Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 438, the bill just passed.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I am not sure if the House is aware of it, but the gentleman from Massachusetts and I also, in the context of this bill, engaged the Park Service in an interesting experiment to see how fast the Park Service could authorize the installation of cellular towers in Rock Creek Park, which is now an area of our country which is considered a hole in the cellular system where people enjoying that park cannot call 911 or any other number because cellular phones will not work in it. Almost a year ago, I guess, we had hearings, and the Park Service promised us that within 90 days they would process an application. Rock Creek Park is still waiting for the approval of an application. Our latest hearings on this bill, they promised us again, in 75 days, they would complete the application leading to the installation of cellular service for Rock Creek Parkway and all the residents in the area as well as those who enjoy Rock Creek Park. It is a good example of problems we have across America, getting out there and then having a safety net system like 911 available to help them. I want to thank my friend again for all of his excellent work on this bill, for our cooperative efforts in issues like this. I regret the bill does not move the process of cellular location towers forward. But as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) pointed out, it was a necessary task to leave that language out of the bill in order to ensure passage of this good legislation. But let me say, as we conclude debate on this bill, that I hope the communities of America who have passed moratoriums against additional tower siting will rethink those moratoriums and will instead come up with zoning plans that effectively, under their own discretion, get towers located so that people not only can have cellular service without losing signals as they move from one area to another but that they can also have this incredibly important safety system, the E-911 system, available for them and their family when they are in desperate need of emergency help. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is a great way for us to start this session. I think we have demonstrated the way we can work cooperatively in a bipartisan fashion to do something good for our country. This is a good start because we have focused on something that is critically important to every American, every American who is out there driving our highways, riding the bike paths or running on those bike paths or enjoying the great outdoors in our parks and wonderful areas such as we have along I-10 in south Louisiana that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), drove on his way up here; that they will know, when something goes wrong, there is a number they can call, and they can get help. Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take the time to thank our staff; to, first of all, thank the minority staff, Andy Levin and Colin Crowell, who have been so helpful and instrumental in helping us get this bill done; to thank the majority staff, Tricia Paoletta, Mike O'Rielly, Hugh Halpern and Cliff Riccio, as well as my own staffer, Monica Azare, who all contributed so much to moving this bill forward and I think perfecting it. I want to say, as we move this bill forward, that we should always, I think, take time to say special thanks to both hardworking staffers on both our personal staff and the committee staff because they toil very often late at night and sometimes with not enough recognition for how much of a contribution they make to this body as a whole. Our thanks go out to all of them collectively. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good colleague on the committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in a brief moment I will recognize the author of the legislation, but I wanted to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his kind words and to assure him that that standard of cooperation is one that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and I hope to emulate in all aspects of our committee's work in this important area, that is so bipartisan, of extending communication services to the bulk of our citizenry in a fashion that is competitive and fair and also addresses public interest concerns and these important privacy concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has been so much a leader on. I want to compliment him on that. Mr. Chairman, I also see in the Chamber, and I know that she will be speaking in a minute, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), my dear friend, who was kind enough to come to our committee and lead the charge and address the issue of 911 safety concerns, particularly the concerns of citizens that she brought to our attention who have suffered because of the fact that they did not have a common number in this country. I know that we will be hearing from the gentlewoman later, but I want to thank her on behalf of the committee for her contributions on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his excellent cooperation and work and the spirit by which we bring this bill to the floor today. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman, and the other members of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection for the excellent work that they have done on this bill and the other bill that we will bring to the floor today, both bills dealing with the wireless telephone industry and its consumers and aspects that are extremely important to both the public safety and to the privacy of those communications. I also want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and my dear colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for sponsoring these bills and for leading the charge to indeed make them the law of the land. Mr. Chairman, 1997 was a landmark year in the history of this country. In 1997, more Americans bought cordless phones than wired phones, for the first time in the history of this technology. In fact, some 68 million Americans now carry wireless telephones or pagers. Studies show that most of those American subscribers of these wireless phones purchase them for safety reasons. People count on those phones to be their lifelines in emergencies. A parent driving down an interstate highway with babies in the back seat draws comfort from knowing if the car is involved in a crash he or she can call 911 for help; an ambulance will be rolling in seconds. An older American driving alone on a long trip feels safer knowing that if an accident occurs or symptoms strike, he or she can use a wireless phone to dial 911 for help and the State police will be on the way. There is a problem with that expectation, though. In many parts of our country, when a frantic parent or the suddenly disabled elder punches 911 on the wireless phone, nothing happens. In many regions, in fact, 911 is not the emergency number to call on a wireless phone. The ambulance and the police will not be coming. Someone may be facing a terrible life threatening emergency but they are on their own, because they do not know the local number to call for the emergency for help. This bill will help fix that problem by making 911 the universal number to call in an emergency any time, anywhere in this country. The rule in America ought to be a simple uniform system. If there is an emergency, wherever someone is, on a highway, a byway, a bike path or a duck blind in south Louisiana, wherever someone is, they call 911. 911 does four things. First, it directs the Federal Communications Commission to use its existing exclusive authority to designate 911 as a universal emergency telephone number for wireless and wireline services. The bill also directs the FCC to provide support to the States to help them implement a comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure. The FCC required in 1997 that wireless carriers provide what is called automatic number identification of a wireless user when the user calls that emergency number, but only when the emergency call center requests it. These emergency call centers are called PSAPS for Public Safety Answering Points. A recent study showed that only about 6 to 7 percent of wireless subscribers live in regions or operate in regions where PSAPS have undertaken the necessary upgrading to their existing plant to accept the additional number data. Thus, despite a year's passage of this deadline intended to enhance public safety to save American lives, only a minuscule amount of subscribers are benefiting. The intent behind that requirement was that the PSAPS know the number of the wireless caller to call back, provide instructions, whether it be to a child, to an incapacitated adult or someone in a very dangerous situation who needs to be walked through to safety. That was step one. The second requirement was that by October of the year 2001, wireless carriers provide automatic location information with each wireless call, but only upon the PSAP's request. If the past is prologue, October 2001 could easily roll around and the PSAP will not have undertaken the necessary upgrades to accept this additional data either, and that is critical, for unlike users who call 911 over the phone or in an office or a house, that is over a wireless network, a user on a cell phone rather than the user on a wireline network, particularly a driver often has no clear idea of his location. If they do not know where they are when they place a 911 call, how can anyone else know where they are? Imagine the public safety benefits of placing a 911 call if someone can send out a radio signal that told rescuers exactly where they are. Imagine if we could take the search out of search and rescue. Imagine what a different fate those who were lost in the Swiss Alps would have seen had they been equipped with cell phone transmitting location information. The wireless carriers are busy preparing to meet this location information deadline, but all their preparations will come to naught if the PSAPS have not undertaken the necessary upgrades. So the bill addresses this weak link in the chain of public safety by requiring the FCC to work with the States to develop a statewide plan for developing end-to-end communications infrastructure for wireless services; to the PSAP, to intelligent traffic systems, automatic crash notifications technologies, triad algorithms and medical response, in short, a way to locate someone who calls for help in a 911 emergency. Third, the bill establishes parity between the wireless and the wireline communications industries in protection from liability for the provision of telephone services, including 911 service, and in the use of that 911 service. This parity would be extended on a State-by-State basis. Imagine a community that does not have 911 service available because they are scared of lawsuits involved in the use of that 911 service insofar as a wireless telephone network is concerned. They are protected from that on the wireline side. They are not protected on the wireless side and so they do not implement a 911 strategy. This bill provides that wireless providers of telephone service would receive at least as much protection from liability as local exchange companies, the local wireline carriers receive in providing telephone services in a given State, subject to a two-year period during which the States may choose to enact the wireless liability statute that differs from such parity. Therefore, other than the 911 service, States may opt out of this parity paradigm. The bill provides for users of wireless 911 service to receive the same protection from liability under Federal or State laws, as users of wireline 911 services receive. This good Samaritan principle would again apply on a State-by-State basis. Fourth and lastly, the bill protects wireless users' privacy by limiting the disclosure of location information to specific instances, and I want to particularly thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his contributions in this critically important area of privacy in the use of cellular phones and in the 911 systems. While it will help rescuers to find victims in emergencies and cut down on that golden hour following a car crash, where we have learned in the hearings, for example, time is the issue, that golden hour is a critical hour; lives are either saved or lost on the highway. Location information is nevertheless sensitive personal information that must be treated with great care. We do not want police knowing everywhere someone is traveling on the highway for no good reason. There is a lot of privacy in where someone goes and what they are doing in their life that the government and police agencies do not necessarily need to know about. Protecting privacy and location when that is important is equally important in a 911 structure. Under H.R. 438, a carrier can disclose location information only in an emergency and only to the public safety personnel or the immediate family. If a carrier seeks to use location information for marketing purposes, it must obtain the customer's prior express authorization. In short, the location of someone's travels is not going to be commercialized for purposes without their permission. It is simply going to be available to public safety information and to family when necessary. Location information may also be transmitted as part of an automatic crash notification system, such as the one called OnStar, where the crash triggers a cell phone mounted in the car to automatically dial 911, without the driver or the passenger actually dialing the number. Last year, in fact a year and a half ago I think it is, we witnessed in America the first car crash, head-on collision, between a car equipped with the OnStar system and one that was not. There were parties seriously injured in both cars. The car dialed up the satellite. The car summoned help. Ambulances and emergency services arrived and both loads of people were treated and helped with emergency services because the automatic dialing system inside the car called for help, located those individuals and got emergency help to them. H.R. 438 permits providers of information or database managers who provide emergency support services to PSAPS to receive subscriber lists and unlisted data but only for the purposes of assisting in the delivery of emergency service. Thus, the bill enhances a user's public safety while also protecting their privacy interest. It encourages the development of cellular and other wireless services by providing parity and liability protection and it takes the FCC, it tasks the FCC, rather, with working with the States to develop the end-to-end infrastructure for delivering emergency services. H.R. 438 is an important public service bill. This is a great bill for this Congress to begin its work this year on, and I commend all of my colleagues who have contributed to it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Bob did not live his whole life as a welder in the shipyards. He went on to other pursuits, and one of those was his distinguished service in the United States Navy as an enlisted man from 1961 to 1963. He received, later on, an honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve in 1967. Bob's career before politics was in law enforcement, and he served from 1970 to 1973 as a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's office in New Orleans and was honored as an outstanding Assistant United States Attorney for his work there. His experience also included, by the way, serving as the Chief Special Prosecutor and Chief of the Armed Robbery Division of the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, 1974 to 1975; and he was the Chief Prosecutor for the Organized Crime Unit of the Louisiana Attorney General's Office from 1975 to 1976. A distinguished career in fighting criminal elements and representing the Justice Department of our country, and the District Attorney's office of the City of New Orleans and the Attorney General's office of the State of Louisiana. It is from that background that Bob, I suppose, was encouraged to seek political office eventually and saw the need for men, indeed, of great commitment to join the Congress and to represent our State here. And so it was in 1977 that he indeed succeeded in his second quest to come to the Congress in a district that had a 3 percent Republican registration, by the way, when he was elected; an indication of the way that he has reached out across boundaries, old boundaries and old walls and old wounds to build a consensus, as he demonstrated in his years in Congress. At this point I would like to go across the aisle and to recognize a colleague of his, a great friend of his, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I might add that the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will be inserting his comments into the Record somewhere at this point, along with other Members of the other side of the aisle who have also recognized and appreciated Bob's service and his willingness indeed to cross those boundaries and lines that divide us too often to build consensus and to work as a team. In fact, so good was Bob at that effort, that I think it is worth recording and worth reporting today that just a few years ago when we passed what we thought would be a 5- to 7-year effort to balance the books of this government over that 5- or 7-year period, Bob Livingston took over the reins of the Committee on Appropriations and for the first time did something quite remarkable in all the years I have served with him in these 11 terms, and that is he actually provided a lower level of expenditure than the previous year. The result of that austerity, that difficult set of choices that he was willing to forge with Members on both sides of the aisle to bring us to a balanced budget agreement and to enforce it by stringent controls of the Committee on Appropriations, where obviously we want to go help people by spending money. He nevertheless exercised such restraint and control that within several years, not the 5 or 7 predicted by many economists, but within 7 years we are debating about what to do with the surplus, rather than the great deficits that were predicted for our country in all of these years. Bob probably more than any other individual in this Chamber, I think, is personally responsible for getting us that surplus earlier than anyone expected because of the discipline he showed in those early years as Appropriations chairman and because he was willing to work across the aisle. Several of the appropriations cardinals who helped make it work are here today and I want to recognize them. First, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, we just heard comments of one of our colleagues who indeed has worked so closely with Bob. The relationship has grown incredibly close and personal, and there are others in this Chamber who will speak, but I wanted to take a minute to recognize one of our close friends within our delegation who is also with us to say a few words and that is the gentleman from Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Mr. Baker). I present to the House another one of the cardinals who have come to the floor today to bid bon voyage to the great chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama Cardinal Callahan.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for all of his kind words and for that piece of revision of history. We want him to know that Mobile does, in fact, do a marvelous imitation of the New Orleans Mardi Gras. I have enjoyed it in Mobile with him on occasion. I hate to correct a colleague, but Bob Livingston does not drive an antique automobile. That would be giving much too much credit to that automobile. It is just an old automobile and a pretty wretched one at that. We are joined today by a great and distinguished colleague, Bob, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this hour, I will be telling some things about Bob Livingston as I introduce my colleagues. I thought it best, first, to say a little bit about his family history. It is important to note that one of Bob's immediate ancestors, for whom he is named, was Robert Livingston, the minister to France, who was sent on a great mission by then President Jefferson to acquire from Napoleon the territory of Louisiana. It was his signature on that document of purchase that is of historic reference to us, all of us in the 13 States or parts of States that have been formed out of the Louisiana Purchase. Robert Livingston was also the sixth Congressman to represent the First District in Louisiana. He served between the years of 1823 and 1829. Coincidentally, when he signed that document of purchase, of the Louisiana Purchase, he signed it on April 30, 1803. April 30 happens to be Bob Livingston's birthday, a great coincidence of history. Of course, Bob was not born in 1803. He was born significantly later but nevertheless a coincidence of history that this document bears his birth date on the signature of Robert Livingston, his ancestor. What is interesting about this history is that Bob Livingston, our friend and colleague in Louisiana and the colleague of so many of us in this body and a friend of so many of us in this body, with all this great history, with this lineage, nevertheless came into this world to very humble conditions. In fact, Bob was raised by his mother, his father having passed away unfortunately early in his life. His mother was forced to take a job in a shipyard, where she worked to raise Bob and his sister, Carolyn. His mother Dorothy Billet worked those days in that shipyard for her two children to give them a better life and to introduce them to an education. Bob went on to get his education, getting his degrees, both undergraduate and his law degree at Tulane University, and went on to a great and distinguished career which I will later describe today. It is from these humble beginnings that Bob Livingston represents, as so many stories in American history and in this chamber, the life of an American citizen coming from humble roots and yet rising above those difficulties because he had a great mom who worked hard to see to it that her two children had a chance in life. Bob Livingston himself returned to that same shipyard and worked in that shipyard to again begin his life and his career, before he indeed went on to a greater era of public service, again, which I will describe in just awhile. Now I want begin introducing some of his other colleagues who also want to wish him well in honoring this day as we say good-bye to such a great friend and colleague. Let me introduce from the great State of California, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I take this special order tonight so that Members of the Louisiana delegation and colleagues from across our country can honor the service of a gentleman who will be leaving our body as a Member on the 28th of this month, just a few days from now; that being the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). Of course, Louisiana is still literally in shock that we are losing the services of this man who has represented our State so admirably for so many years, since 1977 when he first came by virtue of a special election, the first Republican elected in the First District of Louisiana in 102 years, and has served our State for the past 11 terms, and most recently for the last four years as chairman of the most important committee of this body, the Committee on Appropriations. Bob is leaving many, many friends behind when he takes his leave from us on the 28th, not just friends and colleagues who have worked with him but friends who have known him personally, as I have, and others, throughout his political career. Bob is an extraordinary individual and, as he leaves this body, I thought it important that we take some time out to say thank you to him for his friendship, his service to our State and this country and to the many people of the First District in Louisiana who mourn and grieve the fact that he will be leaving public service in just a few days. Colleagues have come to join me today in honoring him and remembering his great work for our country, and I would like now to yield time to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for comments.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleague that Bob had the good sense of marrying a good Cajun girl, and Bonnie Robichaux has literally been an extraordinary woman and partner and friend. And to Bonnie and Bob's four children, Rob and Richard and David and Susie, who are all indeed working, Susie here in Washington, D.C. and Rob and Richard and David all in Louisiana, we want to wish them the best. We know that now, finally, they are probably going to see an awful lot more of their dad than they could in all these years that he served both in law enforcement and now in the United States Congress. To round out this extraordinary parade, I wanted to yield to another one of the cardinals of the Committee on Appropriations who can speak with great eloquence about Bob's friendship and his extraordinary contributions to this body and to the country, the gentleman from Ohio, Cardinal Ralph Regula.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Chairman Regula. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next Speaker, let me just point out that this extraordinary conciliator, this extraordinary legislator, who has reached out across party lines and whole divides, was once an opponent of mine for the governor's race in Louisiana. He and I contested mightily for that position. In fact, then I was a Democrat and he was a Republican contender for governor of our State. At an event after the race was over, I mentioned Bob had gone around the State of Louisiana trying to convince everybody what a rotten governor I would make; and I had gone around the State of Louisiana trying to convince everybody what a rotten governor he would make. And we must have both been very credible, because they believed us both so well they elected Congressman Buddy Roemer to that seat. In the end, I, a Democrat, left with a huge debt, defeated in that race for governor, turned to Bob Livingston. And he, as our dean, led an effort, with all the Members, Democrats and Republicans, to help me pay off that debt so that I could move on and serve our State, as I have tried to serve it well as a Member of the United States Congress. It is that kind of spirit, this man, that I think has been the hallmark of his career. Finally, I want to yield to a few people who want to comment about that, among them my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Anna Eshoo).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her extraordinarily warm and generous remarks. I am pleased to round out this session of honor to my friend Bob Livingston by yielding to another great friend, a good man, another Congressman from my State, my dear friend, Mr. Bill Jefferson.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and neighbor for his kind words.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I think this hour is just about over. It has gone much too fast, and there is so much more we could say to honor and extend our great respect to Bob Livingston as he terminates his many years of service to the State of Louisiana. I just want to add one personal thought. Bob and I have been friends for a long time. We contested each other politically. We have been on different sides of the fence occasionally. At the end of the day, we have always been friends. And that has been the hallmark of his career. He leaves so many friends here. Bob, Louisiana will miss you. Louisiana will miss your service. Louisiana will miss your caring, concern for her, for all of her people. And my colleagues in Louisiana and across this body will miss you for the good man that you are. Mr. Speaker, with great thanks and appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Bob Livingston), who I will now replace as dean of the Louisiana delegation, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on my special order.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for literally being the shepherd who has brought not only this legislation forward but the primary legislation on securities litigation reform that became law several years ago. I think it is important to put this issue in historical perspective. I was the author of the first securities litigation reform bill in 1992. Interestingly enough, I was then a Democrat. Also interestingly enough, the lead sponsor on the Senate side was Christopher Dodd, who was then chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. And Christopher Dodd and I secured the cosponsorship not only of a majority of Members of both the House and the Senate but a huge bipartisan majority of Members on both sides. Unfortunately, we were never able to work out our differences with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), or my good friend, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee I now chair, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) but nevertheless, we literally have had interesting hearings and interesting discussions as the years passed. So popular was this issue of putting an end to these strike suits every time the stock market prices changed on some company, so popular both in the House and the Senate on the Democratic and Republican side was this issue, that when it was finally passed in 1995, and the President surprisingly vetoed it, this bill became the only issue that this Congress overrode a presidential veto, two-thirds of the Members of this House, two-thirds of the Senate concurring in an override to make securities litigation reform the law of the land. Why are we back here today? We are back here today because in spite of the fact that we put an end to these strike lawsuits, these shakedown lawsuits which were settled 94 percent of the time at 10 cents on the dollar, no grandmother ever got a dime out of this, just the unscrupulous trial lawyers who brought these kinds of lawsuits, even though we put an end to these lawsuits in Federal district court, we learned that the unscrupulous members of the trial board who were pressing these cases before simply did an end around. They went to State court and increasingly used the authority of the State court to do exactly what they used to do in Federal court, to shake down companies, to shake down boards of directors, to shake down the accountants, anybody else associated with a company whenever stock market prices changed, alleging fraud and then suddenly, quickly, at 10 cents on the dollar. In short, this bill puts an end to the end around. It says that the law we passed in 1995, with over two-thirds support of Democrats and Republicans, overriding the presidential veto, that law will have effect in this land, that strike lawsuits should come to an end whether they are brought in Federal court or in State court when they affect nationally traded firms. And secondly, the bill is carefully designed to make sure that other actions, indeed, can still be brought in State courts and that States themselves and our own Securities Exchange Commission can still exercise its authority to prevent abuses of fraud in securities trading in America. In short, this is carefully tailored now to stop the end runs, to make sure that the law we so successfully passed in 1995, with the enormous help of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the great sponsorship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), they did such a good job in 1995 to make sure that that law now has real effect out there; that people who trade and who invest their pension funds are not going to lose those assets to strike lawsuits that shake down the value of those companies and shake down the people who are trying to run them successfully for this economy. This bill will send the strongest message to those unscrupulous lawyers, start behaving yourself, stop shaking people down, stop bringing these frivolous lawsuits because they will not be permitted in Federal court, and they will not be permitted now in State court. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves the same kind of support that the original bill got in 1995. It deserves, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) said the bipartisan vocal support of Members on both sides of this aisle so that we present it quickly to the President who has said in California that, if we would do this, he would sign it into law. Let us send it to the President and let him have the chance to sign this bill into law and to put an end to the end around that unfortunately has tainted the great effort we made in 1995. To all who made this bill possible today, I personally want to thank you. As I said, when I authored this bill in 1992, I did not think it was going to take this long for us to complete the journey. But here we are today, this perhaps making the most important step in that journey to end these frivolous lawsuits and to give the securities trading of these high-tech firms which are bringing so much job and opportunity to America to give them all the sense of security and to protect them against these strike lawsuits.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today, we bring to the floor H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. I am pleased that the Conference Report reflects the joint efforts of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. The House played an extremely important role in the development of this balanced bill. We addressed some of the very tough issues that had yet to be resolved despite passage of the bill by the Senate. The substance of our work resulted in amendments which were ultimately incorporated into the bill which we consider today. Today, we take the final step toward passage of legislation which will implement the WIPO treaties. It is indeed an historic moment. By passing this legislation, the United States sets the standard for the rest of the world to meet. Our content industries are the world's finest, as well as one of this Nation's leading exporters. They must be protected from those pirates who in the blink of an eye--can steal these works and make hundreds if not thousands of copies to be sold around the world--leaving our own industries uncompensated. This theft cannot continue. By implementing the WIPO treaties this year, we ensure that authors and their works will be protected from pirates who pillage their way through cyberspace. As we send a signal to the rest of the world, however, it is important that we not undermine our commitment to becoming an information-rich society--right here in the United States . . . inside our own borders. The discussion generated by the House has been invaluable to finding the balance between copyright protection and the exchange of ideas in the free-market--two of the fundamental pillars upon which this nation was built. In drafting this legislation, we did not overlook the need to strike the correct balance between these two competing ideals. That is indeed the purpose of the legislative process--to debate, haggle, review and ultimately to hammer out what will be strong and lasting policy for the rest of the world to follow. A free market place for ideas is critical to America. It means that any man, woman or child--free of charge!!--can wander into any public library and use the materials in those libraries for free. He or she-- again, free of charge!!--can absorb the ideas and visions of mankind's greatest writers and thinkers. In this regard, the most important contribution that we made to this bill is section 1201(a)(1). That section authorizes the Librarian of Congress to wave the prohibition against the act of circumvention to prevent a reduction in the availability to individuals and institutions of a particular category of copyrighted works. As originally proposed by the Senate, this section would have established a flat prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures to gain access to works for any purpose. This raised the possibility of our society becoming one in which pay-per-use access was the rule, a development profoundly antithetical to our long tradition of the exchange of free ideas and information. Under the compromise embodied in the Conference Report, the Librarian will have the authority to address the concerns of Libraries, educational institutions, and other information consumers threatened with a denial of access to work in circumstances that would be lawful today. I trust the Librarian, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, will ensure that information consumers may continue to exercise their centuries-old fair use privilege. We also sought to ensure that consumers could apply their centuries- old fair use rights in the digital age. Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or to otherwise traffic in ``black boxes.'' These provisions are not aimed at staple articles of commerce, such as video cassette recorders, telecommunications switches, and personal computers widely used today by businesses and consumers for legitimate purposes. As a result of the efforts of the Commerce Committee, legitimate concerns about how these provisions might be interpreted by a court to negatively affect consumers have been addressed to the satisfaction of consumer electronics and other product managers. Section 1201(c)(3), the ``no mandate'' provision, makes clear that neither of these sections requires that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computer product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the device does not otherwise violate section 1201. Members of my Subcommittee included an unambiguous no mandate provision out of concern that someone might try to use this bill as a basis for filing a lawsuit to stop legitimate new products from coming to market. It was our strong belief that product manufacturers should remain free to design and produce digital consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Had the bill been read to require that new digital products respond to any technological protection measure that any copyright owners chose to deploy, manufacturers would have been confronted with difficult, perhaps even impossible, design choices. They could have been forced to choose, for example, between implementing one of two incompatible digital technological measures. It was the wrong thing to do for consumers and thus, we fixed the problem. In our Committee report, we also sought to address the concerns of manufacturers and consumers about the potential for ``playability'' problems when new technological measures are introduced in the market. I was pleased to see that the conferees also recognized the seriousness of the problem and agreed to include explicit conference report language setting forth our shared respective on how the bill should be interpreted in this respect. With regard to the issue of encryption research, the Commerce Committee again made an invaluable contribution to this important legislation. The amendment provided for an exception to the circumvention provisions contained in the bill for legal encryption research and reverse engineering. In particular, these exceptions would ensure that companies and individuals engaged in what is presently lawful encryption research and security testing and those who legally provide these services could continue to engage in these important and necessary activities which will strengthen our ability to keep our nation's computer systems, digital networks and systems applications private, protected and secure. Finally, I want to commend my colleagues, Dan Schaefer and Rick White for their efforts in reaching agreement on a provision which has been included in this bill to address the concerns of webcasters. Webcasting is a new use of the digital works this bill deals with. Under current law, it is difficult for webcasters and record companies to know their rights and responsibilities and to negotiate for licenses. This provision makes clear the rights of each party and sets up a statutory licensing program to make it as easy as possible to comply with. It is a worthy change to the bill and again, my thanks to Mr. White and Mr. Schaefer and their staffs--Peter Schalestock and Luke Rose. I can't emphasize enough to my colleagues the importance of not only this legislation, but also the timing of this legislation. An international copyright treaty convention is a rare and infrequent event. We thus stand on the brink of implementing this most recent treaty--the WIPO copyright treaty--knowing full well that it may be another 20 years before we can re-visit this subject. This bill strikes the right balance. Copyright protection is important and must be encouraged here. But in pursuing that goal we must remain faithful to our legacy, and our commitment to promoting the free exchange of ideas and thoughts. Digital technology should be embraced as a means to enrich and enlighten all of us. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell as well as my colleagues Mr. Markey, Mr. Klug, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Stearns. Also, I would like to thank Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Berman, as well as Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Thurmond for their excellent work on this legislation. And finally, a special thanks to the staffs of these Members--Justiin Lilley, Mike O'Reilly, Andy Levin, Colin Crowell, Kathy Hahn, Ann Morton, Peter Krug, Mitch Galzier, Debbie Laman, Robert Rabin, David Lehman, Bari Schwartz, Manus Cooney, Ed Damich, Troy Dow, Garry Malphrus, Marla Grossman, Bruce Cohen, and Beryl Howell.