Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a special day. To all, I am appreciative, both on this floor and from all corners of this country. To close out, Mr. Speaker, to sum up, we are here because we are giving a break to the satellite carriers in order to help them compete. Under this bill these carriers no longer have to clear permission from copyright owners to retransmit their programming. They can retransmit without permission by availing themselves of a compulsory government license. Normally, Mr. Speaker, I am averse to government license. But in this case to encourage competition, I endorse a limited license. In closing, I want to say that I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) in hoping for a return to the free market for copyright and a repeal of all these licenses in the future after competition has been assured. Again, I thank all parties who have contributed, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not express my thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for those generous comments. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the committee.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we come to the Floor of the House of Representatives and discuss legislation whose impact on our constituents is somewhat nebulous and uncertain. Today is not one of those days. H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, will have a beneficial effect on the citizens of this country, whether they are subscribers to satellite television or not. We have all been concerned about the lack of competition in the multichannel television industry and what that means in terms of prices and services to our constituents. I have received numerous letters and calls from my constituents distressed over their satellite service. Many customers leave the store complaining that they cannot obtain their local stations through satellite service. Others feel betrayed when they have their distant network service cut off, having been sold an illegal package from the outset. Still others may have been outraged at the cost they pay for the distant network signals. The time has come to address these concerns and pass legislation which makes the satellite industry more competitive with cable television. With competition comes better services at lower prices, which makes our constituents the real winners. With this competition in mind, the legislation before us makes the following changes to the Satellite Home Viewers Act. It reauthorizes the satellite copyright compulsory license for 5 years. It allows new satellite customers who have received a network signal from a cable system within the past 3 months to sign up immediately for satellite services for those signals. This is not allowed today. It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the satellite carriers. It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television station to households within that station's local market, just like cable does. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of the Public Broadcasting Service. Finally, it empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning retransmission consent, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts. The manager's amendment makes one correction to the introduced version of the bill. Language in section 206 of the bill addressing distant signal transmission has been omitted to reflect the clear removal of the unserved household definition in title 17, in favor of the network nonduplication provisions in title 47. Additionally, I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his assurance that he will work with us to assure a provision concerning the linking of the section 122 license to the must-carry provisions of the bill when it is adopted in conference. The legislation before us today is a balanced approach. We have spent the better part of 3 years working with representatives of the broadcast, copyright, satellite, and cable industries fashioning legislation which is ultimately best for our constituents. The legislation before us today is not perfect, not unlike most pieces of legislation, but it is a carefully balanced compromise. It removes many of the obstacles standing in the way of true competition, yet does not reward those in the satellite industry for their obvious illegal activities concerning distant network signals. The real winners, therefore, are our constituents. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support and leadership throughout this process. I also want to recognize the contributions of the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with us tirelessly to bring this to the Floor. I urge all Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the rivalry between the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce. It is a healthy rivalry, nurtured by jurisdiction. Some accuse those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary of overly protecting and promoting good legislative issues relating to copyright, while others accuse those on the Committee on Commerce of overly protecting and promoting good legislative issues as it relates to telecommunications. To these charges I respond, probably guilty as charged. Jurisdiction should be warmly embraced by the appropriate committees. Jurisdiction, conversely, should not be casually discarded by these same committees. The jurisdictional issues do give rise to rivalry from time to time. Rivalry on occasion may be the bad news. The good news is this first legislative step that we are taking today, to the ultimately benefit of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reiterate what the gentleman from California said regarding the staff. The staff has indeed done exemplary work on this, and I failed to mention that earlier. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce H.R. --, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999. This bill will improve the copyright compulsory license and the conditions of that license for satellite carriers of copyrighted programming contained on television broadcast signals by applying to such carriers the same opportunities and rules as their cable competitors. This competitive parity will lead to increased exposure of copyrighted programming to consumers who will pay lower prices for cable and satellite services which deliver programming to their homes. These lower prices will result from the choices consumers will have in choosing how they want their television programming delivered. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for many of the Members in this House when I assert that creating competition in the video delivery market is the key to more choice and lower prices for our constituents. This is a very dynamic time for the multi-channel video marketplace, particularly for the satellite industry. The satellite copyright compulsory license is set to expire at the end of this year at a time when the industry enjoys a record number of subscribers. In the meantime, a federal court decision threatens to disconnect hundred of thousands of satellite customers from their distant network signals. Additionally, several other copyright restrictions still prevent the satellite industry from competing with the cable television industry on an even playing field. The Copyright Act of 1976 bestowed on cable television a permanent copyright compulsory license which enables that industry to rebroadcast network and superstation signals to cable television viewers without requiring cable operators to receive the authorization of thousands of copyright owners who have an exclusive right to authorize the exploitation of their programs. The cable operators pay a set fee for the right to retransmit and the monies collected are paid to the copyright owners through a distribution proceeding conducted under the auspices of the United States Copyright Office. In 1988, Congress granted a compulsory license to the satellite industry. Although the cable and satellite compulsory licenses have similarities, there are important differences which I believe prevent satellite from becoming a true competitor to cable. Technology has changed significantly since the cable and satellite compulsory licenses were created. Satellite carriers are starting to be able to bring local programming through their services to viewers of that local market. The time has come to take a comprehensive look at the satellite compulsory license as it relates to the long-term viability and competitiveness of the satellite television industry. The satellite compulsory license is set to sunset in December of this year, and the Federal Communications Commission has reported time and again that in areas where there is no competition to cable, consumers are paying higher cable rates. We must act for our constituents to level the playing field in a manner that will allow both industries to flourish to the benefit of consumers. To that end, the ``Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999'' makes the following changes to the Satellite Home Viewer Act: It reauthorizes the satellite compulsory license for five years. It allows new satellite customers who have received a network signal from a cable system within the past three months to sign up for satellite service for those signals. This is not allowed today. It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the satellite carriers. It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television station to households within that station's local market, just like cable does, conditioned upon meeting requirements of the Communications Act. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of the Public Broadcasting Service. It postpones the currently scheduled shut-off of distant network service until the FCC develops a new predictive model to more accurately determine who is entitled to receive distant network signals. I commend the work of Representative Billy Tauzin, Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, and with Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, on those provisions of this legislation complimentary to the copyright provisions. Their leadership and partnership have been and will continue to be invaluable and necessary in guaranteeing true competition between the satellite and cable industries, particularly as this legislation moves forward towards a conference. I also want to recognize the leadership and care that Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, have paid to the development of this important bill. We have worked together closely on its provisions and I look forward to continuing our work together as our bills move toward completion. Let me make clear that this bill is a compromise, carefully balanced to ensure competition. Many doubters thought our two committees could never work together to forge such a compromise. I believe it contains the balance necessary to allow this bill to become law this session and I urge all Members to support its passage. Section-by-Section

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 769, the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 769, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, and urge the House to adopt the measure. House Resolution 769 is the implementing legislation for the Protocol Related to the Madrid Agreement on the Registration of Marks, commonly known as the Madrid Protocol. The bill is identical to legislation introduced in the preceding three Congresses, and will send a signal to the international business community, United States businesses, and trademark owners that the 106th Congress is determined to help our Nation, and particularly our small businesses, become part of an inexpensive, efficient system that allows the international registration of marks. As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, ratification of the Protocol and the enactment of H.R. 769 will enable American trademark owners to pay a nominal fee to the United States Patent and Trademark Office which will then register the marks in the individual countries that comprise the European Union, or more commonly known as the EU. Currently, American trademark attorneys must hire attorneys or agents in each individual country to acquire protection. This process is both laborious and expensive, and discourages small businesses and individuals from registering their marks in Europe. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 769 is an important and noncontroversial bill that will greatly help those American businesses and other individuals who need to register their trademarks overseas in a prompt and cost- effective manner. I implore my colleagues to pass the bill today, and want to express my thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the entire subcommittee membership and staff for that matter, who have worked very cooperatively in getting the bill to this point. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 769) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, in order to carry out provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1189) to make technical corrections in title 17, United States Code, and other laws, as amended.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1189.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1189, to make technical corrections to title 17 of the United States Code and other laws. An amended version of this bill is presented for passage under suspension of the rules. The amendment to the reported bill makes further technical corrections to title 17 and other laws. As a result of two major copyright bills which were signed in law late in the 105th Congress, several technical errors need to be corrected in order to prevent confusion. H.R. 1189 corrects these errors by making purely technical amendments to the Copyright Act and other laws. H.R. 1189, Mr. Speaker, does not make any substantive changes in the law. I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment, and I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 1189. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, (H. Con. Res. 49) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a bike rodeo to be conducted by the Earth Force Youth Bike Summit.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

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

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 911, as amended, designates the Federal building located in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ``Terry Sanford Federal Building.'' Senator Sanford was successful in many pursuits during his life. He was the founder of three law firms and held positions on the boards of numerous universities and colleges, and several positions on boards of corporations in the technology industry. Senator Sanford was also President of Duke University from 1969 to 1984, and continued as President Emeritus from 1995 until his passing in 1998. During his tenure, Governor Sanford presided over Duke, which was and continues to be recognized as a world-renowned center of higher learning. Its medical center is a premier health care facility and research center. In addition to his pursuits in the private sector, Senator Sanford also was a dedicated public servant. From 1950 to 1953, he served on the North Carolina State Ports Authority. In 1953, he was elected to the North Carolina State Senate and served there until 1955. In 1961, he was elected Governor of North Carolina for a term, returning to private practice in 1965. After several years out of public office, Senator Sanford returned in 1986 with a successful bid to the United States Senate where he served until 1993. Mr. Speaker, this is a fitting tribute to a dedicated public servant. I know of no other North Carolinian who has dedicated himself any more fully or honorably in so many endeavors, in law, in public service, in education, and in private pursuits. I support the bill, as amended, and urge my colleagues to the support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 911) to designate the Federal building located at 310 New Bern Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ``Terry Sanford Federal Building'', as amended.