Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1581, a bill introduced to reauthorize the existing Federal court arbitration programs established in chapter 44 of title 28 of the United States Code. This bill reauthorizes 20 pilot arbitration programs which have been in existence in U.S. district courts around the country for 20 years. These programs have been unquestionably successful over the years in resolving Federal litigation in a fair and expeditious manner and improving the efficiency of those Federal courts which participate in the program. The current authorization expires on September 1 of this year, and thus there is some urgency in reauthorizing these very successful programs prior to that date. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan bill. 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. 1581) to reauthorize the program established under chapter 44 of title 28, United States Code, relating to arbitration.

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

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly distinguished resident of the Sixth District of North Carolina, Mr. David Turlington of Greensboro. This past spring David was named by the Nathaniel Greene Chapter of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution as Guilford County's top Eagle Scout. He then received State honors from the North Carolina Sons of the American Revolution. On July 7, I am pleased to announce, David Turlington will be recognized by the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution as the top Eagle Scout in the Nation. This prestigious ceremony will be conducted in Baltimore, MD. In addition, David was selected as the American Legion's North Carolina Eagle Scout of the Year. David is to be commended for his dedication and perseverance in achieving these esteemed honors. With young people such as David striving for such high standards, the future of our great Nation is certain to be in good hands. David has recently graduated from Grimsley High School and plans to attend North Carolina State University in the fall. He serves as an example of the benefits of hard work and dedication. We salute David for his arduous work, the challenges that he has faced, and the honors that he has justly received. We wish David Turlington the best of luck in the future, and we are certain that he will make us all proud.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an important piece of legislation which will affirm that the distribution of phonorecords to the public before January 1, 1978, did not constitute publication of the musical composition embodied in that phonorecord under the 1909 Copyright Act. It is intended to restore the law to what it was before the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in La Cienega Music Co. versus Z.Z. Top.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 44 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 64 U.S.L.W. 3262 (Oct. 10, 1995). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Until that decision, it was the long-standing view of the Copyright Office and the understanding of the music industry, as reflected in their business practices, that the sale or distribution of recordings to the public before January 1, 1978, did not constitute publication of the musical composition embodied on the recording. This view was confirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Rosette versus Rainbo Record Mfg. Corp.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 354 F. Supp. 1183 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 546 F.2d 461 (2d Cir. 1976). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The La Cienega decision has, therefore, placed a cloud over the legal status of a large number of musical works recorded and sold before January 1, 1978. Moreover, it has called into question the long established practices of the Copyright Office. This bill will remove the cloud and bring the law into conformity with the second circuit opinion and Copyright Office practices.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Mississippi, that is precisely my point. That is the way it needs to be portrayed.

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, when I came over today I did not plan to speak. But as I heard the discussion on the supplemental some moments ago, referrals were made to the government shutdown in 1995. The government shut down very briefly, I think it was in 1991, regarding virtually identical causes as was the case in 1995; that is, the unwillingness and/or the inability of the President on the one hand and the Congress on the other to agree on budgetary matters. It was universally concluded in 1991 that President Bush shut her down. Oh, yes, he shut the government down. But guess what? When the government shut down in 1995, was it universally concluded that President Clinton shut her down? No. The Congress shut down the government in 1995. President Clinton's fingerprints were not to be found thereon, at least it was not reported. TV talk show hosts, Mr. Speaker, weekend talk show hosts in particular, ask time and again of their weekend guests, well, are the Republicans going to shut down the government again during the 105th Congress? I have heard it asked dozens of times. A more evenhanded question, Mr. Speaker, would be, do the President and the Congress intend to shut down the government again? Never heard that asked once. I will admit we in the Congress sometimes become prisoners or victims of our own rhetoric. But keep in mind both the executive and the legislative branch must assume some blame when it comes to these matters. President Clinton, President Bush, President whoever, unlike Members of Congress, is elected by the American people, by all of the American people. He is the chief operating officer of the Federal Government, and as such, he is compelled to lead. The media, and I generally am not critical of the media because I have been the beneficiary of pretty evenhanded treatment by them, but the media has a way of portraying news this way or that way, and the way it is portrayed, that is the accounts of news, the way it is portrayed obviously has a direct result in the way that viewers or readers perceive it. You have heard it said, Mr. Speaker, and so have I, that perception is 90 percent of it. So President Bush having closed down the government in 1991, that is the perception because in many instances that is the way the news was portrayed. But, no, not President Clinton in 1995. I repeat, I was not even going to get into this, but much was said about it today as we were getting into the discussion of the supplemental and I felt obliged to at least address it in this small way. I hope the media will assume a more objective and therefore less subjective role in its subsequent reporting of these matters. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvania Avenue runs two ways. We have the Congress at one end, President Clinton at the other end. President Clinton for this time, whoever it may be subsequently. But this is a two-way street. When government shutdowns occur, they involve both the President and the Congress. And the purpose of this message today from me, the gospel according to Coble, is to remind people it is a two-way street.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, right now we are deep into baseball season. From the majors to the minors, from Little League to Babe Ruth League, tens of thousands of men, women, boys, and girls are happily engaged in the Nation's pastime. Among those participants were our Nation's high school baseball teams. The just-concluded high school baseball season was extremely exciting in the Sixth District of North Carolina. For the first time, the Southwest Guilford High School men's baseball team won the 2-A State championship, defeating Cherryville High School 6 to 4. Southwest Guilford High School, located just outside of Greensboro, NC, capped a 21-11 season with the State title. The Cowboys have been in the State playoffs for 4 straight years, but they could not have won it this year without an outstanding performance by pitcher and series MVP Jeff Montgomery. However, after being carried off the field with an injury, Montgomery was replaced by pitcher Tim Schilling. At one point during the game, head coach Mike Herndon almost pulled Schilling when Cherryville closed in on the Cowboys 6 to 4, but Schilling persevered and was able to pull through to pitch a winning game. All of the Cowboys contributed to the State crown including Keith Morris, Andy Harney, Derik Idol, Erick McCoy, James Coates, Zack Samuels, Matt Fletcher, Aaron Berham, Stanton Horne, Brian Mitchell, Brian Tollerson, Ashton Frank, Duane McMurty, Blake Cross, Nick House, Matt Petzoid, Price Stevens, and Ryan Boedicke. Overseeing this group were Head Coach Mike Herndon, Trainer Stacey Foard, Student Trainer Meredith Adsit, Athletic Director Richard Kemp, and Principal Wayne Tuggel. Congratulations to the Cowboys on an outstanding season. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate the Southwest Guilford men's baseball team for winning the State 2A championship.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, this year, women's high school soccer was extremely exciting in the Sixth District of North Carolina. For the second time in 3 years, the Southwest Guilford High School women's soccer team captured the 1A/2A/3A State championship. Southwest Guilford High School, located just outside of Greensboro, NC, secured the women's soccer state championship with a 1-0 win over Charlotte Catholic High School. This win could not have come at a better time. Just 2 days before the title contest, two Southwest classmates Emily Parker and Sharon Thoma were tragically killed in a car accident which also injured two others. However, the Cowgirls resolved to attain victory, despite their sorrow. The girls dedicated the game to the memory of the two students who were killed and to those who remain injured. This victory momentarily helped the team to forget about the loss of their friends and classmates. But this year's win most certainly made them forget about the loss they had last season against Northwest Guilford in a playoff game. At the final moment, the team pulled together to win the one game that could destroy the memory of last year's defeat. To cap an impressive 24-1 record this season, Freshman Sheconda Douglas scored the game-winning goal in the last 4 minutes of the championship match. Ironically, the Cowgirls won the game after rebounding a Charlotte Catholic free kick. Senior Kelly Allison, named the MVP, played an integral part in the game and credited the win to hard work and the realization of goals the team had set earlier in the season. Allison, a defensive player helped to capture the win by sticking close to Catholic player Carrie Hughes, 36-goal scorer this season. Kelly Allison's two sisters Abbie and Bree, also contributed to the successful season, ensuring that the game would be a family affair. Southwest players Catey Conner, Shannon Ratcliff, Kristen Carter, Charlotte Acker, Meredith Ledwell, Brooks Gonzalez, Cori Ray, Erin Moran, Brianna Balliet, Holly Hunter, Lauren Gaster, Shana Stephens, Ashley Trexler, Karen Davis, and Kathleen Haver all aided in Southwest Guilford's successful season and their final victory against Charlotte Catholic. Overseeing this group are head coach Chris Glover, coach Eric Lewis, managers Ken Murray and Josh Edwards, athletic director Richard Kemp, and principal Wayne Tuggel. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate Southwest Guilford's women's soccer team for winning the State 1A/2A/3A championship.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 908) to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, as amended.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].

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 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 908, a bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. An amended version of this bill is presented for passage under suspension of the rules. The amendment to the reported bill makes the following changes: It reduces the time established in the bill, as introduced, in which the commission must come to a conclusion to 18 months from the appointment of the sixth member of the commission as opposed to 2 years from enactment. Second, due to the reduction in time, funding for the commission is reduced from $1.3 million to $900,000, $500,000 of which has already been appropriated. And third, the size of the commission will be reduced from 12 members to 10 members with 2 members being appointed by each of the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House. Additionally the President and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will appoint one member each. H.R. 908 was introduced in response to recurring attempts to divide the largest of the Federal judicial circuits, the ninth. However, if properly implemented, the commission proposal represents a sound approach to a problem of national concern, and that is the explosive growth in the caseload of all of the courts of appeals. The time is right, it seems to me, for a careful, objective study aimed at determining whether that structure can adequately serve the needs of the 21st century. The task of the commission would be to carry out that study. The proposed commission would be the first of its kind since the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, also known as the Hruska Commission, which completed its work in 1975, or more than two decades ago. Needless to say, dramatic changes have taken place in the work of the Federal courts in those two decades, but there have been no structural alterations except for the division of the old fifth circuit and the creation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As I have indicated, under the amended version of H.R. 908, the commission will have 18 months to carry out its work. It also includes a requirement that the initial appointments to the commission be made within 60 days of the date of enactment. That will help to assure that the process will not be delayed unduly. The study is a responsible method to evaluate any prospective split in the ninth circuit and is generally overdue. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to add as well that this is not to be exclusively restricted to the ninth circuit. This commission, hopefully, will examine the entire system and come back with a recommendation that the commission deems appropriate. Many people have been involved in this. We have compromised here and there. It was initially designed to be a 2-year study. That has been reduced to 18 months. So many people have given and taken on this, and I think it is, in its present form, a good bill and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, next year, women's high school basketball in the Sixth District of North Carolina should be extremely interesting. The reason being that two of the State champions from this year will play in the same conference. Ledford High School, located just outside Thomasville, NC, and High Point Central High School in High Point, NC, secured the championships in the 2-A and 3-A divisions of the State playoffs respectively. The end of March brought the State 2-A season to a close. Ledford High School, in an impressive victory over St. Pauls, captured the State 2-A championship. This is only the second championship victory in the school's history. After an impressive 29-2 season, the Ledford Panthers faced the Saint Pauls Bulldogs (28-2) in the season finale. Both teams were anxious to take home the victory and the game proved to be a challenge for all those involved. Head coach John Ralls, with the assistance of Joe Davis and Allen Patterson led the Panthers to a 59-57 come-from-behind victory on March 22. Principal Max Cole and Athletic Director Gary Hinkle also provided the team with support and encouragement in their impressive victory. Junior Stacey Hinkle, second-time MVP, proved to be an integral part of the team with 22 points. Leslie Thomas also helped the Panthers by scoring 8 of the 13 bench points scored during the game. Two players, Laurie Smith and Amanda Reece, braved recent surgery worries in order to play in the championship game. Stephanie Sharp, Lauren Craven, Misty Sharp, Brooke Embler, Kristin Berrier, Whitney Patterson, Amy Wells, Amanda Besaw, and Julie Reece all aided in Ledford's successful season and victory against Saint Pauls. A championship is a great accomplishment but, for High Point Central High School, this 3-A basketball State title means so much more. During the season, the women's basketball team lost more games than the previous 3 years combined. However, the team pulled together to win the one game that meant the very most. Coach Kenny Carter was quoted in the High Point Enterprise explaining the journey that his team has faced, ``Early in the year I didn't know if they believed everything that I said could happen.'' The team succeeded in allowing all 13 members of the team to make a basket during the course of the game. The most memorable shot was made in the closing 3.4 seconds of the game by Tameika McRae which clinched the 66-64 victory. The score was close for the entire game with the half time score being tied at 21. Supreme efforts were made by all of the players of the team, the Most Valuable Player, Mandy Hall, Katie Copeland, Lee Culp, Sherelle Gladney, Ashley Hedgecock, Brendle Howard, Staci Murray, Kaneica Obie, Elizabeth Redpath, Jenni Tinsley, Mandi Tinsley, and Katie Yoemans, to secure the victory of the Bisons. The coaches of this championship team are Kenny Carter, Jetanna McClain, Scotti Carter, and Steve Martin who have help from the managers Michelle McCallum and Charita Clark and the trainers Brandy Owen and Steven Goodrich. Overseeing this group are athletic director Gary Whitman, statistician Kim Liptrap, and principal Bill Collins. These two supreme teams will have a difficult year ahead of them as they are forced to play each other in the same conference. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate these teams for winning the women's State 2-A and 3-A basketball championships.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I thank the gentleman from California. As he indicated, Mr. Chairman, we have been pretty easy dogs to hunt with. As the gentleman said, we have compromised, we gave away a lot. I do not think we compromised the bill in doing so, but we worked very favorably with many people who came to us. The amendment made in order by my colleague would seriously undermine the effectiveness of title III of H.R. 400, however, which protects prior American users of patented technologies. The amendment would apply limitations on expansion of activities by the prior user and by any company to which the prior user might wish to transfer its business. The first part of this amendment is unclear to me as to exactly what type of limit would be placed upon a prior user. By limiting the quantity and volume to the, quote, actual quantity, volume or scope, close quote, of the prior use, the question is prior to what? Prior to the date of filing of an application covering an invention which is the subject of the prior use? Prior to the date of issuance on such a patent? Prior to the date the prior user is sued by the patent holder? It is very nebulous. Irrespective of the actual meaning of the first part of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it would at least significantly erode the benefit of the prior user right to American manufacturers, leaving them at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis European and Japanese patent holders. All of our major trading partners have prior use defenses in their laws now. Thus, while foreign firms could use their U.S. patents to effectively disrupt the U.S. manufacturing and production facilities of American companies, the manufacturing operations of these foreign firms would remain immune from attack on the basis of patents obtained in their countries by their U.S. competitors. Such serious limitation on the prior use defense would place enormous pressure on enterprises, large and small, to seek to patent every advance which formed part of their production technology to avoid disruptions from patents by subsequent inventors. The second part of the amendment, in addition to suffering the same infirmities of clarity, would be extremely prejudicial to start-up firms and small businesses which are frequently acquired by larger firms. A small business concern enjoying a prior use right, which it cannot transfer to a perspective purchaser, will be considerably less valuable to such a purchaser, depriving the individuals who created the small business in the first place of the just returns for their endeavors. For those reasons and others, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. COBLE. I feel obliged to get this into the record before 5 o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I have worked on this now for almost 5 months. When I retire for my evening rest, I am thinking of patents. At early morning hours, when I dream, I dream of patents. When the cock crows the next morning, I awaken, guess to what? The thoughts of patents. And for the first time since last week, I learned of a secret Japanese agreement. Oh, yes, there is a secret agreement out. The Japanese are going to bash us. Folks, our better argument, the gentlewoman from California said it last week, the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the committee, said it last week, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], perhaps the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did as well, a better argument could be made that your rank and file Japanese inventor, they want to keep it just the way it is because, under the present scenario, they have the luxury of reviewing publication well in advance over there and then they can play possum and lay low because the time runs for a delayed publication over here. It would be my thinking they are not happy at all with H.R. 400. But I want my colleagues to dispel this thought about a secret Japanese agreement because there is simply no truth to it. I thank everyone who has taken part in this, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. And if I become too emotional, I apologize. But I think I would be remiss if I did not feel strongly about it, because we have plowed the field time and again and it is time to bring in the harvest and head for the barn.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from the Roanoke Valley said it earlier about publication. Some people have made publication the devil. Our Constitution provides the grant of a monopoly for a limited time in exchange for sharing one's secret with the public. That simplifies a definition of the patent law. Today that constitutional exchange is being circumvented by whom? By patent submariners. Now here we go again. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has reincarnated Mr. Rohrabacher's failed attempt to allow abuses of the patent system. This was defeated last Thursday by the House, and I again thank each of my colleagues who stood tall with us, and it ought to be defeated again. This reminds me of the Cary Grant movie, ``The Pink Submarine.'' This is the same submarine, my friends, with a new coat of paint. This amendment should really be called an invitation. My colleagues all remember Mr. Lemelson, our patent submariner, our multimillionaire patent submariner. It reads something like this. ``Dear Mr. Lemelson,'' or any other prospective patent submariner, ``You are invited to purposefully delay your application at the Patent and Trademark Office for your own benefit to the detriment of the American consumer.'' Just as the gentleman from Michigan said, this is no friend to small business. ``Don't worry about the phony escape clause regarding dilatory tactics. No one can prove it. Time? Oh, as long as you want, perhaps 25, 30, 40 years. Place? Unknown. After all, your application is a secret so that no one will have the benefit of avoiding duplicating your efforts because you can successfully hide from them. You are submarining. You are laying low in the bushes. You are laying low and playing possum,'' as I said last week. ``Date. The date is up to you. You show up when you want to show up. P.S., please pass this invitation on to a friend.'' This license to allow professional litigators to clog our courts and stifle American innovators with expensive lawsuits that can end in bankruptcy for those who actually hire American workers and invest in the economy cuts into the heart of the constitutional charge to Congress to offer a limited monopoly to an inventor in exchange for sharing secrets. That is right. Publication is a necessary ingredient of the process. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], they do not seem to believe that submarining is a problem. That is why this amendment contains a loophole big enough to drive a submarine through. But let me quote from the Wall Street Journal from April 9. Many of my colleagues read it. It describes a new class of patent lawyers out to make a business in the submarine industry. ``The clear winners,'' writes the Journal, ``so far are the lawyers. Mr. Lemelson also employees a small army of them. One of Mr. Lemelson's lawyers pretty much thanks himself for that, noting an old joke. `One lawyer in town, you are broke.' He boasts, `Two lawyers in town, you are rich.' '' The article goes on to say that a new breed of intellectual property lawyers has emerged, too. Many seem to be inspired by Mr. Lemelson's attorney, who pioneered the use of contingency fees in patent cases and whose work for Mr. Lemelson alone has brought him more than $150 million in fees. You think consumers win with this sort of scenario? The lawyer's success: He lives in a 15,000 square foot house near Aspen, CO, has made the field of submarining a very hot area. Here the cover of the American Lawyer Magazine, a picture of Mr. Lemelson's lawyer basking in the riches, 150 million bucks that belongs to American consumers. You bet I am worked up about this. This is indeed a grave problem, and it is growing. This amendment, and I will call it Rohrabacher 2, or Kaptur 1, or the sequel to Rohrabacher, again works to protect this practice which stifles American investment and innovation.

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, never has a bill been so misrepresented and trashed as has the patent bill. The effort to demonize this bill has not contributed to our debate, but has only misled Members who do not and should not be expected to understand the intricacies of the complex patent laws. Following our debate last week, a Member was quoted as saying Mr. Rohrabacher's bill helps the little guy while H.R. 400 only helps big business. I asked him how he reached that conclusion, and he replied that is what the opponents of H.R. 400 told me to say. That is his explanation. This typifies the type of reasoning that has surrounded this debate. We defeated the Rohrabacher amendment last week. We are not yet finished. Help us defeat the amendments today, pass H.R. 400, and bring the United States patent system into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, later today we will finish consideration of an omnibus patent bill, H.R. 400, which I have attempted to shepherd through this body. While I believe we will pass the measure without weakening amendments, I feel compelled to address the manner by which the bill has been criticized since its introduction on January 9. Never, in my years as a Congressman have I seen a piece of legislation so thoroughly misrepresented as to content and effect as has the patent bill. The effort to demonize this bill has not contributed to our debate; it has only served to mislead, confuse, and paralyze some Members who do not and should not be expected to understand all of the intricacies of a complex and arcane topic such as patent law. If we wait much longer, I anticipate that our detractors will attempt to convince the American public that I, as a lifetime member of the VFW, am conspiring with the other Bolsheviks down at the VFW Hall in Greensboro, NC, to destroy the United States and subvert her national economy. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the chief opponent of H.R. 400 does not serve on either the subcommittee or full committee of jurisdiction. I dare say he has never sat on a panel charged with having knowledge of any intellectual property law. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to bring our patent system into the 21st century by supporting H.R. 400 and rejecting the simplistic and distorted criticism that has surrounded the bill to date.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 400.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 400, 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.