F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1273, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 and 1999, authorizes the Foundation's programs for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. This is a noncontroversial bill that was favorably reported by voice vote by the Committee on Science on April 16, 1997, and later passed the full House under suspension of the rules on April 24, 1997. The present version of H.R. 1273 is the product of negotiations with the Senate, which passed the bill on a vote of 99-0 on May 12, 1998. The National Science Foundation provides funding to over 19,000 research and education projects in science and engineering annually. It does this through competitive grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 schools, businesses, and other research institutions in all parts of the United States. Although the Foundation's budget represents only 4 percent of Federal research and development funding, the Foundation accounts for more than 25 percent of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. This 3-year authorization improves our investment in America by strengthening our commitment to basic research. It authorizes $3.5 billion for fiscal year 1998, $3.8 billion for fiscal year 1999, and nearly $3.9 billion for fiscal year 2000. The bill received bipartisan support in the Committee on Science and demonstrates the Committee's belief that the support of basic research will help America maintain its lead in cutting-edge science and engineering. It is the kinds of research that the NSF funds through which we will make the fundamental discoveries which will become the economic drivers of the 21st century. The Research and Related Activities account is NSF's primary account and provides the resources for a broad portfolio of science and engineering activities. For fiscal year 1999, H.R. 1273 provides for $2.57 billion for this account, a 10-percent increase over 1998. For fiscal year 2000, the bill provides a further $2.9 billion. This legislation also follows through on the Committee on Science's commitment to improve math and science education. H.R. 1273 authorizes $632 million for Fiscal Year 1998, $683 million for Fiscal Year 1999, and $703 million for Fiscal Year 2000 for NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate, which funds education programs. To hold down administrative costs, the bill holds the salaries and expense account of NSF to approximately 2 percent growth in Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000. I want to take a moment to thank the acting chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); the former ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia); and the current ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson); and the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), for their efforts and support in crafting a truly bipartisan bill. Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation and respect for all the hard work performed on this bill by the late former chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, Congressman Steve Schiff, who passed away earlier this year. H.R. 1273 is the product of Mr. Schiff's dedication to improving America's scientific and technological prowess. Steve was a true patriot who served our country both as an elected official and as a member of the Armed Forces. As this bill demonstrates, Steve Schiff was also an excellent legislator. The Committee on Science and the whole Congress will miss his intelligence, wit, and his diligence. I believe that H.R. 1237 is an outstanding bill and urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), who is the acting chair of the Subcommittee on Basic Research.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1273) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2544) to improve the ability of Federal agencies to license federally owned inventions, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in the past two decades, Congress has established a system to transfer unclassified technology from our Federal laboratories to the private sector in order to facilitate its commercialization. This system is designed to ensure U.S. citizens receive the full benefit from our government's investment in research and development. To help further these goals, the Committee on Science first reported the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. The committee expanded on that landmark legislation with the passage of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, the National Competitive Technology Transfer Act of 1989, the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, among others. Technology transfer has resulted in products which are currently being used to enhance our quality of life. Examples include the AIDS home testing kit, the global positioning system nautical navigation, and new materials technology to make automobiles lighter and more fuel- efficient. H.R. 2544 continues the Committee on Science's long and rich history of advancing technology transfer to help boost our Nation's standard of living. I congratulate the Chair of the Subcommittee on Technology, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for introducing H.R. 2544, and for her efforts to work cooperatively with members of the minority and the administration to craft this bipartisan bill. I would also like to acknowledge and congratulate the hard work of the ranking Members from the Committee on Science and Subcommittee on Technology, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) on this important legislation. Its drafting and passage by the Committee on Science could not have occurred without their considerable input and assistance. The purpose of H.R. 2544 as reported is to promote the transfer and private sector commercialization of the technology created in our Nation's system of over 700 Federal laboratories, thereby leveraging Federal investment in scientific research through increasing collaboration with the private industry. Specifically, the bill improves and streamlines the ability of Federal agencies to license federally-owned inventions. H.R. 2544 does this by reducing procedural obstacles and, to the greatest extent possible, the uncertainty involved in the licensing of government-owned patented inventions. During the Committee on Science's hearing on this bill, the committee received testimony from both past and prospective private industry partners regarding their concerns about current Federal technology licensing processes. Witnesses indicated that the strategic advantage of acquiring intellectual property rights through a cooperative research and development agreement, called CRADA for short, and/or the licensing of government-owned technology, are, unfortunately, offset by the delays and uncertainty often associated with the lengthy Federal technology transfer process, which is often out of sync with private sector timing. In addition to the uncertainty of actually being granted the license, these procedural barriers increase transaction costs and delay commercialization. The present regulations also make it difficult for government-owned and government-operated laboratories, or GOGO for short, to bring existing scientific inventions into a CRADA, even when inclusion would create a more complete technology package. By reducing the delay and uncertainty imposed by existing procedural barriers and thus lowering transactional costs associated with the licensing of technology transferred from the Federal laboratories, Federal agencies could greatly increase participation by the private sector in their technology transfer programs. H.R. 2544 does just that. Its approach will expedite the commercialization of government-owned inventions and reduce the costs to the American taxpayer for the development of new technology-based products. Through H.R. 2544, Federal agencies are provided with two important new tools for effectively commercializing on-the-shelf government-owned inventions: First, revised authorities under section 209 of the Bayh- Dole Act; and, second, the ability to license technology as part of a CRADA. Both mechanisms make Federal technology transfer programs much more attractive to U.S. private industries that seek to form partnerships with the Federal laboratories. The committee reported H.R. 2544 by voice vote. The bill was subsequently discharged by the Committee on the Judiciary, to which it was sequentially referred. I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for their assistance in bringing H.R. 2544 to the floor. This bill is yet another important step in refining our Nation's technology transfer laws to remove existing impediments to advance government and industry collaboration, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1273.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the dairy provision in this bill which delays the implementation of the federal milk marketing order reforms and perpetuates the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I believe that the current federal milk marketing program is the most egregious and unfair aspect of federal dairy policy. The current federal milk marketing orders were created in the 1930s and were designed to ensure that all regions of the country were adequately supplied with fresh milk. This is obviously not the 1930s and fresh milk is available nationwide. Federal orders need to change to reflect the numerous changes that have taken place through technological advances at every level of dairying--from production to processing; distribution to transportation. When Congress wrote the 1996 Farm Bill, we look at the rapidly changing agricultural landscape and realized that the old practices of government intervention were no longer working and mandated the USDA reform the program. With the 1996 Farm bill we set a course for greater market orientation in dairy policy, including the phaseout of the dairy price support system. The process for reform is underway. Secretary Glickman has indicated his support of steps toward a more market- oriented milk pricing system. We should not rescind our commitment to reform the federal dairy program by delaying the implementation of this much-needed reform. Furthermore, the existence of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact is a completely discriminatory aspect of the current federal dairy policy. Last year I introduced legislation, H.R. 438, to rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. To date, there are twenty-six cosponsors. I oppose such compacts because they run counter to the intent and spirit of the U.S. Constitution for free trade between the states. The legal authority for the Northeast Dairy compact was never considered by the House of Representatives but was slipped into the conference report to the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement Act, even after failing in the Senate. This is one of the main reasons I voted against this conference report. Nonetheless, one of the conditions of the existing law is that the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact would terminate concurrent with the Secretary of Agriculture's implementation of the federal milk marketing order consolidation and reforms, currently set at no latter than April 4, 1999. Any simple extension of this implementation date would also prolong the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Compact is detrimental to consumers because the higher milk prices paid to farmers under the compact have been passed on to milk purchasers at the retail level. The Compact is also reducing milk consumption in the region while milk production in New England is increasing, raising the specter of a return to the days of dairy purchases at taxpayer expense. Let the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact sunset. I will support the amendments to be offered today by my colleagues Mr. Obey and Mr. Petri to remove the provision which delays dairy reforms and perpetuates the anti-competitive dairy pricing cartel, known as the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), a member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Fastener Quality Act was signed into law in 1990. It required all threaded metallic fasteners of one- quarter inch diameter or greater that reference a consensus standard to be documented by a National Institute of Standards and Technology's certified laboratory. Although the legislation has been on the books for over 8 years, concerns over the bill's impact on the economy have delayed its implementation of final regulations. NIST regulations are slated to go into effect on July 26 of this year. H.R. 3824 amends the Fastener Quality Act by exempting fasteners produced or altered to the standards and specifications of aviation manufacturers from the new regulations. Exempting the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers from the Fastener Quality Act makes sense, considering aviation manufacturers are already required by law to demonstrate to the FAA that they have a quality control system which ensures that their products, including fasteners, meet design specifications. Subjecting the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to a second set of Federal regulations is redundant and unnecessary. In fact, the FAA has stated that doing so may even undermine the current level of aviation safety. In addition to the Fastener Quality Act's impact on aviation manufacturing, several questions have been raised about the Act's effect on other industries. For instance, the automotive industry projects costs of compliance through the motor vehicle industry could be greater than $300 million a year without necessarily enhancing vehicle safety. Furthermore, since 1990, the scope of the Fastener Quality Act seems to have grown. Originally intended to ensure public safety, today, if the NIST regulations are to be implemented, even garden hose fasteners such as those produced by Sheboygan Screw Products, Incorporated, in my district could be forced to comply with the additional burdens of the Act. I am not sure what dangers faulty garden hose fasteners may cause, but I am sure that preventing the public from being susceptible to hose failures will be expensive. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3824 addresses the concerns by, first, delaying the regulations issued by NIST under the Fastener Quality Act on this subject until after June 1, 1999. Second, requiring the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to Congress a report on changes in fastener manufacturing processes that have occurred since the enactment of the Fastener Quality Act and recommend any changes to the act that may be warranted because of those changes. Delaying NIST regulations until next year gives us the opportunity to take a closer look at the Fastener Quality Act, especially considering it was crafted over 8 years ago. As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I have pledged to hold additional hearings on this issue in the coming months. We may find that changes in the fastener manufacturing products have diminished the need for further regulations in this area, or even that this act should be repealed. H.R. 3824 was reported by the Committee on Science on May 13, 1998. It has wide bipartisan support and it has been endorsed by several business organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce. Original cosponsors of this legislation include the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook). In addition, I wish to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter); the other gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller); and the third gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for endorsing this bill and helping promote its speedy passage. I would also like to thank the Committee on Commerce chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), as well as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for discharging the bill to enable its passage before the July 26 regulatory deadline. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would insert our committee's exchange of correspondence into the Record, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense regulation. Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, June 3, 1998. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, House Committee on Science, Washington, DC. Dear Jim: On May 13, 1998 the Committee on Science ordered reported H.R. 3824, a bill amending the Fastener Quality Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 5401 et al.) to exempt from its coverage certain fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in aircraft. As you know, the Committee on Commerce was named as an additional committee of jurisdiction and has had a longstanding interest in the issue of fastener quality and the Fastener Quality Act. This interest goes back to the 100th Congress, at which time the Committee undertook an investigation of counterfeit and substandard fasteners. This investigation resulted in the issuance of a unanimously approved Subcommittee report entitled ``the Threat from Substandard Fasteners: Is America Losing Its Grip?'' which ultimately led to the approval by our respective committees of the Fastener Quality Act of 1990. H.R. 3824, as ordered reported, would amend the Fastener Quality Act in two ways. First, the bill exempts fasteners approved for use in aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration from the requirements of the Act. Secondly, it delays implementation of the final regulations until the Secretary of Commerce and the Congress have had an opportunity to consider developments in manufacturing and quality assurance techniques since the law was enacted. Because of the important and timely nature of these amendments to the Fastener Quality Act, I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner. I also understand that you have agreed to address several technical issues raised by this Committee in a manager's amendment to be offered on the Floor. Therefore, with that understanding, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Commerce Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on these and any other provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I would seek your commitment to support any request by the Commerce Committee for conferees on amendments to the Fastener Quality Act or related legislation. I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the Committee's report on H.R. 3824 and as part of the record during consideration of this bill by the House. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. 3824.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3824) amending the Fastener Quality Act to exempt from its coverage certain fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in aircraft, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who is the chair of the subcommittee that helped develop this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and rise in support of this common sense amendment to prohibit any provision of law, any provision of the Kyoto Protocol, or any regulation issued pursuant to the protocol, from restricting the procurement, training or operation and maintenance of the United States armed forces. As chairman of the Committee on Science, I spent a great deal of time analyzing this protocol, the U.N. treaty on climate change, including chairing three full Committee on Science hearings on the outcome and implication of the Kyoto climate change negotiations, and this past December I led the congressional delegation to the Kyoto conference. Facts I have reviewed lead me to believe that the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; so flawed, in fact, that it cannot be salvaged. The treaty is based upon science, costs too much, leaves too many procedural questions unanswered, is grossly unfair because developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico are not required to participate, and will do nothing to solve the speculative problem it is intended to solve. I have heard nothing today to persuade me otherwise. The amendment addresses one of the protocol's many absurdities that the Clinton-Gore administration agreed to in Kyoto, namely the threat to our national security. Under the Protocol, the administration has committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels in the 2008 to 2012 time frame, or about the level that we were emitting 20 years ago in 1978. Since the Federal Government is the Nation's largest energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, and the Department of Defense is the government's largest emitter, the administration essentially agreed to impose restrictions upon military operations, in spite of Pentagon analyses that showed that such restrictions would not only significantly downgrade the operational readiness of our armed forces, but also threaten their ability to meet the requirements of our national military strategy. The text of the Kyoto Protocol is silent with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the decision taken by the Framework Convention of the Climate Change's Conference of Parties exempts military operations ``pursuant to the United Nations charter,'' but requires ``that all other operations shall be included in the national emissions totals,'' with the effect of penalizing our armed forces for maintaining world peace. The administration claims that this decision was one of its great triumphs in Kyoto, but I believe, however, it is one of the many mistakes made by Vice President Gore and his minions that guided the Kyoto negotiations. As pointed out in a January 22, 1998 letter to the President by the Committee to Preserve American Security and Sovereignty, a concerned group of former U.S. national security and foreign policy officials that includes three past Secretaries of Defense and two past Secretaries of State, ``The Kyoto treaty threatens to limit the exercise of military power by exempting only military exercises that are multinational and humanitarian. Unilateral military actions, as in Grenada, Panama and Libya, will become politically and diplomatically charged.'' It is time too correct this Kyoto absurdity. Support this amendment and say ``yes'' to our national security and ``no'' to Kyoto.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 1998, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the eighteen preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an important provision in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Reauthorization Act, which prohibits NHTSA from lobbying at the state or local level. The provision is consistent with current federal law which prohibits federal agencies from lobbying Congress. In legislation considered by the House Committee on Science last year, I included similar anti-lobbying language to prohibit the Department of Transportation from lobbying state and local elected officials. I am pleased H.R. 2691 includes the anti-lobbying provision. In 1996, Congress voted to repeal a provision of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that penalized states without mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. By repealing the helmet penalty provisions of ISTEA, Congress determined that the issue of motorcycle safety was best determined by each individual state without a one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government. Since that time, however, the U.S. General Accounting Office has determined that NHTSA has engaged in an active lobbying campaign to persuade states to enact laws mandating that motorcycle riders wear helmets. I strongly supported repealing the coercive and unfair helmet law penalties on states in 1996 and I further support the provisions of H.R. 2691 prohibiting the use of federal funds to lobby at the state and local level. I do not believe lobbying by any federal agency at the federal, state or local level is an appropriate use of tax-payer dollars.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in honor of the 14th annual National Science and Technology Week. During this week the National Science Foundation performs its most important public outreach activities of the year; getting children excited about science and technology. This year's theme for National Science and Technology Week is ``Polar Connections.'' It draws attention to the scientific research being performed in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. The North and South Poles are truly unlike any place on the planet. As Chairman of the Science Committee, I've had the opportunity to travel to Antarctica to visit NSF's South Pole Station, and I can tell you that it is a remarkable place. The men and women who perform research at the South Pole work under conditions that make the winters in Wisconsin look comparatively easy. For example, in 1989 researchers from the University of Wisconsin measured temperature variations at the South Pole ranging from -7 deg.F to -117 deg.F. The South Pole receives less than a foot of snow per year, yet it is covered by an ice-sheet that is nearly two-miles thick. Geographically it is 1.5 times the size of the continental United States and a year's worth of supplies must be fit onto the one supply ship that ventures to Antarctica once a year. When the sun goes down on March 21st, it doesn't come up again until September 21st. This week's activities were not designed simply to draw attention to the Poles, but rather to the work being performed there. The North and South Poles are unique, natural laboratories and offer matchless opportunities to study our environment. Highlighting the combination of the important and unique research being performed at the Poles and the harsh and dangerous living conditions there is, in my opinion, a great way to make children curious about science and technology. When children are introduced to the conditions at the Poles, they may wonder: How can anything survive in such cold conditions? How do you study geology when the ground's under two miles of ice? How do you get everything you need to the South Pole? How do you fit a year's supply of goods on one ship? Getting kids to ask these questions is the goal of National Science and Technology Week. I think that ``Polar Connections'' is a terrific theme for National Science and Technology Week, and I am confident that this year's activities will be a great success. I must add that just as they did last year, the National Science Foundation has once again set up it's ``Ask a Scientist or Engineer'' phone-bank at 1-888-718-3026. The phone-bank will be open on Wednesday, April 29th, from 9:00 am to 8:00 pm. This year's e-mail address is nstw@nsf.gov. More information about National Science and Technology Week can be found at NSF's web-page at www.nsf.gov. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my fellow Members to strongly support this program, and join with me in celebrating National Science and Technology Week.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move a call of the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2589, the Copyright Term Extension Act, if, and only if, my amendment to ensure fairness in music licensing passes. H.R. 2589 provides a very generous windfall to the entertainment industry by extending the term of copyright for an additional 20 years. That is 20 years more that they can commercially exploit works that would otherwise fall into the public domain. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution I read suggests the need for balanced intellectual property rights between its creators and users. When the mechanisms designed to ensure that balance are broken, it is the duty of Congress to act. Passage of the amendment which I will offer later on today will provide that balance. It sends the message that the voice of the tavern keeper in Boston, Massachusetts, Greensboro, North Carolina, or Milwaukee, Wisconsin is just as important as the parade of celebrities that Hollywood has trotted out to support expanding its rights by passing term extension and oppose my efforts to enact the modest reforms I seek for small business. The amendment which I will offer is a compromise version of my legislation, H.R. 789, the Fairness in Music Licensing Act and is a key vote for the NFIB, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Beverage Retailers, and the many other small business associations. They support my amendment because it ensures fairness by providing for local arbitration of rate disputes, so small businesses do not have to go to New York City and hire an expensive attorney to contest a rate that may involve several hundred dollars. They support my amendment because it prevents small businesses from being forced to pay every music licensing society a fee for music already paid for several times over. Let me make this point: Under my amendment, nobody gets a free ride. The creators of intellectual property are paid. My amendment only provides for the exemption for a retailer who has a TV set on or a radio set on where the creators of the intellectual property have already been paid a licensing fee by the TV or radio station or the other broadcast media. We should stop the double-dipping, and we should stop the harassment of small business operators over the type of programming that they have no control over. It does not provide an exemption for tapes or CDs or live music performances such as has been described earlier. The same groups oppose a window-dressing amendment to be offered later on today by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). That amendment is unanimously opposed by America's small businesses because it reflects a rejected proposal from failed negotiations. It contains no local arbitration, and it excludes the vast majority of America's small businesses from any relief from the music-licensing monopolies. Make no mistake, the McCollum substitute to my amendment is the music monopolies' amendment. The McCollum-ASCAP-BMI substitute is a key vote, no, by the same groups I just identified in support of my amendment. Next time, Mr. Chairman, you walk down Main Street in a town in your district, walk with your head held high knowing that you did the right thing for small business. Do not cozy up to the same folks who have been abusing small businesses in your district and mine for years by supporting the McCollum amendment, because it substitutes the interest of Main Street for the interest of the music monopolies. In the name of balance and support for Main Street U.S.A., vote no on McCollum and yes on Sensenbrenner.

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