[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 47 (Monday, March 24, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4326-S4329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 692. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules
regarding the disclosure of technological measures that restrict
consumer flexibility to use and manipulate digital information and
entertainment content; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Digital Consumer
Right To Know Act. The thrust of this bill is quite simple. Digital
media companies are racing to develop technologies to combat piracy.
Some of these anti-piracy measures could have the effect of restricting
lawful, legitimate consumer uses as well as unlawful copying. My bill
says that if digital content is released in a form that prevents or
limits reasonable consumers uses, consumers have a right to be told in
advance.
The shift from analog to digital technologies carries many potential
benefits for all concerned--for technology companies, for producers of
music, video, and other content, and above all, for consumers. Digital
technologies, together with the rise of the Internet, promise to expand
exponentially the possibilities for circulating, marketing,
manipulating, and using creative works. There is so much more you can
do, and so many fertile fields for innovation.
The shift to digital, however, also carries twin risks. The first,
and the one on which Congress has focused most of its attention to
date, is the risk of piracy. Digital technologies can greatly
facilitate unlawful copying and distribution. This is a real problem,
because people and companies that create copyrighted works must be
fairly compensated. America's information-based economy depends on it.
The second, closely related risk is that, in combating piracy, the
baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. In the name of anti-piracy
[[Page S4327]]
protections, legitimate consumer uses could be stifled. Encryption or
other ``digital rights management'', DRM, schemes could be employed
that restrict consumers' ability to take full advantage of the
potential of the new digital technologies. In the end, it's not
inconceivable that digital media could be more restricted and less
flexible than other copyrighted items--an ironic result for a
technology that was supposed to represent a great step forward for
consumers.
The bill I am introducing today focuses on this second risk.
Significantly, it would not in any way dictate to content companies
what types of copy protection or DRM schemes may or may not be used.
Instead, it would ensure that consumers are fully informed of any
impact on their ability to use and manipulate the content they buy.
Advance notice of technology-based use limitations is a matter of
basic fairness. Consumers have developed a number of legitimate
expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate content, and
are likely to develop new expectations as technology develops. For
example, consumers increasingly expect to be able to shift legally
purchased content between different devices--to access it on their
computers, or in their cars, or using portable devices like MP3
players. They should be told in advance if these expectations won't be
met, so that they can factor this information into their purchasing
decisions. Consumers should know what they are getting or not getting.
In addition, I believe that imposing this kind of notice requirement
will help promote the development of solutions that strike an
appropriate and acceptable balance between protecting against piracy
and preserving utility and flexibility for consumers. Overly
restrictive approaches would require disclosures that content providers
could find embarrassing, and consumers could be alienated by measures
that don't seem to respect the importance of user flexibility. In
short, full disclosure would strengthen the market-based incentive to
avoid technologies that are too restrictive of consumer flexibility.
My bill would also make a clear statement that Congress expects that
there will be competition in the retail distribution of copyrighted
digital content. This shouldn't be controversial: today, compact discs,
books, and movie videos are distributed via many competing retail
stores. They also often face competition with stores selling used
content, and with rentals and libraries. But what if new DRM
technologies permit copyright holders to limit or prevent the ability
of unaffiliated entities to sell or distribute content on a secondhand
basis? Could the copyright holder sharply reduce competition at the
distribution level, and thus increase its market power? My legislation
addresses this risk by expressing the sense of the Congress that it is
important to retain competition among distribution channels for digital
information and entertainment content.
As the debate over digital copyright issues continues, I intend to
listen to all sides. This country needs balanced approaches that
respect the interests of copyright holders and consumers alike. But the
bill I introduce today is a significant step that Congress could take
now that would protect consumers of digital content and promote market-
based solutions, all without rewriting any copyright laws. I urge my
colleagues to join me in this effort.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 692
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Consumer Right to
Know Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Consumers have developed a number of legitimate
expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate
legally acquired information or entertainment content for
reasonable, personal, and noncommercial purposes. In
addition, as digital technology creates new ways to use and
manipulate content, consumers are likely to develop new
expectations that reflect the new technological
possibilities.
(2) Digital technologies also can facilitate unlawful
reproduction and distribution of information or entertainment
content subject to copyright protection. To combat this
problem, technology and content companies are developing and
deploying technologies to prevent or deter such unlawful
behavior.
(3) Such technologies could help promote a competitive
digital marketplace in which consumers have a broad range of
choices and media businesses can pursue a variety of business
models. However, there are also significant risks.
(4) There is a risk that technologies developed to prevent
unlawful reproduction and distribution of digital information
and entertainment content could have the side effect of
restricting consumers' flexibility to use and manipulate such
content for reasonable, personal, and noncommercial purposes.
(5) There is a risk that such technologies could unfairly
surprise consumers by frustrating their expectations
concerning how they may use and manipulate digital content
they have legally acquired.
(6) There is a risk that such technologies could result in
greater market power for the holders of exclusive rights and
reduce competition, by limiting the ability of unaffiliated
entities to engage in the lawful secondhand sale or
distribution of such content.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that consumers of digital information and
entertainment content are informed in advance of
technological features that may restrict the uses and
manipulation of such content, so that--
(A) consumers may factor this information into their
purchasing decisions; and
(B) there will be a strong, market-based incentive for the
development of technologies that address the problem of
unlawful reproduction and distribution of content in ways
that still preserve the maximum possible flexibility for
consumers to use and manipulate such content for lawful and
reasonable purposes; and
(2) to express the sense of Congress concerning the
importance of retaining competition among distribution
channels for digital information and entertainment content.
SEC. 3. FAIR DISCLOSURE OF TECHNOLOGICAL USE RESTRICTIONS.
(a) FTC Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall
issue rules to implement the disclosure requirements
described in subsection (b).
(b) Disclosure Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If a producer or distributor of
copyrighted digital content sells such content or access to
such content subject to technological features that limit the
practical ability of the purchaser to play, copy, transmit,
or transfer such content on, to, or between devices or
classes of devices that consumers commonly use with respect
to that type of content, the producer or distributor shall
disclose the nature of such limitations to the purchaser in a
clear and conspicuous manner prior to such sale.
(2) Manner of disclosure.--The Federal Trade Commission
shall prescribe the manner of disclosure required under this
subsection, which may include labels on packaging or such
other means as the Commission determines appropriate to
achieve the purposes of this section. The Commission may
prescribe different manners of disclosure for different types
of content and different distribution channels.
(c) Disclosure of Certain Limitations on Reasonable
Consumer Activities.--The following are examples of
limitations which shall trigger the disclosure requirements
of subsection (b):
(1) Limitations on the recording for later viewing or
listening (popularly referred to as ``time shifting'') of
audio or video programming delivered--
(A) via free over-the-air broadcasting; or
(B) as part of a multichannel video or audio system in
which the consumer obtains the programming as part of a
subscription package, with no per view charges and no ability
to select the specific time at which individual programs will
be delivered.
(2) Limitations on the reasonable and noncommercial use of
legally acquired audio or video content--
(A) in different physical locations of the consumer's
choice (popularly referred to as ``space shifting''); or
(B) on the electronic platform or device of the consumer's
choice, including platforms or devices requiring that the
content be translated into a comparable format before such
use.
(3) Limitations on making backup copies of legally acquired
content distributed in a form or medium that is subject to
accidental erasure, damage, or destruction in the ordinary
course of use, including through computer failure or computer
viruses, to be used only in the event that the original
copies are lost or damaged.
(4) Limitations on using limited excerpts of legally
acquired content for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
(5) Limitations on engaging in the secondhand transfer or
sale of legally acquired content to another consumer,
provided that the transferor does not retain the content or
any copy thereof and that the transferee obtains only such
rights to the use and enjoyment of
[[Page S4328]]
the content as the transferor possessed at the time of
transfer.
(d) Exception to Disclosure Requirement.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall not require disclosure under subsection (b)
with respect to any limitation that applies only to uses--
(1) that are sufficiently unusual or uncommon that the
burdens of prior disclosure would outweigh the utility to
consumers; or
(2) that have no significant application for lawful
purposes.
(e) Annual FTC Review.--On an annual basis, the Federal
Trade Commission shall review the effectiveness of its rules
implementing this section to determine whether revisions are
warranted to serve the purposes of this section. In
conducting this review, the Commission shall consider whether
changes in technology or in consumer practices have led to
new, legitimate consumer expectations concerning specific
uses of digital information or entertainment content that
would result in consumers suffering unfair surprise if a
technology were to limit those uses without prior notice.
SEC. 4. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) No Limiting Effect on Fair Use.--Nothing in this Act
shall be interpreted to suggest that a consumer activity not
referred to in section 3(c) or in the Federal Trade
Commission's rules implementing this Act may not constitute a
fair use within the meaning of section 107 of title 17,
United States Code.
(b) Unlawful Reproduction or Distribution.--Nothing in this
Act shall be interpreted to permit the otherwise unlawful
reproduction or distribution of copyrighted content or to
shield a person engaging in such activity from any type of
legal action or judgment.
SEC. 5. COMPETITION IN DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) competition among distribution outlets and methods
generally benefits consumers; and
(2) just as copyright holders have sold content embodied in
tangible products such as audio cassettes, videotapes, and
compact discs to multiple competing retail distributors,
copyright holders selling digital content in electronic form
for distribution over the Internet should offer to license
such content to multiple unaffiliated distributors, to enable
competition among different distribution models and
technologies.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 694. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to monitor and
investigate gasoline prices under certain circumstances; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, gasoline prices on average in California
are $2.15 per gallon.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, the
cost of crude oil rose 16.4 percent from January 6 to March 3. During
the same time period, the average retail price of gasoline rose 27.2
percent.
After seeing the statistics, I do not buy the argument that higher
gasoline prices are due solely to higher crude oil prices. I am
concerned that oil companies have been pocketing more profits as
consumers pay record high gas prices.
I have been advised of news reports that refiners are taking more
plants than usual offline for ``routine maintenance.'' This is
reminiscent of the electricity crisis when generators took their plants
off-line for ``routine maintenance'' at a rate higher than normal. We
now know that these generators were holding back electricity to
artificially increase the price of electricity.
In response to soaring gas prices across the country and especially
in California and in response to potential manipulation, I am
introducing legislation to shed light on the situation and hopefully
curtail future market manipulation.
My legislation requires the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to
automatically investigate the gasoline market for manipulation anytime
average gasoline prices increase in any state by 20 percent in a period
of 3 months or less and remain at that level for seven days or more.
Market manipulation would include, but is not limited to, collusion
or the creation of artificial shortages such as unnecessarily taking
refineries off-line. In determining the trigger, the gasoline price
used would be the Energy Information Agency's pricing of regular grade
gasoline. A report on the FTC's investigation would be due to Congress
14 days after the price trigger.
Under the bill, the FTC would be required within two weeks of issuing
the report to hold a public meeting to discuss the findings.
If the findings indicate that there is market manipulation, then the
FTC would work with the state's Attorney General to determine the
penalties.
If the findings indicate that there is no market manipulation, then
the U.S. Department of Energy must officially decide, within two weeks,
if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used in order to ease
prices and stabilize supply.
We need to deter market manipulation. Otherwise we risk serious price
gouging with no accountability to consumers. My legislation offers a
reasonable standard for an investigation and a reasonable time frame in
which to complete that investigation. I believe the threat of these
investigations and the public light that would be shed on the system
will be positive for the consumer.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Roberts):
S. 695. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and to
expand such deduction to include qualified professional development
expenses; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise to introduce
the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues,
Senator Landrieu, Senator Warner, and Senator Roberts, in introducing
this legislation to help our teachers who selflessly reach deep into
their own pockets to purchase supplies for their classrooms or to
engage in professional development.
Senators Warner, Landrieu, Roberts and I have long led the effort to
recognize the invaluable services that teachers provide each and every
day to our children and to our communities. This tax relief is
significant in that it recognizes the extra mile that our dedicated
teachers go in order to improve the classroom experience for their
students.
This legislation builds upon the tax relief that we authored, which
was previously enacted in the economic recovery package in the last
Congress. Our bill would double the amount that a teacher can deduct--
from $250 to $500--and includes professional development expenses in
the deduction. Our bill would also make this modest tax relief
permanent, whereas the provision in the economic stimulus package is
scheduled to sunset next year.
While our legislation provides financial assistance to educators, its
ultimate beneficiaries will be our students. Other than involved
parents, a well-qualified teacher is the single most important
prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have
demonstrated, time and again, the strong correlation between qualified
teachers and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves
understand just how important professional development is to
maintaining and expanding their level of competence.
When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of
their desire and need for more professional development. But they also
tell me that, unfortunately, school budgets are so tight that
frequently the school districts cannot provide the assistance a teacher
needs in order to take that additional course or pursue that advanced
degree. As President Bush aptly put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with
their hearts and pay with their wallets.''
A recent survey by the National Center for Education Statistics
highlights the benefits of professional development. The survey found
that most teachers who had participated in more than eight hours of
professional development during the previous year felt ``very well
prepared'' in the area in which the instruction occurred. Obviously,
teachers who are taking additional course work and pursuing advanced
degrees become even more valuable in the classroom.
Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is
also a critical component of my legislation. So often teachers in
Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the
classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar
with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend,
on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, a new survey
demonstrates that they are spending even more than that. According to a
recent report from Quality
[[Page S4329]]
Education Data, the average teacher spends more than $520 a year out of
pocket on school supplies.
I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who have told me of the
books, rewards, supplies, and other materials they routinely purchase
for their students.
Idella Harter is one such teacher. She told me of spending more than
$1,000 in a single year, reaching deep into her pocket to buy
materials, supplies, and other treats for her students. At the end of
the year, she started to add up all of the receipts that she had saved,
and she was startled to discover they exceeded $1,000. Idella told me
at that point she decided she'd better stop adding them up.
Debra Walker is another dedicated teacher in Maine who teaches
kindergarten and first grade in town of Milo. She has taught for more
than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on
books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper,
tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family
computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These
are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to
create a stimulating learning environment.''
Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading
teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years,
Tyler has incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he builds his own
collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job,
he has spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books
and other materials that are essential to his teaching program.
Tyler tells me that he is still paying off the loans that he incurred
at the University of Maine-Farmington. He has car payments to make. He
is saving for a house. And he someday hopes to get an advanced degree.
Nevertheless, despite the relatively low pay he is receiving as a new
teacher, he says, ``You feel committed to getting your students what
they need, even if it is coming out of your own pocket.''
That is the kind of dedication that I see time and again in the
teachers in Maine. I have visited nearly 100 schools in Maine, and
everywhere I go, I find teachers who are spending their own money to
improve their professional qualifications and to improve the
educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom
supplies.
The relief we passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress was a step
in the right direction. As Tyler told me, ``It's a nice recognition of
the contributions that many teachers have made.'' We are committed to
building on this good work. We invite all of our colleagues to join us
in recognizing our teachers for a job well done.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Chaffe, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 696. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
tax credit for marginal domestic oil and natural gas well production
and an election to expense geological and geophysical expenditures and
delay rental payments; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. Hutchinson. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to
provide tax incentives for marginal wells. As we look to long-term
solutions to meet our needs for gasoline, electricity and home heating
oil, marginal well tax incentives are critical to increasing supply and
retaining our energy independence.
Senators representing all regions of the country, including the
Northeast and Midwest, have a common interest: to make the United
States less susceptible to the volatility of world oil markets by
reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. I understand that when
the price of home heating oil spikes in the Northeast, it hurts those
Senators's constituents. They understand when the price of oil falls
below $10 a barrel--as it did several years ago and we lose 18,000 jobs
as we did in Texas--that hurts my constituents. We understand that
these are merely two sides of the same coin: a growing U.S. dependence
on foreign oil.
In fact, at the heart of the marginal well tax credits is the goal of
reducing our imports of foreign oil to less than 50 percent by the year
2012. It is incredible to me that America is sliding toward 60 percent
dependence on foreign oil. As the sole remaining superpower in the
world, and as the country with an economy that is the envy of the
industrialized world, this threat to our economic as well as our
national security is simply and totally unacceptable.
The core problem with our growing dependence on foreign oil is an
underutilized domestic reserve base of both crude oil and natural gas.
In 1992, we imported 46 percent of our oil needs from overseas. It is
equally important to realize that in 1974, when America was brought to
her knees by the OPEC oil embargo, we imported only 36 percent of our
oil. Today we stand at over 56 percent imports. If the major oil
producing countries of the world were ever to collectively sabotage
U.S. interests as we have seen in the past with Iraq, they could wreak
havoc with the American economy.
We simply must take steps today to increase the amount of oil and
natural gas we produce right here at home. While shutting-off foreign
oil completely may not be realistic, it is realistic to utilize our
reserves much more than we do today. Marginal wells--those wells that
produce less than 15 barrels of oil and less than 90 thousand cubic
feet of natural gas per day--have the capacity to produce 20 percent of
America's oil. This is roughly the same amount of the oil the U.S.
imports from Saudi Arabia.
Much of this oil and gas could be produce in areas where it is being
produced today, and has for decades, that is not environmentally
sensitive. That is why I have advocated for tax incentives that would
make it economically feasible for production to continue and actually
increase in areas largely where production takes place today.
There are close to 400,000 such wells across the United States. Many
of these wells are so small that, once they close, they never reopen.
If we had had the marginal well tax provision in place several years
ago before the oil price plummet, we would not have lost over 400,000
barrels per day of production due to small wells shutting down.
The overwhelming majority of producing wells in Texas are marginal
wells. A survey by the Independent Producers Association of America,
IPAA, found that marginal wells account for 75 percent of all crude
production for small independent operators; up to 50 percent for mid-
sized independents; and up to 20 percent for large companies. A
sensible energy independence policy is to offer tax relief to producers
of these small wells that would help them stay in business when prices
fall below a break-even point. When U.S. producers can stay in business
during periods of low prices, supply will be higher and help keep
prices from shooting up too high.
The marginal well provision in the energy bill provides a maximum $3
per barrel tax credit for the first 3 barrels of daily production from
a marginal oil well, and a similar credit for marginal gas wells. The
marginal well credit would be phased in-and-out in equal increments as
prices for oil and natural gas fall and rise. For oil, in would phase
in between $18 and $15 per barrel. In addition to the marginal well
provisions, the bill includes tax incentives for delay rental payments
and geological and geothermal expensing. These provisions will help
producers locate and develop potential oil and gas properties.
We do not have to be at the whim of foreign countries or market
forces beyond our control. Therefore, we've got to increase our
domestic supply and I believe these energy tax incentives will do that.
____________________