[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2406) to amend title 17, United States Code, relating 
to the definition of a local service area of a primary transmitter, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2406

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Satellite Home Viewer Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. STATUTORY LICENSE FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

       Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Subsection (a)(2)(C) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``90 days after the effective date of the 
     Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, or'';
       (B) by striking ``whichever is later,'';
       (C) by inserting ``name and'' after ``identifying (by'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (D) by striking ``, on or after the effective date of the 
     Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988,''.
       (2) Subsection (a)(5) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Burden of proof.--In any action brought under this 
     paragraph, the satellite carrier shall have the burden of 
     proving that its secondary transmission of a primary 
     transmission by a network station is for private home viewing 
     to an unserved household.''.
       (3) Subsection (b)(1)(B) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) by striking ``12 cents'' and inserting 
     ``17.5 cents per subscriber in the case of superstations not 
     subject to syndicated exclusivity under the regulations of 
     the Federal Communications Commission, and 14 cents per 
     subscriber in the case of superstations subject to such 
     syndicated exclusivity''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``3'' and inserting ``6'';
       (4) Subsection (c) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``December 31, 1992,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``July 1, 1991'' and 
     inserting ``July 1, 1996''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``December 31, 1994'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 1999, or in accordance with the 
     terms of the agreement, whichever is later'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``December 31, 1991'' 
     and inserting ``January 1, 1997'';
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) Establishment of royalty fees.--In determining 
     royalty fees under this paragraph, the Copyright Arbitration 
     Panel shall establish fees for the retransmission of network 
     stations and superstations that most clearly represent the 
     fair market value of secondary transmissions. In determining 
     the fair market value, the Panel shall base its decision on 
     economic, competitive, and programming information presented 
     by the parties, including--
       ``(i) the competitive environment in which such programming 
     is distributed, the cost for similar signals in similar 
     private and compulsory license marketplaces, and any special 
     features and conditions of the retransmission marketplace;
       ``(ii) the economic impact of such fees on copyright owners 
     and satellite carriers; and
       ``(iii) the impact on the continued availability of 
     secondary transmissions to the public.'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``60'' and inserting 
     ``180''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (G)--

       (I) by striking ``, or until December 31, 1994''; and
       (II) by inserting ``or July 1, 1997, whichever is later'' 
     after ``section 802(g)''.

       (5) Subsection (a) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5)(C) by striking ``the Satellite Home 
     Viewer Act of 1988'' and inserting ``this section''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Transitional signal intensity measurement 
     procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), upon a 
     challenge by a network station regarding whether a subscriber 
     is an unserved household within the predicted Grade B Contour 
     of the station, the satellite carrier shall, within 60 days 
     after the receipt of the challenge--
       ``(i) terminate service to that household of the signal 
     that is the subject of the challenge, and within 30 days 
     thereafter notify the network station that made the challenge 
     that service to that household has been terminated; or
       ``(ii) conduct a measurement of the signal intensity of the 
     subscriber's household to determine whether the household is 
     an unserved household after giving reasonable notice to the 
     network station of the satellite carrier's intent to conduct 
     the measurement.
       ``(B) Effect of measurement.--If the satellite carrier 
     conducts a signal intensity measurement under subparagraph 
     (A) and the measurement indicates that--
       ``(i) the household is not an unserved household, the 
     satellite carrier shall, within 60 days after the measurement 
     is conducted, terminate the service to that household of the 
     signal that is the subject of the challenge, and within 30 
     days thereafter notify the network station that made the 
     challenge that service to that household has been terminated; 
     or
       ``(ii) the household is an unserved household, the station 
     challenging the service shall reimburse the satellite carrier 
     for the costs of the signal measurement within 60 days after 
     receipt of the measurement results and a statement of the 
     costs of the measurement.
       ``(C) Limitation on measurements.--(i) Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), a satellite carrier may not be required to 
     conduct signal intensity measurements during any calendar 
     year in excess of 5 percent of the number of subscribers 
     within the network station's local market that have 
     subscribed to the service as of the effective date of the 
     Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994.
       ``(ii) If a network station challenges whether a subscriber 
     is an unserved household in excess of 5 percent of the 
     subscribers within the network's station local market within 
     a calendar year, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
     challenges in excess of such 5 percent, but the station may 
     conduct its own signal intensity measurement of the 
     subscriber's household after giving reasonable notice to the 
     satellite carrier of the network station's intent to conduct 
     the measurement. If such measurement indicates that the 
     household is not an unserved household, the carrier shall, 
     within 60 days after receipt of the measurement, terminate 
     service to the household of the signal that is the subject of 
     the challenge and within 30 days thereafter notify the 
     network station that made the challenge that service has been 
     terminated. The carrier shall also, within 60 days after 
     receipt of the measurement and a statement of the costs of 
     the measurement, reimburse the network station for the cost 
     it incurred in conducting the measurement.
       ``(D) Outside the predicted grade b contour.--(i) If a 
     network station challenges whether a subscriber is an 
     unserved household outside the predicted Grade B Contour of 
     the station, the station may conduct a measurement of the 
     signal intensity of the subscriber's household to determine 
     whether the household is an unserved household after giving 
     reasonable notice to the satellite carrier of the network 
     station's intent to conduct the measurement.
       ``(ii) If the network station conducts a signal intensity 
     measurement under clause (i) and the measurement indicates 
     that--
       ``(I) the household is not an unserved household, the 
     station shall forward the results to the satellite carrier 
     who shall, within 60 days after receipt of the measurement, 
     terminate the service to the household of the signal that is 
     the subject of the challenge, and shall reimburse the station 
     for the costs of the measurement within 60 days after receipt 
     of the measurement results and a statement of such costs; or
       ``(II) the household is an unserved household, the station 
     shall pay the costs of the measurement.
       ``(9) Loser pays for signal intensity measurement; recovery 
     of measurement costs in a civil action.--In any civil action 
     filed relating to the eligibility of subscribing households 
     as unserved households--
       ``(A) a network station challenging such eligibility shall, 
     within 60 days after receipt of the measurement results and a 
     statement of such costs, reimburse the satellite carrier for 
     any signal intensity measurement that is conducted by that 
     carrier in response to a challenge by the network station and 
     that establishes the household is an unserved household; and
       ``(B) a satellite carrier shall, within 60 days after 
     receipt of the measurement results and a statement of such 
     costs, reimburse the network station challenging such 
     eligibility for any signal intensity measurement that is 
     conducted by that station and that establishes the household 
     is not an unserved household.
       ``(10) Inability to conduct measurement.--If a network 
     station makes a reasonable attempt to conduct a site 
     measurement of its signal at a subscriber's household and is 
     denied access for the purpose of conducting the measurement, 
     and is otherwise unable to conduct a measurement, the 
     satellite carrier shall within 60 days notice thereof, 
     terminate service of the station's network to that 
     household.''.
       (6) Subsection (d) is amended--
       (A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Network station.--The term `network station' means--
       ``(A) a television broadcast station, including any 
     translator station or terrestrial satellite station that 
     rebroadcasts all or substantially all of the programming 
     broadcast by a network station, that is owned or operated by, 
     or affiliated with, one or more of the television networks in 
     the United States which offer an interconnected program 
     service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to 
     at least 25 of its affiliated television licensees in 10 or 
     more States; or
       ``(B) a noncommercial educational broadcast station (as 
     defined in section 397 of the Communications Act of 1934).'';
       (B) in paragraph (6) by inserting ``and operates in the 
     Fixed-Satellite Service under part 25 of title 47 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations or the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
     Service under part 100 of title 47 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations'' after ``Commission''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Local market.--The term `local market' means the 
     area encompassed within a network station's predicted Grade B 
     contour as that contour is defined by the Federal 
     Communications Commission.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Cable System.--Section 111(f) of title 17, United 
     States Code, is amended in the paragraph relating to the 
     definition of ``cable system'' by inserting ``microwave,'' 
     after ``wires, cables,''.
       (b) Local Service Area.--Section 111(f) of title 17, United 
     States Code, is amended in the paragraph relating to the 
     definition of ``local service area of a primary transmitter'' 
     by inserting after ``April 15, 1976,'' the following: ``or 
     such station's television market as defined in section 
     76.55(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (as in 
     effect on September 18, 1993), or any modifications to such 
     television market made, on or after September 18, 1993, 
     pursuant to section 76.55(e) or 76.59 of title 47 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations,''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION.

       (a) Expiration of Amendments.--Section 119 of title 17, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this Act, 
     ceases to be effective on December 31, 1999.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 207 of the Satellite 
     Home Viewer Act of 1988 (17 U.S.C. 119 note) is repealed.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION.

       The amendments made by this section apply only to section 
     119 of title 17, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (d), this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Burden of Proof Provisions.--The provisions of section 
     119(a)(5)(D) of title 17, United States Code (as added by 
     section 2(2) of this Act) relating to the burden of proof of 
     satellite carriers, shall take effect on January 1, 1997, 
     with respect to civil actions relating to the eligibility of 
     subscribers who subscribed to service as an unserved 
     household before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Transitional Signal Intensity Measurement Procedures.--
     The provisions of section 119(a)(8) of title 17, United 
     States Code (as added by section 2(5) of this Act), relating 
     to transitional signal intensity measurements, shall cease to 
     be effective on December 31, 1996.
       (d) Local Service Area of a Primary Transmitter.--The 
     amendment made by section 3(b), relating to the definition of 
     the local service area of a primary transmitter, shall take 
     effect on July 1, 1994.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Moorhead] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 2406, which 
incorporates--in a slightly revised form--the language of H.R. 1103, 
the Satellite Home Viewing Act which originally passed the House on 
August 16.
  The important legislation before us extends until December 31, 1999, 
the satellite carriers' copyright compulsory license in section 119, 
title 17, United States Code. The compulsory license granted to 
satellite carriers is presently scheduled to expire at the end of this 
year. The bill also clarifies that wireless cable television systems 
are entitled to avail themselves of the section 111 cable copyright 
compulsory license. Finally, the bill amends the definition of ``local 
service area of a primary transmitter'' in section 111(f) to correct an 
anomaly in the Copyright Act that has resulted in newer television 
stations being treated as distant signals while older stations in the 
same geographic area are treated as local signals. This disparity in 
treatment is unjustified and needs to be corrected immediately.
  In the hard-fought compromise reached on this bill, the factors to be 
considered under the bill's ``fair market value'' determination have 
been made more specific. I would note that, in determining fair market 
value, we intend that the copyright arbitration panel consider all 
factors raised by the parties, including cable rates. I should also add 
that the intent here is to neither require nor preclude the arbitration 
panel from establishing network rates that are different from the rates 
established for superstations.
  I want to commend several distinguished Members for their commitment 
to bringing this compromise bill to the floor. They are Mr. Hughes, who 
chairs the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property 
and Judicial Administration, Mr. Moorhead, the subcommittee's ranking 
minority member, and subcommittee members Mr. Synar and Mr. Boucher. 
They all labored long and hard to bridge difficult issues, and this 
compromise reflects their fine work together. I urge all Members to 
support passage of S. 2406.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2406.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our subcommittee chairman the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], for his hard work and 
leadership in this area. Also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] 
has been instrumental in drafting this legislation. Also, the chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], has been helpful and we 
appreciate his leadership as well.
  Although the main purpose of this legislation is a 50-year extension 
of the Satellite Home Viewer Act which this subcommittee processed in 
1988, this bill also contains a provision dealing with the definition 
of wireless cable which is very similar to a bill, H.R. 759, that Rick 
Boucher and I introduced and which was part of the overall hearings on 
H.R. 1103. That bill was prompted by a 1992 ruling by the Register of 
Copyrights that would strip the industry of its compulsory license 
which it has enjoyed for a number of years under section 111 of the 
Copyright Act.
  The compromise before us today, provides that wireless and other 
cable-like systems will be made part of the compulsory license. I 
believe it's important to encourage these new technologies because they 
will become real competitors of cable TV in the marketplace. 
Competition is an important factor in keeping cable TV rates at a 
reasonable price. The consumer will be the ultimate benefactor of this 
increase in competition.
  In 1988 when we drafted the original Satellite Home Viewer Act we 
intended that after 6 years the industry involved would be able to move 
into voluntary private contracts for the licensing of copyrighted 
programming. Although the act has worked very well we are not yet to 
that point where the marketplace can take over, so we still need the 
regulation provided by this legislation. However, I am pleased to see 
that during the next negotiations that the arbitrators will at least be 
able to consider the fair market value of this copyrighted programming. 
Even under the compromise language, ``fair market value'' is still an 
important factor to considered when the copyright arbitration panel 
determines new rates in 1997. We have come a long way--it's important 
legislation and I urge a favorable vote on S. 2406.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes].
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2406 as amended. 
This bill represents an informally conferenced version of H.R. 1103, 
the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, which I introduced along with 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] and which the House passed 
on August 16, 1994. The amended bill has a few changes from H.R. 1103, 
which I will note in a minute.
  I wish to extend my appreciation to the many people who worked hard 
to make this bill possible, including Chairman Brooks, his chief 
counsel Jon Yarowsky, who guided the final negotiations in an even-
handed constructive manner, Mr. Synar and Peter Jacoby of his staff, 
Mr. Boucher and Lynn Starr of his staff, as well as Mr. Moorhead and 
his very competent counsel, Tom Mooney and Joe Wolfe.
  At this time I might mention the outstanding work of Hayden Gregory, 
the chief counsel on the majority side, and Bill Patry, a member of the 
professional staff. Mr. Berman and Bari Schwartz, his legislative 
director, have also been helpful.
  The bill we take up today fulfills the twin goals I set in 
introducing H.R. 1103. First, it extends the current compulsory license 
in section 119 of the Copyright Act until December 31, 1999, in order 
to ensure that rural consumers will continue to receive television 
programming. Second, it provides that the arbitrators establishing the 
interim rate adjustment in 1997 will use fair market value as their 
sole criterion in setting those rates.
  Fair market value is the linchpin of the bill. Fair market value 
sends a clear message to the parties that the days of government 
subsidy are limited and that they should begin their transition to the 
free market. I urge the parties to do so as soon as possible.
  I would now like to briefly note the changes made in the bill.
  First, commencement of the mid-license voluntary negotiation--
arbitration process is delayed from January 1, 1996 to July 1, 1996. 
Because of this delay, the new rates established by the arbitrators 
will be effective on July 1, 1997, or at a later date if, on appeal by 
the D.C. Circuit, that court modifies or delays the rates. Of course, 
under section 802(g) of the Copyright Act, the pendency of an appeal 
does not relieve parties of their obligation to pay royalties, 
including according to the revised rates.
  A few minor changes were made to the ``unserved household'' sections 
of the bill. These changes, in conjunction with the voluntary testing 
regime already in the bill, should go a long way toward reducing the 
friction between the network stations and the satellite carriers over 
the unserved household limitation.
  It is my understanding that both sides are working toward an industry 
agreement on the implementation of the testing regime. I strongly 
encourage the parties to develop industry standards; only with both 
sides' cooperation can the act fulfill its purpose.
  The first change in the bill requires the party conducting the site 
measurement to give the nontesting party reasonable notice before the 
measurement is taken. This requirement merely reflects commonsense and 
is not intended to constitute a procedural hurdle or roadblock to 
enforcement. For this reason, we rejected a proposal to require a set 
number of days advance notice. The notice is, of course, given to the 
satellite carrier or to the network station, not to the household in 
question. Thus, the network station need not contact the household: 
Once notice has been given to the satellite carrier, it is the 
satellite carrier's responsibility to ensure that the network will have 
access since the subscriber has a contractual relationship with the 
carrier.
  Notice by a carrier that it intends to test all houses within a 
clearly defined area is sufficient.
  Under new subsection 119(a)(10), the network station conducting the 
measurement need only make a reasonable effort to conduct a site 
measurement, including, where access to the site is denied by the 
subscriber, the possibility of conducting an off-site measurement if 
such measurement will result in an adequate test. If, in the station's 
judgment an off-site measurement will be inadequate, no such 
measurement should be conducted. There is, accordingly, no 
``exhaustion'' concept, requiring network stations to exhaust all means 
of conducting a test before the satellite carrier must terminate 
service.
  In order to minimize disputes, the industry agreement should require 
the network stations to provide satellite carriers with a map of the 
stations' predicted grade B contour along with a list of ZIP Codes that 
fall within the station's predicted grade A and B contours. After 
receipt of this information, the satellite carrier should be required 
to promptly return a marked-up copy of the contour map to the station 
reflecting a breakdown of the subscriber information.
  The next change requires that the costs for the measurements be paid 
back within 60 days. This requirement ensures that neither satellite 
carriers or the network affiliates will be forced to wait until the end 
of a civil trial to recoup the costs of measurements.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. As the chairman indicated, it is a 
very complex bill. I took a lot of time explaining what our 
understanding was and tried to develop a legislative history to avoid 
confrontation and conflict in the months ahead. I think it is a good 
bill because it has been well tailored to meet the needs of all 
concerned, including consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Hughes, and our ranking Republican, Mr. Moorhead, for their leadership 
and hard work on this important legislation. I also would like to 
commend our chairman, the gentleman from Texas, for his assistance in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  The original bill which we enacted in 1988 solved a serious problem 
for satellite carriers and dishowners. Both strongly supported its 
enactment. Both strongly support the compromise contained in S. 2406. 
In 1988 we thought that 6 years was enough time for the parties to work 
out private licensing agreements.
  However, it is clear to me that more time is needed to sort out 
private licensing procedures and rights. The original bill provided for 
an extension of only 4 years which I believed was not enough time, for 
the consumers who want subscriptions to programming for periods of 1 
year or longer or for businesses that need to effectively plan in 4- or 
5-year cycles. I offered an amendment accepted by the subcommittee that 
would extend by 1 year the next satellite carrier rate adjustment 
proceeding and also extend the sunset by 1 year from 1998 to 1999.
  The compromise that we are presenting today would modify the ``Fair 
Market Value'' language, contained in the House passed bill, H.R. 1103, 
and add an additional 6 months, to January 1997 before the ``Fair 
Market Value'' standard can be considered by the Copyright Arbitration 
Panel in any rate adjustment proceeding.
  I believe we have a good bill. The parties are to be commended for 
working out their differences and I urge a favorable vote on S. 2406.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher], a distinguished member of the subcommittee and 
a major player in this compromise.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks], the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Moorhead], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Fish], and others who have worked long and hard to 
bring this measure before the House today.
  Their work is constructive and it is reflected in a measure which 
will assure that satellite dish owners who cannot receive network 
signals from a local station may receive them by means of satellite 
delivery. The bill also extends to the local affiliates of the Fox 
Television Network local station treatment so that they do not 
inappropriately incur copyright liability when their signals are 
carried on cable systems. The Fox affiliates will be accorded the same 
treatment that is presently accorded to the local affiliates of the 
other networks.
  The fair market value provisions of the legislation were subjected to 
considerable negotiations. I would like to take just a minute to engage 
with the gentleman from New Jersey in a colloquy concerning these 
matters and to propound to him some questions concerning the language 
in the legislation.
  I would ask the gentleman, first, this question: In setting fees 
under the fair market value provisions, the copyright arbitration panel 
is instructed to take testimony on the competitive environment in which 
the programming is distributed, including the cost for similar signals 
in similar private and compulsory license marketplaces. That would 
include the cable TV marketplace, would it not?
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, yes, it would. Today's legislation 
contemplates that the panel will look to the competitive environment in 
which section 119 retransmissions are distributed as well as the costs 
of distribution of similar signals in similar private and compulsory 
license marketplaces, including the cable copyright fees under section 
111. This will help ensure that there is vigorous competition and 
diversity in the video programming distribution industry.
  Mr. BOUCHER. In addition, does the gentleman believe, as I do, that 
when the arbitrators consider the fair market value of the fees, the 
arbitrators should take into account the impact on copyright owners, 
satellite carriers, and the continued availability of secondary 
transmissions to the public?
  Mr. HUGHES. If the gentleman will continue to yield, yes. The fees 
should reflect the objectives of the copyright act: Providing a fair 
return to copyright owners and ensuring a competitive environment in 
which satellite carriers can continue to deliver programming to our 
Nation's consumers--particularly those consumers who reside in rural 
areas such as your part of the country--as well as those who live in 
other areas that currently benefit from satellite programming.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for this 
discussion and for his fine leadership on this important measure. I 
urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2406 as 
amended. Today's bill, the Satellite Home Viewer Act, is necessary 
legislation that will amend the copyright law to extend the satellite 
compulsory license. Compulsory licenses, first enacted for the nascent 
cable industry, and later for an infant satellite broadcast industry, 
allow the retransmission of copyrighted television programming in 
return for a statutorily determined fee. The compulsory license 
mechanism has been critical for the development of the cable and 
satellite broadcast industry by facilitating the clearance of the 
thousands of copyrights related to television programming. This 
clearance process has been essential for providing access to 
retransmitted programming by cable system operators and satellite 
broadcasters which in turn is provided to consumers who may otherwise 
have to forgo a wide range of diverse video programming.
  S. 2406, which would extend the satellite compulsory license for a 
period of 5 years, also proposes to reform the arbitration process used 
to arrive at the statutorily determined copyright royalty fee charged 
to satellite broadcasters for retransmitting copyrighted programming. 
Under the legislation, future adjustments of the royalty fees payable 
under section 119 of the Copyright Act for secondary transmissions by 
satellite carriers are to be determined by arbitration panels applying 
a fair market value standard.
  This concept, which has been strongly and consistently favored by 
Congressman Hughes, the chief sponsor of H.R. 1103, today's bill's 
predecessor legislation, embodies a worthy policy goal--to direct the 
arbitration panel to come up with a royalty fee that closely 
approximates the price two private parties negotiating on their own 
behalf would agree to.
  After considerable work and negotiations, I believe the fair market 
value standard in today's legislation will result in a copyright fee 
that achieves a delicate balance between the twin goals of ensuring 
that the copyright owners receive fair compensation for their works 
while preserving the ability of satellite carriers to continue to 
deliver diverse, affordable video programming to satellite consumers.
  I am also hopeful that any fee resulting from the fair market value 
standard does not disadvantage the delivery of satellite transmissions 
vis-a-vis the delivery of cable retransmissions under the section 111 
compulsory license.
  Congress has for some time pursued various policy avenues to foster 
competition with the cable industry in the delivery of video 
programming. While the preliminary results of those efforts, 
spearheaded by the passage of the 1992 Cable Act, are encouraging, 
there is still much progress to be made. In fact, just yesterday it was 
reported that a Federal Communications Commission study due out on 
October 1 will conclude that while noncable video distribution 
technologies, such as direct broadcast satellite systems, and large 
satellite dish services are growing, these new technologies still 
haven't attracted enough subscribers to affect cable's actions.
  It is my hope that the fees set for satellite retransmissions under 
the fair market value standard will, among other things, reflect the 
competitive environment in which those retransmissions are distributed. 
There is little question that Congress would like to ensure that there 
is vigorous competition and diversity in the distribution of video 
programming and the determination of fair market value fees should 
reflect that intent.
  With regard to other provisions in this bill, S. 2406 as amended 
extends the time in which the copyright arbitration panel has to make 
its determination of new copyright fees from the current period of 60 
days to 180 days. This extension was included in the legislation to 
relieve the truncated nature of the prior section 119 arbitration 
proceeding. While this extension gives the panel an additional 120 days 
to complete its work, it is my hope that the panel will finish the 
process in a timely manner so that satellite carriers will have 
adequate notice of the new copyright fees before they go into effect on 
July 1, 1997. This would allow carriers to give distributors sufficient 
notice regarding increases in copyright fees consistent with industry 
practice.
  Finally, I am encouraged by the prospects for this legislation and I 
look forward to its quick adoption by the Senate and ultimate passage 
into law. It should be noted that this bill would not be before us 
today if it weren't for the excellent leadership of subcommittee 
Chairman Bill Hughes of New Jersey, the hard work of the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Boucher, and the omnipotent guidance of Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Brooks.
  The extension of this license in a fair and equitable manner will 
benefit both consumers, especially those rural satellite consumers in 
northeastern Oklahoma and throughout the Nation, and copyright owners 
who should receive a fair return for their efforts. I urge my 
colleagues to support the measure.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2406, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________