Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Do we have that many?

Mr. LEAHY. I heard the Senator earlier speaking about the problem the credit card companies say they have in declaring that if you pay the minimum amount what ultimately you are going to owe. I recall the Senator from Illinois made the same point in the Judiciary Committee markup. It struck me that the Senator from Illinois was correct in saying this will be a good thing to put on the credit card. So I asked a couple people who do programming in computers. I said: The Senator from Illinois has been told they can't extrapolate this; they can't put it on the bill. They said: Bull feathers. That's not the case at all. They said: This is the easiest thing to do. They have teenage interns in their company who would be glad, if you just gave them a couple access codes in the credit card companies, to show them how to program that. If you can program what the minimum payment is--and the minimum payment might come out to something like $118.39, because it is a certain percentage of the overall, which might be $1,229.81--you are dealing in such strange numbers; every credit card bill is different, every minimum payment is different, but they said with the same program that set that up, you can basically put in a couple more lines of code and it can be figured out. I mention this because I think that is the same experience the Senator from Illinois has had. I mention it because he is so absolutely right on this. This is not going to add any burden to the credit card companies. It is not going to be an additional cost to them because they already have the computers making the basic computations that are necessary. Frankly, my question is this: Is it not the studied position of my friend from Illinois that if the credit card companies want to let you know how much you are on the hook with them for, they can easily do it?

Mr. LEAHY. If we talk about grosses, that would be one that is matching a 20-person unit of a credit card company that would gross several billion dollars.

Mr. LEAHY. I have used the small business definition that the Senator from Delaware has used in the bill he cosponsored.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I hope when the time comes to vote this evening on the Leahy small business amendment that all Senators will vote for it. I have not heard the author of this bill, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the majority leader, or anybody else speak in opposition to it. Obviously, they can vote any way they want, but I have yet to hear anybody talk in opposition to it. The time used on the other side was not used in opposition to it. I hope this is an indication that we will look first and foremost at small businesses, those businesses with under 25 people, to give them parity with the multibillion-dollar corporations. When we voted last night, many said we were helping small businesses by throwing out the ergonomics rule. While I disagree on that particular rule, I do agree that small businesses should be helped. I grew up in the front of a small business store in Montpelier, VT. We lived in the front of the store. My parents had a small business in the back. Ninety percent of the businesses in Vermont are small but then many of the businesses nationwide are small businesses. If you define them as 25 employees or less, with 5,541,000 businesses in America, nearly 5 million of them are small businesses. What I want to do is make sure we protect small business creditors from losing out in the bankruptcy reform process. They ought to be protected. The way the bill is written now--and I hope this was not intentional--but the way it is written puts large multibillion-dollar credit card companies ahead of hard-working small business people-- farmers, ranchers, Main Street mom-and-pop stores. It puts these huge companies ahead of them in collecting outstanding debt from those who file for bankruptcy. I do not think any one of us intended that. I do not think any one of us actually want to go back home and tell all the farmers, ranchers, and small business people in our States that we put the credit card companies ahead of them. My amendment gives small business creditors a priority over larger businesses when it comes to distributions of the bankruptcy estate. It provides a small business creditor priority over larger for-profit business creditors. It does not affect the bill's provisions which give top priority in bankruptcy distributions to child support and alimony payments. We already set certain priorities. We do it for alimony payments. We do it for child support. We ought to do it for our Main Street businesses and our farmers and ranchers. We ought to give them the same kind of leg up over a deep-pocket, multibillion-dollar corporation. If a large credit card company has John Jones or Mary Smith go into bankruptcy, and they owe them, say, $3,000, and they owe the local feed store $3,000, obviously this $3,000 shows up differently on the bottom line of MasterCard than it does on the bottom line of the Jones Feed and Grain Store. It is a much bigger bite for that small store, and they ought to be given priority. That is all I am asking for in this. I cannot imagine any small business organization that would not be supportive of this. We should actually be helping small businesses navigate the often complex and confusing bankruptcy process because they are not going to be able to afford a galaxy of lawyers and accountants. The huge companies have these people on retainer because they handle bankruptcy matters all over the place. For the small store, this may be their bottom line for the year. It may be the one bankruptcy they are trying to collect for the year, and they could be out of business as a result. They need priority just to keep pace with big business. Small business is the backbone of our economy. In fact, I use the same definition of a small business creditor that is already in section 102 of the bill. All I am saying is same rules, but if you are going to give priority, give the priority not to the multibillion-dollar corporation for whom this $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000 claim is nothing. Give the priority to that small store, that small company on Main Street that may have to really do something. I don't want them to have to get in line behind the huge credit card companies. For them, it may mean the difference between going out of business or not, not the difference between whether it means one one-hundred-thousandth of 1 percent.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was not aware of the funeral. Perhaps this is a plea the Senator from Utah would join; that if other Senators from both sides have amendments that are available, we urge them to get down here. The Senator from Utah and I will work to the extent that people are here, probably go back and forth with amendments and start voting soon. On our side of the aisle, I urge all Democrats who have amendments to get to the floor, show them to the Republican side and this side, and start moving on amendments.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate last night voted for a resolution of disapproval of the new ergonomics regulations. Supporters of the resolution said the ergonomics rules would hurt small businesses and would cost millions in revenues each year. In fact, some claimed it would actually force them out of business. I disagreed with that analysis of the ergonomics rule, but I do agree with the underlying principle that the Senate should be passing legislation to foster small businesses across the country. I am going to offer an amendment to protect small business creditors from losing out in the bankruptcy reform process. I assume all those who are speaking strongly in favor of small businesses would be supportive of this. The bankruptcy bill today puts the multibillion-dollar credit card companies ahead of the hard-working small business people from Utah, Alabama, Nevada, Kentucky, or Vermont in collecting outstanding debt from those who file for bankruptcy. My amendment corrects that injustice by giving small business creditors a priority over larger businesses when it comes to distribution of the bankruptcy estate. The amendment provides a small business creditor has priority over the larger for-profit business creditor. My amendment does not affect the bill's provision giving top priority in bankruptcy distribution to child support and alimony payments, but we should be helping small businesses navigate through the often complex and confusing bankruptcy process. Small businesses cannot afford the high-priced bankruptcy lawyers corporate giants can afford. Small business creditors need some kind of priority just to keep even with the big companies. Small businesses are the backbone of this Nation's economy. Take a look at this chart. The total number of businesses nationwide is 5,541,918. Of those 5.5 million businesses, almost 5 million are small businesses, or 90 percent of all businesses in this country are small businesses. Small business, for the purpose of this report, incidentally, is defined as a company with 25 or fewer full-time employees. That is the same definition of small business used in my amendment, which is very similar to the Leahy Press and Printing business in Montpelier, VT. In full disclosure, my family sold that business when my parents retired. It is gone. This was a small printing business. We actually lived in the front of the store. Our house was in the front. The printing business was in the back, but it was typical of small businesses that are the backbone of my own State of Vermont. In Vermont, we have 19,000 businesses. Almost 17,000 of them are small businesses, again following the national model. In virtually every State, 90 percent of the businesses are small. The bill, as it is written, will help the huge multibillion-dollar credit card companies, and they have far more of a priority than these small mom-and-pop stores. We can do right. It is not fair for us to ask these small businesses, again, to hand over everything they have to the lawyers and accountants of these huge megabusinesses when it comes to collecting outstanding debt. Large credit card corporations have thousands of employees. They rake in billions of dollars of profit every year. Small businesses struggle every day just to pay their bills and their employees' salaries. Let us put these small businesses on an equal footing with big businesses by adopting the Leahy small business amendment. In that regard, I appreciate what our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, said on the floor last Wednesday. He spoke about the hardships his parents suffered when they tried to run a small business. His parents ran a furniture business, and most of the business was done on credit. One of the reasons they were forced to leave that business was that some people just would not pay their bills, according to the majority leader. I mentioned earlier Leahy Press in Montpelier. My parents did an awful lot of business on credit. I know they faced some of the same problems the majority leader's parents did. I have always remembered that. It is not easy for a small business owner to make an honest living, whether during our parents' time or today, and it is not fair now to allow large corporate giants to grab their share first in this bankruptcy bill ahead of hard-working small businesspeople. Many of the most controversial proposals in this bankruptcy bill are to benefit the credit card industry and then to use taxpayer money to help them support their debt collection of billions of dollars, but they also want tax dollars to help them in the collection of their debts. Business Week recently reported that Dean Witter estimated this bill would boost the earnings of credit card companies by 5 percent a year. In other words, we as taxpayers would increase the credit card companies' business by 5 percent. One credit card company alone, MBNA, will make a net profit of $75 million a year more if we, on behalf of the taxpayers in this country, pass this bill as it is written. Across the industry, credit card company after credit card company will reap millions of dollars in profits because of the changes this bill makes to the bankruptcy code. I understand credit card companies are worried about collecting debts because their credit extended is typically unsecured, especially when they send credit cards, in some instances, to somebody's dog--I know of that happening--or send a credit card to someone's 4-year-old child with an unsecured credit line. If one were cynical, one might say that some of this problem is of their own doing, but we should understand most small businesses face this peril. It is not fair to carve out a special exemption for the multibillion-dollar credit card companies but leave the small businesses of Provo, UT, or Middlesex, VT, to fend for themselves. That is why I am offering this amendment to put small business owners at least on an equal footing with large credit card companies. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week the distinguished majority leader said we needed to pass this bill to help small business creditors in bankruptcy. I agree with him. Tonight we can take a bipartisan step to do just that. This amendment provides small business creditors with the priority distribution from the bankruptcy estate. They make up 90 percent of the businesses in our country. These are the mom-and-pop stores across the country--the feedstores, the small ranchers, and the small farmers. They are the backbone of our economy. We are already giving different preferences in this bill. All I am saying is that if you have to have the first preference to a multibillion-dollar credit card company, or the stores on your main street of your hometown, when you list those preferences, give the stores the first preferences. It doesn't let any debtors off their debt, but it helps the small businesses of America.

Mr. LEAHY. I think not. Let me talk about what this does: 5 percent to the small feed and grain store could be the difference for them for the year and whether they make it or don't make it. Dean Witter said this bill gives just one credit card company alone, MBNA, an increase in net profits of 5 percent. That is $75 million. With most of these small businesses we are talking about, 5 percent is not 5 percent of MBNA. What we want to do--we carve out a special exemption for credit card companies but leave small business owners fending for themselves--is put the small business owners on at least an equal footing. The credit card companies say they need an exemption because their debts are typically unsecured. Most of these small businesses are exactly the same. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 14

Mr. LEAHY. Cosponsored by the Senator from Delaware. I am using his definition.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have an amendment on which we are prepared to vote. I mention this only because I have heard constantly on the other side how anxious they are to move this bill forward. I brought this amendment up, proposed it, and am ready to go to vote all within 7 or 8 minutes. I don't want anyone to think we are trying to hold anything up. Frankly, I think this whole bill would have been finished this afternoon if we had not been interrupted for the ergonomics.

Mr. LEAHY. This is the bill that is presently before the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Are we going to change the definition of small business in the bill that the Senator from Delaware cosponsored?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we owe the millions of small business owners across America, who are the backbone of our economy, adequate protection from unforeseen bankruptcy losses. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy small business amendment to provide small business creditors with a simple priority in bankruptcy proceedings. They deserve it. Remember what this does: It gives small business creditors priority over larger for-profit business creditors in the order of distribution under chapters 11, 12, and 13 of the bankruptcy code. It defines small business as any business with 25 or fewer full-time employees. That same definition of small business is already used in the bill for small business creditors. It does not affect the bill's provisions giving top priority in bankruptcy distributions to child support and alimony payments. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. If you had a car dealer that grossed that amount of money, considering the fact they often make only $100 or $200 on a car, although the cars sell at $30,000 or $40,000. By the same token, the collection unit might be 20 people and they get several billions of dollars. The bottom line: The percentage of what is going to be the net profits is considerably different. What this is going to affect--which is why I use the Senator from Delaware and his definition of a small business in the bill--these are the same people, in most likelihood, the mom-and-pop store for whom $3,000 or $4,000 may mean making the mortgage payment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a little over one year ago, I came to this floor to draw attention to the growing crisis in the administration of capital punishment. I noted the startling number of cases, 85, in which death row inmates had been exonerated after long stays in prison. In some of those cases, the inmate had come within days of being executed. A lot has happened in a year. For one thing, a lot more death row inmates have been exonerated. The number jumped in a single year from 85 all the way to 95. There are now 95 people in 22 States who have been cleared of the crime that sent them to death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The appalling number of exonerations, and the fact that they span so many States, a substantial majority of the States that have the death penalty, makes it clearer than ever that the crisis I spoke of last year is real, and that it is national in its scope. This is not an ``Illinois problem'' or a ``Texas problem.'' Nor, with Earl Washington's release last month from prison, is it a ``Virginia problem.'' There are death penalty problems across the nation, and as a nation we need to pay attention to what is happening. It seems like every time you pick up a paper these days, there is another story about another person who was sentenced to death for a crime that he did not commit. The most horrifying miscarriages of justice are becoming commonplace: ``Yet Another Innocent Person Cleared By DNA, Walks Off Death Row,'' story on page 10. We should never forget that behind each of these headlines is a person whose life was completely shattered and nearly extinguished by a wrongful conviction. And those were the ``lucky'' ones. We simply do not know how many innocent people remain on death row, and how many may already have been executed. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty. I have always opposed it. I did when I was a prosecutor, and I do today. But no matter what you believe about the death penalty, no one wants to see innocent people sentenced to death. It is completely unacceptable. A year ago, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act of 2000. I hoped this bill would stimulate a national debate and begin work on national reforms on what is, as I said, a national problem. A year later, the national debate is well under way, but the need for real, concrete reforms is more urgent than ever. Today, my friend Gordon Smith and I are introducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2001. We are joined by Senators from both sides of the aisle, by some who support capital punishment and by others who oppose it. On the Republican side, I want to thank Senators Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee, and my fellow Vermonter Jim Jeffords. On the Democratic side, my thanks to Senators Levin, Feingold, Kennedy, Akaka, Mikulski, Dodd, Lieberman, Torricelli, Wellstone, Boxer and Corzine. I also want to thank our House sponsors William Delahunt, and Ray LaHood, along with their 117 additional cosponsors, both Democratic and Republican. Over the last year we have turned the corner in showing that the death process is broken. Now we will push forward to our goal of acting on reforms that address these problems. Here on Capitol Hill it is our job to represent the public. The scores of legislators who have sponsored this legislation clearly do represent the American public, both in their diversity and in their readiness to work together in a bipartisan manner for common-sense solutions. Too often in this chamber, we find ourselves dividing along party or ideological lines. The Innocence Protection Act is not about that, and it is not about whether, in the abstract, you favor or disfavor the death penalty. It is about what kind of society we want America to be in the 21st Century. The goal of our bill is simple, but profoundly important: to reduce the risk of mistaken executions. The Innocence Protection Act proposes basic, common-sense reforms to our criminal justice system that are designed to protect the innocent and to ensure that if the death penalty is imposed, it is the result of informed and reasoned deliberation, not politics, luck, bias, or guesswork. We have listened to a lot of good advice and made some refinements to the bill since the last Congress, but it is still structured around two principal reforms: improving the availability of DNA testing, and ensuring reasonable minimum standards and funding for court-appointed counsel. The need to make DNA testing more available is obvious. DNA is the fingerpint of the 21st Century. Prosecutors across the country use it, and rightly so, to prove guilt. By the same token, it should be used to do what it is equally scientifically reliable to do, prove innocence. Our bill would provide broader access to DNA testing by convicted offenders. It would also prevent the premature destruction of biological evidence that could hold the key to clearing an innocent person or identifying the real culprit. I am gratified that our bill has served as a catalyst for reforms in the States with respect to post-conviction DNA testing. In just one year, several States have passed some form of DNA legislation. Others have DNA bills under consideration. Much of this legislation is modeled on the DNA provisions proposed in the Innocence Protection Act, and we can be proud about this. But there are still many States that have not moved on this issue, even though it has been more than six years since New York passed the Nation's first post-conviction DNA statute. And some of the States that have acted have done so in ways that will leave the vast majority of prisoners without access to DNA testing. Moreover, none of these new laws addresses the larger and more urgent problem of ensuring that people facing the death penalty have adequate legal representation. The Innocence Protection Act does address this problem. In our adversarial system of justice, effective assistance of counsel is essential to the fair administration of justice. Unfortunately, the manner in which defense lawyers are selected and compensated in death penalty cases too often results in fundamental unfairness and unreliable verdicts. More than two-thirds of all death sentences are overturned on appeal or after post-conviction review because of errors in the trial; such errors are minimized when the defendant has a competent counsel. It is a sobering fact that in some areas of the Nation it is often better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. All too often, lawyers defending people whose lives are at stake are inexperienced, inept, or just plain incompetent. All too often, they fail to take the time to review the evidence and understand the basic facts of the case before the trial is under way. The reasons for this inadequacy of representation are well know: lack of standards for choosing defense counsel, and lack of funding for this type of legal service. The Innocence Protection Act addresses these problems head on. It calls for the creation of a temporary Commission on Capital Representation, which would consist of distinguished American legal experts who have experienced the criminal justice system first hand, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. The Commission would be tasked with formulating standards that specify the elements of an effective system for providing adequate representation in capital cases. The bill also authorizes more than $50,000,000 in grants to help put the new standards into effect. We have consulted a great many legal experts in the course of formulating these provisions. They have all provided valuable insights, but as a former prosecutor myself, I have been particularly pleased with the encouragement and assistance we have received from prosecutors across the nation. Good prosecutors have two things in common. First, good prosecutors want to convict the person, not to get a conviction that may be a mistake, and that may leave the real culprit in the clear. Second, good prosecutors want defendants to be represented by good defense lawyers. Lawyers who investigate their client's cases thoroughly before trial, and represent their clients vigorously in court, are essential in getting at the truth in our adversarial system. Given some leadership from the people's representatives in Congress, some fair and objective standards, and some funding, America's prosecutors will be ready, willing and able to help fix the system. We owe them, and the American people, that leadership. On August 3, 1995, more than five years ago, the Conference of Chief Justices urged the judicial leadership in each State in which the death penalty is authorized by law to ``establish standards and a process that will assure the timely appointment of competent counsel, with adequate resources, to represent defendants in capital cases at each stage of such proceedings.'' The States' top jurists, the people who run our justice system, called for reform. But not much came of their initiative. Although a few States have established effective standards and sound administrative systems for the appointment and compensation of counsel in capital cases, most have not. The do-nothing politics of gridlock got in the way of sensible, consensus-based reform. We have made a commitment to the American people to do better than that. At the end of the last Congress, members on both sides of the aisle joined together to pass the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act and the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act. I strongly supported both bills, which will give States the help they desperately need to reduce the backlogs of untested DNA evidence in their crime labs, and to improve the quality and capacity of these facilities. Both bills passed unanimously in both houses. And in both bills, all of us here in Congress committed ourselves to working with the States to ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, and to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases through the establishment of counsel standards. Congress has already gone on record in recognizing what has to be done. Now it is time to actually do it. If we had a series of close calls in airline traffic, we would be rushing to fix the problem. These close calls on death row should concentrate our minds, and focus our will, to act. This new Congress is, as our new President has said, a time for leadership. It is a time for fulfilling the commitments we have made to the American people. And it is a time for action. The Innocence Protection Act is a bipartisan effort to move beyond the politics of gridlock. By passing it, we can work cooperatively with the States to ensure that defendants who are put on trial for their lives have competent legal representation at every stage of their cases. By passing it, we can send a message about the values of fundamental justice that unite all Americans. And by passing it, we can substantially reduce the risk of executing innocent people. We have had a constructive debate, and we have made a noble commitment. It is now time to act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, an important responsibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee is fulfilling the mandate set forth in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Chairman Hatch and I, and other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, have worked together successfully over the years to update and make necessary adjustments to our copyright, patent and trademark laws to carry out this responsibility. We have strived to do so in a manner that advances the rights of intellectual property owners while protecting the important interests of users of the creative works that make our culture a vibrant force in this global economy. Several years ago, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, we asked the Copyright Office to perform a study of the complex copyright issues involved in distance education and to make recommendations to us for any legislative changes. In conducting that study, Maybeth Peters, the Registrar of Copyrights met informally with interested Vermonters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont, to hear their concerns on this issue. Champlain College has been offering on-line distance learning programs since 1993, with a number of online programs, including for degrees in accounting, business, and hotel- restaurant management. The Copyright Office released its report in May, 1999, at a hearing held in this Committee, and made valuable suggestions on how modest changes in our copyright law could go a long way to foster the appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning activities. I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization, or TEACH, Act, that incorporates the legislative recommendations of that report. This legislation will help clarify the law and allow educators to use the same rich material in distance learning over the Internet that they are able to use in face-to-face classroom instruction. The growth of distance learning is exploding, largely because it is responsive to the needs of older, non-traditional students. The Copyright Office, CO, report noted two years ago that, by 2002, the number of students taking distance education courses will represent 15 percent of all higher education students. Moreover, the typical average distance learning student is 34 years old, employed full-time and has previous college credit. More than half are women. In increasing numbers, students in other countries are benefitting from educational opportunities here through U.S. distance education programs. In high schools, distance education makes advanced college placement and college equivalency courses available, a great opportunity for residents in our more-rural states. In colleges, distance education makes lifelong learning a practical reality. Not only does distance education make it more convenient for many students to pursue an education, for students who have full-time work commitments, who live in rural areas or in foreign countries, who have difficulty obtaining child or elder care, or who have physical disabilities, distance education may be the only means for them to pursue an education. These are the people with busy schedules who need the flexibility that on-line programs offer: virtual classrooms accessible when the student is ready, and free, to log-on. In Vermont and many other rural states, distance learning is a critical component of any quality educational and economic development system. In fact, the most recent Vermont Telecommunications Plan, which was published in 1999 and is updated at regular intervals, identifies distance learning as being critical to Vermont's development. It also recommends that Vermont consider ``using its purchasing power to accelerate the introduction of new [distance learning] services in Vermont.'' Technology has empowered individuals in the most remote communities to have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their education and ensure they are competitive for jobs in the 21st century. Several years ago, I was proud to work with the state in establishing the Vermont Interactive Television network. This constant two-way video-conferencing system can reach communities, schools and businesses in every corner of the State. Since we first successfully secured funds to build the backbone of the system, Vermont has constructed fourteen sites. The VIT system is currently running at full capacity and has demonstrated that in Vermont, technology highways are just as important as our transportation highways. No one single technology should be the platform for distance learning. In Vermont, creative uses of available resources have put in place a distance learning system that employees T-1 lines in some areas and traditional internet modem hook-ups in others. Several years ago, the Grand Isle Supervisory Union received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to link all the schools within the district with fiber optic cable. There are not a lot of students in this Supervisory Union but these is a lot of land separating one school from another. The bandwidth created by the fiber optic cables has not only improved the educational opportunities in the four Grand Isle towns, but it has also provided a vital economic boost to the area's business. While there are wonderful examples of the use of distance learning inside Vermont, the opportunities provided by these technologies are not limited to the borders of one state, or even one country. Champlain College, a small school in Burlington, Vermont has shown this is true when it adopted a strategic plan to provide distance learning for students throughout the world. Under the leadership of President Roger Perry, Champlain College now has more students enrolled than any other college in Vermont. The campus in Vermont has not been overwhelmed with the increase. Instead, Champlain now teaches a large number of students overseas through its on-line curriculum. Similarly, Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont, offers innovative graduate programs designed for working professionals with classes that meet not only in person but also online. The Internet, with its interactive, multi-media capabilities, has been a significant development for distance learning. By contrast to the traditional, passive approach of distance learning where a student located remotely from a classroom was able to watch a lecture being broadcast at a fixed time over the air, distance learners today can participate in real-time class discussions, or in simultaneous multimedia projects. The Copyright Office report confirms what I have assumed for some time--that ``the computer is the most versatile of distance education instruments,'' not just in terms of flexible schedules, but also in terms of the material available. Over twenty years ago, the Congress recognized the potential of broadcast and cable technology to supplement classroom teaching, and to bring the classroom to those who, because of their disabilities or other special circumstances, are unable to attend classes. At the same time, Congress also recognized the potential for unauthorized transmissions of works to harm the markets for educational uses of copyrighted materials. The present Copyright Act strikes a careful balance and includes two narrowly crafted exemptions for distance learning, in addition to the general fair use exemption. Under current law, the performance or display of any work in the course of face-to-face instruction in a classroom is exempt from the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. In addition, the copyright law allows transmission of certain performances or displays of copyrighted works to be sent to a classroom or a similar place which is normally devoted to instruction, to persons whose disabilities or other special circumstances prevent classroom attendance, or to government employees. While this exemption is technology neutral and does not limit authorized ``transmissions'' to distance learning broadcasts, the exemption does not authorize the reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works--a limitation that has enormous implications for transmissions over computer networks. Digital transmissions over computer networks involve multiple acts of reproduction as a data packet is moved from one computer to another. The need to update our copyright law to address new developments in online distance learning was highlighted in the December, 2000 report of the Web-Based Education Commission, headed by former Senator Bob Kerrey. This Commission noted that: Current copyright law governing distance education . . . was based on broadcast models of telecourses for distance education. That law was not established with the virtual classroom in mind, nor does it resolve emerging issues of multimedia online, or provide a framework for permitting digital transmissions. This report further observed that ``This current state of affairs is confusing and frustrating for educators. . . . Concern about inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts, to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.'' In conclusion, the report concluded that our copyright laws were ``inappropriately restrictive.'' The TEACH Act makes three significant expansions in the distance learning exemption in our copyright law, while minimizing the additional risks to copyright owners that are inherent in exploiting works in a digital format. First, the bill eliminates the current eligibility requirements for the distance learning exemption that the instruction occur in a physical classroom or that special circumstances prevent the attendance of students in the classroom. Second, the bill clarifies that the distance learning exemption covers the temporary copies necessarily made in networked servers in the course of transmitting material over the Internet. Third, the current distance learning exemption only permits the transmission of the performance of ``non-dramatic literary or musical works,'' but does not allow the transmission of movies or videotapes, or the performance of plays. The Kerrey Commission report cited this limitation as an obstacle to distance learning in current copyright law and noted the following examples: A music instructor may play songs and other pieces of music in a classroom, but must seek permission from copyright holders in order to incorporate these works into an online version of the same class. A children's literature instructor may routinely display illustrations from childrens' books in the classroom, but must get licenses for each one for on online version of the course. To alleviate this disparity, the TEACH Act would amend current law to allow educators to show limited portions of dramatic literary and musical works, audiovisual works, and sound recordings, in addition to the complete versions of nondramatic literary and musical works which are currently exempted. This legislation is a balanced proposal that expands the educational use exemption in the copyright law for distance learning, but also contains a number of safeguards for copyright owners. In particular, the bill excludes from the exemption those works that are produced primarily for instructional use, because for such works, unlike entertainment products or materials of a general educational nature, the exemption could significantly cut into primary markets, impairing incentives to create. Indeed, the Web-Based Education Commission urged the development of ``high quality online educational content that meets the highest standards of educational excellence.'' Copyright protection can help provide the incentive for the development of such content. In addition, the bill requires the use by distance educators of technological safeguards to ensure that the dissemination of material covered under the exemption is limited only to the students who are intended to receive it. Finally, the TEACH Act directs the Copyright Office to conduct a study on the status of licensing for private and public school digital distance education programs and the use of copyrighted works in such programs, and to convene a conference to develop guidelines for the use of copyrighted works for digital distance education under the fair use doctrine and the educational use exemptions in the copyright law. Both the Copyright Office report and the Kerrey Commission noted dissatisfaction with the licensing process for digital copyrighted works. According to the Copyright Office, many educational institutions ``describe having experienced recurrent problems [that] . . . can be broken down into three categories: difficulty locating the copyright owner; inability to obtain a timely response; and unreasonable prices for other terms.'' Similarly, the Kerrey Commission report echoed the same concern. A study focusing on these licensing issues will hopefully prove fruitful and constructive for both publishers and educational institutions. The Kerrey Commission report observed that ``[c]oncern about inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts, to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.'' For this reason, the Kerrey Commission report endorsed ``the U.S. Copyright Office proposal to convene education representatives and publisher stakeholders in order to build greater consensus and understanding of the `fair use' doctrine and its application in web- based education. The goal should be agreement on guidelines for the appropriate digital use of information and consensus on the licensing of content not covered by the fair use doctrine.'' The TEACH Act will provide the impetus for this process to begin. I appreciate that, generally speaking, copyright owners believe that current copyright laws are adequate to enable and foster legitimate distance learning activities. As the Copyright Office report noted, copyright owners are concerned that ``broadening the exemption would result in the loss of opportunities to license works for use in digital distance education'' and would increase the ``risk of unauthorized downstream uses of their works posed by digital technology.'' Based upon its review of distance learning, however, the Copyright Office concluded that updating section 110(2) in the manner proposed in the TEACH Act is ``advisable.'' I agree. At the same time we have made efforts to address the valid concerns of both the copyright owners and the educational and library community, and look forward to working with all interested stakeholders as this legislation is considered by the Judiciary Committee and the Congress. Distance education is an important issue to both the chairman and to me, and to the people of our States. I commend him for scheduling a hearing on this important legislation for next week.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a little over one year ago, I came to this floor to draw attention to the growing crisis in the administration of capital punishment. I noted the startling number of cases, 85, in which death row inmates had been exonerated after long stays in prison. In some of those cases, the inmate had come within days of being executed. A lot has happened in a year. For one thing, a lot more death row inmates have been exonerated. The number jumped in a single year from 85 all the way to 95. There are now 95 people in 22 States who have been cleared of the crime that sent them to death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The appalling number of exonerations, and the fact that they span so many States, a substantial majority of the States that have the death penalty, makes it clearer than ever that the crisis I spoke of last year is real, and that it is national in its scope. This is not an ``Illinois problem'' or a ``Texas problem.'' Nor, with Earl Washington's release last month from prison, is it a ``Virginia problem.'' There are death penalty problems across the nation, and as a nation we need to pay attention to what is happening. It seems like every time you pick up a paper these days, there is another story about another person who was sentenced to death for a crime that he did not commit. The most horrifying miscarriages of justice are becoming commonplace: ``Yet Another Innocent Person Cleared By DNA, Walks Off Death Row,'' story on page 10. We should never forget that behind each of these headlines is a person whose life was completely shattered and nearly extinguished by a wrongful conviction. And those were the ``lucky'' ones. We simply do not know how many innocent people remain on death row, and how many may already have been executed. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty. I have always opposed it. I did when I was a prosecutor, and I do today. But no matter what you believe about the death penalty, no one wants to see innocent people sentenced to death. It is completely unacceptable. A year ago, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act of 2000. I hoped this bill would stimulate a national debate and begin work on national reforms on what is, as I said, a national problem. A year later, the national debate is well under way, but the need for real, concrete reforms is more urgent than ever. Today, my friend Gordon Smith and I are introducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2001. We are joined by Senators from both sides of the aisle, by some who support capital punishment and by others who oppose it. On the Republican side, I want to thank Senators Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee, and my fellow Vermonter Jim Jeffords. On the Democratic side, my thanks to Senators Levin, Feingold, Kennedy, Akaka, Mikulski, Dodd, Lieberman, Torricelli, Wellstone, Boxer and Corzine. I also want to thank our House sponsors William Delahunt, and Ray LaHood, along with their 117 additional cosponsors, both Democratic and Republican. Over the last year we have turned the corner in showing that the death process is broken. Now we will push forward to our goal of acting on reforms that address these problems. Here on Capitol Hill it is our job to represent the public. The scores of legislators who have sponsored this legislation clearly do represent the American public, both in their diversity and in their readiness to work together in a bipartisan manner for common-sense solutions. Too often in this chamber, we find ourselves dividing along party or ideological lines. The Innocence Protection Act is not about that, and it is not about whether, in the abstract, you favor or disfavor the death penalty. It is about what kind of society we want America to be in the 21st Century. The goal of our bill is simple, but profoundly important: to reduce the risk of mistaken executions. The Innocence Protection Act proposes basic, common-sense reforms to our criminal justice system that are designed to protect the innocent and to ensure that if the death penalty is imposed, it is the result of informed and reasoned deliberation, not politics, luck, bias, or guesswork. We have listened to a lot of good advice and made some refinements to the bill since the last Congress, but it is still structured around two principal reforms: improving the availability of DNA testing, and ensuring reasonable minimum standards and funding for court-appointed counsel. The need to make DNA testing more available is obvious. DNA is the fingerpint of the 21st Century. Prosecutors across the country use it, and rightly so, to prove guilt. By the same token, it should be used to do what it is equally scientifically reliable to do, prove innocence. Our bill would provide broader access to DNA testing by convicted offenders. It would also prevent the premature destruction of biological evidence that could hold the key to clearing an innocent person or identifying the real culprit. I am gratified that our bill has served as a catalyst for reforms in the States with respect to post-conviction DNA testing. In just one year, several States have passed some form of DNA legislation. Others have DNA bills under consideration. Much of this legislation is modeled on the DNA provisions proposed in the Innocence Protection Act, and we can be proud about this. But there are still many States that have not moved on this issue, even though it has been more than six years since New York passed the Nation's first post-conviction DNA statute. And some of the States that have acted have done so in ways that will leave the vast majority of prisoners without access to DNA testing. Moreover, none of these new laws addresses the larger and more urgent problem of ensuring that people facing the death penalty have adequate legal representation. The Innocence Protection Act does address this problem. In our adversarial system of justice, effective assistance of counsel is essential to the fair administration of justice. Unfortunately, the manner in which defense lawyers are selected and compensated in death penalty cases too often results in fundamental unfairness and unreliable verdicts. More than two-thirds of all death sentences are overturned on appeal or after post-conviction review because of errors in the trial; such errors are minimized when the defendant has a competent counsel. It is a sobering fact that in some areas of the Nation it is often better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. All too often, lawyers defending people whose lives are at stake are inexperienced, inept, or just plain incompetent. All too often, they fail to take the time to review the evidence and understand the basic facts of the case before the trial is under way. The reasons for this inadequacy of representation are well know: lack of standards for choosing defense counsel, and lack of funding for this type of legal service. The Innocence Protection Act addresses these problems head on. It calls for the creation of a temporary Commission on Capital Representation, which would consist of distinguished American legal experts who have experienced the criminal justice system first hand, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. The Commission would be tasked with formulating standards that specify the elements of an effective system for providing adequate representation in capital cases. The bill also authorizes more than $50,000,000 in grants to help put the new standards into effect. We have consulted a great many legal experts in the course of formulating these provisions. They have all provided valuable insights, but as a former prosecutor myself, I have been particularly pleased with the encouragement and assistance we have received from prosecutors across the nation. Good prosecutors have two things in common. First, good prosecutors want to convict the person, not to get a conviction that may be a mistake, and that may leave the real culprit in the clear. Second, good prosecutors want defendants to be represented by good defense lawyers. Lawyers who investigate their client's cases thoroughly before trial, and represent their clients vigorously in court, are essential in getting at the truth in our adversarial system. Given some leadership from the people's representatives in Congress, some fair and objective standards, and some funding, America's prosecutors will be ready, willing and able to help fix the system. We owe them, and the American people, that leadership. On August 3, 1995, more than five years ago, the Conference of Chief Justices urged the judicial leadership in each State in which the death penalty is authorized by law to ``establish standards and a process that will assure the timely appointment of competent counsel, with adequate resources, to represent defendants in capital cases at each stage of such proceedings.'' The States' top jurists, the people who run our justice system, called for reform. But not much came of their initiative. Although a few States have established effective standards and sound administrative systems for the appointment and compensation of counsel in capital cases, most have not. The do-nothing politics of gridlock got in the way of sensible, consensus-based reform. We have made a commitment to the American people to do better than that. At the end of the last Congress, members on both sides of the aisle joined together to pass the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act and the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act. I strongly supported both bills, which will give States the help they desperately need to reduce the backlogs of untested DNA evidence in their crime labs, and to improve the quality and capacity of these facilities. Both bills passed unanimously in both houses. And in both bills, all of us here in Congress committed ourselves to working with the States to ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, and to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases through the establishment of counsel standards. Congress has already gone on record in recognizing what has to be done. Now it is time to actually do it. If we had a series of close calls in airline traffic, we would be rushing to fix the problem. These close calls on death row should concentrate our minds, and focus our will, to act. This new Congress is, as our new President has said, a time for leadership. It is a time for fulfilling the commitments we have made to the American people. And it is a time for action. The Innocence Protection Act is a bipartisan effort to move beyond the politics of gridlock. By passing it, we can work cooperatively with the States to ensure that defendants who are put on trial for their lives have competent legal representation at every stage of their cases. By passing it, we can send a message about the values of fundamental justice that unite all Americans. And by passing it, we can substantially reduce the risk of executing innocent people. We have had a constructive debate, and we have made a noble commitment. It is now time to act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, an important responsibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee is fulfilling the mandate set forth in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Chairman Hatch and I, and other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, have worked together successfully over the years to update and make necessary adjustments to our copyright, patent and trademark laws to carry out this responsibility. We have strived to do so in a manner that advances the rights of intellectual property owners while protecting the important interests of users of the creative works that make our culture a vibrant force in this global economy. Several years ago, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, we asked the Copyright Office to perform a study of the complex copyright issues involved in distance education and to make recommendations to us for any legislative changes. In conducting that study, Maybeth Peters, the Registrar of Copyrights met informally with interested Vermonters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont, to hear their concerns on this issue. Champlain College has been offering on-line distance learning programs since 1993, with a number of online programs, including for degrees in accounting, business, and hotel- restaurant management. The Copyright Office released its report in May, 1999, at a hearing held in this Committee, and made valuable suggestions on how modest changes in our copyright law could go a long way to foster the appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning activities. I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization, or TEACH, Act, that incorporates the legislative recommendations of that report. This legislation will help clarify the law and allow educators to use the same rich material in distance learning over the Internet that they are able to use in face-to-face classroom instruction. The growth of distance learning is exploding, largely because it is responsive to the needs of older, non-traditional students. The Copyright Office, CO, report noted two years ago that, by 2002, the number of students taking distance education courses will represent 15 percent of all higher education students. Moreover, the typical average distance learning student is 34 years old, employed full-time and has previous college credit. More than half are women. In increasing numbers, students in other countries are benefitting from educational opportunities here through U.S. distance education programs. In high schools, distance education makes advanced college placement and college equivalency courses available, a great opportunity for residents in our more-rural states. In colleges, distance education makes lifelong learning a practical reality. Not only does distance education make it more convenient for many students to pursue an education, for students who have full-time work commitments, who live in rural areas or in foreign countries, who have difficulty obtaining child or elder care, or who have physical disabilities, distance education may be the only means for them to pursue an education. These are the people with busy schedules who need the flexibility that on-line programs offer: virtual classrooms accessible when the student is ready, and free, to log-on. In Vermont and many other rural states, distance learning is a critical component of any quality educational and economic development system. In fact, the most recent Vermont Telecommunications Plan, which was published in 1999 and is updated at regular intervals, identifies distance learning as being critical to Vermont's development. It also recommends that Vermont consider ``using its purchasing power to accelerate the introduction of new [distance learning] services in Vermont.'' Technology has empowered individuals in the most remote communities to have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their education and ensure they are competitive for jobs in the 21st century. Several years ago, I was proud to work with the state in establishing the Vermont Interactive Television network. This constant two-way video-conferencing system can reach communities, schools and businesses in every corner of the State. Since we first successfully secured funds to build the backbone of the system, Vermont has constructed fourteen sites. The VIT system is currently running at full capacity and has demonstrated that in Vermont, technology highways are just as important as our transportation highways. No one single technology should be the platform for distance learning. In Vermont, creative uses of available resources have put in place a distance learning system that employees T-1 lines in some areas and traditional internet modem hook-ups in others. Several years ago, the Grand Isle Supervisory Union received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to link all the schools within the district with fiber optic cable. There are not a lot of students in this Supervisory Union but these is a lot of land separating one school from another. The bandwidth created by the fiber optic cables has not only improved the educational opportunities in the four Grand Isle towns, but it has also provided a vital economic boost to the area's business. While there are wonderful examples of the use of distance learning inside Vermont, the opportunities provided by these technologies are not limited to the borders of one state, or even one country. Champlain College, a small school in Burlington, Vermont has shown this is true when it adopted a strategic plan to provide distance learning for students throughout the world. Under the leadership of President Roger Perry, Champlain College now has more students enrolled than any other college in Vermont. The campus in Vermont has not been overwhelmed with the increase. Instead, Champlain now teaches a large number of students overseas through its on-line curriculum. Similarly, Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont, offers innovative graduate programs designed for working professionals with classes that meet not only in person but also online. The Internet, with its interactive, multi-media capabilities, has been a significant development for distance learning. By contrast to the traditional, passive approach of distance learning where a student located remotely from a classroom was able to watch a lecture being broadcast at a fixed time over the air, distance learners today can participate in real-time class discussions, or in simultaneous multimedia projects. The Copyright Office report confirms what I have assumed for some time--that ``the computer is the most versatile of distance education instruments,'' not just in terms of flexible schedules, but also in terms of the material available. Over twenty years ago, the Congress recognized the potential of broadcast and cable technology to supplement classroom teaching, and to bring the classroom to those who, because of their disabilities or other special circumstances, are unable to attend classes. At the same time, Congress also recognized the potential for unauthorized transmissions of works to harm the markets for educational uses of copyrighted materials. The present Copyright Act strikes a careful balance and includes two narrowly crafted exemptions for distance learning, in addition to the general fair use exemption. Under current law, the performance or display of any work in the course of face-to-face instruction in a classroom is exempt from the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. In addition, the copyright law allows transmission of certain performances or displays of copyrighted works to be sent to a classroom or a similar place which is normally devoted to instruction, to persons whose disabilities or other special circumstances prevent classroom attendance, or to government employees. While this exemption is technology neutral and does not limit authorized ``transmissions'' to distance learning broadcasts, the exemption does not authorize the reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works--a limitation that has enormous implications for transmissions over computer networks. Digital transmissions over computer networks involve multiple acts of reproduction as a data packet is moved from one computer to another. The need to update our copyright law to address new developments in online distance learning was highlighted in the December, 2000 report of the Web-Based Education Commission, headed by former Senator Bob Kerrey. This Commission noted that: Current copyright law governing distance education . . . was based on broadcast models of telecourses for distance education. That law was not established with the virtual classroom in mind, nor does it resolve emerging issues of multimedia online, or provide a framework for permitting digital transmissions. This report further observed that ``This current state of affairs is confusing and frustrating for educators. . . . Concern about inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts, to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.'' In conclusion, the report concluded that our copyright laws were ``inappropriately restrictive.'' The TEACH Act makes three significant expansions in the distance learning exemption in our copyright law, while minimizing the additional risks to copyright owners that are inherent in exploiting works in a digital format. First, the bill eliminates the current eligibility requirements for the distance learning exemption that the instruction occur in a physical classroom or that special circumstances prevent the attendance of students in the classroom. Second, the bill clarifies that the distance learning exemption covers the temporary copies necessarily made in networked servers in the course of transmitting material over the Internet. Third, the current distance learning exemption only permits the transmission of the performance of ``non-dramatic literary or musical works,'' but does not allow the transmission of movies or videotapes, or the performance of plays. The Kerrey Commission report cited this limitation as an obstacle to distance learning in current copyright law and noted the following examples: A music instructor may play songs and other pieces of music in a classroom, but must seek permission from copyright holders in order to incorporate these works into an online version of the same class. A children's literature instructor may routinely display illustrations from childrens' books in the classroom, but must get licenses for each one for on online version of the course. To alleviate this disparity, the TEACH Act would amend current law to allow educators to show limited portions of dramatic literary and musical works, audiovisual works, and sound recordings, in addition to the complete versions of nondramatic literary and musical works which are currently exempted. This legislation is a balanced proposal that expands the educational use exemption in the copyright law for distance learning, but also contains a number of safeguards for copyright owners. In particular, the bill excludes from the exemption those works that are produced primarily for instructional use, because for such works, unlike entertainment products or materials of a general educational nature, the exemption could significantly cut into primary markets, impairing incentives to create. Indeed, the Web-Based Education Commission urged the development of ``high quality online educational content that meets the highest standards of educational excellence.'' Copyright protection can help provide the incentive for the development of such content. In addition, the bill requires the use by distance educators of technological safeguards to ensure that the dissemination of material covered under the exemption is limited only to the students who are intended to receive it. Finally, the TEACH Act directs the Copyright Office to conduct a study on the status of licensing for private and public school digital distance education programs and the use of copyrighted works in such programs, and to convene a conference to develop guidelines for the use of copyrighted works for digital distance education under the fair use doctrine and the educational use exemptions in the copyright law. Both the Copyright Office report and the Kerrey Commission noted dissatisfaction with the licensing process for digital copyrighted works. According to the Copyright Office, many educational institutions ``describe having experienced recurrent problems [that] . . . can be broken down into three categories: difficulty locating the copyright owner; inability to obtain a timely response; and unreasonable prices for other terms.'' Similarly, the Kerrey Commission report echoed the same concern. A study focusing on these licensing issues will hopefully prove fruitful and constructive for both publishers and educational institutions. The Kerrey Commission report observed that ``[c]oncern about inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts, to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.'' For this reason, the Kerrey Commission report endorsed ``the U.S. Copyright Office proposal to convene education representatives and publisher stakeholders in order to build greater consensus and understanding of the `fair use' doctrine and its application in web- based education. The goal should be agreement on guidelines for the appropriate digital use of information and consensus on the licensing of content not covered by the fair use doctrine.'' The TEACH Act will provide the impetus for this process to begin. I appreciate that, generally speaking, copyright owners believe that current copyright laws are adequate to enable and foster legitimate distance learning activities. As the Copyright Office report noted, copyright owners are concerned that ``broadening the exemption would result in the loss of opportunities to license works for use in digital distance education'' and would increase the ``risk of unauthorized downstream uses of their works posed by digital technology.'' Based upon its review of distance learning, however, the Copyright Office concluded that updating section 110(2) in the manner proposed in the TEACH Act is ``advisable.'' I agree. At the same time we have made efforts to address the valid concerns of both the copyright owners and the educational and library community, and look forward to working with all interested stakeholders as this legislation is considered by the Judiciary Committee and the Congress. Distance education is an important issue to both the chairman and to me, and to the people of our States. I commend him for scheduling a hearing on this important legislation for next week.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, sadly, I rise today to talk about the recent crash of a National Guard aircraft in flying over Georgia. Last Friday, 21 members of the National Guard lost their lives in a horrible plane crash. How does one understand the death of 21 soldiers and airmen who dedicated their time and energy to contribute to our nation's defense? While there perhaps is no easy answer to this question, the patriotism and dedication of these men is without doubt. Nineteen served with the Virginia Air National Guard in the 203d Red Horse Unit. Three were of the 171st Aviation Battalion of the Florida Army National Guard. All come from a proud citizen-soldier tradition that dates back to the War of Independence. This was a routine mission for the fated C-23 Sherpa. With the Florida Guardsmen at the controls, the plane took off on Friday morning, headed for Virginia. Its passengers had just completed their two-weeks of annual training in Georgia, where they had honed their already refined construction abilities. They were heading back to their families and the civilian jobs. Alas, those reunions were never to occur. It is a great loss whenever a member of the armed services gives his or her life in the lien of duty. But perhaps because these men came straight out of local communities, because they were juggling the demands of work and family along with their national service, we feel the losses like these especially deeply. Their departure reminds us that our friends, colleagues, and neighbors in the National Guard make sacrifices every time they report for duty. They leave the comfort of their homes for the rigors of service. It is a sacrifice that is worthy of honor and recognition, but often goes unnoticed until they make the ultimate sacrifice. With that in mind, I join with my colleague Senator Kit Bond in introducing a resolution that honors their service and expresses our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tara Magner and Maryam Mazloom be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the bankruptcy reform bill.