John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2281, the ``Digital Millennium Copyright Act,'' and I urge my colleagues to join me. This legislation is vitally important to the livelihoods of authors, musicians, filmmakers, software developers, and countless other creators of copyrighted works. However, just as important, this bill will preserve the legal right of information consumers to make ``fair use'' of copyrighted works just as they have done for over one hundred years. Why is this treaty and its implementing legislation important? The digital age has vastly improved the quality of these works that we all enjoy. Today limitless copies can be made with virtually no reduction in quality. Unfortunately, these improvements in technology do not come without a cost. Piracy of copyrighted works, particularly overseas, has increased dramatically, and copyright owners are desperately in need of additional protection to protect their property from thieves who increasingly prey on their creative ingenuity. However, there is another side to this story. As copyrighted works are afforded more protection, they will be encrypted in ``digital wrappers'' that make them impenetrable to anyone other than those who are willing to pay the going rate. While that may sound like the American way, it is not. United States copyright law historically has carved out important exceptions to the rights of copyright owners to have exclusive control over the use of their property. The most notable exception is ``fair use.'' Libraries and universities, for example, are permitted to freely use portions of copyrighted works legally for research and study. This practice has been a bedrock of our copyright law for over a century. Both Congress and the courts repeatedly have recognized this important balance in the law between the right of copyright owners to be compensated for their efforts, and the right of information consumers to use these works in limited ways to increase knowledge and understanding for the benefit of our whole society. We can now take great comfort in the fact that H.R. 2281 will continue to recognize this important balance. The ``fair use'' debate, though heated at times, was negotiated to an acceptable conclusion in the Commerce Committee, and this key compromise between the content and ``fair use'' communities is reflected in the bill on the floor today. Other critical matters were also resolved, such as protecting consumer privacy interests, electronic device manufacturing, and encryption research. I would like to commend my good friend from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, for his fine work on this bill. In addition, I would also like to give special thanks to Mr. Boucher and Mr. Klug who contributed so much to the resolution of the ``fair use'' issue, as well as Mr. Markey and Mr. Tauzin for their important efforts. Also, special thanks goes to all the staff who worked so hard on this legislation, in particular Justin Lilley with the Commerce Committee majority, Andy Levin and Kyra Fischbeck with the Commerce Committee minority, Ann Morton with Mr. Boucher, Kathy Hahn with Mr. Klug, Whitney Fox with Mr. Tauzin, and Colin Crowell with Mr. Markey, to name just a few. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great shock and sadness that I stand here to speak about the deaths of two fine officers who were so brutally shot down only a few feet from this Chamber on Friday afternoon. These heroes put their own lives on the line to save thousands of Capitol employees and visitors. My heart goes out to their families and their friends. I know that it must not be much consolation to know that they are heroes no longer with us when in reality we all would much rather have them with us, and because of them no tourists or workers died--if they hadn't been there it would have been much worse. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson showed us that the Capitol is safely guarded and that it is safe for folks to walk, enjoy and learn about the ``People's House.'' This unexpected and sudden tragedy apparently was the result of a disturbed individual. Unfortunately there is no way to make sure that Americans will not be exposed to such risk. However, I feel better walking the Halls of Congress on Capitol Hill knowing that officers of this dedication and ability are there to protect me, my constituents and my staff. The Capitol Hill Police Force should be commended for the bravery and efforts in the way that this very difficult situation was handled. Let us hope it will never have to be repeated.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would observe that here we are discussing the fundamental difference between the two bills. If you want to provide protection for the doctor-patient relationship, vote for the motion to recommit, because the motion to recommit assures that it will be medical necessity decided by the doctor that determines the course of treatment of a patient of an HMO, not some curious, insurance-oriented approach which would be decided by the Republican plan. One of my friends who is one of the outstanding physicians and surgeons in the 16th District called me to tell me about something that happened to him recently. He was made an examiner of medical claims. He was fired by the HMO. The reason was that he was making medical decisions, not insurance decisions. That is exactly the issue which is before us. If you want the doctor to decide what you and your family and your constituents are going to receive in the way of medical care, vote for the motion to recommit. If you want to have an unelected, unaccountable health care bureaucrat appointed by a health insurance company or an HMO, then vote against it. And what you will be doing, you will be vesting in the HMO the power to make a medical decision instead of seeing to it that that medical decision is made by the doctor in concert with his patient. Medical necessity should be decided by a doctor who is trusted by the patient, not by an unknown voice on the telephone who is neither doctor nor accountable, a health care bureaucrat. That is the point of this amendment. If you believe in the doctor-patient relationship and if you believe it is worth protecting, then vote ``aye'' on the motion to recommit. That is what is at stake, the doctor-patient relationship, and the doctor making a decision with regard to what constitutes medical necessity and what constitutes the need of the patient. To vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit is to assure that medical necessity is decided by an anonymous voice on the telephone belonging to no one with a relationship to the patient. Point of Order

Mr. DINGELL. 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. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Poshard). (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand). (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer). (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. Capps asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.