Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 49 authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the ``Get Out Spoke'n'' to be held on May 5th, 1999, or on such date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration jointly designate. The resolution also authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, and the sponsor of the event to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out the event in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol grounds. The event is open to the public and free of charge, and the sponsor will assume responsibility for all expenses and liabilities related to the event. In addition, sales, advertisements, and solicitations are explicitly prohibited on the Capitol grounds for this event. The Capitol grounds, Mr. Speaker, will be used for the bicycle summit, which will teach children the proper ways to ride their bikes and honor children who have taken an active role in the national campaign to make America more bike-friendly. This event will help children to develop habits of active citizenship and environmental stewardship. I would also like to note that this resolution has received wide bipartisan support from the Congressional Bike Caucus. I support the resolution, and urge my colleagues to join in support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

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, House Concurrent Resolution 48 authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the Sunrayce '99 solar power car event to be held on June 20th, 1999, or on such date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration jointly designate. The resolution also authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, and the sponsor of the event to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out the event in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol grounds. The event is open to the public and free of charge, and the sponsor will assume responsibility for all expenses and liabilities related to the event. In addition, sales, advertisements, and solicitations are explicitly prohibited on the Capitol grounds for this event. The Capitol grounds will be used for the opening ceremonies for the solar power car event that will begin at the Capitol and after traversing through five States, conclude in Orlando, Florida. Intercollegiate men and women from all over the United States have taken part in the development of the solar power cars. Scholarship achievement awards will be awarded to participants that display exceptional levels of technical innovation, engineering excellence, artistic excellence, teamwork, and good sportsmanship. This day will highlight the importance of and help us develop a better understanding for the many different uses of solar energy. I support this resolution, and urge my colleagues to join in support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 48) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the opening ceremonies of Sunrayce 99.

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 and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res 48, H. Con. Res. 49, and H.R. 911, as amended.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, while all eyes will be on St. Petersburg this weekend to observe the NCAA Final Four basketball championships, those of us in the Sixth District of North Carolina are already celebrating a roundball title. We are proud to say that High Point Central High School has won the North Carolina 2-A girls basketball championship. The High Point Central Bison defeated St. Pauls 78-63 to capture the 2-A crown in Chapel Hill on March 13. High Point Central finished the year with a record of 28-2 and captured its third state title in seven years--an impressive feat. What makes the win even more remarkable was that the Bison went into the title contest knowing one of their senior starters was injured. Lee Culp broke her foot on the Thursday before the Saturday championship, but that didn't stop her from scoring a team-leading 20 points in 29 minutes of action. For her gutty performance, Culp was named MVP of the game. Her coach, Kenny Carter, told the Greensboro News & Record, that Lee was part of a very special group of seniors. ``I can't describe it,'' Coach Carter told the newspaper. ``I had the seniors write a paper about what it's like to be there. And they each used the word `indescribable.' I know this, they gave me a rebirth of energy. They've been with me for four years, and I wouldn't trade them for any team or any players I've ever had.'' Joining Culp in the total team effort were Katie Copeland, Kanecia Obie, Leslie Olson, Elizabeth Redpath, Laura Kirby, Velinda Vucannon, Shonda Brown, Leslie Cook, Erica Green, Shemeka Leach, Krystion Obie, and Nasheena Quick. Coach Carter will be the first to tell you that the Bison win was thanks to the players, coaches and staff working together to achieve a common goal. In addition to Coach Carter, congratulations are due to his assistants Jetanna McClain, April Rose, Scottie Carter, Eugene Love, Kim Liptrap, and Chris Martin. Also helping in many ways were the team managers Chasity Brown, Jessica Allen, and Serenity Klump. So, while everyone watches the Final Four this weekend, fans of the High Point Central Bison are already celebrating the ``Final Three''-- the third state championship in seven years. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate High Point Central for winning the state's 2-A girls basketball championship.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it has pretty well been said. The U.S. Coast Guard has made America a better place to live for 208 years. As members of this country's oldest continuous seagoing service, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to do what they have always done, save lives and protect property at sea; ensure a safe, efficient maritime transportation system; protect and preserve our precious marine resources and environment; enforce laws and treaties in the maritime region; and defend our national security. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has already indicated that the Coast Guard, numbers-wise, is smaller than the New York City Police Department. Yet our Coast Guard carries out their vital missions in this country's ports and waterways, along its 47,000 miles of coastline, lakes and rivers, on international waters or in any maritime region as required to support national security. When I was a member of the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, we used to affectionately refer to the Navy as the Big Outfit. Conversely, they would refer to us as the Little Outfit, the Shallow Water Navy, the Knee-Deep Navy, the Hooligans Navy. They did it with tongues in cheek but they did it affectionately. There was good rapport between the two seagoing services. This essential and fiercely proud service continues its 24-hour-a- day, 7-day-a-week vigilance against a host of transnational dangers, including pollution, illegal migration, international drug trafficking and terrorism. My friend from Minnesota mentioned the Mackinaw. The Mackinaw was synonymous with Great Lakes icebreaking, I guess, for four or five decades. He is right, the time has come to replace it. I am happy to see that that is going to happen. I talked with a Coast Guardsman not too long ago who was the recipient of the Coast Guard gold lifesaving medal. I think he had rescued either four or five people in this particular rescue effort. In so doing, he suffered a permanent injury, and he is disabled. As I was talking to him about his heroic rescue, he was very unassuming about it. ``No big deal,'' he said, ``this is what I'm supposed to do.'' Well, it was a big deal to those whom he pulled out of the drink. I can assure you it was a big deal to them. Even though he is now disabled, he said, ``I did what I'm supposed to do. I went to the aid of those who were in distress.'' That is what the Coast Guard men and women have been doing for years, 208, to be exact. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to say to my friend from Pennsylvania that the full committee and the subcommittee has done yeoman work in getting this bill to the floor. It is a good bill. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's motto rings just as true today as it did in 1970, semper paratus, always ready.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I usually vote consistently in favor of rules, and I may vote for this rule, but I am opposed to our dispatching troops to Kosovo, not unlike my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who just spoke. I recall Bosnia. The President told us our troops would be back home, I believe, by December 1996. Well, when I last checked, December 1996 has come and long gone and our troops are still there. I was uneasy about it because I could not grasp the importance of our national security vis-a-vis Bosnia. Now Kosovo is on the screen and, unlike Bosnia, as best I remember it, I do not think we have even been invited to come to Kosovo. Given these two situations, I don't mean to portray myself as an isolationist but to suggest that Bosnia and Kosovo are European problems that should be resolved by Europeans hardly constitutes isolationism. It is isolationism light at its best, if that. I just believe that we do not need to insert our oars into those waters, and I don't mean to come across as uncaring or indifferent to the problems plaguing Europe, but doggone it, it is indeed a European problem. Let our European friends handle it unless it becomes a situation that causes United States national security to be exposed. Now, absent that, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues on both sides, I think we need to go about our business here. Let our friends across the water, as my late grandma used to say, let them resolve those problems.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I guess in closing, Mr. Speaker, I can best say that the goal in life, as well as baseball, is to score by going home. Vinegar Bend has circled the bases one final time, and he now rests at home. Good-bye, Vinegar Bend.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) has already touched on Vinegar Bend's baseball accolades and accomplishments, and I will not emphasize that in detail. Mr. Speaker, 8 or 9 years ago a New York Times reporter wrote an article about me, and in that article he identified me as one who portrays or cultivates a country bumpkin image. The implication was that I was a phony, to some extent; that I was not a genuine country bumpkin. Some days after that New York Times article appeared, a constituent of mine called me in my Greensboro office and she said, ``I resent what that New York Times writer wrote about you when he said that you cultivated a country bumpkin image.'' She said, ``You are a country bumpkin.'' Now, I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the late Vinegar Bend Mizelle was a country bumpkin, but he was, indeed, a genuine country boy, and there was no getting around that. And he tried in no way to be deceptive about it. This was he. When you saw Vinegar Bend, you saw a personified country boy. His folksy charm was endearing. Of course, many attributed that charm to his election. Because he had served as a county commissioner in Davidson County and then to leap from county commissioner to Congress was in the eyes of many a leap that he could not negotiate. ``Vinegar Bend could not handle that,'' I heard some of them say. But he handled it, and he handle it very effectively and very proficiently. Vinegar Bend leaves behind his wife and two sons, David and Danny. One lives in my district as a football coach at the Andrews High School in High Point. And the second one lives in my former district, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) knows, that has now been redistricted out of the 6th District and I think is represented by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) now. But Vinegar Bend, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, because you were there, came to the weekly Congressional prayer breakfast regularly. In fact, he probably attended that prayer breakfast more consistently than any other former Member, at least to the best of my knowledge. He was indeed a regular at the prayer breakfast.

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 the subject matter of my special order regarding the late ``Vinegar Bend'' Mizelle, as well as the special order of my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. This implementing legislation for the Protocol related to the Madrid Agreement on the International Registration of Marks was introduced in the past three Congresses. While the Administration has still not forwarded the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the introduction of this legislation is important in that it sends a signal to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners that the Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, efficient system for the international registration of trademarks. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administers the Protocol, which in turn operates the international system for the registration of trademarks. This system would assist our businesses in protecting their proprietary names and brand-name goods while saving cost, time, and effort. This is especially important to our small businesses which may only be able to afford world-wide protection for their marks through a low-cost international registration system. The Madrid Protocol took effect in April 1996 and currently binds 12 countries. Without the participation of the United States, however, the Protocol may never achieve its purpose of providing a one-stop, low- cost shop for trademark applicants who can--by filing one application in their country and in their language--receive protection by each member country of the Protocol. There is opposition neither to the legislation, nor to the substantive portions of the treaty. The State Department continues its attempts to resolve differences between the Administration and the European Union regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the Protocol. More specifically, the European Union receives a separate vote in addition to the votes of its member states. While it may be argued that the existence of a supra-national European trademark issued by the European Trademark Office justifies this extra vote, the State Department views the provision as antithetical to the fundamental democratic concept of one vote per state. The State Department also has raised concerns that this voting structure may constitute a precedent for deviation from the one-state-one-vote principle in future international agreements in other areas. These differences need to be settled before the Secretary of State will recommend to the President that a ratification package be presented to the Senate. The State Department is working closely with the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, which I chair, to formulate a proposal to the European Union, and subsequently to the members of the Protocol, to amend the Assembly voting procedures in a way which would provide for input by the European Union without circumventing the one-member-one- vote principle. Mr. Speaker, it is important to move this legislation forward at this time to encourage negotiations between the State Department and the European Union; and to assure American trademark holders that the United States stands ready to benefit from the Protocol as soon as it is ratified.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for their work in this matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a case of first impression before this body. It was before us in the last session of the Congress and was approved by the House where it went to the Senate to unfortunately die on the vine because the Senate adjourned prior to addressing several proposals to name buildings in honor of outstanding Americans. My friends, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) have told us much about Judge Ward. As has been mentioned, he is an alumnist of Wake Forest University, which is not located in my district. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) each represent portions of Forsyth County in which Winston-Salem is located. But I had the privilege of appearing before Judge Ward on several occasions 2\1/2\ decades ago as an assistant United States attorney. At that time, the United States Attorney was Bill Osteen who now himself sits as a United States District Judge in the Middle District of North Carolina. As was mentioned by either the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) or the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), Judge Ward distinguished himself prominently during the Second World War, amassed a very impressive war record during that time. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to share a personal story which I think speaks volumes as to the man whom we honor today. This was the first appearance on the bench by Judge Ward. I do not recall the specific year, nor the month. But it was early in the morning, early in the morning by court standards, Mr. Speaker, 9:30, 10 o'clock. This was the judge's first appearance, as I say, as a jurist. The first order of business that morning, my friends, was a naturalization ceremony whereby a German woman who had applied for citizenship was recognized that morning, and citizenship was in fact conferred upon her. At the conclusion of the naturalization ceremony, the newly addressed American woman began to weep, and her sobs became almost uncontrollable. She was weeping heavily. Keep in mind, Judge Ward, although he was a seasoned trial attorney, he was nonetheless a rookie judge. This was his first day in court with the robe. He looked down from the bench into the eyes of that sobbing German- born woman, and he said to her, ``Madam, is there anything that we, the court, can do to assist you in your trouble?" She regained her composure, and she said to Judge Ward, ``My tears, Your Honor, are tears of joy.'' She said, ``I am so happy to be a newly recognized American citizen, but I am weeping because my family and my friends are in Germany, and they are not here in Durham.'' This was in Durham, North Carolina. ``They are not here in Durham to share this very special day in my life with me.'' Then her sobs became more softly expressed. Judge Ward said to her, ``Madam, most of the people in this courtroom today are Americans as a result of geographic consequences, where their parents happened to be residing at the time of their birth. But,'' he said to her, ``you, madam, unlike most people in this courtroom today, are an American by choice. You have chosen to abandon your citizenship as a German woman, and you have become an American.'' Mr. Speaker, I think I will never forget that exchange. Judge Ward's words were so comforting to her, she ceased her weeping, and her facial response expressed a smile. I think she even audibly laughed as a result. I concluded then, I said, the calm, assuring manner expressed by Judge Ward that morning assuaged the discomfort that plagued and troubled this German-born woman upon whom American citizenship had just been conferred. I concluded without saying so aloud that this man on the bench will become an outstanding jurist. My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, was prophetic. Judge Hiram Ward has indeed become an outstanding jurist. I am pleased to be the sponsor of this bill. I again thank my friends, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for their assistance, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote favorably in passage of this proposal.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act. This bill will improve the copyright compulsory 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. These satellite 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 hundreds of thousands of satellite customers from their distant network signals. Additionally, several other legislative 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 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. In a very short time, satellite carriers will 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 Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act 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. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of the Public Broadcasting Service. In order to create parity for the above new opportunities for satellite carriers by reforming the license, there must be additional legislation to create corresponding regulatory parity between the satellite and cable industries, including must-carry rules, retransmission consent requirements, network non-duplication protection, syndicated exclusitivity protection, and sports blackout protection. I am committed to working with Representative Billy Tauzin, Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, and with Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman of the full Commerce Committee, on legislation complementary to the provisions contained in this bill. Their leadership and partnership has been and will continue to be invaluable and necessary in guaranteeing true competition between the satellite and cable industries. I also want to recognize the leadership and care that Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, has paid to the development of this important bill. We have worked together closely on its provisions and I know he is committed, as I am, to assuring fair competition through this legislation. I look forward to continuing our work together as our bills move through both bodies of the Congress. Let me make clear that this bill is a compromise, carefully balanced to ensure competition. I believe it contains the balance necessary to allow this bill to become law this session and I urge all interested parties to join us in a constructive discussion of this very important legislation. Section-by-Section

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will restore the stenographic preference for depositions taken in federal court proceedings. This bill is identical to legislation which I sponsored last term; and is similar to a bill authored by Senator Grassley during the 105th Congress. For 23 years, Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitted the use of non-stenographic means to record depositions, but only pursuant to court order or the written stipulation of the parties. In December of 1993, however, the Chief Justice submitted a recommendation pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act that eliminated the old Rule 30 requirement of a court order or stipulation. The revision also afforded each party the right to arrange for recording of a deposition by non-stenographic means. When representatives of the Judicial Conference testified on the subject in 1993, they could not provide the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property with a single justification for their recommendation. As a result, the Subcommittee unanimously approved legislation, H.R. 2814, to prevent implementation of the change. The full House of Representatives followed suit by passing the bill under suspension of the rules on November 3, 1993. It is my understanding that the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice also held hearings on Rule 30 during the 103rd Congress. I believe the members who participated in those hearings received testimony which generated concerns about the reliability and durability of video or audio tape alternatives to stenographic depositions. Then and since, court reporters have complained of increased difficulty in identifying speakers, deciphering unintelligible passages, and reconstructing accurate testimony from ``blank'' passages when relying on mechanical recordings. In contrast, information was also submitted at this time which suggested that the stenographic method will become even more cost-effective in the future as a result of improvements in recording technology. These findings from the 103rd Congress were confirmed in the 104th when the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property again conducted its own hearing on H.R. 1445, the precursor to the bill I am introducing today; and later, when the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1445 to the full House. Mr. Speaker, I have never entirely understood why Rule 30 was changed in the first place. Like many others, I have found that experience is the best teacher; and it has been my experience that no one in my district was displeased with the application of the law prior to 1993. I visit my district frequently and maintain good relations with members of the bench and bar, and not one attorney or judge ever complained about the operation of Rule 30 to me before 1993. I am pleased to continue my ongoing support for reinstating the pre- 1993 law on Rule 30 by sponsoring this bill.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act,'' a bill to encourage continued investment in the production and distribution of valuable new collections of information. Electronic collections, and other collections of factual material, are absolutely indispensable to the American economy on the verge of the new century. These information products put a wealth of data at the fingertips of business people, professionals, scientists, scholars, and consumers, and enable them to retrieve from this haystack of information the specific factual needle that they need to solve a particular economic, research, or educational problem. Whether they focus on financial, scientific, legal, medical, bibliographic, news, or other information, collections of information are essential tools for improving productivity, advancing education and training, and creating a more informed citizenry. They are also the linchpins of a dynamic commercial information industry in the United States. Developing, compiling, distributing, and maintaining commercially significant collections requires substantial investments of time, personnel, and money. Information companies must dedicate massive resources when gathering and verifying factual material, presenting it in a user-friendly way, and keeping it current for and useful to customers. U.S. firms have been the world leaders in this field. They have brought to market a wide range of valuable collections of information that meet the information needs of businesses, professionals, researchers, and consumers worldwide. But several recent legal and technological developments threaten to cast a pall over this progress, by eroding the incentives for the continued investment needed to maintain and build upon the U.S. lead in world markets for electronic information resources. Producers are also concerned that several recent cases may also cast doubt on the ability of a proprietor to use contractual provisions to protect itself against unfair competition from such ``free riders.'' In cyberspace, technological developments represent a threat as well as an opportunity for collections of information, just as for other kinds of works. Copying factual material from another's proprietary collection, and rearranging it to form a competing information production--just the kind of behaviors that copyright protection may not effectively prevent--is cheaper and easier than ever through digital technology that is now in widespread use. More and more we are seeing actual instances where American companies fall victim to such piracy, or where they refrain from placing complete collections into the public discourse, for fear of piracy. When all these factors are added together, the bottom line is clear: it is time to consider new federal legislation to protect developers who place their materials in interstate commerce against piracy and unfair competition, and thus encourage continued investment in the production and distribution of valuable commercial collections of information. While copyright, on the federal level, and state contract law underlying licensing agreements remain essential tools for protecting the enormous investment in collections of information, there are gaps in the protection that can best be filled by a new federal statute which will complement copyright law. The ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act'' would prohibit the misappropriation of valuable commercial collections of information by unscrupulous competitors who grab data collected by others, repackage it, and market a product that threatens competitive injury to the original collection. This new federal protection is modeled in part on the Lanham Act, which already makes similar kinds of unfair competition a civil wrong under federal law. Importantly, this bill maintains existing protections for collections of information afforded by copyright and contract rights. It is intended to supplement these legal rights, not replace them. Throughout the last session of Congress, we worked countless hours trying to fashion a bill that would be acceptable to all interested parties. Some would like to see stronger protections, while others advocate no legislation at all. I promise once again to listen to every constructive suggestion, and use every effort to craft a solution which bridges the producer and user communities. But I am committed to seeing this valuable legislation become law. While this bill is almost identical to the legislation which passed the House of Representatives last Congress, I have made changes to clarify and embody fair use, and to address the issue of perpetual protection. These two changes address key concerns voiced by the nonprofit scientific, educational, and research communities during our consideration last term. During the last Congress, we were able to pass the legislation through the House of Representatives not once, but twice. I look forward to working with Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy, who have indicated this necessary legislation will be a priority for them this legislative session. I also welcome the input of Representative Howard Berman, the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, as this legislation moves forward. The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act is a balanced proposal. It is aimed at actual or threatened competitive injury from misappropriation of collections of information or their contents, not at uses which do not affect marketability or competitiveness. The goal is to stimulate the creation of even more collections, and to encourage even more competition among them. The bill avoids conferring any monopoly on facts, or taking any other steps that might be inconsistent with these goals. This legislation provides the basis for legislative activity on an important and complex subject. I look forward to hearing the suggestions and reactions of interested parties, and of my colleagues.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress in 1985, I took to the well of the House to protest members' perks. In particular, I cited the congressional pension plan and the federal employees Thrift Savings Plan as ``overly generous at best, outrageously extravagant at worst.'' Although I've been waging this battle for fourteen years, no action has been taken to date to reduce either benefit. So, once again, I am introducing a package of bills designed to relieve beleagured taxpayers from footing the bill for certain congressional and executive branch benefits. The first bill eliminates the congressional pension for members who are not yet vested. I do not believe extravagant retirement benefits are necessary to entice qualified Americans to run for Congress. They are costly and excessive. The second bill revises former presidents' benefits. I am proposing to end Secret Service protection for future former presidents after one year; their spouses and minor children will no longer be entitled to Secret Service protection after Inauguration Day. We estimate this will save $15 million per year once it is implemented. The bill also changes the law prospectively to prevent presidents from double- or triple-dipping from the federal government. Specifically, it requires a former president to waive the right to each other annuity or pension to which he (or she) is entitled under any other Act of Congress (that is, any other federal pension which he earned), in order to receive the presidential pension. The value of the presidential pension is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for cabinet-level officials. As of January 1, 1999, that figure is $151,800. Finally, the bill will deny a presidential pension until a former president reaches the prevailing retirement age under Social Security. Here is an example of the costs the taxpayers face following President Clinton's service. President Clinton will be in his mid- fifties at the end of his second term. Since his presidential pension kicks in immediately upon his leaving office on Inauguration Day, he could draw over two-and-one-quarter million dollars in pension benefits before he reaches retirement age. Please don't misunderstand me. I hope that all current, former and future presidents lead long and fruitful lives upon leaving office. However, the vast majority of Americans struggle to make ends meet, and often are unable to save for their own retirement. Nevertheless, they are forced to contribute to the retirement packages of former presidents and members of Congress. Over the years, my constituents have shared with me their outrage over the lavishness and cost of these benefits. I believe elected officials need to make real sacrifices if we hope to gain the support of the American people for shared sacrifice to keep our country on the path to fiscal prosperity. I believe these bills represent bold and dramatic proposals. That is why I hope my colleagues will join me in pushing this legislation to passage.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Excellence in Military Service Act.'' This legislation would increase the active duty service obligation (ADSO) of Military Service Academy graduates from five to eight years. Many Americans do not realize that this free and highly competitive college education costs the average taxpayer over $270,000 per cadet/ midshipman. While I believe that investing in our military is critical to the future stability of our nation, I do not think it is fair to burden the taxpayer with this expense without requiring academy graduates to exhibit a similar commitment in their ADSO. I maintain that it is not unreasonable that for a free education, with a monetary allowance, that a graduating cadet/midshipman be required to commit to a longer period of obligated service upon commissioning. As college tuition continues to skyrocket, I believe our U.S. military academies will become even more attractive to prospective college students. In light of this fact, we need to ensure that a free education does not become a primary motivation for future applicants. I maintain that increasing the ADSO is an effective way to accomplish this without jeopardizing the viability of these historic institutions. I hope my colleagues will join with me to protect the U.S. taxpayers' investment in one of our nation's most precious resources.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Two quotes of relevance, my colleagues. Wendell Holmes said, Sin has many tools, but the lie is the handle which fits them all. Nearly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt observed, We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariffing and foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, he said, we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not how brilliant his capacity. Some anti-impeachment proponents, Mr. Speaker, have accused those who plan to vote for the articles before us of hating the President. I have no hate toward President Clinton, but it is my belief that the President did, in fact, commit perjury, and we can ill afford to turn a blind eye to this offense. If we do so ignore it, what sort of precedent do we establish when subsequent matters involving perjury arise and must be resolved in a fair and impartial manner? Much anxiety has been expressed, Mr. Speaker, about tying up the country if this matter is transferred to the Senate for adjudication. This, in my opinion, is not well-founded. If the House impeaches, the Senate has wider latitude and more flexibility than we in the House. The Senate is obliged to commence the trial, but it could terminate prior to conclusion. The Senate could impose a penalty, it is my opinion, without removal; or, the Senate could convict and remove. The Senate is capable of discharging the duty in one of several ways in limited time. The people's House is the body charged with the duty of accusing, and this is the duty we will discharge. If the impeachment articles before us fail, it will have been the will of the House. If the impeachment articles before us are passed, the Senate will then discharge its duty. The process will have been well served.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1197) to amend title 35, United States Code, to protect patent owners against the unauthorized sale of plant parts taken from plants illegally reproduced, and for other purposes.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also have no speakers, but I wanted to express my thanks to the gentleman from Michigan for his generous comments, and at the risk of sounding immodest, I agree. I think our subcommittee has accomplished a lot of good this year with the help of both sides of the aisle, including my friend from Michigan, and I thank him for his comments. And I would be remiss if I did not also mention Senator Patrick Leahy who has already been mentioned and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) who chairs the House Agriculture Committee and has been very actively involved in this process as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure that will serve as a needed compliment to current plant patent law which we passed under suspension of the rules on October 9 of this year. The other body has also amended the bill by adding a provision that will enable small inventors living in rural areas greater access to patent information. The first provision of H.R. 1197 amends current law governing plant patent parts. Since 1930 the Patent Act has permitted inventors to obtain plant patents. Individuals wishing to skirt protections available under the law have discovered a loophole, however, by trading in plant parts taken from illegally produced plants. H.R. 1197 closes this loophole by explicitly protecting plant parts to the same extent as plants under the Patent Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to language that was contained in the omnibus patent legislation which passed earlier in the term. There is no opposition to the bill as it will benefit American patentholders and the plant producers as well who honor their work by paying the necessary royalties. The second provision of the bill simply authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to develop and implement statewide computer networks with remote library sites, thereby enabling small inventors to have greater access to information in patent and trademark depository libraries. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment that was done in the other body makes a good bill even better, and I think it will benefit our nation's inventors, Mr. Speaker, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rarely come to these also 1-minutes, but I could not maintain silence after what I have been hearing they say. They say we are a do-nothing Congress, we are not concerned about the average Joe or Jane. Capital gains tax reduction. The increase of the estate tax exemption threshold, which means that the tax man will be delayed when he comes a calling after someone has lost a loved one. Welfare reform. IRS reform. Balanced Budget Amendment. Now does anyone in range of my voice believe that either of these five could have been done without a Republican majority in the people's House? Obviously not because it has not been done before. I keep hearing my friends to my right, to my ideological left, claiming about campaign finance reform, nothing has been done about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, they were in control of the People's House for 40 years, and nothing was done about it. I am very much offended, Mr. Speaker, by people who come to the well of this House and point an accusatory finger and accuse this 105th Congress of doing nothing. It is simply not true.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Franchise Act of 1998. Franchise businesses represent a large and growing segment of our nation's retail and service businesses and are rapidly replacing more traditional forms of small business ownership in our economy. As a result, franchise owners have become the heart and soul of America's economic engine and the backbone of local commerce. In fact, according to the International Franchise Association, a new franchised outlet opens every eight minutes and the industry gave birth to tens of thousands of new jobs in the last year alone. The franchisor/franchisee relationship is fundamentally an economic one where the objective of each party is to make money. By purchasing a franchise, a franchisee can sell goods and services that have instant name recognition, while the franchisor can increase market access with little or no risk. However, buyers should beware--like any investment, purchasing a well-known franchise is no guarantee for success. As I have studied this issue, I have come to realize that there is an uneven playing field for the small business person looking to become a franchise owner. For instance, while pre-sale disclosure information must be made available to the buyer by the corporate franchisor, post-sale opportunities to pursue recourse for presentation of misleading or false information in the pre-sale negotiations are inadequate. I am introducing this legislation because I believe this gross inequity needs to be addressed. Under present regulations, small business franchise operations are subject to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) trade regulation rule. The FTC issued this rule, entitled the ``Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures'' on December 21, 1978, and under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC rule requires franchisors to give prospective franchise purchasers financial details about the business and explain the arrangements in the franchise agreement. Well intentioned as this prospectus requirement is, as the old saying goes, ``the devil is in the details,'' and I am afraid that much of this pre-sale information, while detailed, may be very misleading. After hearing many horror stories from franchise owners about the inaccuracy of pre-sale disclosure, I must question the reliability of this information. In fact, there are no current protections to ensure that this information is relevant and accurate. The FTC, the regulatory body with oversight responsibility, does not even review this material for accuracy as say the Securities and Exchange Commission must when a private company readies itself for a public stock offering. The FTC enforces the franchise rule as part of its consumer protection mission. However, FTC enforcement is definitely lacking. Under current rules, franchisees do not have the right to sue franchisors for violations of the franchise rule. The FTC brings suit only on behalf of the federal government, not as a representative of individuals who may have been adversely affected. In July 1993, an audit by the General Accounting Office found that the FTC acted on less than six percent of all franchise complaints brought to its attention. Because of the FTC's inability to review more franchise complaints, the FTC recently approved a plan to allow the largest corporate franchisors to self-regulate their own industries. Under this program, violators of franchise disclosure laws could avoid federal enforcement proceedings by attending what amounts to an industry-run reform school that it intended to teach franchisers how to comply with disclosure rules. And adding insult to injury, if the corporate violator completes this program, they do not have to report the infraction on disclosure documents available to prospective small business franchisees. Mr. Chairman, I venture to say that this FTC ruling threw full disclosure and due diligence for future franchise owners right out the window. In the past 20 years, there has been tremendous change in the franchising industry, and as a result, I believe it is time for Congress to review the franchise rule and level the playing field for the thousands of small business owners who invest in franchise operations. The legislation that I introduce today, along with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Congressman John Conyers, addresses the fundamental and necessary safeguards that this industry so desperately needs. I believe that the safeguards provided by this legislation level the playing field for small business franchisees across our nation. This legislation, like the Automobile Dealers Day in Court Act and the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, rights the imbalance that has existed for too long in the franchisor/franchisee relationship. Recognizing that it is too late to act on this legislation during the 105th Congress, I am hopeful that the 106th Congress will address this matter and ensure that this important segment of the small business world will remain viable for future generations.