period of 10 years, it is crucial that we ensure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the authority and the direction from Congress to prevent site banking. The reported legislation of the Committee on Commerce, which was drafted with the full participation of the minority, ensures that the FERC has the authority to guard against site banking in this instance. The report is well drafted, and I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for ensuring that the committee report on the measure provides clear direction to FERC to be vigilant in this area. I had requested that treatment during subcommittee consideration; and, in fact, it was provided. The report clearly states that if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determines that the licensee is not pursuing construction in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements that are contained in section 13 of the Federal Power Act, then the committee expects the agency to refuse to grant a request for an additional license extension, and in that instance to terminate the license. The subcommittee also corrects an oversight by the other body which failed to provide for the reinstatement of the license in the event that it lapses. And I would note that in this case the license has in fact lapsed and that correction is contained in the substitute that we are considering today. Mr. Speaker, I support this measure as reported from the committee; and I am pleased to urge our colleagues to approve it this afternoon. 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 my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure in which I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), as principal cosponsor. The passage of this legislation is urgently needed. It offers the only opportunity for residents of medium-sized and small cities and virtually all of rural America to benefit from the new service that delivers local television signals to homes with satellite dishes. Last year we enacted a new law which, for the first time, enabled satellite television companies to deliver to satellite dish owners local television signals in addition to the national programming that these companies have traditionally offered. That was the good news. The somewhat less than good news is that those companies have decided that they can only make a profit by offering the new local into local service in the largest cities. Accordingly, medium-sized and small cities and rural portions of the Nation will not be served by the commercial companies. Of the 211 local television markets in the Nation, at most 67 will receive the commercially provided local into local satellite television service. The bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I have put forward is designed to fill the gap. Our intent is to create a means for every person who desires the service to have access to his local television stations delivered by satellite. Then, for the first time, there will be on a nationwide basis a truly viable competitive alternative to cable television. With the addition of the local TV service, satellite companies will be able to offer exactly the same programs, including local broadcast signals, that cable television has traditionally offered. For the first time, cable rates will be set through a competitive market and will be restrained. For the first time, the residents of many rural regions, such as the mountainous portion of Virginia that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I represent, who are blocked from the receipt of local TV signals because of mountainous terrain, will be able to view with a clear digital signal the local stations which are broadcast in their area. We will achieve these goals by providing a Federal loan guarantee in the amount of $1.25 billion through which a self-sustaining affordable service offering local TV signals by satellite can be launched on a nationwide basis. By this means, the residents of all 211 local television markets in the Nation will soon receive the new local into local satellite delivered television service. I want to commend my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership, as together we have structured this approach and brought the bill to the point of passage in the House today. It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman as we advance the interests of all rural Americans. I also want to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Agriculture for their excellent cooperation in bringing the measure to the floor. With the step that we are taking, we can assure that local news, sports, emergency announcements, weather reports, and community service programming that contribute to the broad popularity of local television broadcasts are available, not just in the largest cities, but in all television markets throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and others who will speak in urging the approval of this measure by the House today. amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. goodlatte.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor on H.R. 1396.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I use this time to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of our energy subcommittee, for his excellent work on this measure. The procedural difficulties that I referenced earlier were not of his doing. I know that, given his way, we would have had a different process and one that I think would have been somewhat more thorough. I urge my colleagues to approve this measure. It will reauthorize the authority of the President to manage the SPR. That is fundamentally important. I would encourage all Members to support the legislation.