Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Do I understand from the majority leader, then, that the only discussion of campaign finance scheduled after these many months, and committee comments from both sides of the aisle in favor of it, will be under a procedure that permits no amendments and only 20 minutes to a side to debate each bill and that no bill that passes by a simple majority will become law or be passed by this House?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to see that not all of the concern for music on the Republican side is expressed by the singing Senators and that there are other musicians and lovers of music on the Republican side that recognize this is basically a property rights issue.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand what the gentleman is saying, then if someone develops a very successful restaurant and they think it contributes to have some music playing there, they do not expect to get the electricity for free, they do not expect to get the recording device for free, but some of them apparently think that they can take the property of the song writer and get that for free.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if one of those successful restaurants in the gentleman's district has a famous name, I could not take that name and open up right next door without stealing their property, could I?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to be wholly bipartisan, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and I have been on the party line, but I would just close in being truly bipartisan on the issue of music by making reference to a songwriter from outside of Austin, a fellow named Don McLean, who wrote ``American Pie.'' The first verse goes like this: A long, long, time ago I can still remember how that music used to make me smile And I knew if I'd had my chance That I could make those people dance And maybe they'd be happy for a while But February made me shiver With every paper I'd deliver Bad news on the doorstep I couldn't take one more step I can't remember if I cried When I read about his widowed bride But something touched me deep inside The day the music died. What this amendment is all about is to ensure that the creative genius of our songwriters does not die, at least protected in part with the moderate, reasonable approach that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has advanced here today.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have done everything I could to stop the Sensenbrenner amendment except threaten to sing myself; and I would ask my colleagues to spare the House that kind of circumstance by supporting the amendment the genuine compromise and moderate approach that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has offered as a substitute to the Sensenbrenner amendment. A lot was just said about it. But I think that the bottom line that most people in this House and across the country would want to know about is that if it is approved, if this McCollum music licensing amendment substitute is approved, 65 percent of all the eating and drinking establishments in this country will be exempt, their problems will be taken care of. Already the national licensed beverage folks have agreed to something very, very similar, if not exact, to the amendment that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is offering. The same amendment would exempt audio sound systems with fewer than 6 speakers and would exempt video systems with 2 television sets. So there is ample room for agreement. I am troubled frankly by some of the provisions in this amendment. I would like to leave the system largely as it is at present. But I think that trying to achieve some balance is a realistic compromise, my colleague has come forward with a reasonable amendment. We do need to focus, though, on what a failure to adopt his amendment is really all about. You see, there really is not any free lunch, we have all heard that, and if the restaurants across this country were to offer one free lunch after another, we know full well that they would go out of business because they have to earn a profit on their labor and on their services. The same thing is true with reference to those who offer something to our community through song writing and through their creative spirit. I believe that those same folks deserve to have their property protected just as much as the restaurant owner or any small business in this country. I think one of the reasons we see some of our colleagues tending to put our songwriters in a different category is that we often think of them as the rich and famous. We think of famous artists like Willie Nelson and Jimmy Dale Gilmore, we think of people coming star-studded in the limousines and the designer clothes to the Grammys and the other celebrations of music like our South by Southwest Music Festival down in Austin. But the truth of the matter is that most of our artists are out there working somewhere else and doing a little creative work on the side and these revenues which are only costing the restaurant or the small business that uses this work product about $1.58 a day, those revenues are vital to that creative spirit. I think not only of the famous groups there in Austin, but one that is becoming a little more famous, the Austin Lounge Lizards. They have a hit called ``Newt the Gingrich.'' If they want to play that over in the Republican Conference to add a little bit more tranquility and a little ambience, they would be permitted under the McCollum amendment to do that without having to pay any licensing fee. I think it would be worth $1.58 a day to them to do that. But in the spirit of compromise, they would be exempted from this. And struggling groups like that and the members of that band who will be up here I think later in the spring to play in Washington, they work full-time at other jobs. We ought to recognize the creative genius that they bring, that they are not driving the limousines, they are in the cowboy boots and they are driving the pickup trucks down in our area, and that they have property rights that deserve to be protected, not stolen as would be accomplished by the Sensenbrenner amendment if it were adopted in full. I quoted from this earlier, but I think it is important to note that even going right up to the Supreme Court of the United States, the importance of music and music rights has been recognized. It was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said it is true that music is not the sole object but neither is the food. The object is a repast in surroundings that give a luxurious pleasure, not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough. Indeed it is. It is a very real quantity. As Justice Holmes wrote in the language of an earlier era when this right was recognized, the songwriter contributes something to the restaurant or the small business or the convention that uses that songwriter's product, that is very real. It would not be used at all if the person using it did not think that it would bring more profit. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht) The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Last week at the Austin Music Awards down at the South by Southwest Music Gathering, we had people from all over the world, and of course we had to spotlight a little local talent, so the band that was playing is Ray Benson's Asleep At the Wheel, and I think what the gentleman from Florida and I are trying to do, from very different, perhaps, political perspectives on some other issues, is to be sure that this Congress is not asleep at the wheel today. Mr. Chairman, the basic thrust of the legislation that we are debating today is very positive. We are saying that whether one is an author or one is a music artist, that one's property ought not to be stolen in China or in Europe or someplace else where people take advantage and pirate American works. It is a major problem. This Copyright Extension Act is basically sound legislation that tries to protect the creative work of the American people wherever it might be used around the globe. But as we reach out to protect our citizens around the globe, we have a group, a special interest group that has come in here to the Congress and said, well, we want to hang on a little amendment to this, and our little amendment is something called the Musical Fairness Act. We cannot get it passed on its own, but we want to stick it on this good bill and kind of put it in there. It reminds me of another one of our Austin song writers, the late Stevie Ray Vaughn. To call this the Fairness in Musical Licensing Act is to remind me of that line from his song called the Garden of White Lies, ``They are pulling wool over our eyes,'' because that is what this is all about. It is about pulling wool over our eyes, as we consider a good bill, to tack on a very bad bill that could not pass on its own because it basically is contrary to a long series of American court decisions and American recognition that just because one cannot touch property, a trade name, a musical work does not mean it is not very real property that deserves to be protected by our Congress. And those who would steal this property know that they cannot get away with it under our existing law, so they want it legalized in the amendment that is being offered today. Most of the people that are going to be hurt by this musical theft amendment are not even full-time songwriters. They work for small businesses and large businesses across this country, and on the side they apply their creativity talent. Less than 10 percent of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers earn their living full-time from the music that we all enjoy. They are only getting a little supplemental income and hoping that one day they can become a Sonny Bono, or they can become a Willie Nelson. The small compensation that current law requires of those that use that music to pay is modest, indeed, compared to the benefit they derive. It has been estimated that it costs about $1.58 a day to get the benefits of all of those members of the American Society of Composers. Goodness, do you know in Austin, Texas, you cannot even get a bowl of tostados and a little guacamole on the side while you are enjoying this music for $1.58. It is not unreasonable to ask that there be some compensation to encourage the kinds of musical genius that we have, not only in Austin but across this land. I have heard from literally hundreds of musicians in this country, many of them, of course, from Texas, who have urged the defeat of this Musical Theft Act, and who recognized that it represents a deprivation of private property rights. It is so ironic that some of the people who have spoken out in favor of private property rights on this floor would now authorize the taking of private rights from the musicians that create so much of what adds to the quality of our life, and obviously, flows to the benefit of people, regardless of the party label that they wear when they come on this floor. As with any debate, there is room for some middle ground. Indeed, there have been extensive negotiations over this issue, trying to reach a reasonable balance. A reasonable balance is not to give the authority to steal the property rights of our musicians. But, for example, there is a discussion that has gone on that exempts over 65 percent of all the drinking establishments in the United States and creates 12 regional sites for arbitration of disputes. On this proposal, actually there was agreement reached with the National Licensed Beverage Association, but the National Restaurant Association will not have any of it. Why pay something when you can change the law and get it for nothing, seems to be their approach. So they have been unwilling to join those reasonable organizations that would respect private property rights and recognize they ought to have to pay something for them, because they want it all their way. What we are asking today is that we approve the base legislation, the very positive, bipartisan legislation that is being presented here today, but not attach to it something that has nothing to do with it, that is completely contrary to the purposes of this legislation, and will only serve to take away the rights, the creativity, of artists across this land. I would urge the rejection of that amendment, and the whole concept of trying to reach some balance is not achieved by this Musical Theft Act, but by the very reasonable approach that follows the agreement with the National Licensed Beverage Association that our Republican colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is going to offer, an approach that provides a change in the law for small businesses, but recognizes that there are many other small businesses out there involved in the music industry that need protection, too, and will draw a reasonable balance and not permit the theft of music creativity.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend an invitation to the gentleman to come down to Austin, Texas, at some time other than the campaign season, of course, and enjoy her where she sounds the best. But whether we have Shawn Colvin on the radio or Jerry Jeff Walker or any other fine artist from down there in central Texas, the average cost of using that kind of music. To the small business, when they talk about balance, it is only about a buck and a half a day; is it not?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman has good taste, better than I realized.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, so what the gentleman is saying is, most of the song writers in America, they do not begin their careers at the Grammy's or in the movies or on television. It is hard work, and for every Sonny Bono, there are thousands of other song writers out there that are song-writing on the side, and they are out maybe working for one of the small businesses whose misguided association has promoted this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is that not the same thing as stealing the works of people that have devoted significant time to creating something we all enjoy?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Term Extension Act makes an important correction in our existing law to ensure that the intellectual property of artists across this land is protected, that it is not raided and misappropriated by people around the world to their benefit, without compensation to the original owner. It is therefore particularly contradictory and ironic that this rule will attach and permit attachment to this protection of intellectual property, what many people have come to call the Music Theft Act, a measure that is a separate freestanding piece of legislation that has nothing to do with copyright extension, but is being attached to the most convenient vehicle to steal the intellectual property of thousands of small businesspeople who are song writers in this land. This Music Theft Act is based on a very simple premise: If one cannot get someone else's property for free, then pass a law to allow them to steal it from them. It is particularly ironic that this Music Theft Act is being considered here on the floor of Congress at a time when we have just completed the great South By Southwest Music Festival that pulled together hundreds, indeed thousands of people interested in the music industry and what it contributes to the enjoyment of life here in America and how it spreads our American culture literally around the globe. In my home city, the city of Austin, Texas, where that South By Southwest Music Festival pulled people from around the world to enjoy and build on the success of our music capital, our claim to be the ``loud music capital of the world,'' we have hundreds of songwriters who are small businesspeople who rely on the income that they earn from their songwriting to support themselves. They work hard creating a product that all of us enjoy, and when someone else uses or enjoys their product, they expect to make a profit just like any other business. When Joe Ely or Shaun Colvin or Tish Hinojosa go downtown to play at a club, they do not do it for free. That is how they earn their living. And the same thing ought to apply when music is being broadcast by one of those artists in a restaurant. If a business owner is using a song writer's property to help that business, then it ought to compensate the person that provides, that provided the benefit to them, the songwriter who is responsible for creating the work. Let us be real clear about what we are discussing. The songwriter's property is just that; it is property every bit as real as a trade name, every bit as real as the script for a movie or for a new book, every bit as real as a new phone system or a copying machine. Music is the property of the songwriter who created it. And when music helps attract people to a restaurant, and that is what this is all about is the desire of the National Restaurant Association to take someone else's property for free, they may not offer any free lunch around America but they are willing to take for free the property of someone else to help them promote their profits in the restaurants. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had it right when he wrote many years ago ``It is true that music is not the sole object, but neither is the food. . . . The object is a repast in surroundings that give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up . . . Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it,'' the music, ``is profit, and that is enough. `` And that is what is at stake here today, the right of thousands of small businesspeople who are creative, who write music, to earn an income from doing so.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, this Congress today can go down in history as the biggest do-nothing Congress in memory. It has done less work on this floor in 3 months than the ordinary American would do in 3 weeks. Indeed, if we really think about all the important issues that have been taken up here, this Congress could have met for 3 days and gone home. Having achieved the ability to do nothing better than anyone else noticed in this country, this Gingrich Congress will tomorrow declare ``National Do-Nothing Day'' on campaign finance reform. I see for years they have been promising to do something to fix the corrupting influence of campaign dollars, and tomorrow they will devote a couple of hours to talking about it and then doing nothing. They have cut off any real debate on proposals, not only of Democrats, but some of the Republicans who came forward with specific proposals to fix this perverted, broken system. This Gingrich Congress defends doing it the same old way to let the tobacco companies come in here and dump billions of dollars into this corrupt system.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of House Resolution 358.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we were so fortunate in our family that my wife Libby could stay home with our two young daughters during their youth, pursuing her graduate degree and devoting most of her time to them. There is no doubt that that is the most important investment that our family has ever made. There is absolutely no complete substitute for the care of a loving parent to a child. But, increasingly in this country, we find single parent families and we find two parent families where both parents face economic barriers, and the only way they can provide for their children is to both be out in the work force. And I know very few families in this country, certainly not mine, where a spouse is willing to stay home, and able economically to stay home for 18 years. So it is that we come to this very strange resolution. You see, the President and our Democratic Caucus has had the courage to come forward and recognize that not all American families are like mine or any other individual family. There are many families with diverse needs, but there are few families in this country who do not at some time in their life need child care. And there is a vast void in America and shortage across America in quality child care to meet the needs and to support loving parents. Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution has one thing in common for all parents, whether they are stay-at-home, single-parent, or two working-parent families: This resolution will do absolutely nothing for any of those families. It is a true do-nothing resolution. It seeks to create a false dichotomy between families in this country and to pit one group against another, which is your typical Republican approach. It does nothing in terms of assuring families, whatever their status, any additional support or assistance, direct or indirect. We have nearly a child care crisis in parts of this country. It is a crisis for any working family that cannot find quality child care, as is true of millions of families across this country. Instead of dealing with this crisis in a bipartisan way, this Republican leadership is simply coming through with another phony resolution instead of a real solution.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Largely ignored in this morning's debate on this question of the testing on national educational concerns is the fact there is a test going on right here this morning, and the scores are already in. When the question is concentrating on those issues, on the periphery of the lives of ordinary Americans, this Republican leadership scores an unqualified A-plus. Whether it is naming an airport and switching the name of one President for another or dealing with something that the administration is not really doing right now, they have done excellent, absolutely outstanding, in concentrating on these issues that do not really make a flip to ordinary American families who are out there struggling to make a go of it and are trying to get their kids through the schools. But when it comes to a commitment, a Federal commitment to back up our families, to support our local school boards and the many other groups, whether it is the PTA or the large adopt-a-school program that our Chamber of Commerce does down in Austin, TX, and Uvalde, TX, and in Pflugerville, TX, to back up and support those local efforts, when it comes to ideas, new ideas and new approaches to improve the quality of education, that test score is in also. And just like last year, this Republican leadership scores an unqualified F. They do not even get up to D-minus. Because the only new idea they have only advanced, other than trying to prevent other people from doing something to improve the quality of public education in this country, something that our parents and our communities all over this land want, the only solution that they have offered, they will not vouch for public education, they want to voucher out a privileged 10 percent and move them off into private academies and leave the other 90 percent to sink. That is not a solution. It is contributing to part of the problem. What we need to be doing is not dealing with things on the edge of reality but concentrating on how we can reshape and reinvigorate some of our existing programs and channel those resources to reduce class size, improve teacher training, focus on many things, that we share common concerns and not focus on these things that will not make a difference one way or the other in the quality of any child's education.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today our Republican friends are talking about naming airports. What America should really be concerned about is the ``NAMing'' of our airports. That is right, NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, is having a corporate fly-in today. The corporate jets line the runways out at the airport here in Washington, and the special interests fill this Capitol. And what is it all about? They are heeding the cry of the Republican Party to come to Washington and block a consumer bill of rights for health care consumers who are enrolled in managed care: the right to see your own doctor, the right to be able to go to the emergency room without having to ask someone's permission, the right to hold accountable some insurance plan that denies you access to health care, the right of all Americans to begin to do what Texans can already do, and that is to hold accountable these managed health care plans. But NAM and the Republican Party, they have the NAM slam of this plan. It is really a NAM scam. It is a scam to deny the American people the rights they should have as health care consumers.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Americans are focused on the President right now, but it is important that they focus as well on the agenda that he will be outlining here this evening. As we finally resolve the budget deficit, it is time to direct our attention and our energy to other deficits that exist in this land: Deficits in child care, deficits in our schools, deficits in health care and in our transportation system. Too many Americans approach the age of their 50s or 60s without the security of health insurance. They risk losing all that they have worked for with a health care emergency. They get downsized and down and out when it comes to health insurance and protection against a health care emergency. The President has properly advanced the notion of expanding and strengthening Medicare, and providing all of us, regardless of age, a health care consumer Bill of Rights. Likewise, as we made progress last session on higher education, this session we should be devoting our attention to strengthening the public education system and to recognizing that one of the best ways to back up families is to provide them the child care resources, through our tax system and otherwise, to back up their efforts. These would be wise investments in America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how strange that so many Republicans disagree with my friend from Arizona. They are convening a press conference right now to propose their campaign finance reforms. And is it not strange that they decided to propose them as this Congress adjourns? Because they reject the hopes of the American people that we might have reform in time for the next elections. They do not want reform, they want the same sorry system that we have right now, the same sorry system that allowed them to dump in $1 million of attack ads in a single election in Staten Island earlier this month; $1 million, in addition to all the resources the Republican candidate had, the same Republican Party that was happy to accept $1.8 million from a single family for various Republican front organizations last year. It is outrageous that we have a campaign finance system that allows big money special interests to maintain a stranglehold on this Congress, and these Republicans will not do a thing about it. They promised to bring up campaign finance reform this fall, and they broke that promise to the American people. They are adjourning today, adjourning the hopes of the American people for reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H. Con. Res. 17 and H.R. 2687.

Mr. DOGGETT

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