Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me put another oar in the water. I was not even going to get into this, but the die has been cast. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) addressed it very adeptly. I resent the fact that this is being portrayed as big business versus little business. It is not true. I will compare my voting record supporting small business men and small business women with anybody on this floor. As far as being a friend to the restaurateurs and the restaurants across my district, ask any of them down there. I can assure the Members that they will say that I have spoken favorably for them. They do a good job. Songwriters do a good job. Must we, in this era of conflict, have to be opposed to one? Can you not be for the songwriter and the restaurateur? It seems to me that you can be. Some people, I think, are incapable of that in this current climate and in this era. They must be opposed to one. They cannot embrace both, they have to reject one. I think that is poppycock. I think the gentleman who will come on next is going to have an amendment that will exemplify that spirit of compromise, and that spirit of embracing both parties to this affray. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), a member of the full committee, who will have a subsequent amendment on this matter. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to apologize to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and to the Members. I should have yielded, but we are embroiled in this, and for that purpose, Mr. Chairman, I want to get that on the record.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. I want to formally apologize to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman, in the heat of debate we become embroiled, and I should have yielded to him. But I assume, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), that he is not suggesting that my testimony was inaccurate, or is he?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make technical changes to further clarify who owns the termination interest in a copyrighted work when an author passes away, and provide for the proper transfer of contractual obligations when a copyright is transferred. Regarding the transfer of contractual obligations provision, I would like to clarify the meaning of a certain term. The ``reason to know'' language is intended to be interpreted in light of common sense and industry practice. Because many motion pictures made in the United States are produced subject to one or more collective bargaining agreements, the distributor would ordinarily perform some check on whether the motion picture is subject to such an agreement. The provision would not, however, require a burdensome or exhaustive examination. Publicly available information that indicates a work's status, such as records of a guild's security interest in the motion picture filed with the copyright office, would ordinarily provide ``reason to know'' within the meaning of the act. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial and as best I can determine is not opposed, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 2589, the Copyright Term Extension Act, reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by voice vote, without objection. This important and significant bill will give to the United States economy 20 more years of foreign sales, revenues from books, movies, records, and software products sold abroad. We are, Mr. Chairman, by far the world's largest producers of copyrighted works, and the copyright industries give us one of our most significant trade surpluses. Our most valuable economic resource is no longer our industrial power and natural resources, but the creative potential of the minds of our citizens. While our creativity holds America's greatest promise for the future, it is also our most fragile commodity, fragile because while difficult and expensive to produce and market, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to copy and to use for free. We must ensure that foreign markets are open to our intellectual property exports, and just as importantly, that our copyright industries be given reciprocity and the opportunity to compete. That is what this bill is all about, Mr. Chairman. The European Union countries, pursuant to a directive, have adopted domestic laws which would protect their own works for 20 years more than they protect American works. This bill would correct that by granting to United States works the same amount of protection which, under international agreements, requires reciprocity. Under the current law, most works receive copyright protection for the life of the author plus 50 years. In the case of works made for hire, such as a movie, the copyright term typically endures for a period of 75 years from the year of its publication. H.R. 2589 would bring the term of copyright protection from the life of the author plus 50 years to the life of the author plus 70 years and of works made for hire from 75 to 95 years from the date of publication. Trade surpluses are not the only benefit of term extension. It is also good for consumers. When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit. That, in turn, brings the work to the consumer who may enjoy it at a movie theater, at a home, in a car, or in a retail establishment. Without that exploitation, a work may lie dormant, never to be discovered or enjoyed. Now, of course, copyright protection should be for a limited time only. Perpetual protection does not benefit society. But extending the term to allow a property owner to hand that property down to his or her children or grandchildren is certainly appropriate, it seems to me, and grants the benefits of exploitation for that limited time. I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote yes on this bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his opening statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2589, to insert ``Sonny Bono'' before ``Copyright Term Extension Act'' each place it appears; in other words, the bill bear Sonny's name.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just passed.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2589, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2696) to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide for protection of certain original designs, as amended.

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

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During our subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2696, the marine manufacturers effectively demonstrated that ``hull splashing,'' an industry term for applying a direct molding process to a boat hull in an effort to create a knock-off design, is harmful and pervasive enough to warrant legislative redress. Consumers who purchase boats with knock-off hulls are defrauded in the sense that they are not benefiting from the many attributes of hull design, other than shape, that are structurally relevant, including those related to quality and safety. It is also highly unlikely that consumers know that a boat has been copied from an existing design. Most importantly, for the purposes of promoting intellectual property rights, if manufacturers are not permitted to recoup at least some of their research and development costs, they may no longer invest in new, innovative boat designs. Accordingly and consistent with the history of design legislation, H.R. 2696 protects the original designs of vessel hulls. Owners of protected designs must register their work with the Copyright Office, and the term of protection allows for 10 years. The owner will enjoy the exclusive right to make, import and sell any legislative hull embodying a protected design. Infringers will be liable for compensatory damages or lost sales, and a court may increase damages by as much as $50,000 in egregious cases. Finally, Mr. Speaker, during the full committee markup of the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) expressed his desire that H.R. 2696 not cover large ships manufactured for military use. It was never our intention to protect designs for large vessels used by the Merchant Marine or the Armed Services, and I am pleased that we were able to develop some compromise language on the subject that is acceptable to all parties involved. This language and a few technical changes to the bill are incorporated in the manager's amendment which I offer as a substitute to the bill as reported by the committee. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that will offer limited protection to an industry in which effort, investment and creativity are presently unrewarded. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2696, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to express my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the other members of the subcommittee for having worked very cooperatively with us in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2294) to make improvements in the operation and administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2294 contains several provisions that are needed to improve the Federal court system. It is designed to improve administration and procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and reduce operating expenses. The provisions contained in H.R. 2294 address administrative, financial, personnel, organizational, and technical changes that are needed by the Article III Federal courts and their supporting agencies. These provisions are designed to have a positive impact on the operations of the Federal courts and enhance the delivery of justice in the Federal system. The manager's amendment makes no substantive changes. However, on the advice of legislative counsel, certain technical and conforming changes have been made to H.R. 2294. Also, after consultation with the Committee on the Budget, it became rather clear that the provision regarding the ``Rule of 80'' would require unanticipated expenditures. Therefore, it was taken out of H.R. 2294 and will be reconsidered in the future. H.R. 2294, Mr. Speaker, is necessary legislation for the proper functioning of our Article III United States Courts. It is nonpartisan, noncontroversial, and I urge the House to pass 2294. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), a valued member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), the ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and Democrats and Republicans alike who worked very cooperatively and very much in unison with each other in bringing this bill to its present stage. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do not come to the floor wrapped in the cloak of protectionism today. Many people vote on trade issues very rigidly and very inflexibly. I try to examine each trade issue separately as to how it affects our country. For example, if the gentleman from Illinois will remember, I voted for MFN for China, thanks in no small part for his having twisted my arm; and, finally, he did convert me on that. I voted for NAFTA. But this is a matter, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot support. This House just rejected fast track several weeks ago. As I interpret this bill before us, it would allow the President to negotiate a free trade agreement with Africa. What is this, fast track light? I think we are going down the wrong road. While attempting to help the people of sub-Saharan Africa, the proposal would do so at a cost of numerous jobs in the U.S. fiber, textile and, apparel industries, rich in my district, by the way, very prominent. Thirty-five thousand textile workers probably live in my district. Nearly 2 million Americans are employed by this industry. Approximately one-quarter of those are African-Americans. In reality, this legislation before us, it seems to me, would not help the people of sub-Saharan Africa; rather, the bill would benefit the countries of the Far East and the Indian subcontinent, nations that already have viable textile industries and stand ready to exploit the opportunities presented by this proposal. I believe we can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, a legendary broadcaster from the Sixth District of North Carolina, recently eulogized another legend from our district. His words were so moving, I wanted to share them with my colleagues. The broadcaster, Mr. Add Penfield, spoke so eloquently about Lee Jay Stone, a man who was more than just a football coach. Stone, the longtime head coach at Asheboro High School, was a football institution. Lee died on January 27, 1998, at the age of 91. Add Penfield spoke so movingly at Stone's funeral on January 29. His eulogy appeared in the February 4 edition of the Asheboro Courier-Tribune. I commend to my colleagues the words of one legend who spoke so glowingly about another legend. [From the Asheboro Courier-Tribune, Feb. 4, 1998] Lee Jay Stone, Not Only a Man of Football (By Add Penfield) Lee Jay Stone. How to eulogize him . . . how best to celebrate the life of a man whose stature among his fellow human beings literally defies eulogy. I have been asked to try. I respond in all humility. I think maybe one of the Good Ole Boys with whom he often met in downtown Asheboro had it about right not long ago. ``Lee Stone,'' this Good Ole Boy said, ``was something else, he was one of a kind.'' Tired, well-worn, hackneyed language, this. Some might say so. But those of us here . . . those of us whose lives Lee touched and made better--I think would agree that these everyday words hardly tarnish the image of Lee Jay Stone. You bet Lee was something else. Indeed, he was one of a kind. Lee Stone was something else as a football coach . . . nary a losing season in a career that became legend. It may have taken one of a kind to persuade Charlie Justice to go out for the team at Lee Edwards High School in Asheville those many years ago and to inspire Choo Choo to become arguably the best and most famous of all North Carolina-bred football players. He . . . Lee Stone . . . was something else, one of a kind, when he coached players like Strawberry Wheless, bless his soul, and Mark Leggett, and Dave Dalton, Bobby Burrows, Neal Hughes, Carrell Moody, Sparky Johnson and Jimmy Dollyhigh. Because of Lee Stone, these men came to know what it meant to win a football championship at Asheboro High. If you will, just ask the fine men who coached with and for him . . . people like Max Morgan and Russ Murphy and Tony Simeon . . . if Lee Stone was something else. They'll tell you to the man . . . he was one of a kind. Lee Stone was a Hall of Famer as a football coach. And, I submit, if there were Halls of Fame for classroom teachers and school administrators, as there really ought to be, Lee Stone would have been a shoo-in for induction. As he did on the sidelines with his football teams, somehow he always got the best from those students who encountered his considerable skills in math and economics classes. For Lee Stone, you see, was first, last and always an educator . . . in all departments. He was one who could share, with great good humor and accompanying discipline the infinite wisdom with which he was blessed. He shared with the entire community; witness, his long and distinguished service as a member of the Asheboro City Board of Education. Oh, my yes! Lee Stone was something else in his chosen profession . . . educator and coach, coach and educator. He was one of a kind as a molder of men and women. Just as an aside . . . Lee Stone was something else the night he was inducted into the N.C. Sports Hall of Fame. The induction took place fittingly . . . and at the instigation of David Stedman . . . in the Asheboro High School gymnasium. It fell my lot to serve as Lee's presenter at the big banquet which taxed the capacity of the old gym. Hall of Fame officials organizing the event were quite specific and most emphatic in telling the Coach and me just how much time we were to have at the podium. . . . after all, others besides Lee were being inducted. I think I was allotted four or five minutes for the presentations. As I remember it, Lee was allotted something like seven or eight minutes for his response. Some of you were there. You know what happened. My broadcast training enabled me to meet the time requirement, right on the money. Then, Lee . . . one of a kind, God bless him . . . got up without a note and spoke for the better part of half an hour. You be the judges. Only a man who was something else could have gotten away with it. For the record, I know of no complaint that was registered that memorable night. Lee Stone was something else when it came of family friends . . . devoted husband to the good wife who went on ahead, loving father and father-in-law, doting grandfather. With Lee, the family came first. Also, with Lee, friendships were treasures to be enhanced with fierce loyalty . . . I am proud to have benefited from one of Lee's countless friendships, to have known how fierce his loyalty to a friend could be. Lee Stone and I traveled many miles together, climbed in and out of a lot of broadcast booths and press boxes in stadiums across this state and across this country. We tooled down a lot-of-highways, often with Lee at the wheel, to some memorable assignments where usually he'd run into a friend or perhaps an unknown admirer. One or the other nearly always surfaced. I suppose we had quite a bit in common, the Coach and I. In many respects, football was the centerpiece of our respective careers. We both believed mightily in a man named Wallace Wade. We could both sing the praises of Wade's renowned single wing and the wide-tackle Six. And it might be of some small significance to note that we were both transplanted Yankees who fell in love with and found a home in North Carolina. Down at Clemson, where Randleman-born Bob Bradley was ever the thoughtful host. . . . . they even taught us to eat catfish. I suppose all of you, each in his or her own private moment, will eulogize Lee Jay Stone far better than I . . . in ways more meaningful to you. Perhaps you will come up with something better to say that he was ``something else'' or ``one of a kind.'' You must certainly know of Lee's love for God and Country. Whatever the words you choose, whatever the memories you have of Lee Stone, you are likely to conclude that this man of monumental stature has had a profound influence on this community and every player, coach, student, educator, fellow citizen, friend . . . on anybody who enjoyed even the most casual relationship with him. Those who were closest to him . . . his beloved daughters, Frances and Susan, his son-in-law Joe, his wonderful grandchildren . . . only they can calculate fully the tremendous void left by his passing. We all know Lee Stone ran the race well . . . maybe beginning in the Yale Bowl where he set prep school records in track. We know Lee fought the good fight right down to the end Tuesday morning. As for me . . . of all the moments I was privileged to share with Lee, the one that lingers is that which occurred the night he presented me for membership in a local civic club. Coach Stone put his arm around me and told the Kiwanians: ``I love him like a brother!!'' The feeling, Coach, was mutual; the compliment, immeasurable. I know full well I was scarcely alone in this world as somebody Lee Stone loved. I had plenty of company. Brotherly love was something he bestowed generosity. We all are richer for it. Again, in the words of his admiring friend . . . one of the Good Ole Boys who went on ahead . . . Lee Jay Stone was ``something else.'' The man was one of a kind. And, oh, yes . . . I shall not soon forget the last real conversation I had with Coach Stone in the final phases of his galiant fight. It was at Clapp's . . . where the attendants came to love the Coach and give him such compassionate care. I had started away from his chair, heading for the parking lot, when he sort of barked at me as only he could. ``Hey'', he said, with his best practice field emphasis. ``When I get out of there in a few days, we'll have to make another of our trips.'' This trip is one the Coach makes pretty much on his own. But I am convinced that there awaits a glorious journey's end where, whenever legendary coaches gather in the larger life, Lee Jay Stone will be joining the likes of Wade and Neyland and Lee's fellow Hall of Famer, Bob Jamieson, in extolling the virtues of the single wing and the wide tackle Six. Their praises will be sung into eternity. Safe journey, Lee. Catch up with you later.

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. The Copyright Act of 1976 bestowed on cable television a permanent compulsory license 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 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 next year, and the Federal Communications Commission has reported 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 makes the satellite compulsory license permanent, just like the cable compulsory license. 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 allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television station to households within that station's local market, just like cable does. It reforms the current structure of the administrative body which determines rates and distributions applicable to all copyright compulsory licenses to make it cheaper and more efficient for the parties. In order to create parity for the above new opportunities for satellite carriers by reforming the license, the bill must also create corresponding regulatory parity between the satellite and cable industries, including must-carry rules, retransmission consent requirements, network non-duplication protection, syndicated exclusivity protection, and sports blackout protection. These regulations will apply after a period of time in which the Federal Communications Commission can carefully consider and tailor their implementation. Until that time, the portions of the satellite compulsory license which determine who is eligible to receive network and superstation signals from satellite carriers will continue to apply just as they do now. I note that under the provisions of this bill the current state of the law (and as expressly stated in section 12(b), the unserved household provisions of current law) shall remain in effect until such time as the Commission makes determinations pursuant to section 12 of the bill regarding implementation of network nonduplication protection and other protections. I am troubled by the suggestion of some that the introduction of this legislation may form the basis of an attempt to postpone or alter the outcome of pending court proceedings regarding enforcement of the current unserved household provisions. This legislation is not intended to diminish the effect of existing law. Parties subject to the unserved household provisions of the current Section 119 license are expected to comply fully with those provisions as they currently exist, and, of course, I reject any suggestion that courts should decline to enforce or postpone enforcing existing law because Congress is debating whether to change it. The notion that parties need not comply with laws that may be changed in the future is an invitation to lawlessness which I firmly reject. This is a forward-looking bill which will create an incentive for companies to develop the means by which to provide local programming to local markets over satellite systems. 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 the regulatory provisions 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. Following is a brief section-by-section which explains the bill in more detail: