Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I am pleased to join him in offering this amendment today and to urge its adoption in the committee. It will eliminate antiquated vicarious liability statutes and, at the same time, benefit the consumers who rent automobiles.

Vicarious liability laws for rental cars in a handful of States drive up costs for consumers nationwide by an average of $100 million annually. These laws allow unlimited damages against companies that rent vehicles solely because the company owns the vehicle that is involved in the accident, not because the company has done anything wrong. These companies are not negligent, they are not at fault, they could have done nothing to have prevented the accident.

Consumers pay $100 million annually resulting from these unfair laws because companies must bill the costs of these arbitrary damage awards into their rental and lease rates. Regardless of where a car or truck rental company is headquartered or where the vehicle is rented or leased, the company is subject to vicarious liability when its vehicle is driven to a vicarious liability State and is then involved in an accident. Therefore, the laws of a mere handful of States are driving up the rental rates for rental consumers nationwide.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), which I am pleased to cosponsor, will eliminate these unwarranted vicarious liability laws and broadly benefit the renters of automobiles nationwide. I commend the gentleman for introducing the amendment, and I urge its adoption in the committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning in support of the bill before us. In the two decades that I have been privileged to serve in the House, the class action measure that is before us today is the most modest litigation reform that has been debated, and it strikes in a narrow and appropriate way at an egregious abuse of justice.

The bill before us makes procedural changes only. There are no restrictions on the substantive rights of plaintiffs. There are no caps on damages. There is no elimination on the rights of plaintiffs to recover.

The bill simply permits the removal to Federal courts of class actions that are truly national in scope, with plaintiffs living across the Nation and the large corporate defendant, even if the current diversity of citizenship rules are not strictly met.

This change is much needed. Cases that are truly national in scope are being filed as State class actions before certain favored judges who employ an almost ``anything goes'' approach that remedies virtually any controversy subject to certification as a class action. Once certification occurs, there is then a rush to settle the cases. The lawyer who filed the case makes an offer that is hard for the corporate defendant to refuse.

He asks for large fees in the millions of dollars for himself and coupons for the plaintiff class members that he represents. Rather than go through years of expensive litigation, the defendant settles. The judge who certified the class quickly approves the settlement. The lawyer who filed the case gets rich. The plaintiff class members get virtually nothing.

That is the problem that this bill is designed to address. It permits the removal of these national cases to the Federal court in the State in which the State class action has been filed.

In the Federal court, the rights of plaintiffs will be more carefully observed. Any settlement involving non-cash compensation will be carefully reviewed to assure that it is fair. Under the bill, cases that are local in scope will remain in the State court where they are initially filed.

I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the thoughtful leadership that he has provided in steering this measure to the point of passage today. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has exhibited both foresight and patience and as chief sponsor of the bill through three Congresses deserves tremendous credit for the success that we are now on the brink of achieving.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the wise course that he has followed as chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary in permitting the Senate to act in advance of our action today.

I want to commend our former House colleague, Senator Tom Carper, for the outstanding work he performed in negotiating changes to the measure which resulted in 72 Members of the Senate voting to approve this reform.

I hope the House will also lend its support to this reform.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What about the amount-in-controversy component, the $5 million? Under current law, some Federal courts have determined the value for

requests for injunctive relief by considering the value to each individual plaintiff. Since that value is usually less than $75,000, these courts have kept such cases in State court. This is sometimes known as the plaintiff's viewpoint, defendant's viewpoint problem. Would the Chairman explain how the bill resolves this challenge?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will be pleased to provide two examples.

Suppose that a California State court class action were filed against a California pharmaceutical drug company on behalf of a proposed class of 60 percent California residents and 40 percent Nevada residents alleging harmful side effects attributed to a drug sold nationwide.

In such a case, it would make sense to leave the matter in Federal court. After all, the State laws that would apply in all of these cases would vary, depending on where the drug was prescribed and purchased. As a result, allowing a single Federal court to sort out such issues and handle the balance of the litigation would make sense both from added efficiency and a federalism standpoint.

Now, suppose, in a second example, a checking account fee disclosure class action were filed in a Nevada State court against a Nevada bank located in a border city, and the class consisted of 65 percent Nevada residents and 35 percent California residents who crossed the border in order to conduct transactions in the Nevada bank.

In this hypothetical, it might make sense to allow that matter to proceed in State court. It is likely that Nevada banking law would apply to all of these claims, even those of the California residents, since all of the transactions occurred in the State of Nevada. There is also less likelihood that multiple actions will be filed around the country on the same subject so as to give rise to a coordinating Federal multidistrict litigation proceeding.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin will yield once again.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The principles that have just been enumerated apply to another provision that I would like to discuss, the mass action provision. Under this provision, defendants will be able to remove mass actions to Federal court under the same circumstances in which they will be able to remove class actions.

However, a Federal court would only exercise jurisdiction over these claims that meet the $75,000 minimum. In addition, a mass action cannot be removed to Federal court if it falls under one of the following four categories: number one, if all of the claims arise out of an event or occurrence that happened in the State where the action was filed and that resulted in injuries only in that State or in contiguous States;

number two, if it is the defendants who seek to have the claims joined for trial;

number three, if the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public pursuant to a State statute authorizing such an action;

and, number four, if the claims have been consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes only.

I would appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin clarifying how the $75,000 amount in controversy minimum would apply to assessing whether Federal jurisdiction exists over a mass action, and, most importantly, explaining the intent of the sponsors with regard to the first and third exceptions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Pence, in introducing the Free Flow of Information Act, legislation which will advance the public's right of access to information of broad public interest.

Our measure addresses an increasingly common problem. Last year, 12 reporters were threatened with jail sentences in federal courts for refusing to reveal confidential news sources. Reporters rely on the ability to assure confidentiality to sources in order to deliver news to the public. The ability of news reporters to assure confidentiality to sources is fundamental to their ability to deliver news on highly contentious matters of broad public interest. Without the promise of confidentiality, many sources would not provide information to reporters, and the public would suffer from the resulting lack of information.

Thirty-one states and Washington, DC, currently have statutes protecting reporters from compelled disclosure of sources of information. It is time to provide similar protections in the federal courts.

I have long believed that the Freedom of the Press provision of the first amendment should be interpreted by the courts to empower reporters to refrain from revealing their sources. Since the courts have not found this privilege to attend the first amendment, a statutory grant of the privilege has become necessary.

In deciding to introduce this measure, I have concluded that the public's right to know should outweigh the more narrow interest in the administration of justice in a particular federal case. In fact, in many instances the critical information which first alerts federal prosecutors to conduct justifying a criminal proceeding or first alerts civil litigants to facts giving rise to a private cause of action is contained in a news story which could only have been reported upon assurance of anonymity to the news source.

I commend my colleague Mr. Pence for his leadership on this measure and look forward to working with him to obtain rapid approval of the bill in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fine Virginian, Ronald E. Jones, who has served our state and community as a teacher, a committed volunteer, a good Democrat and a fine family man.

Ronald E. Jones was born in Richlands, Virginia and has devoted his life to educating the children of Russell and Buchanan Counties. Mr. Jones was a music teacher and taught not only music but lessons about life. In addition to his duties as a teacher, Mr. Jones devoted countless hours to his students and community as Band Director for Lebanon High School, Cleveland Middle School and Council High School. Many fine musicians in our part of Virginia studied with Mr. Jones and his work has touched the lives of each of his students.

Mr. Jones is also an active member of his community. He has been a Mason, a member of the Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, and a member of the Virginia Jaycees where he still serves as an ``Exhausted Rooster'' with that organization. Mr. Jones has also utilized his musical skills to honor our nation's heroes and as a bugler has played Taps at military funerals across Southwest Virginia. He is honored that the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia recognized his service by naming him a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels.

In addition to his community and musical endeavors, Mr. Jones has also served his community in both the governmental and political arena. He served the Town of Lebanon as a Councilman and as Vice Mayor. A proud Democrat, he served on the Russell County Democratic Party nominating committee for many years and is a life long member of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Jones is a valued and cherished member of his community. I am glad that this body can recognize his service today and thank him, his wife of almost 40 years Bonnie Sue, and his son Bradley E. Jones, for the service that he has provided to my area of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona. His amendment would seek to prohibit the use of federal funding for the purpose of compensating tobacco quota owners and active tobacco producers for their federally controlled quota. As a Member who represents several thousand tobacco farmers, I can attest that legislation providing a tobacco buyout is critically needed to provide essential relief to the nation's tobacco farmers and to the economies of the rural communities in which tobacco is grown.

Since the mid-1990's, the major cigarette manufacturers have dramatically increased the purchase of tobacco from other countries. As more tobacco has been imported into the United States, less tobacco has been purchased from American farms. As a direct result of the foreign buying practices of the nation's cigarette manufacturers, the quotas assigned to U.S. tobacco farmers, which are automatically set based upon the level of domestic demand for both burley and flu-cured tobacco, have decreased by more than 50 percent since 1997.

Consequently and as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control, tobacco farmers have lost more than one half of their income producing opportunities, and the buyout legislation has now become necessary. The quota, an asset which is controlled by the federal government, has a substantially reduced value, and its owners and users should be compensated for that asset's value. In today's market, the federal tobacco program is not operating effectively any more, and it is appropriate that we take steps to reform this antiquated system.

In order to accomplish this, Congress should authorize substantial payments to both active tobacco farmers and inactive quota owners. Following the buyout, active tobacco farmers would continue to produce tobacco without the burden of having to enter into a lease of quota from inactive quota owners and the federal government would no longer be in the tobacco business.

Opposition to a tobacco buyout is opposition to the financial interests of the nation's tobacco farmers and our rural tobacco producing communities.

The tobacco buyout provisions which were passed by the House are essential for the farmers and communities in my district and throughout the tobacco producing regions of the United States. We should stand united in support of our communities and our tobacco farmers. In view of the economic harm to tobacco farmers which the reduction of the federally governed quota system has caused, it is only appropriate that the Congress provide financial compensation to these farmers, and I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

The ARC is a tremendous force for progress in the region I represent. Almost every water and wastewater project has an element of ARC funding at its core.

The ARC has helped us build industrial parks, shell buildings and industrial access roads that have enabled broad economic growth.

Community libraries, health care clinics and vital broadband deployment projects have been boosted in my region by the ARC.

Studies have shown that every dollar expended by the ARC on an industry attracting infrastructure project stimulates $12 in private investment, creating jobs, improving the economy, and expanding revenues for local governments.

The ARC has helped us tremendously, and we need its help in the future as much as in past years.

I urge defeat of the amendment and full funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and today I rise to join with him in support of a common sense reform that will eliminate antiquated vicarious liability statutes, benefit consumers, and protect the victims of accidents.

Vicarious liability laws for rental cars in a handful of States drive up costs for consumers nationwide by an average of $100 million annually. These laws prevent unlimited damages against companies that rent or lease vehicles solely because they own a vehicle that is involved in an accident, not because they have done anything wrong. These companies are not negligent, not at fault, and could do nothing to have prevented the accident.

Consumers pay $100 million annually resulting from these unfair laws because companies must build the costs of arbitrary damage awards into their rental and lease rates. Regardless of where a car or truck rental company is headquartered or where the vehicle is rented or leased, the company is subject to vicarious liability, even if its vehicle is driven to a vicarious liability State and is involved in an accident. Therefore, the laws of a mere handful of States drive up rental rates nationwide for all rental consumers.

I urge approval of this common sense reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the positive economic benefits of eliminating the regulatory obstacles to the deployment of broadband facilities by telecommunications carriers. A recent report by economists Robert W. Crandall and Charles L. Jackson supplies strong evidence that further deregulation will jumpstart the sluggish technology sector and increase investment in broadband, which will in turn encourage greater Internet use, and expand the market for a broad range of technologies from computers and servers to digital appliances for the home that connect over the Internet.

Despite recent efforts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its Triennial Review Order (TRO) to promote broadband investment, several restrictions on broadband deployment remain that threaten to undercut the economic benefits the FCC was seeking to foster in its deregulatory order. The FCC has before it a reconsideration proceeding in which it has the opportunity to eliminate remaining barriers to investment and nourish broadband deployment, innovation, and economic growth. I urge the Commission to take full advantage of that opportunity. The following counterproductive regulations should be repealed:

First, although the FCC has eliminated unbundling requirements for new mass market broadband deployments, it mistakenly ruled that multiple dwelling units (MDUs) are subject to the greater unbundling obligations applied to the enterprise market. Apartment complexes and other primarily residential buildings should be treated the same as single family houses and small businesses that fall within the mass market. The unbundling requirements that apply to the enterprise market should not apply to these multi-family dwellings.

Second, the TRO muddies the distinction between the mass market and the enterprise market in other unfortunate ways. The FCC recognized that telephone companies face tremendous competition from cable operators when telephone companies seek to deploy new broadband networks to the mass market. It accordingly provided maximum unbundling relief to telephone companies for mass market deployments. But the FCC failed to say what the mass market includes. In particular, providers are uncertain whether fiber loops deployed to small businesses will be subject to unbundling at below-cost rates. The FCC should clear up this uncertainty by providing a clear definition of the mass market.

Third, although the TRO properly eliminates unbundling obligations for broadband under section 251 of the Communications Act, the FCC appears to have required the Bell companies to provide unbundled access to their broadband facilities under a different section--section 271. The FCC should make clear that no provision of the Act requires carriers to physically unbundle broadband facilities at cost-based rates.

The FCC needs to act swiftly to eliminate these lingering impediments to broadband deployment. By doing so, the Commission will unleash the full potential of broadband communications, which will serve as an immediate stimulus for the economy.

According to the Crandall-Jackson report, if the FCC acts as I have recommended to deregulate broadband, as many as 1.2 million new jobs could emerge over the next decade from the resulting widespread adoption of existing and advanced broadband technologies. In as little as 5 years, the more than 250,000 jobs lost between 2000-2003 in the telecommunications service and equipment sector could be restored. Capital investment could increase to such an extent that by 2021, capital expenditure on broadband technologies will reach $63.6 billion and create a cumulative increase in gross domestic product of $179.7 billion.

Finally, in addition to creating the proper framework for investment in broadband facilities, I urge the FCC to promote regulatory parity for the broadband services provided by cable operators and telephone companies. Under current rules, telephone companies are required to provide nondiscriminatory access to all Internet service providers, but cable operators are not. For example, Verizon can offer its customers an Internet access service, but the user can instead select AOL, Earthlink, or any other ISP while receiving local telephone service from Verizon. If the subscriber has cable modem service, in most cases he is stuck with the cable company's affiliated ISP, and he would have to pay extra to reach a different ISP. This disparity makes no sense, especially given that cable operators have a 2-1 market share lead over telephone companies in the broadband marketplace.

The FCC should require cable operators to provide open access, just as telephone companies do. Americans deserve to choose their own ISP, rather than having the network owner choose for them. The FCC also should prohibit cable operators from using their bottleneck control of the network to discriminate against unaffiliated content providers or equipment suppliers. Such requirements would not involve the below-cost pricing associated with the objectionable unbundling regime, and accordingly would not chill investment in new networks. In fact, requiring all broadband network owners to provide a choice of ISPs will accelerate the deployment of broadband services at a more reasonable price.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement and urge its approval by the House. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has said, there is much in this measure not to like. I am particularly troubled by the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act and the investor and consumer protections that it contains.

My support for the bill is based on its provisions that will encourage the use of coal in many of the 1,600 new electricity- generating plants that will be built around the United States during the coming 20 years. Under current estimates, more than 80 percent of these 1,600 new units will be fueled with natural gas.

With today's natural gas prices in the range of $5 per million Btus, homeowners who heat with gas and the broad swath of the American industry that is gas dependent are already feeling the effects. The problem will grow much worse and even threaten the health of the Nation's economy if 80 percent of all of the new electricity generators are fueled with gas as well.

To this problem there is an obvious answer. Coal is the Nation's most abundant fuel with reserves sufficient for the next 250 years. Coal generates electricity at less than one-half the cost of the fuel alternatives, and consumers get the best prices when they purchase electricity that comes from coal-fired facilities. But utilities are reluctant to use coal in new generating plants because of the high cost of installing clean coal technologies.

The bill before us contains tax provisions that will make a new generation of clean coal technology more affordable. It will encourage electric utilities to use coal instead of natural gas in many of the new electricity-generating units that will be constructed. That is a major contribution to the Nation's energy policy, and I applaud the inclusion of these provisions in the bill. And I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from Texas, and the gentleman from Michigan for their work on in measure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been proposed here by the gentleman from New York. I do so because I think it would take us back to a regulation that makes little sense in today's media world. And further, could deny many communities better news and better information programming.

Under this amendment, in a market that has several newspapers and perhaps seven or eight local television stations, only the smallest of those newspapers would be prohibited from combination with the weakest of those seven or eight television stations.

Since January of 2000, in more than 40 markets around the Nation, television stations have either reduced or eliminated news and information programming. Had it been possible for them to combine with a local newspaper, perhaps, just perhaps, those unfortunate consequences could have been avoided.

There are benefits to be obtained by permitting cross-ownerships. And the example that I just noted, a common ownership of two struggling properties could strengthen both properties keeping additional voices alive in that particular market. An undeniable synergy

arises when television and newspaper, news gathering and reporting resources are focused on a single event with an improvement in the quality and depth of both the newspaper news product and the television new product.

Studies by the Federal Communications Commission have found that where cross-ownership has been permitted to continue under a grandfather provision, local television news is better, and more of it is provided by the cross-owned properties than by other local television stations in the same markets; and that is ample proof of the value of the synergies that are created when cross-owned properties have been permitted.

The Federal Communications Commission, in my view, got the balance right when it published its regulation on the cross-ownership rule in June.

Under the FCC's new rule, combinations are only allowed between a newspaper and a television station in the same local market when at the end of that combination there will be a sufficient diversity of voices remaining in that community to assure that many different and divergent views will be expressed with regard to local news. That is the right balance. Taking us back to a regulation that prohibits all combinations under all circumstances I think is counter-productive.

And so today I would urge that we confirm the recent judgment of the Federal Communications Commission and, in so doing, that we defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for yielding time to me. It is my pleasure to rise in support of the bill that is before us.

In the 20 years that it has been my privilege to serve in the House, the class action reform measure that is before us today is the most modest litigation reform that has been debated, and it strikes in a narrow and appropriate way at an egregious abuse and miscarriage of justice.

The bill that is before us makes procedural changes only. There are no restrictions on the substantive rights of plaintiffs. There are no caps on damages. There is no limitation on the rights of plaintiffs to recover. The bill simply permits the removal to Federal court of class actions that are national in scope, with plaintiffs living across the Nation and a large corporate defendant doing business throughout the country, even if current diversity of citizenship rules are not strictly met.

This change is much needed. Cases that are truly national in scope are being filed as State class actions before certain favored judges who employ an almost anything-goes approach that renders virtually any controversy subject to certification as a class action. Once the certification occurs, there is then a rush to settle the case. The lawyers who filed the case tend to make an offer that is very hard for the corporate defendant to refuse. They ask for large fees for themselves, typically in the millions of dollars, and then coupons are requested for the class members.

Rather than go through years of expensive litigation, the defendant settles. The judge who certified the case quickly approves the settlement. The lawyer who filed the case gets rich; the plaintiff class members he represents get virtually nothing. That is the problem. That is the abuse that this reform is designed to resolve.

This reform permits the removal of these national cases to the Federal court in the State in which the State class action is pending. In the Federal court, the rights of plaintiffs will be more carefully observed. Any settlement involving noncash compensation will be carefully reviewed to assure that it is fair. Under the bill, cases that are local in scope will remain in the State court where they are filed.

Later today I will be joining with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and other Members in offering an amendment that the Committee on the Judiciary and the other body adopted, originally drafted by Senator Feinstein of California, that gives Federal judges greater direction in deciding which cases are national in scope and should be removed to Federal court, and which cases should remain in the State courts in which they are filed.

This is a needed reform. It is a modest remedy. It is procedural only. The rights of all plaintiffs to participate in a class action will be respected, either in State or Federal court. I am pleased to rise in support of this measure and urge its adoption in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time and for his willingness to accept the amendment that was drafted by Senator Feinstein of California, which was approved by the Committee on the Judiciary of the other body when that committee reported class action fairness legislation.

We are joined in offering this amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry); and I thank them for their cosponsorship as well.

Under the approach of the bill, only cases that are filed as State class actions which are national in scope will be removable to Federal court, notwithstanding the absence of complete diversity of citizenship. Cases that are local in nature will remain in the State courts where they are filed.

Senator Feinstein's amendment, which is the same as the amendment we are now offering, gives Federal judges clear directions in determining which cases are national in character and which are local. Under this test, if two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class reside outside of the State and at least one of the primary defendants resides outside of the State, the case is deemed to be national in scope and can be removed to Federal court. By contrast, if two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are residents of the foreign State, the case is local and will remain in State court.

There is a middle category of cases in which more than one-third and less than two-thirds of plaintiffs are residents of the foreign State, and in these instances the amendment directs the Federal judge to weigh five specific criteria that will be set forth in the statute in order to determine whether the case is national or local in character. This approach will promote a higher degree of uniformity among the Federal districts in the application of the new law and assure that local class actions remain in State courts.

The amendment also raises from $2 million to $5 million the aggregate jurisdictional amount for removals under the bill, assuring that cases which are of lesser value remain in the State courts.

The amendment is a useful addition to the bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I have a number of concerns regarding the measure that is before the House today, and I will take the occasion of these remarks to outline some of them in the hope that they can be addressed during the amendment process or in the conference with the other body.

During committee consideration of the bill, I strongly urged that the electricity title be removed from the comprehensive bill and that it be considered on a separate track that would give us more time to focus on its complex and controversial provisions. That title unfortunately remains in the bill; and it is controversial, and I am concerned about its presence there.

I am troubled by the provisions that relate to the relicensing of hydroelectric facilities. An agreement was achieved on a bipartisan basis during the course of the last Congress which would have provided flexibility in selecting alternative means for assuring protection of fish resources. That agreement was put aside in favor of language in this bill that offers far less protection to the fish when electricity facilities are relicensed.

The bill opens ANWR to exploration and contains a needless mandate for ethanol use in motor fuels that applies throughout the Nation and will raise the price of gasoline without achieving any net benefit in terms of petroleum savings.

I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), both of whom have conducted an open process for both hearings and markup at subcommittee and full committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with them and with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and other Members as we seek to address some of these concerns during the course of today and during the conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which makes the changes that truly need to be made in the laws governing the electricity markets.

I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his approach. His amendment is directed to the heart of today's problem, which is market manipulation and fraudulent conduct.

The amendment assures appropriate recordkeeping in electronic form of wholesale market transactions. It increases penalties for misconduct. It substantially improves the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to monitor the gas and electricity markets and to act against those who engage in fraudulent and manipulative conduct.

Around these principles, broad agreement can be achieved. I urge the adoption of these provisions now. The other electricity provisions, which are contained in the committee's comprehensive bill, can and should be considered separately and at a later time.

The consensus to approve these broader measures has simply not been reached. And so, for today, I urge adoption of the Dingell amendment and deferring to a later time the other fundamental and controversial electricity market measures that are contained in the committee bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker. I would like to ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) if he is prepared to close or if he has other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. I urge passage of this legislation by the House, and I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) as one of the principal cosponsors of the measure.

Lawsuits which would impose liability on firearm manufacturers, distributors and dealers for misuse of the firearm by someone who comes into possession of it are thinly veiled attempts to impose gun control by judicial means. If liability is imposed on manufacturers in these circumstances, the result will be a large reduction in the availability of firearms for purchase by sportsmen and other law-abiding citizens. The rights of hunters, of gun collectors, and those who purchase firearms for self-defense must be considered. The lawsuits which this bill seeks to end leave little room for the consideration of those rights.

The lawsuits are merely gun control by a nonlegislative means. I happen to oppose gun control, but even if I favored it, I would be for this bill which will remove gun control policy-making from the courts and return it to the legislative arena where it belongs and where all competing interests have an opportunity to be considered.

Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves, and it has, broad bipartisan support. It will further the protection of gun-owner rights, and I urge its passage by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure and urge its adoption by the House. This reform proceeds from a sound premise. If someone can afford to repay a substantial part of the debts that he owes after accounting for his living costs, he should do so.

The person who can repay debts should not use the complete discharge provisions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He should be directed into the supervised debt repayment plans contained in Chapter 13 of the Code.

The bill makes this much needed reform. In doing so, it would also relieve the more than $400 annual hidden tax that the typical family pays on account of the widespread misuse of Chapter 7. That amount represents the increased costs of the credit and the higher prices of goods and services that arise from Chapter 7 misuse.

The reform before us will also benefit consumers by requiring that credit card statements clearly state the consequences of only paying the required monthly minimums, and the spouse of a person taking bankruptcy is much better off under this bill than under current law. Today her claims are fifth in priority for claims against the bankruptcy estate, well behind other creditors. Under the bill she will become number one and her claim will receive clear priority. This measure will make long-needed changes in our Nation's bankruptcy law, and it is my pleasure to urge its passage by the House.