Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the chairman of the House Entertainment Task Force.

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 S. 2143.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed by unanimous consent in the other body. It is an innocuous measure that will benefit the Supreme Court in its day-to-day operations, as well as the estimated 1 million visitors who tour the building annually. The Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, as all of us no doubt know, is inundated with visitors. Now, this is perhaps a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it is a good thing, because it demonstrates the interest that the American people have in the history of our national jurisprudence. On the other hand, it means that the small group of men and women who conduct tours and deliver lectures at the facility cannot accommodate all these visitors in an orderly fashion. This bill simply authorizes the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to accept voluntary personal services to assist with public and visitor programs. Importantly, S. 2143, the bill before us, contains a proviso to ensure that the acceptance of these personal services will not result in the reduction of pay or displacement of any employee of the Court. This restriction is similar to the one which applies to the operations of the Capitol tour guide service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2143) to amend chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, to authorize the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice to accept voluntary services, and for other purposes.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from California who, by the way, has been a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary and specifically a valued member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Permit me just to say this, Mr. Speaker, in response. As I said before, the bill requires the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice to ensure that no Supreme Court employee will be displaced or have his or her pay reduced. None of the workers at the Court, including the police officers, who are members of the Fraternal Order of Police, oppose this bill, to my knowledge, and the Chief Justice is enthusiastic about its passage. I think, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my friend, the gentlewoman from California, I think this is an operational problem that can be cured without requiring the Court to submit a larger budget request, and I urge its passage.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, the House considered several measures under suspension of the rules. On rollcall votes 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, and 308 had I been present I would have voted ``yea.'' On this date, I was representing the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property at a meeting of the National Music Publishers Association. I had committed to participating in this event prior to the scheduling of votes.

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 similar to S. 1352, which Senator Grassley sponsored on October 31, 1997. 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 103d 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 103d Congress were confirmed last term 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, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) for his assistance in developing this bill. And I want to say to my friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I do not think you embellished his prowess. I think he did a good job on the mound and that was well- deserved. This could develop into a turf battle, except we all get along very well, Mr. Speaker. I have extended my tentacles into a county that is represented by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). I guess my coming into play in this bill is unique in that I did practice before Judge Ward and Judge Gordon when they were what I called the Dynamic Duo in those days in the Middle District. And I do not know that it has been said, but I am sure the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) will remind us when it comes his time, but Judge Ward did receive his law degree from Wake Forest University in 1950. The gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) may have mentioned that. During the time of years in which he was in practice, he became known as one of the most distinguished trial lawyers in North Carolina. He is highly regarded not only in the Middle District of North Carolina but the Fourth Circuit as well and, for that matter, throughout the Federal judiciary. It has been said, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, that a judge's temperament is as significant to his success on the bench as his academic credentials. I concur with that statement, Mr. Speaker; and permit me, if you will, to illustrate the temperament of Judge Ward. I revert 2\1/2\ decades. It was the first day that he held court in the Middle District in Durham. I had the privilege of being there that day, and the first order of business was a naturalization ceremony in which a German woman became an American citizen. Keep in mind, this was Judge Ward's first day on the bench. After citizenship was conferred upon her, she began to weep ever so softly and then her weeping developed into more noticeable sobbing and it became a distraction in the courtroom because it appeared that she was in obvious discomfort. I will never forget the manner in which Judge Ward resolved that problem. He said to her, ``Madam, may the court assist you in any way?'' And then she continued to sob even more noticeably. Then she said to the judge, after she regained her composure, she said, ``Your Honor, these are tears of joy, for the most part,'' she said. But she said, ``I am weeping because I am happy to be an American citizen. But I am weeping also because I think of my family and friends in Germany who are not able to be here with me to share this very obvious day of celebration for me.'' Judge Ward then said to her, and I remember it as if it were yesterday, he said, ``Madam, most people in this courtroom are Americans as a result of residence of parents at their time of birth.'' He said, ``You, Madam, are an American by choice.'' And then she began to weep even more, but those were tears of joy. I said to a bystander when Judge Ward uttered those words, I said to him, ``He has the proper judicial temperament.'' My words were prophetic. He did indeed express and still does his senior status. But I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). I look forward it hearing from Mr. Burr as well. Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) and his fine subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for having moved this bill along. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to a gentleman who, as a respected jurist and citizen, has contributed so much to his community and to his country.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4164 is intended to alleviate the legal, financial and emotional hurdles that grandparents, who have visitation rights to their grandchildren, must overcome in order to enforce those rights if the children are subsequently moved to another State. Mr. Speaker, I have met with several grandparents in my district, and the accounts that they share with me regarding their inability, for various reasons, to visit their grandchildren are generously laced with pain and frustration. H.R. 4164, Mr. Speaker, ensures that a visitation order granted to grandparents in one State will be recognized in any State where the grandchildren may be moved and thereby prevent grandchildren from losing contact with a valuable part of their family. The bill also restores to Federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to determine which of two conflicting State court custody determinations or visitation determinations is valid based on which State is exercising proper jurisdiction. This will overturn a 1988 Supreme Court decision which held that various Federal courts did not have such jurisdiction, even though Federal courts had already been hearing these type cases for years. The decision resulted in conflicting State court custody decisions with no mechanisms to determine which order was valid. H.R. 4164 will reduce duplicate State court proceedings. Though the number of such cases may not be overwhelming, the emotional and financial burdens that will be alleviated by this bill for those children and families faced with conflicting custody orders is immeasurable. This bill also gives State courts an option whether or not to enforce the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act in a limited number of interstate contested adoption cases. In an interstate contested adoption that has already been ruled on in another State, a State may exercise jurisdiction and modify the decision if the other State had failed to conduct a, ``best interest of the child analysis''. Litigants who have not acted in good faith or who have abused or attempted to abuse the system would not be eligible to utilize this provision. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I often, in my district, hear from grandparents about the many difficulties they face in trying to achieve contact with their grandchildren, and this is a significant step forward in protecting visitation rights for grandparents. This is a good bill that will benefit children and families involved in these cases, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4164. 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. 4164) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the enforcement of child custody and visitation orders.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we hear about the partisan rancor that surrounds our dealings here, and sometimes that is appropriate because of the nature of the beast. But this is a good example of how bipartisan cooperation played into bringing this bill to the floor. My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), did good work on this; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the full committee. We all had our oars in the water. And with all that has been said, I guess nothing further needs to be said. But let me say this. I would be remiss if I did not mention Debbie Laman, counsel to the committee, who worked very diligently in this matter as well. But as has been said, Mr. Speaker, the grandparent- grandchild relationship is a cherished one that should be encouraged and nurtured. This bill before us today is designed to promote this special relationship and, hopefully, will result in the resolution of problems that presently plague not only grandparents but children and families across our land. I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 4164, the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, there is an issue that affects my constituents in North Carolina's Sixth District as well as all hard working citizens across America. It is important to remember that small businesses keep America strong. This Congress must be cognizant of the significant impact small business has on our economy. Congress should take the necessary steps to ensure that our economic system is not endangered by legislation that tightens compulsory unionism. I have always been a strong supporter of North Carolina's right-to-work laws. H.R. 59, which I cosponsored, would protect employees and employers throughout our nation from the economically-crippling effects of compulsory unionism. Furthermore, this legislation would protect consumers and taxpayers from industry closures as well as increases in government operating costs. Freedom of choice is the heart of H.R. 59. The right to work means that a worker cannot be fired for not paying fees or dues to labor bosses. This issue relates directly to the First Amendment, which guarantees our freedom of association. If you do not wish to join an organization, the federal government should not force you to do so, at the risk of losing your job. Forcing workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment is morally wrong and economically wasteful. We must take steps to relieve employees and employers from the mandated union fees. H.R. 59 will aid America's small businesses

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of correspondence between myself and Congressmen Boucher and Campbell on the WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 16, 1998. Hon. Tom Campbell, U.S. Representative for the 15th District of California, Washington, DC. Hon. Rick Boucher, U.S. Representative for the 9th District of Virginia, Washington, DC. Dear Tom and Rick: Thank you for visiting with me in my office recently regarding H.R. 2281, the ``WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act.'' I appreciate the concerns you expressed with respect to H.R. 2281 as it was reported from the House Committee on the Judiciary. I expressed to you that I would consider your thoughts and respond to you in detail, and am pleased to do so in this letter. I believe that many of your concerns, which are enumerated in your substitute bill, H.R. 3048, have been addressed already in a reasonable manner in amendments to the bill adopted by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property and the Committee on the Judiciary in the House and by the Committee on the Judiciary and on the floor in the Senate (regarding the Senate companion bill, S. 2037). Others have been addressed in legislative history in House Report 105-551 (Part I) which accompanies the bill, as well as in Senate Report 105-190, which accompanies the Senate companion bill. Still others may be addressed as the House Committee on Commerce exercises its sequential jurisdiction over limited portions of the bill and as I work with interested members on developing a manager's amendment to be considered by the whole House. I anticipate including many of the amendments made by the Senate in the manager's amendment, along with other provisions. I anticipate that a conference will be necessary to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bills. While I am unable to support the specific provisions of H.R. 3048, for reasons I will explain in this letter, I am willing to work with you in the coming weeks to address additional concerns regarding the impact of this legislation on the application of the ``fair use'' doctrine in the digital environment and on the consumer electronics industry. I wish to stress, however, that I believe the bill, as amended by the House and Senate thus far, and explained by both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committee reports, already addresses these issues in several constructive ways. I believe it is important, in order to recognize properly the efforts undertaken by the Congress and the Administration to address the concerns of the consumer electronics and fair use communities, to review the history of H.R. 2281 and to evaluate all of the provisions that have been either added to or deleted from the bill since its development leading to introduction in this Congress. As I am sure you will appreciate, I am sensitive to your concerns and have worked diligently with members and all parties involved to create a balanced and fair proposal that will result in the enactment of legislation this Congress. In February, 1993, the Administration formed the Information Infrastructure Task Force to implement Administration policies regarding the emergence of the Internet and other digital technologies. This task force formed a Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights to investigate and report on the effect of this new technology on copyright and other rights and to recommend any changes in law or policy. The working group held a public hearing in November, 1993, at which 30 witnesses testified. These witnesses represented the views of copyright owners, libraries and archives, educators, and other interested parties. The working group also solicited written comments and received over 70 statements during a public comment period. Based on oral and written testimony, the working group released a ``Green Paper'' on July 7, 1994. After releasing the Green Paper, the working group again heard testimony from the public through four days of hearings held around the country. More than 1,500 pages of written testimony were filed during a four-month comment period by more than 150 individuals and organizations. In March, 1995, then-Chairman Carlos Moorhead solicited informal comments from parties who had submitted testimony regarding the Green Paper, including library and university groups, and computer and electronics groups, in order to work effectively with the Administration on jointly developing any proposed updates to U.S. copyright law that might be necessary in light of emerging technologies. In summer, 1995, the working group released a ``White Paper'' based on the oral and written testimony it has received after releasing the Green Paper. The White Paper contained legislative recommendations which were developed from public comment in conjunction with consultation between the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Copyright Office and the Administration. In September, 1995, Chairman Moorhead in the House and Chairman Hatch in the Senate introduced legislation which embodied the recommendations contained in the White Paper and held a joint hearing on November 15, 1995. Testimony was received from the Administration, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Copyright Office. The House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held two days of further hearings in February, 1996. Testimony was received from copyright owners, libraries and archives, educators and other interested parties. In May, 1996, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a further hearing. Testimony was received from copyright owners, libraries and other interested parties. These hearings were supplemented with negotiations in both bodies led by Representative Goodlatte (as authorized by Chairman Moorhead) in the House and by Chairman Hatch in the Senate. Further negotiations were held by the Administration in late summer and fall of 1996. During consideration of the ``NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995,'' Chairman Moorhead requested that Mr. Boucher and Mr. Berman of California lead negotiations between interested parties regarding the issue of circumvention. While these negotiations were helpful in streamlining and clarifying the issues to be discussed, they ultimately did not result in an agreement. It is important to note that shortly after its establishment, the Administration task force's working group convened, as part of its consideration, a Conference on Fair Use (CONFU) to explore the effect of digital technologies on the doctrine of fair use, and to develop guidelines for uses of works by libraries and educators. Because of the complexities involved in developing broad-based policies for the adaptation of the fair use doctrine to the digital environment, and due to much disagreement among the participants (including within the library and educational communities), CONFU did not issue its full report until nearly two years after it was convened. An Interim Report was released by CONFU in September 1997 on the first phase of its work. No consensus was reached on how to apply the fair use doctrine to the digital age. In fact, the CONFU working group on interlibrary loan and document delivery concluded in a report to its Chair that it is ``premature to draft guidelines for digital transmission of digital documents.'' The work of CONFU continues today and a final report should be released soon with no agreed conclusions. As you can see, developing sweeping legislation, rather than relying on court-based ``case or controversy'' applications of the doctrine, is exceedingly difficult to do. Since before the debate began with the establishment of a task force in the United States in 1993, the international community had also been considering what updates should be made to the Berne Convention on Artistic and Literary Works in order to provide adequate and balanced protection to copyrighted works in the digital age. This culminated in a Diplomatic Conference hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization at which over 150 countries agreed on changes needed to accomplish this goal. This goal was not reached easily, however, and many of the issues being debated by the Administration and the Congress in the United States concerning fair use and circumvention were aired at the Diplomatic Conference, with significant changes made to accommodate fair use concerns and the effect on the consumer electronic industries. Representatives of both groups participated in the Conference and aggressively sought to maintain proper limitations on copyright. They succeeded. For example, language was added to ensure that exceptions such as fair use could be extended into the digital environment. The treaty also originally contained very specific language regarding obligations to outlaw circumvention. It was changed to state that all member countries ``shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty.'' This left to each country the development of domestic legislation to accomplish this goal. After the United States signed the WIPO Treaties, the Administration again began negotiations led by the Department of Commerce and the Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the Copyright Office and the Congress, to develop domestic implementing legislation for the treaties. It built upon the efforts already accomplished by the release of the Green Paper and the White Paper and all of the testimony and comments heard as part of that process, the House and Senate bills introduced in the 104th Congress and all of the hearing testimony and negotiations associated with them, and the negotiations held by the Administration leading up to and during the Diplomatic Conference. Again, comments were solicited from fair use and consumer electronics groups. In the summer of 1997, the Administration submitted to the Congress draft legislation to implement the treaties. In July, 1997, Chairman Hatch and I introduced the current pending legislation in each house. Importantly, the legislation was tailored to match the treaty language by establishing legal protection and remedies not against any technological measures whatsoever, but only ``against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights.'' The fair use and consumer electronics groups succeeded, just as they had at the Diplomatic Conference, in assuring in the introduced version of the bills the maintenance of proper limitations on copyright. The Administration had considered originally banning both the manufacture and use of devices which circumvent effective technological measures and had no specific provision on fair use, since Section 107 of the Copyright Act would, of course, continue to exist after enactment of the legislation. The word ``use'' was eliminated in the device provision and a specific provision relating to the adoption of the fair use doctrine in the digital environment was added. As it was introduced, H.R. 2281 contained two important safeguards for fair use. First, the bill dealt separately with technological measures that prevent access and technological measures that prevent copying. As to the latter, the bill contained no prohibition on the act of circumvention itself, leaving users free to circumvent such measures in order to make fair use copies. Second, the savings clause in subsection 1201(d) ensures that defenses to copyright protection, including fair use, are unaffected by the prohibitions on circumvention. For example, circumvention of an effective technological measure that controls access to a work does not preclude, or affect in any way, a defense of fair use for copying the work. Moreover, the bill as introduced did not expand exclusive rights or diminish exceptions and limitations on exclusive rights. Again, a series of legislative hearings were held by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees at which testimony was again heard from copyright owners, libraries and archives, educators, consumer electronics groups and other interested parties. In February, 1998, almost five years to the date of the establishment of the Administration's working group, taking into account all of the concessions and negotiations leading up to it, the first markup was finally held in Congress by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property on this important legislation. As is evident by the timetable involved in the development of this legislation, and considering the number of hearings, negotiations and conferences dedicated to its contents, this bill certainly has not been placed on any ``fast-track.'' In the course of Subcommittee and Committee consideration of the bill in the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Frank, and I, proposed a number of improvements to the bill, which were adopted by the Committee, that benefit libraries and nonprofit educational institutions. We introduced a special ``shopping privilege`` exemption that permits nonprofit libraries and archives to circumvent effective technological measures in order to decide whether they wish to acquire lawfully a copy of the work. We added a provision that requires a court to remit monetary damages for innocent violations of sections 1201 or 1202. And we eliminated any possibility that nonprofit libraries and archives or educational institutions can be held criminally liable for any violation of sections 1201 or 1202, even when such violations are willful. These changes add protection to language already included in the bill which safeguard manufacturers of legitimate consumer electronic devices. Unlike the ``NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995,'' which would have prohibited devices ``the primary purpose or effect of which is to circumvent,'' H.R. 2281 sets out three narrow bases for prohibiting devices. A device is prohibited under section 1201 only if it is primarily designed or produced to circumvent, has limited commercially significant use other than to circumvent, or is marketed specifically for use in circumventing. This formulation means that under H.R. 2281, it is not enough for the primary effect of the device to be circumvention. It therefore excludes legitimate multi-purpose devices from the prohibition of section 1201. Devices such as VCRs and personal computers do not fall within any of these three categories (unless they are, in reality, black boxes masquerading as VCRs or PCs). In addition, H.R. 2281 as introduced does not require any manufacturer of a consumer electronic device to accommodate existing or future technological protection measures. ``Circumvention,'' as defined in the bill, requires an affirmative step of ``avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological protection measure.'' Language added in the Senate, referred to below, clarified this even further. In addition to all of the foregoing, there are a number of amendments that were made in the Senate bill that will be included in the manager's amendment to H.R. 2281. These include: an expansion of the exemptions for nonprofit libraries and archives in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 108 to cover the making of digital copies without authorization, for purposes of preservation, security or replacement of damaged, lost or stolen copies; an expansion of section 108 to cover the making of digital copies without authorization in order to replace copies in the collection that are in an obsolete format; a provision directing the Register of Copyrights to make recommendations as to any statutory changes needed to apply the limitations on liability of online service providers to nonprofit educational institutions that act in the capacity of service providers; a provision directing the Register of Copyrights to consult with nonprofit libraries and nonprofit educational institutions and submit recommendations on how to promote distance education through digital technologies, including any appropriate statutory changes; a savings provision stating that nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof; a provision that states explicitly that nothing in section 1201 requires accommodation of present or future technological protection measures; a provision to ensure that the prohibition on circumvention does not limit the ability to decompile computer programs to the extent permitted currently under the doctrine of fair use; and a provision ensuring that technology will be available to enable parents to prevent children's access to indecent material on the Internet. I believe that these are constructive provisions that precisely and carefully address specific concerns you have raised in H.R. 3048. In order to assure that fair use applies in the digital environment, in addition to the above changes, I have also agreed to include in the manager's amendment an amendment to Section 107 of the Copyright Act to make it continue to be technology-neutral with respect to means of exploitation. It may be helpful, in addition to discussing what is contained in H.R. 2281 and the Senate companion, and what will be included in the manager's amendment, to raise directly with you some of the identifiable problems I see associated with H.R. 3048 as introduced. Section 2 of H.R. 3048 would make two changes to Section 107 of the Copyright Act. It would add a specific reference to make explicit that fair use can apply to both analog and digital transmissions and would direct courts, in weighing fair use, to give no independent weight to either (1) the means by which a work is exploited under the authority of the copyright owner, or (2) the copyright owner's use of a copy protection technology. By amending Section 107 in this manner, H.R. 3048 implies that, currently, Section 107 does not apply to digital transmissions, or at a minimum, suggests that uses that are not mentioned specifically in the statute are less favored than those that are. Given that courts have been applying presently the fair use doctrine to digital transmissions, the risks inherent in burdening Section 107 with technology-specific language must be weighed against any benefit of added clarity the amendment would provide. Because no clarity is needed, since courts routinely apply the doctrine to digital transmissions, it is my opinion that the detriments of such a change outweigh any perceived benefits. As I mentioned, I would be pleased to clarify Section 107 by deleting any references to enumerated rights in Section 106 to reaffirm the application of fair use on the digital environment, rather than by placing technology-specific language in the limitation itself. The other amendment to section 107 you propose would, for the first time, direct courts to ignore possibly relevant information in making a fair use determination. As it has developed over time, courts have been allowed to look, depending on the case or controversy in question, at the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding a given use. This has enabled courts to reach a fair result. If, for example, a user breaks a ``technological lock'' in order to gain access to a work, the user has engaged in activity that goes beyond the bounds of traditional fair use. Fair use has never been interpreted to afford users a right of access. The provision you propose would grant to users a right of free access, rather than a right of fair use. H.R. 3048, therefore, in my opinion, changes U.S. policy in an extreme manner that undermines the free market principles protecting a creator's right to control initial access, as opposed to all uses, of his or her work. H.R. 3048 also would make the ``first sale doctrine,'' codified in Section 109 of the Copyright Act, applicable to digital transmissions of copies of works. The first sale doctrine limits the exclusive rights granted a copyright owner with respect to a particular copy of a work to the first sale or transfer of that copy. Thereafter, the purchaser or transferee of that particular copy may generally sell, lend, rent or give it away without violating the copyright owner's distribution right. This doctrine was created by the courts to secure the alienability of tangible property and to curb any effort by a copyright owner to control the after-market for resales of the same copy of a work. Section 4 of H.R. 3048 would exempt the performance, distribution or display (and the reproduction, to the extent necessary for the performance, display or distribution) of a lawfully-acquired copy of a work (presumably including, under the bill, one obtained for free through circumvention, as long as such circumvention was done for obtaining a copy to make a fair use of portions of it), by means of a transmission to a single recipient, provided that the ``original'' copy is destroyed. In my opinion, this extension of the first sale doctrine is antithetical to the policies the doctrine was intended to further. The alienability of tangible property is not at issue, since no tangible property changes hands in a transmission. Further, it does not address specifically the ability to control the after-market for resales of the same copy of a work, wince in this case distribution of a work by digital transmission necessarily requires a reproduction--it is not the same copy. The bill's answer to this quandary--that the original copy must be destroyed--is unenforceable and certainly not a substitute for disposition of a tangible copy. Destruction involves an affirmative act, generally in the privacy of a home, that is difficult to police and would involve significant invasions of privacy if it were policed effectively. Further, regardless of whether the original copy is destroyed, the new copy would be free of contractual or other controls placed on the original copy by the copyright owner. It is also likely that this provision would have a much greater impact on an owner's primary market for new copies of a work than the current first sale doctrine has on the primary market for physical copies. Unlike used books, digital information is not subject to wear and tear. The ``used'' copy is just as desirable as the new one because they are indistinguishable. For this reason, Congress has curtailed the first sale doctrine as it applies to the rental of sound recordings and software in the past, to prevent posing so great a burden on a copyright owner so as to undermine the incentive to create works which is the driving force behind the Copyright Act. H.R. 3048 would also broaden Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act so that the performance, display, or distribution of any work (rather than just the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work and the display of any work) through digital transmission (rather than just through audio broadcasts) would be allowed without the permission of the copyright holder, as long as it is received by students, or by government employees as part of their duties. This broad expansion of the distance learning provisions currently codified in the Copyright Act would permit the transmission of a wide variety of Internet-based or other remote-access digital transmission formats for distance education and raises serious questions about safeguards to prevent such transmissions from unauthorized access. In other words, it may facilitate piracy. Both CONFU and the Senate have discussed the intricacies involved in safeguarding transmissions used for distance learning purposes and have agreed that it is premature to enact specific legislation at this time. As discussed earlier, the Senate has included a provision in its companion bill, which I plan to include in the House manager's amendment, that will provide for a study with legislative recommendations on this issue, within a six-month time frame. This study will be better able to address the complex problems I have identified. Section 7 of H.R. 3048 would amend Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act to preempt enforcement of certain license terms under state law. Specifically, it would preempt any state statute or common law that would enforce a ``non-negotiable license term'' governing a ``work distributed to the public'' if such term limited a copying of material that is not subject to copyright protection or if it restricted the limitations to copyright contained in the Copyright Act. In effect, it would prohibit standard form agreements, used in the context of copies distributed to the public, that purport to govern use of noncopyrightable subject matter or limit certain exceptions and limitations, such as fair use. The use of standard form licensing agreements has become prevalent in the software and information industries, as owners seek to protect their investment in these products against the risk of unauthorized copying. Section 7 would result in destroying the ability of the producer of a work to create specific licenses tailored to the circumstances of the marketplace, or, in the case of factual databases and other valuable but noncopyrightable works, destroy the most significant form of protection currently available. This could result, for example, in the loss of crucial revenues to stock and commodity exchanges who rely on such contracts to disseminate information. Attempts to introduce language similar to Section 7 of H.R. 3048 into Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) have been rejected repeatedly by the UCC Article 2B Drafting Committee on several occasions. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws also rejected a proposal similar to the one you propose as has the American Law Institute. I agree with these bodies that restricting the freedom to contract in the manner proposed in H.R. 3048 would have a negative effect on the availability of information to consumers. H.R. 3048 also proposes several changes to Section 108 of the Copyright Act regarding archiving and library activities. As you are aware, library groups and copyright owners have come to an agreement regarding changes in this section to update the Act for the digital environment and those changes were incorporated by the Senate in the companion bill. I will include those same provisions in the manager's amendment in the House. Finally, the new Section 1201 contained in H.R. 3048 would not prohibit manufacturing or trafficking in devices purposely created to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted works, and insofar as it prohibits conduct, would permit circumvention in the first instance for purposes of fair use. In other words, H.R. 3048, as I discussed earlier, would grant to users a right never before allowed--free access to copyrighted works in order to make a fair use. I believe that is unwise policy and tilts the balance away from the protection of works in a free market economy toward the free provision of works to anyone claiming to make a fair use. This would, I believe, ultimately lead to much more litigation against libraries and others who lawfully engage in fair use and ultimately would diminish the number of works made available over new media. While it would be impossible to communicate to you all of the problems contained in the exact language of H.R. 3048, I wanted to, in truncated form, reveal my serious concerns with the bill. In its current form, for the above reasons and others, I would oppose it as a substitute to H.R. 2281, as amended. I remain dedicated, however, to working with you, as I have in the past, to address your concerns in a reasonable manner that will result successfully in changes to our nation's copyright law that will benefit both owners and users of works. I truly believe that we are at the beginning of a long process of addressing adaptation to the digital environment. It is not possible at this point to enact legislation that will contemplate all uses of a work and, as CONFU members aptly point out, many will have to be addressed as we move forward. I am committed, however, to preserving fair use in the digital age and thank you for your valuable and continuing insight and interest. Sincerely, Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a little-known, but immensely significant, group that valiantly served our country in World War II. This heroic group of individuals, members of the ``Lion 4'' unit, served to supply and repair the many needs of the huge Navy presence in the Pacific theater. This unit, along with the other brave soldiers who fought the war in the Pacific, helped us defeat the Japanese and end the war months earlier than expected. We shall never forget the accomplishments of these men, some of America's true heroes. The Lion 4 unit landed on the Admirality Islands north of New Guinea, with the daunting task of having to build a base equal to Pearl Harbor in size and function, with room to anchor over 400 ships. They landed on February 29, 1944, and by March 10, a severely damaged airfield was operational, providing pivotal air support during the war. Amazingly, at least 36 major units were operational by July, merely five months after the Lion 4 had first landed! These men had almost single-handedly created the largest and most important naval and air base in the Pacific Theatre. This in spite of knee-deep mud, torrential rainfall, 120 degree temperatures, malaria, and the constant risk of death from the ongoing war around them. They built this base so that the fighting troops could get supplies and repairs, and the time saved, in addition to the Lion 4's service, served to cut short the war and break the back of the Japanese forces. On behalf of the men and women of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we proudly honor these men for their service to our country. The following men, members of Lion Four/Navy 3205 Association, are among the servicemen who helped keep our country free and proud: Marlon Adrian, Albert Aguero, Edwin Anguiski, Robert Archer, Ford Basel, Leonard Bearce, Ralph Benavidez, S.Q. Berry, Donald Berry, Henry J. Bozenski, Donald Bratt, Robert Bridges, Robert Bridges, George Briggs, Ernest Brown, Harold Brown, Williams Burg, Lenard Callaway, Loran Cambell, Pat Cannavino, Harold Cazaubon, Morris J. Coe, Marion Cook, George Crosley, Jesse Daniels, Carrol Day, Fred Defield, Martin Delozier, John Dick, Augustine DiSano, Malone Downes, Irvine Downs, Earl Dressen, Robert Dunn, Frank Durbin, James Eby, Carl Eitel, Max Ellis, Howard Espenson, Joseph Frendling, D.P. Garner, Shelton Gautreaux, William Gaydos, George Gerberding, John Geschrey, John Glaser, Charles Granger, Chester Grobschmidt, Sam Guerrero, Frank Halder, E. Lee Hall, Garry Hanson, Robert Hartigan, Robert Harwood, Thomas Hatcher, Ralph Hayes, George Haymes, James Heand, Robert Hecke, Charles Heiss, Forrest Herron, Jr., John Herzog, Preston Hoalst, Frank Hogan, Charles Hoggett, Douglas Hood, Kenneth Hoyt, William Hutchison, Joe Jacob, Clifford James, James Jensen, Farris Jobe, Hal Johnson, Sylvester Kapoclus, James Kauffman, Eugene Kennedy, Chester Kershner, Andrew Kube, Herman Kuhns, Robert Laflame, Marshall Leach, Bernard Lease, Marvin Leasure, Larry Leonard, Arthur Ludwig, Daniel Lukach, Paul Mahan, Charles Majewski, Perry Martin, Ken Mathews, William Maxwell, Charles McCabe, Eugene McCardell, Joseph Melillo, Jake Miller, Thomas Miller, Frank Moesher, Lawrence Moon, Dale Mulholand, Miles Mutchler, Evan Nardone, Glen Nelson, Donald Nephew, John Newkirk, William O'Dea, Howard Olson, Richard Ostrem, James Owens, Ingert Pederson, James Pennebaker, Walter Pensak, Robert Phipps, William Piper, Donald Pittelko, I.C. Plaza, Marvin Plunkett, Floyd Prater, Melvin Rabbitt, Douglas Ragsdale, Al Raiola, George Roe, Robert Rosenburg, Irven Rustad, John Ruth, Paul Sanders, John Sarbach, Alvin Saxton, Roland Schomer, Oron Schuch, Carl Schultz, Robert Schultz, Harold Schwocho, Eldon Shomo, Paul Siler, Roy Smith, Ruben Stahl, C. Stewart, Wm. Stiffler, Phillip Storm, Robert Stower, John Streicher, Buford Swartwood, Robert Tafel, Louis Tangney, Ernest Taube, Lowell Ter Borch, John Thomas, Ronald Trabucco, Walker Treadway, Joshua Treat III, Robert Trevorah, Frank Van Poppelen, John Van Soest, Charles Vicory, John Ward, Chuck Washner, Harry Waugh, William Webb, Harry Weiss, Hal Wenick, B.F. Williams, Sherwood Williams, Loren Yates, and Frank Zehner. Family members will be representing the following deceased members of Lion 4 at the next gathering in Williamsburg, Virginia: Herbert Banning, Edward Boyle, Mr. Daningger, Brayn Driggers, Thomas Hutchison, Bert Lancaster, Robert Riehm, Eugene Rushing, Arthur Schussler, Arnold Vann, Donald Williams, Edward Winikaitis, and Glen Zunke. As we sit here today, a half century after World War II, the need remains to honor those brave men and women who secured our freedom. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we express our deepest gratitude to the members of Lion Four and all the units that helped keep America free; we shall never forget their sacrifices.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the school year, I would like to take a moment to recognize some outstanding young people in the Sixth District of North Carolina who can rightfully wear the title of ``champions.'' We are proud to say that seven schools in our district have produced state champions in baseball, soccer, wrestling, tennis, and cheerleading. We are proud of these individual and team achievements and wish to recognize our North Carolina scholar-athletes. We begin with a soccer team that is not only the best in our state, but is rated number one in the nation. The Greensboro Day School girls soccer team completed an undefeated season with its fourth consecutive independent school state championship on May 16. The team ended its season with a perfect 21-0 record. In fact, the Bengals have won 42 straight games and their perfect season vaulted them to the top spot in the National Soccer Coaches Association of America-Umbro Top 20 soccer poll. Congratulations are in order to Head Coach Kim Burroughs, her assistants Paul Lieb and Dana Tilley, and every member of the Greensboro Day School squad. Contributing to the number one ranking were Christian Anton, Lindsey Marshall, Sara Pickens, Katie Carson, Mary Katherine Davis, Gabi Lieb, Brooke Marshall, Kelli Robinson, Annie Shulman, Landy Douglas, Lauren Groat, Kathleen Martin, Christie McGroarty, Emily Norman, Suzanne Cole, Jenee Kwaitkowski, Jenny Gilrain, Kirsten Paul, and Kendra Kasik. Everyone contributed to the perfect season and the national recognition. After winning another state title, Athletic Director Freddy Johnson told the Greensboro News & Record that he had t-shirts printed with their number two national ranking. When the Greensboro Day School girls soccer team made it all the way to number one in the nation, the athletic director told the newspaper ``I've got to get them new shirts.'' That way everyone will know that the Bengals are number one in North Carolina and the U.S.A. In fact, our district is the home of two state soccer champions this year. On May 30, the High Point Central High School girls soccer squad captured the North Carolina 1-A/2-A championship with a 4-0 win over Eastern Alamance High School. The Bison were led by MVP Lee Culp who had two goals and an assist. The opposing team's coach, Kevin Farrell, told the High Point Enterprise, ``She's (Culp) a great player. She's able to run and runin this heat, and I think that was a big difference.'' Culp told the newspaper that the win was a team effort. ``I was surprised, but I don't think I deserve it (the MVP award) because we have 18 great players on this team.'' Everyone would agree with that statement. Joining Culp on the championship squad were Sarah Luther, Caithlin Williams, Price Keever, Mandi Tinsley, Leslie Olsen, Katie Copeland, Jenny Thomas, Jenni Tinsley, Lindsay Walker, Erica Bell, Lindsay Holbrook, Mary Orr, Jessica Harrison, Tina Tinsley, Graham Magill, Andrea Brown, and Lindsey Husted. Congratulations also are in order for Head Coach David Upchurch, his assistant Pete Chumbley, and managers Scott Salter, Robert White and Kim Liptrap. MVP Culp told the newspaper, ``Right after the game, we just turned around and said, `We're going to be back here next year.' '' That may or may not happen, but one thing is for sure, we need to congratulate the High Point Central girls soccer team for winning this year's 1-A/2-A championship. Now that we are in the middle of the baseball season, we are pleased to announce that two high schools in the Sixth District have captured state championships. Eastern Randolph High School won North Carolina's 2-A baseball title while Northwest Guilford High School captured the 4- A crown. Eastern Randolph defeated Whiteville 8-2 on may 31 to win the 2-A championship. Wildcat Head Coach Tommy Maness told the Greensboro News & Record that the state title was the goal which was set on the first day of practice. ``It seems like it's been an eternity since February 9,'' Coach Maness said. ``These guys, back then, they set a goal and said `hey, we want to win a state championship.' '' It was a goal that may have been set last year when Eastern Randolph made it to the state semifinals. This year, the Wildcats made it all the way to the top thanks to the contributions of Coach Maness, his assistants Neill Kivett, Harold Kivett, Danny Martin, and Cecil Mack, statisticians Brandie Craven and Mary Beth Butt,, and every member of the talented Wildcat squad. Congratulations go to Darren Beasley, Anthony Birchette, E.J. Brower, Matt Brown, Mickey Burgess, Andrew Conner, Morgan Frazier, Rod Goldston, Michael Johnston, Jonathan Kirkman, James Lowe, Zack Moffitt, David oats, Greg Rich, Thomas Seawell, Nathan Sheppard, Darrin Stewart, and Brian Wright. The other Sixth District high school to win a state baseball title was Northwest Guilford. Not only did the Vikings capture the state 4-A baseball championship on May 31, but the win culminated the 32-year career of an outstanding baseball man, Northwest Guilford Head Coach Sandy Gann. Coach Gann's final victory gave him a career record of 422- 248 and the first state championship of his remarkable baseball tenure. Northwest Guilford defeated Raleigh Athens Drive 7-5 in the championship game to capture the 4-A crown. The win was remarkable for several reasons. First, Raleigh Athens Drive was ranked 23rd in the nation going into the tournament. Second, the Vikings' starting pitcher had thrown only two innings all year while the Jaguars' starter was ranked by Baseball America as one of the nation's top 10 juniors. Finally, not many thought Northwest Guilford would even make it to the postseason when the team began the season with a 6-9 mark. The Vikings regrouped, however, to finish 18-9 and win the state title. Again, congratulations to Head Coach Sandy Gann, his assistants Donnie Redmon, Sonny Gann and John Hughes, scorekeeper Alan Brown, and every member of the Northwest Guilford squad. Contributing to the state title run were Andrew Angel, Brad Comer, Matt Crayton, Jeff Fisher, Eric Freeman, John Gann, Justin Hall, Jamie Hemingway, Eric League, Josh McCall, Phillip Nicolette, Justin Smith, Jason Walker, Jeremy Walker, and Henry Williams. Our district is also home to a tennis champion this year. Western Alamance High School defeated Statesville 7-2 in May to win the North Carolina boys 2-A tennis title. The championship win culminated a 20-1 record for the season with the only loss coming to 4-A champion Raleigh Broughton High School. Head Coach Barry Sumner has compiled an impressive 68-4 record in only three seasons at Western. Coach Sumner told the Alamance News that the win reflected a season of hard work and dedication. ``The team played real well,'' Coach Sumner told the newspaper, ``and the guys composure was good. We're very happy for both the school and community.'' Congratulations to Coach Sumner, his assistant John Dutton, manager Bonnie Richardson, and every member of the tennis squad, including Brandon Smith, Kevin Kriner, Robert Siletzky, Blair Smith, Richard Dutton, Justin Kilpatrick, Bradley Blanks, T.J. Stecker, Matthew Walton, Jonathan Walker, and Brian Smith. Every sports team needs cheerleaders and the Sixth District of North Carolina is home to one of the state's best. The Southwestern Randolph High School cheerleaders won the North Carolina 2-A cheerleading title in February. This was the seventh time the Cougar cheerleaders have won the state championship but it was the first for new Head Coach Jamie Hogan. Hogan followed in the footsteps of longtime Southwestern Randolph cheerleader Head Coach LuEllen Morgan who was Hogan's assistant this year. Congratulations to Coaches Hogan and Morgan, and every member of the squad, including Darian Walker, Alicia Miller, Sara Knapp, Katie Copple, Melissa Foster, Jamie Parrish, Kelly Bryant, Ashley Davis, Marie Nance, Danielle Tedder, Jessica Mullis, Casey Swart, and Jenny McGaha. Finally, the Sixth District was the home this year to an individual athlete who won a state championship. Andrew Slack, a junior at Ragsdale High School won the state 3-A wrestling title in February. Competing among 16 wrestlers in the 130-pound class, Slack captured the 3-A title in Charlotte. Andrew told the Jamestown News, ``I prepare myself to win by working hard every day and trying to improve myself every day.'' Slack accomplished that goal by winning the state 3-A wrestling championship. In fact, that is what epitomizes these talented students from all seven schools. All of them worked hard to prepare themselves to win. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we offer our congratulations to outstanding student athletes at Greensboro Day, High Point Central, Eastern Randolph, Northwest Guilford, Western Alamance, Southwestern Randolph and Ragsdale.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3718.

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3718) to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with respect to prison release orders.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2652) to amend title 17, United States Code, to prevent the misappropriation of collections of information, as amended.

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