John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1472) to establish a section within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to enforce human rights laws, to make technical and conforming amendments to criminal and immigration laws pertaining to human rights violations, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, S. 1472 is an effort to improve our ability to identify and prosecute human rights abusers. It enhances the Justice Department's efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable, and it will help ensure that war criminals do not find a safe haven in our country. This act would combine the two offices in the Justice Department with jurisdiction over human rights to create a new, consolidated human rights section. It would merge the Office of Special Investigations with the domestic security section, which has jurisdiction over human rights crimes. This would allow more efficiency and effective enforcement in a combination that would improve the use of our resources and that would give one section the necessary expertise and jurisdiction to prosecute or to denaturalize perpetrators of serious human rights crimes. It also amends a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and it makes several technical and conforming amendments needed in light of the enactment of other laws. I commend the authors of this legislation, Senators Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn, who are the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Mr. Smith. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 150) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that A. Philip Randolph should be recognized for his lifelong leadership and work to end discrimination and secure equal employment and labor opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in support of this resolution honoring the life and work of A. Philip Randolph, whom I have had the privilege of meeting and working with indirectly. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the resolution with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who introduced it. A. Philip Randolph was a towering figure in the movement for social justice in this country, particularly in the fields of labor and civil rights. He is principally noted for his efforts in organizing the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters on trains, porters who were all African Americans in the middle 20th century and earlier. There were nearly 10,000 of them who had never been unionized before. He was able to do that. Finally, he worked out a contract in 1937 with Pullman, and then went to the AFL-CIO where they were able to gain an international charter. That was his major contribution. Yet, to me, what was so important was the work that he did with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., because it was he who, with Bayard Rustin, organized the march on Washington for jobs and freedom on August 28, 1963. I was a lawyer who was at that march. It was the first one which drew over 200,000 people and which had a great effect on our moving to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are books about him, but the story that I like to tell is about the time that he challenged President Roosevelt to end the desegregation in the military and in the military factories, which were the industries that were making war materials. In a historic meeting with President Roosevelt, President Roosevelt acknowledged the validity of his struggle, but then he said something prophetic. He said, Make me do it. Amazingly, Randolph, after a period of time, assembled a huge number of people to march on Washington. As they got ready to march, word came from the White House that the President would accede to his demand, and he gave an executive order banning racial discrimination in the government and in the factories. That has been told many times over. I am indebted to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Randolph worked out of New York and I am hopeful that Chairman Rangel may have met him and knew him as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and urge support for the resolution.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1110) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent caller ID spoofing, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, this measure is aimed at the deceptive telephoning practice called ``spoofing,'' where a fake caller ID is used to hide one's true identity. Sometimes it can mean simply using the caller ID of another person or business without permission, but sometimes the purpose is to commit fraud or identity theft. Call recipients are sometimes tricked into divulging private, personal information to the spoofer. For example, the AARP has reported cases in which people received calls falsely telling them that they missed jury duty and they were told to avoid prosecution they needed to provide their Social Security number. The phone number that appeared on their caller ID was from the local courthouse, so people assumed that the call was made truthfully. Recently, the technology needed to spoof has become readily available through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment, or through Web sites specifically set up for that purpose. The measure before us today prevents this activity on two levels, with penalties that fit the seriousness of the offense. For providing the caller ID information of another person without consent with the intent to deceive, the penalties are fines and up to 1 year in prison; for providing false caller ID information with the intent to wrongfully obtain something of value, the penalties are fines and up to 5 years imprisonment. In addition, the bill provides for forfeiture of equipment used and proceeds gained by those involved in this activity. Because it can be used for legitimate law enforcement and intelligence purposes, the bill allows spoofing for lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement. It also does not prohibit the simple use of a fake number to hide the caller's number. Many businesses have opted to use this feature to protect against abusive call-backs. As a matter of fact, the House uses this feature on calls to outside lines. This non-malicious practice is not intended to be reached by the legislation before us. Finally, I note that the bill was developed in previous Congresses on a bipartisan basis, and I commend my ranking member and the entire Judiciary Committee for the work that has gone into this measure. I urge its support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution requesting that the President issue an annual proclamation that calls upon the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing. Joining me in this effort is the gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, and I would like to acknowledge him at this time. Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, is an annual observance, occurring on January 1st, that was conceived by children to further the cause of peace, sharing, and understanding among all members of the international community. As the year is coming to a close, I introduce this resolution for a few reasons. First, I believe it is important that all people, regardless of race, culture, religion or economic status, celebrate life on earth together as one human family. A global holiday, like Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, allows people around the world to realize this ideal by promoting global fellowship and cooperation. A better appreciation for one another can only lead to the eradication of human suffering that results from violence, hunger, poverty, and other social ills. Practicing better global family values at the start of a new year may mean the realization of such concepts of goodwill and harmony throughout the year. Second, I know that one day dedicated to global peace and cooperation is a day that every Member of Congress can support. Despite our differences, each of us has an interest in pursuing peaceful solutions to many of our contemporary problems. From worldwide hunger, to international human trafficking, to widespread religious intolerance, we are all impassioned by issues that call for a peaceful resolution to achieve a more desirable world. Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, can be one of the vehicles with which we unite to pursue these various missions for peace. A resolution calling for the recognition of Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing has always received bipartisan support as a bipartisan Congress adopted this resolution in 2000 and 2006. I am confident that there will be a similar reception this Congress. Finally, while the Congress has adopted this resolution on other occasions, in the bipartisan spirit I have just described, we have yet to have a President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to recognize Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing. We ask that the President and the First Family lead the nation in observing Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing on January 1, 2010. Those participating in the global holiday can be invited to ring a bell, share a meal, and make a pledge in the name of peace. Through these acts we will become better neighbors within the global community. In closing, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this resolution recognizing Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing and requesting that the President lead the country in this holiday's recognition. By working together as one global family, we can better meet the challenges humanity will surely face in the years to come.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, last fall we witnessed the greatest financial collapse in American history since the Great Depression. As Main Street recovers from Wall Street's excesses, we must reexamine the laws that govern banks and other financial institutions and hold them accountable for their actions. The collapse of our economy shows the need for tough new regulations. Today, the House will vote on H.R. 4173, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, a bill authored by Chairman Frank that aims to rein in the titans of finance's excesses and protect consumers from unfair and abusive practices. The bill being considered today creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) with the sole mission of protecting consumers from financial products and services. Banks, subprime mortgage companies, pay day lenders, and money transmitters will be under the supervision of the CFPA. The new agency will stop unfair, deceptive and abusive consumer financial products and services. During the last bubble, executives at banks took on more risk because risk was profitable. No one paid much attention to what would happen when the speculation bubble burst. Today's bill will amend this practice by allowing shareholders of public companies to have an annual, nonbinding ``say on pay'' vote on compensation packages for executives. Federal regulators will be authorized to ban any inappropriate or risky compensation practices that pose a threat to the financial system and to the broader economy. I am concerned this legislation does not go far enough. Specifically, today's bill will focus on empowering our financial regulators to manage and mitigate some level of ``acceptable risk'' within the present system, instead of correcting the structural flaws that make a collapse likely to recur. As a result, I am an advocate of a modernized Glass-Steagall act which would mandate that America's banking sectors and investment houses need to remain separate to prevent banks from gambling on the stock market with our savings. Moreover, I am worried that consumers will not be allowed to address their grievances with financial institutions and banks through the CFPA. Banks rarely directly violate specific federal rules, but the same cannot be said for some of the smaller nonbank lenders, brokers, and other individuals and entities who will be governed by CFPA rules. Violations by smaller actors are less likely to be worth the investment of resources for a federal agency enforcement action, or even one by a state AG, but they can have a devastating impact on individuals nonetheless. Individual remedies are essential to holding all violators accountable and providing incentives for everyone to comply. The Federal Trade Commission received 78,000 complaints against debt collectors last year and took only 3 enforcement actions. Consumers must be able to stand up and defend themselves and hold wrongdoers accountable if CFPA rules are violated. For over 200 years, it has been a fundamental tenet of American law, derived from our Anglo-Saxon heritage, that ``for every right, there's a remedy.'' The concept is commonsense: wrongdoers who violate laws should be accountable to those they injure. Madam Chair, even with all of the legislation's weak points, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act makes great strides to shield Americans from the despotic behavior of Wall Street. I urge my colleagues to support today's bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment to give struggling homeowners a fair chance to keep their homes when it makes economic sense. I am joined today by a diverse bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Mike Turner, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Marshall, Maxine Waters, Steve Cohen, Brad Miller, Bill Delahunt, Jerry Nadler, and Marcia Fudge. This is the same provision the House approved in March as a key component of H.R. 1106, the ``Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.'' As the House considers financial regulatory reform legislation today, we should not forget the problem that started it all--the cataclysm of home mortgage foreclosures. These foreclosures have pulled the rug out from under our economy, devastating families, neighborhoods, and local governments. And unfortunately, the end to this toxic cycle is nowhere in sight. In Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit, there are almost 200 foreclosure-related actions every day, even worse than the 138 foreclosures a day back in July. According to recent data, 14 percent of American homeowners were in foreclosure or had fallen behind in their mortgage payments--up from 10 percent in 2008. This Wednesday, the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP released a report in which it projected that there could be up to 13 million foreclosures over the next 5 years. We have not seen foreclosure numbers like these since the Great Depression. This amendment will help provide meaningful relief to struggling homeowners, by giving bankruptcy courts the authority to make fair modifications to mortgages, giving families a decent chance to come to terms with their lender on workable payment terms. The amendment would allow the courts to extend repayment periods, reduce excessive interest rates and fees, and adjust the principal balance of the mortgage to a home's present-day market value. The amendment also grants authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural Housing Service to support fair modification of mortgages, by continuing to honor Federal guarantees for them after they are modified. This is imminently fair to mortgage lenders. They will still get everything they could reasonably hope to obtain if the home is foreclosed on and sold--more, in fact--and without forcing the family out of house and home. True, the lenders will not get every dime they might theoretically get on the mortgage paper they now hold. But that is a dangerous pipe dream. And the prospect of rational modification in the courts should serve as a reality check, and help create a healthy incentive for more meaningful voluntary modifications to be done outside of court. As it is now, lenders and servicers simply do not have enough of an incentive to modify mortgages in a meaningful and realistic way. It is too easy for them to hide their heads in the sand until the damage is done. Voluntary mortgage modification programs, by themselves, simply haven't worked. There is also a matter of basic equity here. Mortgages on second and third homes and investment properties can all be modified in the courts, as can virtually any other secured claim, including claims secured by yachts, private jets, and commercial real estate worth many millions of dollars. It is unfathomable to me that a working family does not have the same opportunity to save its home. I thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for his support on this important issue. I also want to thank all of my cosponsors on this amendment--Mike Turner, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Marshall, Maxine Waters, Steve Cohen, Brad Miller, Bill Delahunt, Jerry Nadler, and Marcia Fudge. In the midst of our response to the widespread damage large Wall Street financial institutions caused by their recklessness--including the drain of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail them out--we also have a moral obligation to help average working families who are struggling to save their homes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Conferees for including section 747, which regulates the relationship between automobile manufacturers and automobile dealerships. I, along with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Daniel Maffei, Frank Kratovil, Steven LaTourette, Jackie Speier, Robert Brady, Betty Sutton, and Bob Etheridge have worked together to create legislation that will best serve the interests of the automobile industry, including manufacturers and dealerships, and the citizens who have a significant portion of their tax dollars invested in the success of this critical industry. The following is a description of the legislation. Section 747 of the Conference Agreement includes language establishing an arbitration process to determine whether previously terminated, non-assigned, non-renewed, or non-continued auto dealerships should be added to dealership networks of automobile manufacturers that received federal assistance under the TARP program, or that are partially owned by the Federal Government. This provision replaces Section 745 of the House bill, which also addressed concerns regarding terminated auto dealerships. It is in the national interest to protect the substantial federal investment in automobile manufacturers by assuring the viability of such companies through the maintenance of sufficiently sized dealership networks to meet consumer demand for sales and servicing nationally. In addition to facilitating the maintenance and growth of industry market share among manufacturers that benefitted from TARP funds, and in which the taxpayers have a significant financial investment, it is in the national interest to ensure that dealerships and manufacturers are each treated fairly in their business relationships based on their respective economic interests. Evidence obtained over the course of numerous Congressional hearings in 2009 demonstrates that the automobile industry is integral to the health of the United States economy as a whole. Automobile manufacturers have been among the largest and most successful corporations in the United States, providing significant numbers of jobs and producing valuable goods for consumers. Automobile dealerships are also essential businesses in most communities nationally, providing many jobs to local residents and facilitating the distribution, sales, and servicing of millions of vehicles annually. Our investigations have made clear that it is in the best interest of the automobile industry, automobile manufacturers, dealerships and the public to have a competitive and economically viable domestic automobile distribution network throughout the country, including urban, suburban, and rural areas. This provision was included because we also believe that by providing a process for working out the relationship between automobile manufacturers and dealerships that ensures transparency and review by a neutral arbitrator according to an equitable and balanced standard, taking into account the interests of all affected parties, the property and due process rights of manufacturers and dealerships will be safeguarded. Section 747 establishes a procedure by which an automobile dealership that had a franchise agreement for a vehicle brand that was not assigned to a covered manufacturer, or that was terminated in a manner not consistent with applicable state law, on or before April 29, 2009, may seek continuation or reinstatement of the franchise agreement, or seek to be added as a franchisee to a dealership network of the covered manufacturer who manufactures the vehicle brand of the covered dealership, with such franchisee being located in the geographic area where the covered dealership was located when its franchise agreement was terminated, not assigned, not renewed, or not continued. Absent such election by the covered dealership, no such binding arbitration would occur. In order to provide a covered automobile dealership with the information useful to determine whether to elect to enter into binding arbitration, the dealership will receive in writing notice from the covered manufacturer detailing the specific criteria pursuant to which such dealership's franchise agreement was terminated, was not renewed, or was not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. This notice must be provided within the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Section. This transparency is a vital step in giving dealerships the opportunity to understand why their franchise agreements were terminated, not renewed, or were not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. It is our expectation that this transparency will obviate the need for unnecessary arbitration. It is also our expectation that this transparency will encourage informal agreements between covered dealerships and manufacturers without recourse to the more formal procedures provided in this Section. We expect that the written transmittal letter will also provide appropriate contact information, including an e-mail address, to enable the dealership to contact the manufacturer should the dealership have specific questions about the dealership's information and individual criteria contained in such letter. The Conference Agreement provides such dealerships with the opportunity to elect to participate in a neutral arbitration process designed to permit the dealership to present information in support of its addition to the manufacturer's dealership network, and for the manufacturer to present information against such addition based on its business plan and future economic viability. The arbitrator in each case shall balance the interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer, and the public and will decide based on that balancing whether or not the covered dealership should be added to the dealership network of the covered manufacturer. These are the only remedies the arbitrator may provide. The Conference Agreement specifically prohibits the awarding of compensatory, punitive, or exemplary damages to any party. The Conference Agreement sets out seven specific factors that the arbitrator should consider in ruling on each case. The list is not exclusive, and the arbitrator would have the discretion to consider all the relevant facts on a case-by-case basis. In considering whether adding the covered dealership to the covered manufacturer's dealership network is in the public interest, the arbitrator should consider, among other factors, the need for reasonable access for consumers to a dealership that can service their vehicles, which is of particular concern in rural areas. The arbitrator should also consider the impact on the viability of the manufacturer of adding the dealership to the manufacturer's network, the length of experience of the dealership, the dealership's historical profitability and current economic viability, and demographic and geographic characteristics of the market. It is our understanding that the General Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply to the arbitration proceeding, except to the extent that a rule is inconsistent with any provision of this Section. Subsection (f) addresses negotiations between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or through an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships. The provision is intended to ensure that any legally binding agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, resulting from a voluntary negotiation between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, a group of covered dealerships, or an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships will not be disturbed by this section. It also makes clear that once a covered dealership is party to such an agreement, such covered dealership would not be eligible for the arbitration remedy in this section. It is not the intent of Congress to bar a covered dealership from the provisions of this section if the covered dealership accepted a standard form contract prepared by the covered manufacturer and offered on a ``take-it-or-leave-it'' basis, even if the agreement was entered into voluntarily. As a consequence, a covered dealership that accepted a ``wind-down'' agreement drafted by a covered manufacturer would be able to avail itself of the provisions of this section. An agreement between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or as part of a group of dealerships acting through an organization, will be considered voluntarily negotiated if the agreement between the parties reflects a compromise based on written or oral discussions, even if one party to the negotiation is the principal or primary drafter of the agreement. We chose this approach because binding arbitration by a neutral arbitrator is the most appropriate means of resolving the differences between covered dealerships and manufacturers, and to protect the taxpayers, and the broader economy. For this reason, the Conference Agreement sets out a procedure for ensuring that a neutral arbitrator conducts the arbitration according to a clear standard with factors the arbitrator must weigh. Due to the time sensitive nature of this situation, the Conference Agreement provides that a covered dealership must elect to pursue arbitration no later than 40 days of the date of enactment of this section, that such arbitration must commence as soon as practicable and must be submitted to the arbitrator for deliberation not later than 180 days of such date. The arbitrator is given the flexibility to extend that period for up to 30 days for good cause. The arbitrator then has seven business days after the arbitrator determines that the case has been fully submitted to issue a written opinion. Section 747 expressly permits the manufacturer and dealership to present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration. As an additional means of ensuring efficiency and economy in the arbitration process, the provision prohibits depositions and limits discovery to documents specific to the covered dealership. Section 747 also makes clear that a manufacturer may terminate a covered dealership in accordance with applicable state law. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3570) to amend title 17, United States Code, to reauthorize the satellite statutory license, to conform the satellite and cable statutory licenses to all-digital transmissions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I also further ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) be yielded 10 minutes of my time and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker and Members, H.R. 3570 extends the compulsory copyright license for satellite television providers for another 5 years, as Congress has done in each of the last two other cycles that this measure has been reauthorized. This is an important intellectual property law and will also make a number of critical updates and much-needed clarifications to the compulsory copyright licenses for both satellite and cable television. Passage of this legislation before the end of the year is crucial. We must pass this bill in both bodies by December 31. If we don't pass this bill, thousands upon thousands of satellite television subscribers will lose their signals. In addition to simply reauthorizing the license, the bill ambitiously tackles several other issues for consumers, for content owners, and for cable and satellite companies as well. For example, this bill restores the section 119 license to DISH Satellite Network if they serve every market in the United States, even neglected rural markets. The bill also resolves the phantom signal problem that has caused instability and confusion for the cable and content industries, to the detriment of consumers. In addition, the bill provides an audit right to content owners so they can be sure that they are being fairly compensated for the use of their intellectual property. It significantly increases penalties for copyright infringement under the licenses and updates the licenses to reflect the national digital television transition. The Judiciary Committee marked this bill up in September and reported it with a unanimous vote of 34-0. Since the markup, we have worked with the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over communications policy. The bill that we vote on today is a combined Judiciary and Commerce bill. Title I contains the Judiciary piece on copyright. Title II contains the Commerce piece on communications. The committees have done their best to respect each other's jurisdiction, and I thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation. Since the markup, we have made further improvements to the language. We've attempted to address some concerns expressed by members of the committee. The changes include: harmonizing the so-called ``grandfathering'' provisions in the bill with those in the Energy and Commerce bill to ensure that consumers who lawfully receive certain kinds of programming are not abruptly cut off because of changes in the law; providing a method for calculating the value of multicast programming schemes under the section 111 license; strengthening the protections for copyright owners in the qualified carrier provision, which provides an incentive for a satellite carrier to serve every market in the United States; increasing the effectiveness of the national emergency provisions; and authorizing a study of how the compulsory licenses may be phased out in favor of direct negotiation for copyrights over time without disrupting the television marketplace. Title I also includes a savings clause to make absolutely clear that the changes we make and issues we address have no application to communications law unless specifically mentioned. The committee is amending the cable and satellite licenses to reflect the digital transition--something new--and multicasting, in particular, as it pertains to copyright law only. Nothing in this title should be used as a basis for conclusions concerning cable and satellite regulation in areas where Congress has not yet spoken. Among the many Members who contributed to this progress, I would like to single out in particular my good friend from Virginia, Rick Boucher, who serves in the dual role as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee. I also must thank Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for helping work to improve the bill in several ways. Of course the distinguished chairman of Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry Waxman, and Ranking Member Barton for all their counsel and cooperation which made this legislation possible. We've been working on these issues for more than a year now, and the result is a consensus bill among just about all of the industry stakeholders, including satellite and cable companies, studios, sports leagues, public television and several others. Most importantly, it's a bill that improves service to television consumers and fosters efficiency and competition between cable, satellite, and broadcasters. The satellite license expires in less than a month, December 31, and we must have this reauthorized without delay to avoid the immediate loss of service to tens of thousands of satellite consumers. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, October 28, 2009. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Conyers: I write to you regarding H.R. 3570, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act of 2009.'' H.R. 3570 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction over subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. Further, I request your support for the appointment of an appropriate number of Members of the Committee on Homeland Security to be named as conferees during any House- Senate conference convened on H.R. 3570 or similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be included in the legislative report on H.R. 3570 and in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this bill. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.