Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Communications Commission has an accounting requirement that is no longer needed for any purpose, which costs companies subject to the requirement at least $270 million annually. That money could and should be used not for the compilation of useless accounting statements, but for the promotion of universal service and other consumer benefits, such as lower prices, better services, an investment in advanced technologies and investment in out- of-region facilities with which to offer competitive telecommunications services. The old accounting requirement was for the purpose of giving the Commission the information it needed for oversight of the rate-of- return regulation that was employed for all companies prior to 1991. But in 1991, the large companies became subject to price caps and were no longer subject to rate-of-return regulation. The accounting requirement as to these price-cap companies no longer has any purpose, and the Tauzin-Dingell amendment would assure that it no longer applies. The monies spent on these needless accounting reports can then be put to more productive purposes. I strongly urge the approval of the Tauzin-Dingell amendment.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Tauzin amendment.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the President's decision to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and in strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval. The Jackson-Vanik waiver process is designed to promote immigration from countries that do not have market economies. In the case of Vietnam, the waiver is working as intended. Since the waiver was granted, Vietnam has made steady progress under both the ROVR and the orderly departure programs. If the waiver is rescinded through the passage of this resolution, that progress, which depends entirely upon the cooperation of the Vietnamese government, will almost certainly be reversed. We have now negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam and progress is being made on human rights and on religious freedom matters. I urge the Members to reject this resolution and, in doing so, to give a vote of confidence to the very fine work of our former colleague, the Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, and his excellent staff, under whose guidance this outstanding progress is being made.

Mr. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask of the Chair the amount of time remaining for both sides?

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Today, Mr. Chairman, we will debate the approach that should be taken by the Congress to address the problems associated with the Y2K computer transition. These problems are real, and those on this side of the aisle share the concerns of the technology community that an addressing of these concerns by the Congress should be provided. I think the national interest will be well served through the adoption by the Congress of a framework through which Y2K problems can be presented and repairs made. Where repairs cannot be made, that framework should lead to the provision of appropriate damage payments. As we build that framework for the Y2K transition, it is important that we keep our focus on the actual unique circumstance that has been presented to the Congress. We must avoid the temptation to use the Y2K problem for the creation of a template to enact overly-broad legislative restrictions on litigation that would then be applied by future Congresses in other subject matter areas. I would ask the Members to bear in mind that we have a limited amount of time within which to pass this measure. For most legislation we have a longer time horizon, but this measure will only carry the protections we hope to extend if it is in place before the end of this year. Given the press of appropriation bills, which are immediately pending, we really have a very narrow window within which to act. And to act within that narrow time calls for a narrow measure, one that meets the legitimate needs of the companies that will be the subject of Y2K suits and one that is limited just to those legitimate needs. I have been pleased to work closely over the course of the past month with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) as we have structured a substitute that does meet those legitimate needs. Today, we will be offering that substitute. Our substitute will be a major help to all of the affected parties in making the Y2K transition. It is narrowly targeted to meet the needs that have been presented. It will not impose overly broad limits on litigation. It can be signed into law within the narrow window of opportunity that is present to us. As the Members consider H.R. 775, as reported from the committee, which, in my opinion, is overly broad, I will urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to also carefully consider the substitute that we are putting forward and to choose that approach that is best structured to solve the actual problems that have been presented and that can be enacted at the earliest possible time. Only our substitute meets that test.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) which strikes the bill's cap on punitive damages. Punitive damages impose punishment for conduct that is outrageous and deliberate, and it deters others from engaging in similar behavior. But the bill would cap punitive damages in Y2K actions at the greater of three times the amount of actual damages, or $250,000, and the lesser of these two amounts would be applicable if the defendant is a small business. In addition, a plaintiff would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that conduct carried out by the defendant showed a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others and was the proximate causes of the harm or the loss that is the subject of the Y2K claim. Collectively, these restrictions on punitive damages are likely to completely eliminate not only the incentive for seeking punitive damages but any realistic possibility of obtaining them. These restrictions are counterproductive in that they provide the greatest amount of liability protection to the worst offenders, those who have done the least to resolve their Y2K problems. In addition, absolute caps send a message to wrongdoers that it does not matter how harmful or malicious their behavior, they will never be liable for more than a set limit. These restrictions allow companies to ignore Y2K problems knowing that they can never be subjected to punitive damages for completely reckless and irresponsible behavior. This is clearly not the signal that we ought to be sending during this crucial time for the making of Y2K remediation efforts. This is yet another issue that has very little to do with the Y2K problem. While caps on punitive damages are not needed to address the genuine concerns of the Y2K transition, if the provision imposing the caps remains as a part of this bill, the bill will be vetoed. Given the limited amount of time that we have to put these changes and some genuinely needed protections into effect, the punitive damages cap seriously threatens our ability to provide as a legislative matter the protections that truly are needed. So I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). In adopting this amendment, we will improve the product and enhance greatly the opportunity to provide the protections that really are needed to address the Y2K transition.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I want to commend her for bringing this amendment to the House. This makes important changes that assure that commonly-used, everyday language can be embodied in the notice that is sent that would trigger the cooling-off period. I think it definitely improves the bill, and would encourage support for it.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My principal concern with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is that it moves the retroactive date for the effectiveness of the provisions contained in H.R. 775 to January 1, 1999, and all lawsuits filed since January 1, 1999 that fall within the general ambit of H.R. 775 would then be subjected to these new rules. In addition to the general constitutional and fairness questions that concern applying new legal restrictions to lawsuits that have already been brought, I think this amendment raises a whole host of legal uncertainties. For example, what happens to suits that have been filed which did not undergo the 90-day cooling off period? What about class actions that have already been filed and certified? What about cases that have been filed that did not meet the heightened pleading standard that is set forth in the bill? How would this early date affect settlements that have been achieved and that are now pending court approval? I have worked in the years that I have been in the House of Representatives on a number of tort reforms and have supported the enactment of several of them that are law today. These include the General Aviation Liability Act and the Volunteer Protection Act. These bills were carefully crafted. They were very bipartisan and we always sought to avoid the very problems concerning retroactivity that I am raising at this time. So while I understand the motivation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and I commend him for the leadership that he has shown in bringing a whole set of important concerns here today, it is with reluctance but with determination nonetheless that I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of encouraging support for his amendment. I think it represents a step forward in clarifying that actions for personal injuries are excluded from the provisions of the bill. It is a worthwhile provision and I encourage support for it.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. It is my pleasure to rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from California with whom I am pleased to be co-authoring this measure. I also urge opposition to the overly broad provisions of H.R. 775 as reported from the House Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, our substitute addresses in a straightforward and in a targeted fashion the genuine concerns that arise from the Y2K transition. The substitute provides for a cooling-off period. Before a suit is filed, plaintiffs would be required to give notice to potential defendants of a claim. Defendants would then have 30 days to respond to that notice and to provide a plan for how they would intend to repair the problem. They would then have an additional 60 days within which to affect those repairs. The substitute encourages alternative dispute resolution so as to avoid expensive litigation. The 90-day cooling-off period can be extended while any alternative dispute resolution process is in progress. The substitute requires that, if suit is filed, the plaintiff must state with particularity the problem he is having and the reason that the defendant or the defendants are responsible for that harm. This pleading requirement is designed to overcome the notice pleading rules that are currently in effect in some State courts. The substitute prohibits frivolous class-action suits. To sustain a Y2K class-action suit, the plaintiff would have to meet all of the normal class-action certification rules and, in addition, demonstrate that there is a material defect in the product or the service with respect to every member of the class. Every member of the class would have to show that he is affected by a material defect. This minimum injury requirement would go a very long way indeed toward avoiding and precluding frivolous or insubstantial class-action suits. The substitute imposes a clear duty on plaintiffs to mitigate damages. It codifies the economic loss doctrine now applied in many States for cases that involve a combination of contract and tort causes of action. Under that doctrine, damages are limited to those allowable under the contract claim unless there is also a personal injury or property damage shown. Economic losses, such as lost profits or business interruption, will not be permitted unless explicitly provided for in the contract itself. The tort cause of action will simply not extend to these elements of loss in the normal case. Very importantly, the substitute gives the court the ability to protect defendants who have a small proportionate share of the overall liability. The substitute says that the court can apply equitable principles and make sure that defendants who have a very small part of the responsibility for causing harm will have only a very small liability, and their liability will be directly proportional to the harm that they cause. We do have in this substitute an important proportional liability provision. The substitute truly meets the needs of the companies that will have Y2K liabilities. It is carefully targeted to meet the problem that has been presented. Our substitute does not contain the broader litigation restrictions that are a part of H.R. 775. Unlike H.R. 775, our substitute does not place a cap on damage awards. Unlike H.R. 775, our substitute does not introduce into American law a loser pays principle. Unlike H.R. 775, our substitute does not create a more rigorous standard of proof for plaintiffs to receive damages, and unlike H.R. 775, our substitute does not reduce the liability of corporate officials. These overly broad provisions of H.R. 775 are not necessary to address the genuine concerns that are presented in the Y2K transition. A measure that contains these overly broad provisions will not be signed into law. Our substitute would be signed into law if passed. Given the severely limited time that Congress has to put a Y2K transition measure into place before the start of the year, given the fact that H.R. 775 cannot become law, given that our substitute meets the real needs of the Y2K concern that has been presented and can in fact become law, I strongly urge the passage of our substitute and the defeat of the underlying bill unless it is amended with this substitute.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my Virginia colleague Bob Goodlatte, with whom I am privileged to cochair the Congressional Internet Caucus, in the introduction of two bills which taken together will address the major challenges confronting the Internet today. Heretofore, congressional debates on issues affecting the Internet have been ad hoc and have addressed single issues only. The legislation we are introducing today will provide the first comprehensive framework for debate by the Congress of the major current Internet policy challenges. The passage of both bills will truly promote the growth and development of the Internet: First, passage of the legislation will result in greater broadband deployment and an increase in the speed by which people connect to the Internet from their homes and their places of work. Telephone companies will be required to file plans with state public service commissions for the deployment of DSL services in all local exchanges where the deployment is both technolgicially feasible and economically reasonable. Today, only 50,000 subscribers nationwide have DSL service. Our legislation will result in those numbers increasing dramatically. We also seek to encourage competition in the provision of DSL services by reducing the regulatory burden on the offering of DSL for telephone companies which agree to make reconditioned loops for the provision of DSL services available in a timely fashion to competitors. To ensure an increase in Internet backbone capacity and to stimulate competition in the offering of backbone services, the legislation enables Bell Operating Companies to carry data across LATA boundaries to the extent that the data is not a voice-only service, whether or not the Bell Operating Company has obtained approval to offer inter-LATA services under section 271 of the 1996 Act. This provision will strongly encourage investment in the Internet backbone and the creation of greater competition among Internet backbone providers. That competition is essential to assure the retention of the current peering arrangements which promote low-cost Internet services. Our legislation gives legal voice to the policies of Internet Service Providers which are designed to protect their facilities from bulk mailings of unsolicited electronic advertisements. Spam can seriously degrade the performance of the Internet and clog the facilities of Internet Access Providers to the disadvantage of all users. In some instances, Internet Service Provider facilities have even crashed due to the onslaught of spam. If service providers have restrictive policies concerning the use of their facilities by spammers, those policies should be enforced, and our legislation provides the mechanism for the enforcement. Our legislation also makes it a criminal offense intentionally to falsify Internet domain, header information, date or time stamps, originating e-mail addresses or other e-mail identifiers or intentionally to sell or distribute any computer program which is designed or produced primarily for the purpose of concealing the source of routing information of bulk unsolicited electronic mail. This provision strikes at the practice of bulk e-mailers who through the use of specially designed software change the origination information in e- mail messages as each small cluster of messages is sent. That practice is used to defeat the blocking software of Internet Service Providers which deflects from their facilities large volumes of messages originating from a single source. The legislation will encourage electronic commerce by giving full authorization to properly authenticated electronic signatures. A variety of laws require a written document with a written signature for the enforceability for certain kinds of contracts. Our legislation will give full legal effect to contracts constructed online and prevent either party from disavowing the contract due to the absence of a physical written signature, if the identity of the contracting parties is properly authenticated and if certainty is created that the text of any document they construct has not been changed. The legislation sets forth specifics for obtaining that authentication. We propose to create a new right of privacy for Internet users. In response to the growing practice of web site operators of collecting information from web site users either directly through a registration form or indirectly through the implantation of a ``cookie'' on the user's hard disk, the legislation requires that all web site operators post their information collection and use policies in a conspicuous manner so that web site users will be informed of the information collected and the use to which that information is put and have an opportunity to exit the web site without any information being collected if the visitor objects to that collection and use of information. The provision will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. Finally, we propose to assure that all Americans retain complete freedom to select the Internet access provider of their choice. As the Internet has grown and developed, most Americans have connected to the Internet over telephone lines. While the telephone company has provided the transport, everyone has been free to select the company that will provide the Internet access. Even in instances where telephone companies offer both transport and Internet access services, the law has protected the right of the telephone company's customers to select an Internet access provider other than the telephone company. Unfortunately, as the cable industry begins the deployment of cable modem services, a different model is being pursued. At the present time, there is no federal law restricting the ability of cable companies to package their transport services and their affiliated Internet access services and require that customers purchasing high- speed transport also purchase the cable company's affiliated Internet access service. The largest cable multiple system operators are, in fact, bundling transport with Internet access and requiring that the affiliated Internet access services be purchased by cable modem customers. There are more than 2,000 Internet access providers nationwide. The vast majority of the ISPs are startup companies who have brought a new level of entrepreneurship to the telecommunications industry. Many of them will become the competitive local exchange carriers who will offer competition not only in the provision of Internet access, but in the offering of local telephone service and other telecommunications services as well. They will be important contributors to the competitive local exchange industry we envisioned when we wrote the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But these ISPs are severely threatened by the deployment by cable television companies of broadband Internet transport connections which also bundle affiliated Internet access services. The broad bandwidth of these services will surely attract a large clientele, much of which will be the existing customer base of independent ISP's. If the cable television companies are permitted to force their cable modem customers to purchase their affiliated Internet access services as a condition of subscribing to their high speed transport service, many independent ISP's will be foreclosed from a large portion of their existing customer base and from market growth opportunities. The legislation we are offering today assures that this anticompetitive practice will not occur and that all Internet transport platforms in the future will be open, much as telephone company transport platforms are open today. I am pleased to be participating on a bipartisan basis with Representative Goodlatte in offering this legislation, the enactment of which will assure that the Internet more rapidly achieves its potential to be the multimedia platform of choice for the delivery of voice, video and data.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I am pleased to rise in strong support of the adoption of this much- needed reform to our 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, in 1998, there were 1.4 million personal bankruptcy files, a 40 percent increase from the 1996 figure. In 1996, that figure reached one million for the first time. And, in 1998, there was a full 95 percent increase in the number of personal bankruptcy files from 1990. Bankruptcies of mere convenience are often 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 elect to use the complete liquidation provisions of Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy law, wipe out all of their debt, even that portion they could repay, and seek an entire fresh start. Our legislation will direct more filers into Chapter 13 plans and make sure that those who can afford to repay a substantial part of their debt are required to do so. Mr. Chairman, this is a consumer protection measure. The typical American family pays a hidden tax of $550 every year arising from the increased costs of credit and the increases in prices for goods and services occasioned by the discharge in bankruptcy of $50 billion in consumer debt on an annual basis. By requiring that people who can repay a substantial part of the debt they owe do so in Chapter 13 plans, we can greatly lessen that hidden tax, and this bill will accomplish that result. Another key point needs to be made about the legislation. The alimony or child support recipient is clearly better off under the terms of this bill than she is under present law. At the present time she stands seventh in the rank of priority for the payment of claims in bankruptcy. She is behind farmers making claims against warehouses and grain elevators. She is behind fishermen who make claims against their warehouses. Under this bill, the child support or alimony recipient will be elevated to the first priority. She will now stand number one in line for the payment of bankruptcy claims. And other provisions of the bill also make it easier for the bankrupt's assets to be paid to her. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will be offering amendments today that I will support and I encourage other Members to support, that will require greater disclosures on credit card statements of the costs of making the minimum monthly payment. Credit card statements would have to indicate that the ordinary finance charge on the outstanding balance would continue to accrue. The Moran amendment supplements other new consumer protection measures that are already a part of this bill. For example, credit card companies will be prohibited from terminating a customer's account simply because that customer pays his bills on time and therefore does not accrue finance charges. That is a very appropriate change to make and is one of many consumer protection measures contained in the bill. This is a balanced, bipartisan measure which contains new consumer protections and requires greater debt repayment by those who can afford to make that repayment. This measure, when considered on the floor of the House as a conference report last year, obtained the votes of 300 of the Members, clearly demonstrating the broad bipartisan base for enacting this reform. I am pleased to be coauthoring this measure with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I want to commend him for his leadership in bringing this balanced and bipartisan bill to the floor. I am pleased to join with him in urging its passage by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Michigan. If adopted, the amendment would seriously undermine the needs-based test for the entry into Chapter 7 that is at the very core of this bankruptcy reform. Our major goal in proposing bankruptcy reform is to assure that people who need bankruptcy protection, but who can afford to repay a substantial part of what they owe, receive their protection in Chapter 13 plans in which the court will supervise the repayment. In the process of determining who can afford to repay a substantial part of their debt, the bill subtracts from the debtor's monthly income a number of items: All secured debt is subtracted; all priority debts, including child support and back taxes are subtracted; certain school tuition costs are subtracted; and living expenses based upon standards determined by the Internal Revenue Service are also subtracted. The amendment that is now being considered would replace the certainty of the IRS standard with a discretionary standard for bankruptcy judges to determine what expenses are reasonably necessary. The certainty of the IRS standard should be retained, and, in support of that position, I would cite these arguments. First, the Internal Revenue Service standards are generous. In a review of 2,100 bankruptcy filings in 1997 conducted by a major accounting firm, it was found that the living expenses under the IRS standard are, on average, 8 percent higher than the actual expenses reported by Chapter 7 filers. The expenses allowed under the standard are clearly more than adequate. Secondly, discretion already exists for bankruptcy judges and trustees to move filers from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 by the filing of a motion alleging that petitioners are substantially abusing Chapter 7 because they can repay a large part of the debt and really belong in Chapter 13. But, as a practical matter, these motions are rarely filed today by trustees or by bankruptcy judges. The amendment now under consideration would simply move this complete discretion over whether to bring a substantial abuse motion to the living expense portion of the process. Since judges and trustees have been reluctant to use their existing discretion to require a greater use of Chapter 13 and the lesser use of Chapter 7, there is little reason to have confidence that essentially the same discretion will be any better used under the Hyde-Conyers amendment than it is under the current process. If it is not, the core reform that we are seeking to achieve will not be achieved. The better course is to reject this amendment and to retain the certainty of the IRS standard in determining reasonable living expenses.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I am pleased to rise in support of the legislation and I also want to commend the bipartisan leadership of both the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Commerce and their staffs that have worked effectively in order to achieve this reform. Thousands of my constituents and millions of rural residents throughout the Nation cannot receive an adequate signal from their local TV station. They typically live in mountainous regions where their receipt of a good local TV signal is effectively blocked by the obstructions between their homes and the local TV stations. In 1988, we enacted the section 119 compulsory license that enables these residents to receive via satellite the network signals that they cannot receive from local stations. The legislation that we are approving today extends that license and creates a better means of predicting which homes can receive adequate local television signals. It is my hope that this new standard and this new predictive model will put to rest the controversy that has long simmered between local broadcasters on the one hand and the satellite carriers and their customers on the other over which homes are eligible to receive satellite-delivered network signals. The bill achieves another very important objective. It authorizes the uplink of local stations and the satellite delivery of those stations back into the market of their origination. This local-into-local service will enable the satellite industry to become a more viable competitor to the cable television industry, with Americans receiving the consequent benefits of market-established rates for multi-channel video programming. This new service will also increase the ability of local broadcasters to reach all of the homes within their service territories. I am concerned, however, that the business plans of the carriers that have announced an interest in offering the local-to-local services extend only to the largest 67 out of 211 local television markets around the country. Under this plan, most of rural America simply will not receive the benefit of this local-into-local service. To address this concern, the bill directs the Copyright Office and the Department of Commerce to conduct an in-depth study of the availability of local television signals in rural America. A report to the Congress with findings and recommendations is directed for the year 2000, and it is my hope that this examination will lead to constructive steps that, in turn, will assure the ability of more rural residents to receive high-quality local television signals. I commend those who have authored this measure. I was pleased to participate with them both in the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary as we considered it, and I strongly urge its passage by the House.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has answered well the arguments that have been made in support of the point of order. There is actual precedent for the acceptance by the House of a resolution of censure as an amendment to the impeachment resolution. That occurred in the matter of the impeachment of Judge Peck in 1830. In response to the argument that censure is nonprivileged material and that it may not be used to amend privileged material, the gentleman has pointed to instances in which the House has treated censure as privileged. And the gentleman persuasively argues that by their own language the articles of impeachment have a fundamental purpose that is both remedial and punitive. The punitive language of the censure resolution is, therefore, not inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, this is a question of first impression. The Chair has never ruled before on this precise matter. We have had in our Republic 200 years of silence on the question of whether the substitution of a resolution of censure for the President's conduct to articles of impeachment shall be considered as germane. Given the unprecedented nature of the question, given the extraordinary gravity of the matter that is now before the House, given the inherent unfairness of not making a censure alternative available to the Members and the inherent unfairness of disallowing the consideration of the House by the American public's clearly preferred outcome for this inquiry, which is the passage of a resolution of censure, I urge the Chair to resolve all ambiguities in the rules and all doubts about their proper application in favor of finding that the resolution of censure is germane and permitting its consideration by the House. A finding of germaneness would do no violence to the precedents of the House. It would not overturn previous rulings of the Chair. It would allow us today to give voice to the public's overwhelming desire to put this unfortunate matter behind us with the stern censure and rebuke which the President, for his conduct, deserves. I thank the Chair for his patience in listening to these arguments, and I urge his finding that the resolution of censure is germane.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.