[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7324-7327]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 7325]]

       (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 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

[[Page 7326]]

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 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. Hutchison. 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.

[[Page 7327]]

  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.

                          ____________________