[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2312-H2324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SATELLITE COPYRIGHT, COMPETITION, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1554) to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, 
and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright licensing and 
carriage of broadcast signals by satellite, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1554

       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 Copyright, 
     Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999''.

         TITLE I--SATELLITE COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Competition and 
     Consumer Protection Act''.

     SEC. 102. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.

       Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     325(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) No cable system or other multichannel video 
     programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a 
     television broadcast station, or any part thereof, except--
       ``(A) with the express authority of the originating 
     station;
       ``(B) pursuant to section 614, in the case of a station 
     electing, in accordance with this subsection, to assert the 
     right to carriage under such section; or
       ``(C) pursuant to section 338, in the case of a station 
     electing, in accordance with this subsection, to assert the 
     right to carriage under such section.
       ``(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply--
       ``(A) to retransmission of the signal of a noncommercial 
     television broadcast station;
       ``(B) to retransmission of the signal of a television 
     broadcast station outside the station's local market by a 
     satellite carrier directly to its subscribers, if--
       ``(i) such station was a superstation on May 1, 1991;
       ``(ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was retransmitted 
     by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of section 
     119 of title 17, United States Code; and
       ``(iii) the satellite carrier complies with all network 
     nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout 
     rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 712 of 
     this Act;
       ``(C) until 7 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, to 
     retransmission of the signal of a television network station 
     directly to a satellite antenna, if the subscriber receiving 
     the signal is located in an area outside the local market of 
     such station; or
       ``(D) to retransmission by a cable operator or other 
     multichannel video provider, other than a satellite carrier, 
     of the signal of a television broadcast station outside the 
     station's local market if such signal was obtained from a 
     satellite carrier and--
       ``(i) the originating station was a superstation on May 1, 
     1991; and
       ``(ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was retransmitted 
     by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of section 
     119 of title 17, United States Code.'';
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (3) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Within 45 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the 
     Commission shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise 
     the regulations governing the exercise by television 
     broadcast stations of the right to grant retransmission 
     consent under this subsection, and such other regulations as 
     are necessary to administer the limitations contained in 
     paragraph (2). The Commission shall complete all actions 
     necessary to prescribe such regulations within one year after 
     such date of enactment. Such regulations shall--
       ``(i) establish election time periods that correspond with 
     those regulations adopted under subparagraph (B) of this 
     paragraph; and
       ``(ii) until January 1, 2006, prohibit television broadcast 
     stations that provide retransmission consent from engaging in 
     discriminatory practices, understandings, arrangements, and 
     activities, including exclusive contracts for carriage, that 
     prevent a multichannel video programming distributor from 
     obtaining retransmission consent from such stations.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``If an originating television station elects 
     under paragraph (3)(C) to exercise its right to grant 
     retransmission consent under this subsection with respect to 
     a satellite carrier, the provisions of section 338 shall not 
     apply to the carriage of the signal of such station by such 
     satellite carrier.'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), by striking ``614 or 615'' and 
     inserting ``338, 614, or 615''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `television 
     broadcast station' means an over-the-air commercial or 
     noncommercial television broadcast station licensed by the 
     Commission under subpart E of part 73 of title 47, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, except that such term does not include a 
     low-power or translator television station.''.

     SEC. 103. MUST-CARRY FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS RETRANSMITTING 
                   TELEVISION BROADCAST SIGNALS.

       Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     inserting after section 337 (47 U.S.C. 337) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 338. CARRIAGE OF LOCAL TELEVISION SIGNALS BY SATELLITE 
                   CARRIERS.

       ``(a) Carriage Obligations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations of paragraph 
     (2), each satellite carrier providing secondary transmissions 
     to subscribers located within the local market of a 
     television broadcast station of a primary transmission made 
     by that station shall carry upon request all television 
     broadcast stations located within that local market, subject 
     to section 325(b), by retransmitting the signal or signals of 
     such stations that are identified by Commission regulations 
     for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Effective date.--No satellite carrier shall be 
     required to carry local television broadcast stations under 
     paragraph (1) until January 1, 2002.
       ``(b) Good Signal Required.--
       ``(1) Costs.--A television broadcast station asserting its 
     right to carriage under subsection (a) shall be required to 
     bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality 
     signal to the designated local receive facility of the 
     satellite carrier or to another facility that is acceptable 
     to at least one-half the stations asserting the right to 
     carriage in the local market.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The regulations issued under subsection 
     (g) shall set forth the obligations necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.
       ``(c) Duplication Not Required.--
       ``(1) Commercial stations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     a satellite carrier shall not be required to carry upon 
     request the signal of any local commercial television 
     broadcast station that substantially duplicates the signal of 
     another local commercial television broadcast station which 
     is secondarily transmitted by the satellite carrier

[[Page H2313]]

     within the same local market, or to carry upon request the 
     signals of more than 1 local commercial television broadcast 
     station in a single local market that is affiliated with a 
     particular television network.
       ``(2) Noncommercial stations.--The Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations limiting the carriage requirements 
     under subsection (a) of satellite carriers with respect to 
     the carriage of multiple local noncommercial television 
     broadcast stations. To the extent possible, such regulations 
     shall provide the same degree of carriage by satellite 
     carriers of such multiple stations as is provided by cable 
     systems under section 615.
       ``(d) Channel Positioning.--No satellite carrier shall be 
     required to provide the signal of a local television 
     broadcast station to subscribers in that station's local 
     market on any particular channel number or to provide the 
     signals in any particular order, except that the satellite 
     carrier shall retransmit the signal of the local television 
     broadcast stations to subscribers in the stations' local 
     market on contiguous channels and provide access to such 
     station's signals at a nondiscriminatory price and in a 
     nondiscriminatory manner on any navigational device, on-
     screen program guide, or menu.
       ``(e) Compensation for Carriage.--A satellite carrier shall 
     not accept or request monetary payment or other valuable 
     consideration in exchange either for carriage of local 
     television broadcast stations in fulfillment of the 
     requirements of this section or for channel positioning 
     rights provided to such stations under this section, except 
     that any such station may be required to bear the costs 
     associated with delivering a good quality signal to the local 
     receive facility of the satellite carrier.
       ``(f) Remedies.--
       ``(1) Complaints by broadcast stations.--Whenever a local 
     television broadcast station believes that a satellite 
     carrier has failed to meet its obligations under this 
     section, such station shall notify the carrier, in writing, 
     of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing 
     that the satellite carrier is obligated to carry upon request 
     the signal of such station or has otherwise failed to comply 
     with other requirements of this section. The satellite 
     carrier shall, within 30 days of such written notification, 
     respond in writing to such notification and either begin 
     carrying the signal of such station in accordance with the 
     terms requested or state its reasons for believing that it is 
     not obligated to carry such signal or is in compliance with 
     other requirements of this section, as the case may be. A 
     local television broadcast station that is denied carriage in 
     accordance with this section by a satellite carrier or is 
     otherwise harmed by a response by a satellite carrier that it 
     is in compliance with other requirements of this section may 
     obtain review of such denial or response by filing a 
     complaint with the Commission. Such complaint shall allege 
     the manner in which such satellite carrier has failed to meet 
     its obligations and the basis for such allegations.
       ``(2) Opportunity to respond.--The Commission shall afford 
     the satellite carrier against which a complaint is filed 
     under paragraph (1) an opportunity to present data and 
     arguments to establish that there has been no failure to meet 
     its obligations under this section.
       ``(3) Remedial actions; dismissal.--Within 120 days after 
     the date a complaint is filed under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall determine whether the satellite carrier has 
     met its obligations under this chapter. If the Commission 
     determines that the satellite carrier has failed to meet such 
     obligations, the Commission shall order the satellite 
     carrier, in the case of an obligation to carry a station, to 
     begin carriage of the station and to continue such carriage 
     for at least 12 months, or, in the case of the failure to 
     meet other obligations under this section, shall take other 
     appropriate remedial action. If the Commission determines 
     that the satellite carrier has fully met the requirements of 
     this chapter, the Commission shall dismiss the complaint.
       ``(g) Regulations by Commission.--Within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall, 
     following a rulemaking proceeding, issue regulations 
     implementing this section.
       ``(h) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person 
     that receives a secondary transmission service by means of a 
     secondary transmission from a satellite and pays a fee for 
     the service, directly or indirectly, to the satellite carrier 
     or to a distributor.
       ``(2) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity 
     which contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a 
     satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a 
     package with other programming, provides the secondary 
     transmission either directly to individual subscribers or 
     indirectly through other program distribution entities.
       ``(3) Local receive facility.--The term `local receive 
     facility' means the reception point in each local market 
     which a satellite carrier designates for delivery of the 
     signal of the station for purposes of retransmission.
       ``(4) Television broadcast station.--The term `television 
     broadcast station' has the meaning given such term in section 
     325(b)(7).
       ``(5) Secondary transmission.--The term `secondary 
     transmission' has the meaning given such term in section 
     119(d) of title 17, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 104. NONDUPLICATION OF PROGRAMMING BROADCAST BY LOCAL 
                   STATIONS.

       Section 712 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     612) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 712. NONDUPLICATION OF PROGRAMMING BROADCAST BY LOCAL 
                   STATIONS.

       ``(a) Extension of Network Nonduplication, Syndicated 
     Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout to Satellite 
     Retransmission.--Within 45 days after the date of enactment 
     of the Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the 
     Commission shall commence a single rulemaking proceeding to 
     establish regulations that apply network nonduplication 
     protection, syndicated exclusivity protection, and sports 
     blackout protection to the retransmission of broadcast 
     signals by satellite carriers to subscribers. To the extent 
     possible consistent with subsection (b), such regulations 
     shall provide the same degree of protection against 
     retransmission of broadcast signals as is provided by the 
     network nonduplication (47 C.F.R. 76.92), syndicated 
     exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 151), and sports blackout (47 C.F.R. 
     76.67) rules applicable to cable television systems. The 
     Commission shall complete all actions necessary to prescribe 
     regulations required by this section so that the regulations 
     shall become effective within 1 year after such date of 
     enactment.
       ``(b) Establishment of Network Nonduplication Boundaries.--
       ``(1) Establishment of signal standard for network 
     nonduplication required.--The Commission shall establish a 
     signal intensity standard for purposes of determining the 
     network nonduplication rights of local television broadcast 
     stations. Until revised pursuant to subsection (c), such 
     standard shall be the Grade B field strength standard 
     prescribed by the Commission in section 73.683 of the 
     Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.683). For purposes of 
     this section, the standard established under this paragraph 
     is referred to as the `Network Nonduplication Signal 
     Standard'.
       ``(2) Establishment of improved predictive model 
     required.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the 
     Commission shall take all actions necessary, including any 
     reconsideration, to develop and prescribe by rule a point-to-
     point predictive model for reliably and presumptively 
     determining the ability of individual locations to receive 
     signals in accordance with the Network Nonduplication Signal 
     Standard. In prescribing such model, the Commission shall 
     ensure that such model takes into account terrain, building 
     structures, and other land cover variations. The Commission 
     shall establish procedures for the continued refinement in 
     the application of the model by the use of additional data as 
     it becomes available. For purposes of this section, such 
     model is referred to as the `Network Nonduplication Reception 
     Model', and the area encompassing locations that are 
     predicted to have the ability to receive such a signal of a 
     particular broadcast station is referred to as that station's 
     `Reception Model Area'.
       ``(3) Network nonduplication.--The network nonduplication 
     regulations required under subsection (a) shall allow a 
     television network station to assert nonduplication rights as 
     follows:
       ``(A) If a satellite carrier is retransmitting that 
     station, or any other television broadcast stations located 
     in the same local market, to subscribers located in that 
     station's local market, the television network station may 
     assert nonduplication rights against the satellite carrier 
     throughout the area within which that station may assert such 
     rights under the rules applicable to cable television systems 
     (47 C.F.R. 76.92).
       ``(B) If a satellite carrier is not retransmitting any 
     television broadcast stations located in the television 
     network station's local market to subscribers located in such 
     market, the television network station may assert 
     nonduplication rights against the satellite carrier in the 
     geographic area that is within such station's Reception Model 
     Area, but such geographic area shall not extend beyond the 
     local market of such station.
       ``(4) Waivers.--A subscriber may request a waiver from 
     network nonduplication by submitting a request, through such 
     subscriber's satellite carrier, to the television network 
     station asserting nonduplication rights. The television 
     network station shall accept or reject a subscriber's request 
     for a waiver within 30 days after receipt of the request. The 
     network nonduplication protection described in paragraph 
     (3)(B) shall not apply to a subscriber if such station agrees 
     to the waiver request and files with the satellite carrier a 
     written waiver with respect to that subscriber allowing the 
     subscriber to receive satellite retransmission of another 
     network station affiliated with that same network. The 
     television network station and the satellite carrier shall 
     maintain a file available to the public that contains such 
     waiver requests and the acceptances and rejections 
     thereof.
       ``(5) Objective verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a subscriber's request for a waiver 
     under paragraph (4) is rejected and the subscriber submits to 
     the subscriber's satellite carrier a request for a test 
     verifying the subscriber's inability to receive a signal that 
     meets the Network Nonduplication Signal Standard, the 
     satellite carrier and the television network station or 
     stations asserting nonduplication rights with respect to that 
     subscriber shall select a qualified and independent person to 
     conduct

[[Page H2314]]

     a test in accordance with the provisions of section 73.686(d) 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
     regulation. Such test shall be conducted within 30 days after 
     the date the subscriber submits a request for the test. If 
     the written findings and conclusions of a test conducted in 
     accordance with the provisions of such section (or any 
     successor regulation) demonstrate that the subscriber does 
     not receive a signal that meets or exceeds the Network 
     Nonduplication Signal Standard, the network nonduplication 
     rights described in paragraph (3)(B) shall not apply to that 
     subscriber.
       ``(B) Designation of testor and allocation of costs.--If 
     the satellite carrier and the television network station or 
     stations asserting nonduplication rights are unable to agree 
     on such a person to conduct the test, the person shall be 
     designated by an independent and neutral entity designated by 
     the Commission by rule. Unless the satellite carrier and the 
     television network station or stations asserting 
     nonduplication rights otherwise agree, the costs of 
     conducting the test under this paragraph shall be borne 
     equally by the satellite carrier and the television network 
     station or stations asserting nonduplication rights. A 
     subscriber may not be required to bear any portion of the 
     cost of such test.
       ``(6) Recreational vehicle location.--In the case of a 
     subscriber to a satellite carrier who has installed satellite 
     reception equipment in a recreational vehicle, and who has 
     permitted any television network station seeking to assert 
     network nonduplication rights to verify the motor vehicle 
     registration, license, and proof of ownership of such 
     vehicle, the subscriber shall be considered to be outside the 
     local market and Reception Model Area of such station. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `recreational vehicle' 
     does not include any residential manufactured home, as 
     defined in section 603(6) of the National Manufactured 
     Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5402(6)).
       ``(c) Review and Revision of Standards and Model.--
       ``(1) Ongoing inquiry required.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Satellite Competition and 
     Consumer Protection Act, the Commission shall conduct an 
     inquiry of the extent to which the Network Nonduplication 
     Signal Standard, the Network Nonduplication Reception Model, 
     and the Reception Model Areas of television stations are 
     adequate to reliably measure the ability of consumers to 
     receive an acceptable over-the-air television broadcast 
     signal.
       ``(2) Data to be considered.--In conducting the inquiry 
     required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider--
       ``(A) the number of subscribers requesting waivers under 
     subsection (b)(4), and the number of waivers that are denied;
       ``(B) the number of subscribers submitting petitions under 
     subsection (b)(5), and the number of such petitions that are 
     granted;
       ``(C) the results of any consumer research study that may 
     be undertaken to carry out the purposes of this section; and
       ``(D) the extent to which consumers are not legally 
     entitled to install broadcast reception devices assumed in 
     the Commission's standard.
       ``(3) Report and action.--The Commission shall submit to 
     the Congress a report on the inquiry required by this 
     subsection not later than the end of the 2-year period 
     described in paragraph (1). The Commission shall complete any 
     actions necessary to revise the Network Nonduplication Signal 
     Standard, the Network Nonduplication Reception Model, and the 
     Reception Model Areas of television stations in accordance 
     with the findings of such inquiry not later than 6 months 
     after the end of such 2-year period.
       ``(4) Data submission.--The Commission shall prescribe by 
     rule the data required to be submitted by television 
     broadcast stations and by satellite carriers to the 
     Commission or such designated entity to carry out this 
     subsection, and the format for submission of such data.''.

     SEC. 105. CONSENT OF MEMBERSHIP TO RETRANSMISSION OF PUBLIC 
                   BROADCASTING SERVICE SATELLITE FEED.

       Section 396 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     396) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) The Public Broadcasting Service shall certify to the 
     Board on an annual basis that a majority of its membership 
     supports or does not support the secondary transmission of 
     the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, and provide 
     notice to each satellite carrier carrying such feed of such 
     certification.''.

     SEC. 106. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating--
       (A) paragraphs (49) through (52) as paragraphs (52) through 
     (55), respectively;
       (B) paragraphs (39) through (48) as paragraphs (41) through 
     (50), respectively; and
       (C) paragraphs (27) through (38) as paragraph (28) through 
     (39), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (26) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(27) Local market.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `local market', in the case of 
     both commercial and noncommercial television broadcast 
     stations, means the designated market area in which a station 
     is located, and--
       ``(i) in the case of a commercial television broadcast 
     station, all commercial television broadcast stations 
     licensed to a community within the same designated market 
     area are within the same local market; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a noncommercial educational 
     television broadcast station, the market includes any station 
     that is licensed to a community within the same designated 
     market area as the noncommercial educational television 
     broadcast station.
       ``(B) County of license.--In addition to the area described 
     in subparagraph (A), a station's local market includes the 
     county in which the station's community of license is 
     located.
       ``(C) Designated market area.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `designated market area' means a designated 
     market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research and 
     published in the DMA Market and Demographic Report.'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (39) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section) the following new paragraph:
       ``(40) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier' 
     means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or 
     satellite service licensed by the Commission, 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, to establish and operate a channel of 
     communications for point-to-multipoint distribution of 
     television station signals, and that owns or leases a 
     capacity or service on a satellite in order to provide such 
     point-to-multipoint distribution, except to the extent that 
     such entity provides such distribution pursuant to tariff 
     under this Act.''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (50) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section) the following new paragraph:
       ``(51) Television network; television network station.--
       ``(A) Television network.--The term `television network' 
     means a television network in the United States which offers 
     an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 
     or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated broadcast 
     stations in 10 or more States.
       ``(B) Television network station.--The term `television 
     network station' means a television broadcast station that is 
     owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a television 
     network.''.

     SEC. 107. COMPLETION OF BIENNIAL REGULATORY REVIEW.

       Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Commission shall complete the biennial review required by 
     section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

     SEC. 108. RESULT OF LOSS OF NETWORK SERVICE.

       Until the Federal Communications Commission issues 
     regulations under section 712(b)(2) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934, if a subscriber's network service is terminated as a 
     result of the provisions of section 119 of title 17, United 
     States Code, the satellite carrier shall, upon the request of 
     the subscriber, provide to the subscriber free of charge an 
     over-the-air television broadcast receiving antenna that will 
     provide the subscriber with an over-the-air signal of Grade B 
     intensity for those network stations that were terminated as 
     a result of such section 119.

     SEC. 109. INTERIM PROVISIONS.

       Until the Federal Communications Commission issues and 
     implements regulations under section 712(b)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, no subscriber whose household is 
     located outside the Grade A contour of a network station 
     shall have his or her satellite service of another network 
     station affiliated with that same network terminated as a 
     result of the provisions of section 119 of title 17, United 
     States Code.

 TITLE II--SECONDARY TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN LOCAL 
                                MARKETS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Copyright 
     Compulsory License Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; SECONDARY 
                   TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN 
                   LOCAL MARKETS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after section 121 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 122. Limitations on exclusive rights; secondary 
       transmissions by satellite carriers within local markets

       ``(a) Secondary Transmissions of Television Broadcast 
     Stations by Satellite Carriers.--A secondary transmission of 
     a primary transmission of a television broadcast station into 
     the station's local market shall be subject to statutory 
     licensing under this section if--
       ``(1) the secondary transmission is made by a satellite 
     carrier to the public;
       ``(2) the satellite carrier is in compliance with the 
     rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal 
     Communications Commission governing the carriage of 
     television broadcast station signals; and
       ``(3) the satellite carrier makes a direct or indirect 
     charge for the secondary transmission to--
       ``(A) each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission; 
     or
       ``(B) a distributor that has contracted with the satellite 
     carrier for direct or indirect delivery of the secondary 
     transmission to the public.
       ``(b) Reporting Requirements.--

[[Page H2315]]

       ``(1) Initial lists.--A satellite carrier that makes 
     secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a 
     network station under subsection (a) shall, within 90 days 
     after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to the 
     network that owns or is affiliated with the network station a 
     list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and street 
     address, including county and zip code) all subscribers to 
     which the satellite carrier currently makes secondary 
     transmissions of that primary transmission pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(2) Subsequent lists.--After the list is submitted under 
     paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of 
     each month, submit to the network a list identifying (by name 
     in alphabetical order and street address, including county 
     and zip code) any subscribers who have been added or dropped 
     as subscribers since the last submission under this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Use of subscriber information.--Subscriber 
     information submitted by a satellite carrier under this 
     subsection may be used only for the purposes of monitoring 
     compliance by the satellite carrier with this section.
       ``(4) Requirements of stations.--The submission 
     requirements of this subsection shall apply to a satellite 
     carrier only if the network to which the submissions are to 
     be made places on file with the Register of Copyrights a 
     document identifying the name and address of the person to 
     whom such submissions are to be made. The Register shall 
     maintain for public inspection a file of all such documents.
       ``(c) No Royalty Fee Required.--A satellite carrier whose 
     secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing 
     under subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for 
     such secondary transmissions.
       ``(d) Noncompliance With Reporting and Regulatory 
     Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the willful or 
     repeated secondary transmission to the public by a satellite 
     carrier into the local market of a television broadcast 
     station of a primary transmission made by that television 
     broadcast station and embodying a performance or display of a 
     work is actionable as an act of infringement under section 
     501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided under 
     sections 502 through 506 and 509, if the satellite carrier 
     has not complied with the reporting requirements of 
     subsection (b) or with the rules, regulations, and 
     authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission 
     concerning the carriage of television broadcast signals.
       ``(e) Willful Alterations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     the secondary transmission to the public by a satellite 
     carrier into the local market of a television broadcast 
     station of a primary transmission made by that television 
     broadcast station and embodying a performance or display of a 
     work is actionable as an act of infringement under section 
     501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by 
     sections 502 through 506 and sections 509 and 510, if the 
     content of the particular program in which the performance or 
     display is embodied, or any commercial advertising or station 
     announcement transmitted by the primary transmitter during, 
     or immediately before or after, the transmission of such 
     program, is in any way willfully altered by the satellite 
     carrier through changes, deletions, or additions, or is 
     combined with programming from any other broadcast signal.
       ``(f) Violation of Territorial Restrictions on Statutory 
     License for Television Broadcast Stations.--
       ``(1) Individual violations.--The willful or repeated 
     secondary transmission to the public by a satellite carrier 
     of a primary transmission made by a television broadcast 
     station and embodying a performance or display of a work to a 
     subscriber who does not reside in that station's local 
     market, and is not subject to statutory licensing under 
     section 119, or a private licensing agreement, is actionable 
     as an act of infringement under section 501 and is fully 
     subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 
     and 509, except that--
       ``(A) no damages shall be awarded for such act of 
     infringement if the satellite carrier took corrective action 
     by promptly withdrawing service from the ineligible 
     subscriber; and
       ``(B) any statutory damages shall not exceed $5 for such 
     subscriber for each month during which the violation 
     occurred.
       ``(2) Pattern of violations.--If a satellite carrier 
     engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of 
     secondarily transmitting to the public a primary transmission 
     made by a television broadcast station and embodying a 
     performance or display of a work to subscribers who do not 
     reside in that station's local market, and are not subject to 
     statutory licensing under section 119, then in addition to 
     the remedies under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a 
     substantially nationwide basis, the court shall order a 
     permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by 
     the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of that 
     television broadcast station (and if such television 
     broadcast station is a network station, all other television 
     broadcast stations affiliated with such network), and the 
     court may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for 
     each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was 
     carried out; and
       ``(B) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a 
     local or regional basis with respect to more than one 
     television broadcast station (and if such television 
     broadcast station is a network station, all other television 
     broadcast stations affiliated with such network), the court 
     shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary 
     transmission in that locality or region by the satellite 
     carrier of the primary transmissions of any television 
     broadcast station, and the court may order statutory damages 
     not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which 
     the pattern or practice was carried out.
       ``(g) Burden of Proof.--In any action brought under 
     subsection (d), (e), or (f), the satellite carrier shall have 
     the burden of proving that its secondary transmission of a 
     primary transmission by a television broadcast station is 
     made only to subscribers located within that station's local 
     market or subscribers being served in compliance with section 
     119.
       ``(h) Geographic Limitations on Secondary Transmissions.--
     The statutory license created by this section shall apply to 
     secondary transmissions to locations in the United States, 
     and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.
       ``(i) Exclusivity With Respect to Secondary Transmissions 
     of Broadcast Stations by Satellite to Members of the 
     Public.--No provision of section 111 or any other law (other 
     than this section and section 119) shall be construed to 
     contain any authorization, exemption, or license through 
     which secondary transmissions by satellite carriers of 
     programming contained in a primary transmission made by a 
     television broadcast station may be made without obtaining 
     the consent of the copyright owner.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity 
     which contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a 
     satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a 
     package with other programming, provides the secondary 
     transmission either directly to individual subscribers or 
     indirectly through other program distribution entities.
       ``(2) Local market.--The `local market' of a television 
     broadcast station has the meaning given that term under 
     section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934.
       ``(3) Network station; satellite carrier; secondary 
     transmission.--The terms `network station', `satellite 
     carrier' and `secondary transmission' have the meanings given 
     such terms under section 119(d).
       ``(4) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person 
     that receives a secondary transmission service by means of a 
     secondary transmission from a satellite and pays a fee for 
     the service, directly or indirectly, to the satellite carrier 
     or to a distributor.
       ``(5) Television broadcast station.--The term `television 
     broadcast station' means an over-the-air, commercial or 
     noncommercial television broadcast station licensed by the 
     Federal Communications Commission under subpart E of part 73 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (b) Infringement of Copyright.--Section 501 of title 17, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) With respect to any secondary transmission that is 
     made by a satellite carrier of a primary transmission 
     embodying the performance or display of a work and is 
     actionable as an act of infringement under section 122, a 
     television broadcast station holding a copyright or other 
     license to transmit or perform the same version of that work 
     shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be 
     treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary 
     transmission occurs within the local market of that 
     station.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 121 the 
     following:

``122. Limitations on exclusive rights; secondary transmissions by 
              satellite carriers within local market.''.

     SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 119 OF 
                   TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 4(a) of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (17 
     U.S.C. 119 note; Public Law 103-369; 108 Stat. 3481) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2004''.

     SEC. 204. COMPUTATION OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

       Section 119(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Reduction.--
       ``(A) Superstation.--The rate of the royalty fee in effect 
     on January 1, 1998, payable in each case under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B)(i) shall be reduced by 30 percent.
       ``(B) Network.--The rate of the royalty fee in effect on 
     January 1, 1998, payable under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) shall 
     be reduced by 45 percent.
       ``(5) Public broadcasting service as agent.--For purposes 
     of section 802, with respect to royalty fees paid by 
     satellite carriers for retransmitting the Public Broadcasting 
     Service satellite feed, the Public Broadcasting Service shall 
     be the agent for all public television copyright claimants 
     and all Public Broadcasting Service member stations.''.

[[Page H2316]]

     SEC. 205. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE SATELLITE FEED; 
                   DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Secondary Transmissions.--Section 119(a)(1) of title 
     17, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting ``(1) 
     Superstations and pbs satellite feed.--'';
       (2) by inserting ``or by the Public Broadcasting Service 
     satellite feed'' after ``superstation''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of 
     the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, subsequent 
     to--
       ``(A) the date when a majority of subscribers to satellite 
     carriers are able to receive the signal of at least one 
     noncommercial educational television broadcast station from 
     their satellite carrier within such stations' local market, 
     or
       ``(B) 2 years after the effective date of the Satellite 
     Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act,

     whichever is earlier, the statutory license created by this 
     section shall be conditioned on certification of support 
     pursuant to section 396(n) of the Communications Act of 
     1934.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 119(d) of title 17, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Public broadcasting service satellite feed.--The 
     term `Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed' means the 
     national satellite feed distributed by the Public 
     Broadcasting Service consisting of educational and 
     informational programming intended for private home viewing, 
     to which the Public Broadcasting Service holds national 
     terrestrial broadcast rights.
       ``(13) Local market.--The term `local market' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 122(j)(2).
       ``(14) Television broadcast station.--The term `television 
     broadcast station' has the meaning given that term in section 
     122(j)(5).''.

     SEC. 206. DISTANT SIGNAL RETRANSMISSIONS.

       Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(6)'' and inserting 
     ``(5)'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking
       ``(2) Network stations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the provisions of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph and paragraphs 
     (3), (4), (5), and (6)''
      and inserting
       ``(2) Network stations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the provisions of 
     subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and paragraphs (3), (4), 
     and (5)''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(2)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``(2)(B)''; and
       (D) by striking paragraphs (5), (8), (9), and (10) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and 
     (6), respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (10) and 
     (11).

     SEC. 207. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
                   REGULATIONS.

       Section 119(a) of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the satellite carrier 
     is in compliance with the rules, regulations, or 
     authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission 
     governing the carriage of television broadcast station 
     signals,'' after ``satellite carrier to the public for 
     private home viewing,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the satellite carrier 
     is in compliance with the rules, regulations, or 
     authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission 
     governing the carriage of television broadcast station 
     signals,'' after ``satellite carrier to the public for 
     private home viewing,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Statutory license contingent on compliance with fcc 
     rules and remedial steps.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the willful or repeated secondary 
     transmission to the public by a satellite carrier of a 
     primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by 
     the Federal Communications Commission is actionable as an act 
     of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to 
     the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509, 
     if, at the time of such transmission, the satellite carrier 
     is not in compliance with the rules, regulations, and 
     authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission 
     concerning the carriage of television broadcast station 
     signals.''.

     SEC. 208. STUDY ON TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MUST-
                   CARRY ON DELIVERY OF LOCAL SIGNALS.

       Not later than July 1, 2000, the Register of Copyrights and 
     the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
     Information shall submit to the Congress a joint report that 
     sets forth in detail their findings and conclusions with 
     respect to the following:
       (1) The availability of local television broadcast signals 
     in small and rural markets as part of a service that competes 
     with, or supplements, video programming containing 
     copyrighted material delivered by satellite carriers or cable 
     operators.
       (2) The technical feasibility of imposing the requirements 
     of section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934 on satellite 
     carriers that deliver local broadcast station signals 
     containing copyrighted material pursuant to section 122 of 
     title 17, United States Code, and the technical and economic 
     impact of section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934 on 
     the ability of satellite carriers to serve multiple 
     television markets with retransmission of local television 
     broadcast stations, with particular consideration given to 
     the ability to serve television markets other than the 100 
     largest television markets in the United States (as 
     determined by the Nielson Media Research and published in the 
     DMA market and Demographic Report).
       (3) The technological capability of dual satellite dish 
     technology to receive effectively over-the-air broadcast 
     transmissions containing copyrighted material from the local 
     market, the availability of such capability in small and 
     rural markets, and the affordability of such capability.
       (4) The technological capability (including interference), 
     availability, and affordability of wireless cable (or 
     terrestrial wireless) delivery of local broadcast station 
     signals containing copyrighted material pursuant to section 
     111 of title 17, United States Code, including the 
     feasibility and desirability of the expedited licensing of 
     such competitive wireless technologies for rural and small 
     markets.
       (5) The technological capability, availability, and 
     affordability of a broadcast-only basic tier of cable 
     service.

     SEC. 209. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on July 1, 1999, except that section 208 and the 
     amendments made by section 205 shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, both the Committee on Commerce and the 
Committee on the Judiciary have shared jurisdiction over H.R. 1554, the 
Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. I would 
like to commend both committees for their fine work that they did in 
crafting this important consumer protection measure.
  I especially want to commend the committee and subcommittee chairmen 
who worked out this compromise, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Bliley) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and 
subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) each 
control 10 minutes of debate on this motion, and I further ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) control 10 minutes each 
on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) each will control 10 minutes for the majority, 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 10 minutes for the 
minority.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we come to the Floor of the House of 
Representatives and discuss legislation whose impact on our 
constituents is somewhat nebulous and uncertain. Today is not one of 
those days. H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and 
Consumer Protection Act of 1999, will have a beneficial effect on the 
citizens of this country, whether they are subscribers to satellite 
television or not.
  We have all been concerned about the lack of competition in the 
multichannel television industry and what that means in terms of prices 
and services to our constituents. I have received numerous letters and 
calls from my constituents distressed over their satellite service.
  Many customers leave the store complaining that they cannot obtain 
their local stations through satellite service. Others feel betrayed 
when they have their distant network service cut off, having been sold 
an illegal package from the outset. Still others may have been outraged 
at the cost they pay for the distant network signals.
  The time has come to address these concerns and pass legislation 
which makes the satellite industry more competitive with cable 
television. With

[[Page H2317]]

competition comes better services at lower prices, which makes our 
constituents the real winners.
  With this competition in mind, the legislation before us makes the 
following changes to the Satellite Home Viewers Act. It reauthorizes 
the satellite copyright compulsory license for 5 years. It allows new 
satellite customers who have received a network signal from a cable 
system within the past 3 months to sign up immediately for satellite 
services for those signals. This is not allowed today.
  It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the satellite 
carriers. It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television 
station to households within that station's local market, just like 
cable does. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national 
signal of the Public Broadcasting Service.
  Finally, it empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine 
appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning retransmission 
consent, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports 
blackouts.
  The manager's amendment makes one correction to the introduced 
version of the bill. Language in section 206 of the bill addressing 
distant signal transmission has been omitted to reflect the clear 
removal of the unserved household definition in title 17, in favor of 
the network nonduplication provisions in title 47.
  Additionally, I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Bliley) for his assurance that he will work with us to assure 
a provision concerning the linking of the section 122 license to the 
must-carry provisions of the bill when it is adopted in conference.
  The legislation before us today is a balanced approach. We have spent 
the better part of 3 years working with representatives of the 
broadcast, copyright, satellite, and cable industries fashioning 
legislation which is ultimately best for our constituents.
  The legislation before us today is not perfect, not unlike most 
pieces of legislation, but it is a carefully balanced compromise. It 
removes many of the obstacles standing in the way of true competition, 
yet does not reward those in the satellite industry for their obvious 
illegal activities concerning distant network signals. The real 
winners, therefore, are our constituents.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the subcommittee ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support 
and leadership throughout this process.
  I also want to recognize the contributions of the leadership of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with us 
tirelessly to bring this to the Floor. I urge all Members to support 
this constituent-friendly legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the rivalry between the House 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce. It is a 
healthy rivalry, nurtured by jurisdiction.
  Some accuse those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary of overly 
protecting and promoting good legislative issues relating to copyright, 
while others accuse those on the Committee on Commerce of overly 
protecting and promoting good legislative issues as it relates to 
telecommunications.
  To these charges I respond, probably guilty as charged. Jurisdiction 
should be warmly embraced by the appropriate committees. Jurisdiction, 
conversely, should not be casually discarded by these same committees.
  The jurisdictional issues do give rise to rivalry from time to time. 
Rivalry on occasion may be the bad news. The good news is this first 
legislative step that we are taking today, to the ultimately benefit of 
hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, a bill to make 
substantial and important amendments to the Copyright Act and minor and 
tangential amendments to the Telecommunications Act. This bill before 
us today will afford more American consumers the opportunity to view 
copyrighted programming, a laudable goal that I heartily embrace.
  At the same time that I endorse the competitive parity that we seek 
to achieve in this legislation between the satellite and cable 
industries, it is certainly the case that this bill does so at the 
expense of certain principles.
  First, I have made no secret in the past of my distaste for 
compulsory licenses, yet this bill extends the satellite compulsory 
license for another 5 years.
  On a related point, I strongly supported the approach in the 1994 
Satellite Home Viewer Act amendments; namely, that the royalty fees 
paid by satellite services for programming obtained under the satellite 
compulsory license should be pegged to a fair market value standard. 
Yet, H.R. 1554 discounts the rate set by the Copyright Arbitration 
Royalty Panel and upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia.
  Having said that, I support the bill before us today because I am a 
realist; because I believe that, on balance, the bill goes a long way 
towards resolving significant competing policy objectives.
  Certainly by allowing satellite carriers to transmit a local 
television station to households within that station's local market, we 
mark major progress towards the goal of enhancing consumer choice 
without undermining the financial viability of local broadcasters.
  This new local-to-local authority, which legally empowers the 
satellite carriers there to do what developing technologies now enable 
them to do, is probably the most important feature of this legislation. 
It is my hope that ultimately marketplace negotiations between 
broadcasters and satellite providers will serve as a mechanism for 
establishing the terms for delivery of that local signal.
  Surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in particular 
would concur that private sector agreements are the ideal means for 
arriving at such terms. That is why I am particularly heartened that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Commerce, has committed to joining us in conference to 
clarify that the ``must carry'' provision in section 103 of the bill 
should apply only when a satellite carrier avails itself of the 
satellite compulsory license.
  By the same token, while it is important that multichannel video 
programming distributors have the opportunity to negotiate for 
retransmission consent, we do not in this bill subject the price or 
other terms and conditions of nonexclusive retransmission consent 
agreements to FCC scrutiny.
  In the 16 years I have served on the Subcommittee on Intellectual 
Property, successive new members of the subcommittee have grappled with 
a complex web of compulsory licenses and the artificially-set royalty 
rates that accompany such licenses, all in the name of giving a leg up 
to so-called ``fledgling industries''.
  But increasingly on the dais at subcommittee sessions I hear members 
asking why. I think that reaction is appropriate, and I encourage it. I 
urge my colleagues today to support H.R. 1554 because it provides the 
framework for achieving important policy objectives, and moves the 
legislative process forward.
  But I hope in conference that we all take pains to make sure that our 
legislative product enhances and does not detract from the ability of 
the marketplace to achieve the principles of competition and consumer 
choice we all endorse.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 
and his exemplary staff, in fact, the entire subcommittee staff, for 
their hard work on this bill. I look forward to working together as we 
move this bill to enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 
1554. I would like to begin by commending my

[[Page H2318]]

counterpart on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble), and recognizing, indeed, that our competition and 
yet our cooperation has yielded today a very excellent product.
  Yesterday he and I introduced H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, 
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act, which represents the combined 
work of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary. I 
want to thank all colleagues on both committees for working with us to 
craft a compromise, and in fact to craft such an important bill.
  The bill makes substantial reforms to the telecommunications and 
copyright law in order to provide the American consumer with a 
stronger, more viable competitor to their incumbent cable operator whom 
we just completed the deregulatory process for this March. Cable is 
deregulated. It needs a competitor. This important legislation will 
provide cable with a real competitor.
  Mr. Speaker, we saw similar important legislation on the Floor 
before. In 1992 my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I led the fight to the 1992 Cable Act on 
an issue called ``program access.'' That fight was to make sure that we 
could critically jumpstart the satellite industry.

                              {time}  1430

  Many noted that the program access amendment that was adopted in that 
fight revolutionized the video programming industry and launched the 
age of satellite direct-to-home video.
  Today, the reforms we are considering are no less revolutionary in 
impact. Consumers today are pretty savvy. They now expect, indeed 
demand, their video programming distributor, whether it is a satellite 
company or a cable company or a broadcaster or whoever it might be, 
that they offer video programming that is affordable with exceptional 
picture quality.
  Today, however, satellite carriers face legal and technological 
limitations on their ability to do so. These same limitations put 
satellite carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable 
operators.
  Even though broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in 
overall audience share compared to just a few years ago, the 
overwhelming number of consumers still want their local programming, 
the local television station, to provide services to them. Consumer 
surveys conclude that the lack of local broadcasting programming is the 
number one reason why consumers are unwilling to subscribe to satellite 
service and, therefore, limited to a single competitor, the cable 
operator.
  The bill today we are considering is designed to put satellite 
television providers on that competitive equal footing; to provide 
compulsory license to retransmit the local broadcast signal in the 
satellite package; to make sure that retransmission consent must-carry 
rules apply; that nonduplication syndicated exclusivity and sports 
blackout protections are all included. In other words, to put satellite 
on equal footing with cable so consumers can have a real choice.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill combines the telecom provisions of both the 
Save our Satellites Act and the Satellite Television Improvement Act. 
We, therefore, believe it is a great bill as a combination of our two 
committee efforts.
  I want to join my colleagues in thanking the hard work of members on 
both committees, particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), 
the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for his excellent 
leadership; to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), who has always worked so well with us; to the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), who is such a good partner with me on these important issues; 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary; to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble), and to the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for their extraordinary cooperation.
  This is bipartisan, bicommittee, and we are going to solve some 
awfully important problems for every American in the country who enjoys 
video programming in this country. I am pleased to work with my 
colleagues on this compromise and join them in supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I first want to begin by invoking the litany of saints who have 
worked on this legislation. No easy task. Many indulgences have been 
earned by Members and staff alike that can be cashed in, redeemed at a 
later point in their life, as evidence of their good faith in working 
together for the betterment of the public in general.
  I want to thank the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley); the chairman of the full 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry 
Hyde); to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Michigan duo, who worked together 
cooperatively on this project; to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and their staffs 
as well.
  I would also like to recognize my good friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). As he pointed out, going back to 1992 we have 
tried to move the universe in a way, first, where the 18-inch dish 
satellite industry would be made possible. It was not before 1992, 
because this industry did not have access to HBO and Show Time and the 
other programming that is necessary to offer real competition to the 
incumbent cable monopolies in communities across the country.
  If we want these 18-inch dish satellites to move from rural America 
and exurban America, the far reaches of suburban American, into 
suburban and urban America, so that people buy the dishes and put them 
out between the petunias, we have to give them the programming they 
want. In most of America they have already got their local TV stations. 
They can pick them up on their cable system but they cannot pick them 
up on their satellite dishes. They have to take in these national feeds 
of CBS, NBC, Fox.
  What we do in this legislation, and I think the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) should be congratulated on this, I have worked 
with him closely to accomplish the goal, is we make it possible for the 
first time for an 18-inch dish satellite owner to get their local TV 
stations over their satellite dish. Consumers can pick up their local 
channel 4, 5, 7, 25, 38, 68, with their local sports teams over their 
satellite dish.
  Now, this is in an effort to balance two very important issues, 
localism and universal service. On the one hand, we want everyone to 
have access to television service, and that is why we were very 
flexible in allowing people to pick up over their satellite dishes 
these national fees. But as more and more people in the urban areas 
disconnected their cable system and bought a satellite dish, that meant 
they were disconnecting their local TV stations as well and the 
advertising revenues which these local TV stations need.
  So here what we try to do is solve the problem using technology, 
which means that the local consumer can have universal access to their 
local TV stations using a new technology, an 18-inch satellite dish. 
Now, that is real progress. And the committees working together, I 
think, have formulated a bill which really will work for the overall 
betterment of consumers, giving them a competitor to their local cable 
system and I think forging a new revolution in technology and consumer 
choice in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all Members, and I especially 
want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, for working 
with me on this local-into-local issue, meaning a local TV station gets 
fed right back into the local market through their satellite 
transmitter, their satellite dish. I think it is going to cause a real 
revolution. I thank all involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page H2319]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
reiterate what the gentleman from California said regarding the staff. 
The staff has indeed done exemplary work on this, and I failed to 
mention that earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
legislation introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble). This important legislation represents a much-
needed compromise that will enable thousands of folks, many of whom 
live in my district, to continue to receive their network signals 
through satellite service.
  For those who can receive their network signal over the air, this 
compromise will ensure that they get the antenna they need to receive a 
quality over-the-air signal. Finally, this bill will speed the roll-out 
of local-into-local satellite service by requiring a joint study by the 
Copyright Office and the Commerce Department on how to best deliver 
local-into-local into rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a badly needed solution to a 
problem that cannot be delayed any longer. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important compromise and keep this legislation moving to 
provide relief to the hardworking Americans who deserve it.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each of the other three managers have 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and 
a member who has spent a long time working on this issue.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to the 
gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I am pleased to 
rise in support of the legislation and I also want to commend the 
bipartisan leadership of both the Committee on the Judiciary and 
Committee on Commerce and their staffs that have worked effectively in 
order to achieve this reform.
  Thousands of my constituents and millions of rural residents 
throughout the Nation cannot receive an adequate signal from their 
local TV station. They typically live in mountainous regions where 
their receipt of a good local TV signal is effectively blocked by the 
obstructions between their homes and the local TV stations.
  In 1988, we enacted the section 119 compulsory license that enables 
these residents to receive via satellite the network signals that they 
cannot receive from local stations. The legislation that we are 
approving today extends that license and creates a better means of 
predicting which homes can receive adequate local television signals.
  It is my hope that this new standard and this new predictive model 
will put to rest the controversy that has long simmered between local 
broadcasters on the one hand and the satellite carriers and their 
customers on the other over which homes are eligible to receive 
satellite-delivered network signals.
  The bill achieves another very important objective. It authorizes the 
uplink of local stations and the satellite delivery of those stations 
back into the market of their origination. This local-into-local 
service will enable the satellite industry to become a more viable 
competitor to the cable television industry, with Americans receiving 
the consequent benefits of market-established rates for multi-channel 
video programming. This new service will also increase the ability of 
local broadcasters to reach all of the homes within their service 
territories.
  I am concerned, however, that the business plans of the carriers that 
have announced an interest in offering the local-to-local services 
extend only to the largest 67 out of 211 local television markets 
around the country. Under this plan, most of rural America simply will 
not receive the benefit of this local-into-local service.
  To address this concern, the bill directs the Copyright Office and 
the Department of Commerce to conduct an in-depth study of the 
availability of local television signals in rural America. A report to 
the Congress with findings and recommendations is directed for the year 
2000, and it is my hope that this examination will lead to constructive 
steps that, in turn, will assure the ability of more rural residents to 
receive high-quality local television signals.
  I commend those who have authored this measure. I was pleased to 
participate with them both in the Committee on Commerce and the 
Committee on the Judiciary as we considered it, and I strongly urge its 
passage by the House.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and welcome the chairman and leader of 
the full Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1554, the Satellite 
Copyright, Competition and Consumer Protection Act, as amended.
  This bill, as others have said, represents the hard work and 
collaboration of the two committees, the Committee on Commerce and the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and I would like to express my personal 
appreciation to many Members who helped in bringing this legislation to 
the floor, including the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) the ranking 
member of the full Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection; the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and my 
good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a significant bill because it will promote 
genuine competition in the video programming marketplace. For too long 
now consumers have sought competitive choices to their incumbent cable 
operators. Consumers today view satellite television as an effective 
substitute for incumbent cable system offerings. While satellite 
television currently delivers hundreds of channels of high resolution 
digital programming, consumers clearly see the lack of local broadcast 
programming as a reason not to subscribe. This bill will facilitate 
satellite-delivered local broadcast programming and, as such, shift 
satellite television into higher gear in its quest to compete with 
cable.
  The timing of this legislation is particularly important because of 
the fact that the cable rate regulation expired on March 31 this year. 
I have often said that rate regulation has a sad history, given that 
rates continue to go up in spite of rate regulation. This is a better 
approach. It is a procompetitive solution to the cable's dominant 
market share.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank all of my colleagues for their 
steadfast support and commitment for enacting this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to suggest to my good friend, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, that 
in the future, when we have a difference of opinion between his 
subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection, that he and I just settle it on the tennis court.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the only reason that I seek recognition at this time is 
because of an unfortunate omission in my

[[Page H2320]]

original listing of saints that deserve credit and I just want it to be 
known that the honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 
shall be known as ``blessed Howard Coble'' after this proceeding 
because of his forbearance and understanding in this entire process.
  At the end of the day, this is a very important, high-value public 
interest product which is in the well of the House being debated today; 
and it is in no small measure because of the work of the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and I just wanted to recognize that 
publicly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not express my thanks to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for those generous comments. 
I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite Copyright, 
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. The act is important to my 
constituents and the people of Utah.
  A large number of my constituents cannot receive a clear television 
signal in their homes. Many of the rural residents of my district live 
in ``B'' grade or ``White'' areas and have long been isolated because 
of the geography of the district. They have installed home satellite 
dishes so they can receive news, educational, and entertainment 
programming that those who live in urban areas take for granted.
  Unfortunately, despite available technology, many still do not have 
access to local network programming. This means they cannot be informed 
about their communities and State without installing an antenna or 
other additional equipment, and even then a clear signal is difficult. 
Rural residents should have the same convenient access to television 
programming as those who live in urban areas.
  This bill will allow satellite broadcasters to transmit local 
programming to the rural residents of my district and across the 
country. Those living in rural areas will finally be able to receive 
the same broadcast service as those living in urban areas.
  This bill also makes great strides toward increased competition in 
the television broadcast signal delivery industry. Satellite carriers 
should be allowed to carry the same stations and provide the same 
services as cable systems. Increased competition between providers will 
mean lower prices and improved service.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1554.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, 
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. This is legislation which 
will stimulate competition, which will make available better service at 
better cost to our people.
  I commend my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the 
chairman of the full committee; the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
chairman of the subcommittee; our distinguished ranking member; and 
their capable staffs for working together in a fashion which they did 
to help us achieve enactment of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I note my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) is standing. There is an issue which requires further 
clarification, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good 
friend from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAUZIN, I understand that Title I contains telecommunications 
provisions in the bill. It provides that a broadcast station cannot 
engage in discriminatory practices which prevent multichannel video 
programming distributors from obtaining the station's consent to 
retransmit its signal. I understand that this provision is intended to 
prevent exclusive contracts between a broadcast station and any 
particular distributor. Is that correct?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman, as 
usual, is correct.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have a further 
question of my good friend.
  Is this provision also intended to prohibit a broadcast station from 
negotiating different terms and conditions, including price terms, with 
different distributors?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, no. 
The bill goes beyond prohibiting exclusive contracts in only one 
respect. In order to prevent refusals by a station to deal with any 
particular distributor, the FCC is directed to bar not only exclusive 
deals but also any other discriminatory practices, understandings, 
arrangements and activities by the station which have the same effect 
of preventing any particular distributor from the opportunity to obtain 
a retransmission consent arrangement.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, a further question of my good friend.
  Mr. Speaker, then is it my understanding and is it correct that a 
broadcast station could, for example, negotiate a cash payment from one 
video distributor for retransmission consent and reach an agreement 
with other distributors operating in the same market that contains 
different prices or other terms?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman is 
correct. As long as a station does not refuse to deal with any 
particular distributor, a station's insistence on different terms and 
conditions in retransmission agreements based on marketplace 
considerations is not intended to be prohibited by this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, one further question.
  So if a station negotiates in good faith with a distributor, the 
failure to reach an agreement with that distributor would not 
constitute a discriminatory act that is intended to be barred by this 
section?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is again correct.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of the legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation and 
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) for all their hard work in bringing this pro-competitive bill 
before us today.
  The matter certainly is a timely one, as many of my rural 
constituents have difficulty with the network signals. And this 
legislation we are considering lowers copyright fees for distant 
network signals, provides for the transition to local-into-local 
satellite delivery of local broadcasts and contains other pro-
competitive features.
  I am also, Mr. Speaker, concerned that we should, now that we are 
passing this pro-competitive bill, make sure that consumers enjoy the 
benefits of competition in the market for video services. It is also 
vital to the development of competition that will lead the FCC to 
proceed with further deregulation of the cable industry by relaxing or 
eliminating rules that limit the number of homes that may be passed by 
a cable MSO.
  The 1992 Cable Act's horizontal ownership limits were imposed in an 
era where consumers lacked the kind of choices that they have today. It 
is time that the FCC understand that the

[[Page H2321]]

world has changed and makes the appropriate changes as necessary to 
provide more competition and at lower cost.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, in December a U.S. District Court decision 
in Florida caused thousands of satellite television subscribers 
throughout my district up in Washington State to lose network service. 
The Federal Communications Commission claims that those subscribers are 
located inside an area where they can pick up the signals of their 
local broadcast stations with a simple rooftop antenna and do not need 
the satellite service.
  Not necessarily true. In Washington State we have mountains, large 
trees and other obstacles that can block the broadcast signals. My 
constituents depend on satellite service for local news, weather, and 
local emergency reporting. That is why I commend the sponsors today on 
H.R. 1554.
  This bill will provide relief for satellite customers by allowing 
satellite companies to broadcast local stations into local markets. 
Further, it will direct the FCC to develop a new method for determining 
television signaling intensity and impose a moratorium on the planned 
shutoffs.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) ranking member of the full 
committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  My colleagues, the reason we can bring a bill like this, of this 
complexity, under the suspension rules is because of the good work of 
our staffs and of our colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) the ranking member, and the other committee and 
its leadership all work together quite well. And I also want to 
compliment the members of the staff that did this, as well.
  Obviously, there were many complexities. I am pleased that the way 
things have worked out. We are revising the satellite compulsory 
license law to allow companies to retransmit local news, weather, 
sports, safety announcements. In other words, local-to-local service 
can now be had and will allow the satellite industry, in addition, to 
compete with cable to get better services, more choices and lower rates 
for consumers.
  We also carry the famous ``must carry'' provision, and that will 
ensure that satellite companies that choose local-to-local service will 
give their customers all and not just some of the local channels, 
thereby broadening the choice consumers have in programming.
  As we approach the millennium and technology permits satellite and 
cable companies to deliver high-quality television programming, it is 
important that we in Congress continue to monitor these industries and 
make the appropriate reforms to make the playing field level and 
competitive and to keep the marketplace dynamic.
  I can assure my colleagues that the Committee on the Judiciary is 
eager to continue its responsibilities in the area.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 70 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) who is actually a contributor to our committee's 
work.
  (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents what is I 
consider the most rural district in the entire Congress, which is the 
whole State of Wyoming, I rise in support of H.R. 1554.
  I do appreciate that the chairmen of the committees have made 
concessions on this rural issue. But there are, however, two measures 
that I think need to be addressed to make sure that adequate service is 
available to rural satellite viewers.
  First of all, I believe that until the FCC adopts a comprehensive 
solution or replaces or modifies the 1950 standard for determining 
whether a household can receive an acceptable over-the-air picture, 
both DBS and C-band subscribers should be allowed to continue to 
receive distant network broadcast signals in lieu of the local signal.
  The second issue that I am particularly interested in has to do with 
providing local-to-local service to rural America. Giving the satellite 
industry the right to retransmit local network signals into local areas 
will provide competition to cable systems and drive costs down for both 
cable and satellite service.
  A significant number of constituents that I have do not have the 
choice between satellite and cable because the distances between homes 
and urban centers are not possible for cable.
  So what I would like us to do is look very strongly into ensuring 
that we give satellite companies incentives rather than Federal 
mandates for providing local-to-local service.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all of the Members 
who have involved themselves with their staffs in this issue, and 
everyone else in America who has written and called on this very 
important issue of their access to local television stations over their 
satellite.

                              {time}  1500

  This is a revolution that we are unleashing in today's legislation. 
We are going to make it possible for the first time for people to buy 
an 18-inch satellite dish and get their local TV stations over the 
dish. They will be able to disconnect their local cable company. For 
the first time they will have some other place to go. It will not just 
be out in rural America or in the deep suburbs with big backyards. It 
is going to be in urban America. This is going to be in house after 
house. In the most densely populated parts of our country, people are 
going to be able now to buy satellite dishes, 18-inch dishes, and know 
they get their local TV stations as well. I cannot imagine a bigger 
moment in the history of this video revolution than what we are doing 
here today.
  I hope that when we get done with this legislative process and the 
President signing the bill, that the provisions we have included here 
on the House side are included, because the promise of today is 
something that is going to revolutionize the way in which America, and 
urban America especially, has access to all of the video programming 
being produced nationally and at a local television station level 
across our country. Again I want to thank all of the Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This has been a special day. To all, I am appreciative, both on this 
floor and from all corners of this country. To close out, Mr. Speaker, 
to sum up, we are here because we are giving a break to the satellite 
carriers in order to help them compete. Under this bill these carriers 
no longer have to clear permission from copyright owners to retransmit 
their programming. They can retransmit without permission by availing 
themselves of a compulsory government license.
  Normally, Mr. Speaker, I am averse to government license. But in this 
case to encourage competition, I endorse a limited license. In closing, 
I want to say that I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) in hoping for a return to the free market for copyright and a 
repeal of all these licenses in the future after competition has been 
assured.
  Again, I thank all parties who have contributed, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr), himself a leader in the fight to get local 
television into satellite programming.
  (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H2322]]

  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank 
my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the 
Judiciary for bringing this legislation to the floor. My interest in 
DBS technology began really last August when I first introduced a 
local-to-local bill. It appeared to me then as it does now that once 
the new technologies designed to facilitate transmission of local TV 
signals to their local markets are up and running, satellite television 
will provide a swift and viable competition to cable television. This 
in turn will allow customers to take full advantage of the open 
multichannel video programming market that is being created with cable 
deregulation. The bill we have before us today will not only bring this 
much needed competition to the market but it will alleviate some of the 
problems satellite TV viewers are experiencing as a result of the court 
decisions.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble). I am truly excited about the possibilities that 
can happen from this piece of legislation. This is truly a piece of 
legislation written with the American people in mind.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I commend the Speaker pro tempore, first of all, whom I know wanted 
to speak from the House floor in support of this legislation for his 
handling of this matter today. I again thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his excellent cooperation as he has always 
exhibited with me and the members of our subcommittee and to thank the 
staff. We sometimes fail to do that. I want to make sure that both the 
minority staff and the majority staff on both committees are 
highlighted today because so much of this technical work is their hard 
work and product. I want to thank them for it. Finally, to join the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in his exhortation that this 
indeed is a revolutionary moment in video programming. I want to thank 
all of my colleagues for coming together to make this happen, not for 
the satellite or cable companies but for the consumers of America 
because this truly is one of the best consumer protection bills we have 
passed in a good long while.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an unfortunate and 
false choice between two evils. The false choice is whether the 
government should ban voluntary exchange or regulate it--as though 
these were the only two options. More specifically, today's choice is 
whether government should continue to maintain its ban on satellite 
provision of network programming to television consumers or replace 
that ban by expanding an anti-market, anti-consumer regulatory regime 
to the entire satellite television industry.
  H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer 
Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict 
prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local 
subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates 
and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires 
Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands 
the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to 
network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between 
cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of 
contract principles, imposes anti-consumer ``must-carry'' regulations 
upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to 
``re-map the country'' and further empowers the National 
Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to ``study the 
impact'' of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets.
  This bill's title includes the word ``competition'' but ignores the 
market processes' inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property 
rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange 
unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so-called 
marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable 
companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local 
level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive 
dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and 
program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price 
setter--determining prices at which program suppliers must make their 
programs available to satellite programing service providers under the 
``compulsory license.''
  Unfortunately, this bill expands the government's role to set the so-
called just price for satellite programming. This, of course, is 
inherently impossible outside the market process of voluntary exchange 
and has, not surprisingly, resulted instead in ``competition'' among 
service providers for government favor rather than consumer-benefiting 
competition inherent to the genuine market.
  While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress 
to ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for 
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their 
respective Writings and Discoveries,'' operating a clearinghouse for 
the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting 
a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically 
prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can 
only be achieved within the market process itself.
  I introduced what I believe is the most pro-consumer, competition-
friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to 
competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television 
Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere 
with consumers' ability to avail themselves of desired television 
programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite 
service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just 
the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is 
now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs 
via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This 
market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to 
negotiations that should currently be taking place between network 
program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather 
than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer ``must-carry'' 
regulations on satellite service providers to ``keep the playing field 
level,'' my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must-
carry from the already over-regulated cable industry.
  Genuine competition is a market process and, in a world of scarce 
resources, it alone best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate that 
this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate that our only 
choice with H.R. 1554 is to trade one form of government intervention 
for another--``ban voluntarily exchange or bureaucratically regulate 
it?'' Unfortunate, indeed.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of 
H.R. 1554, the ``Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer 
Protection Act.'' This bill is the first step towards ensuring 
competition among the different telecommunications providers--including 
satellite, cable, and broadcasting. Under this bill, satellite 
companies are no longer banned from retransmitting local network 
signals back into local markets, providing customers with local news, 
sports, and entertainment.
  Unfortunately, due to cost and a lack of technology, satellite 
companies are prevented from offering local service or spot beaming 
signals to all television markets. Assuming the satellite companies 
will move into the largest and most lucrative markets, rural areas will 
not benefit from this bill, and will not be able to receive their local 
networks via their satellite. With few options, satellite customers who 
live in rural areas will be forced to rely on T.V. top or giant roof 
top antennas to receive their local programming from the broadcast 
stations. Though these antennas receive quality signals for some 
people, I am very concerned about those individuals who live outside of 
a Grade ``A'' area or are prevented from receiving their signal for 
some other reason. Under this bill, this issue is partially addressed 
by instructing the FCC to determine whether new regulations are needed 
to gage signal strength. This bill also provides for a speedy review 
for individuals who contest that they cannot receive an adequate signal 
by antenna. However, while this bill does establish a moratorium on 
further signal shut-offs until December 31st of this year, I am 
concerned about the thousands of individuals in my District who are 
presently without broadcast television. This bill does not address 
their plight. While I appreciate the hard work that both the Judiciary 
and Commerce Committees have done, it is my hope that we can work 
together with the Senate to devise an equitable solution that will 
assist these consumer.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, the 
Satellite Home Viewer Act. Satellite television subscribers should have 
the same rights as cable subscribers when it comes to receiving network 
broadcast signals.
  The Satellite Home Viewer Act will give satellite carriers the right 
to air local television broadcasts. This is very important to my 
district, where many citizens have to revert to purchasing a satellite 
dish for better reception. Without H.R. 1554, many still can't water 
their local news. They should be allowed to receive local television 
signals with a dish, just like they can with cable.
  H.R. 1554 will provide a discount on copyright fees for network 
programming. This levels the playing field between satellite and

[[Page H2323]]

cable industries, in turn promoting competition and lowering the prices 
for consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1554. It is time we open up the 
way for true cable competition and remove anti-customer barriers. 
Consumers have a right to greater choice of quality television 
programming.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to support H.R. 1554, 
the Satellite Copyright, Competition and Consumer Protection Act, but 
that support is accompanied by reservations.
  There are many good reasons to support this bill. It provides a way 
for satellite companies to carry local stations in rural areas and 
metropolitan areas. It requires satellite companies to accept the must 
carry provisions. It will expedite the waiver process for customers who 
do not receive local signals. And, it will encourage the increased 
competition that is necessary for all Americans to more fully benefit 
from the revolution in telecommunications.
  This Member has heard from many Nebraskans who are frustrated about 
the restrictions in the Satellite Home Viewer Act that compel satellite 
carriers to stop transmitting network signals to their customers. We 
must provide a way for residents of rural areas to receive network 
satellite service. At present, satellites offer the best opportunity 
for increased competition with cable television systems.
  Unfortunately, this bill includes a provision that will further an 
injustice that cable customers in some of our small, rural communities 
are already experiencing. For years, because of the Federal 
Communications Commission's enforcement of syndicated exclusivity and 
non-duplication rules, cable customers in certain small communities 
located in some state border areas have not been able to watch 
television programs produced by stations in their own state. Their 
cable systems are prohibited from transmitting the news and other 
programming that relates to the customer's own state. This bill applies 
those same restrictions to satellite companies, and makes no provision 
or exception for those small communities near state borders that are 
``blacked out'' of their own state's news and sports.
  In 1992, when the 102nd Congress considered the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act, this Member supported an 
amendment introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
that would have provided an exception for those few, but very 
important, communities.That amendment was withdrawn when the then-
Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee agreed to revisit the 
issue. Now, almost seven years later, those communities have not seen 
relief, and we are acting on legislation that will perpetuate their 
problem.
  We must resolve the current satellite problems and this measure is 
intended to do that. But, those state-border communities have yet to 
see their problem resolved, and this Member assures them that he is 
preparing a bill that addresses that problem.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for this 
legislation and to say it is long overdue. I have received hundreds of 
calls and letters from my constituents who are irate that they have 
lost their CBS and FOX stations from their satellites. It amazes me 
that the two industries involved could not resolve this issue between 
themselves. Both of them provide a service to consumers and they seem 
to have forgotten how to treat their customers.
  The recent decision to remove network signals from at least 700,000 
homes was poor judgment on the part of the industries involved and I 
believe they will suffer the anger of the many rural consumers who were 
victims of the battle between the broadcasters and satellite providers. 
No one has taken into consideration the thousands of rural households 
that simply cannot receive signals from their local networks with an 
antenna. It is not reasonable to expect rural consumers to settle for 
poor reception based on an arcane definition of who can and cannot 
receive local signals, when they are willing to pay extra for a better 
quality picture from their satellite provider.
  That is why I believe that this legislation is a step in the right 
direction. The provisions that allow satellites to provide local 
network signals will protect local networks and allow rural consumers 
to receive quality signals. I am also happy to see a provision that 
requires the FCC to develop a new standard for determining whether a TV 
viewer can receive local station signals, and requires the satellite 
providers and broadcasters to bear the cost of on-site tests of viewer 
reception quality.
  When I am disappointed that network signals will not be returned to 
the households which lost them, I do support this bill and hope that 
the Senate will take action similar legislation so that we can get 
network signals back to my constituents.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite 
Home Viewer Act. Many people deserve credit for their efforts in 
getting this bill to the House floor, especially my chairman in the 
House Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Tauzin, and the ranking 
Member in the Subcommittee, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Coble also deserves many thanks for his work producing this bill.
  As our colleagues in the House know, all of our constituents who 
subscribe to satellite services rightfully expert to receive their 
local television programming one way or another through their satellite 
carrier. Until today, our constituents have not had the ability to do 
so because satellite providers have not had the proper copyright 
authority to retransmit those signals.
  The heart of this legislation gives the satellite provider the legal 
authority to carry the local television signals directly into consumers 
homes.
  The other focus point of this legislation is how we manage the 
transition from today, where no consumers receive their local signals, 
to when they can. As our colleagues are aware, many consumers had been 
receiving network channels from television markets in other areas of 
the country because they could not receive their local signals.
  Unfortunately, many if not most were receiving those signals 
illegally because they were within the reach of receiving an over-the-
air signal from their local stations. Under current law, as was upheld 
in federal court, satellite customers can only receive a distant 
network signals if they reside outside a Grade B signal area for local 
markets or if they cannot receive a local signal because of 
topographical barriers.
  But frankly, in our ever evolving high-tech world, being limited to 
yesterday's television technology is an anachronistic means of 
entertainment. The average viewer expects and demands to receive the 
clearest television picture and audio available. Over-the-air reception 
does not meet those expectations. That is why this legislation is 
critical for Americans subscribing to satellite programming.
  I have two concerns remaining with the legislation, one that is dealt 
with and one that will hopefully be dealt with.
  The first: If satellite providers started providing local signals 
today to consumers, they would not be close to being able to deliver 
every local channel in every local market. In fact, I believe that 
providers with their current satellite capacity would be able to 
deliver all the local channels in just a small handful of markets. 
These providers would basically have to pick and choose which local 
markets to serve, which will likely result in rural consumers not being 
able to receive their local channels.
  This legislation tries to ease this carriage burden by granting 
satellite carriers a transition period until January 1, 2002 to comply 
with must-carry rules, which requires providers to carry all local 
channels in markets they choose to delivery local signals.
  I think must-carry is a fair burden for satellite providers because 
cable operators have to exist under the same conditions. My fear stems 
from a worry that come January 1, 2002, if these satellite providers 
continue to lack the capacity to serve every market in the country, 
they will choose to ignore the smaller and more rural television 
markets, such as my sixth congressional district in North Central 
Florida.
  With the efforts of Chairman Tauzin, this legislation includes a 
requirement that the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary 
of Commerce for Communications and Information shall conduct a study 
and report to Congress no later than July 1, 2000 primarily whether 
small and rural markets are being effectively served by their local 
signals.
  I thank Mr. Tauzin for including this study language and requiring 
them to report back to Congress by July 1 of next year, which will 
hopefully allow us time to make any necessary changes to aid consumers 
in these type of markets.
  My final concern is in regard to satellite consumers who own C-Band 
dishes. A C-Band dish is the big satellite dishes we often see in rural 
areas. These were the first consumer satellite dishes on the market. 
Unfortunately, these dish owners are not granted a similar moratorium 
date that will be given to other satellite consumers to have until the 
end of this year before they lose their distant network signals.
  There are over 70,000 C-Band owners in Florida alone and over a 
million nationwide. I hope as we move to Conference or before the bill 
returns to the House, this anomaly is corrected to allow an even 
moratorium for all satellite consumers.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of 
this bill, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer 
Protection Act of 1999, which redefines the role of part of our 
telecommunications industry.
  This bill is an important one for several reasons. First, because it 
provides the rules and regulations that will allow satellite service 
providers, like Prime Star and Direct TV, to compete for television 
services in areas that have

[[Page H2324]]

until now, been traditionally dominated by cable companies.
  This is because up until now, satellite service providers, unlike 
their land-based competitors, have not be allowed to rebroadcast local 
television signals. The result of this inequity has seriously 
undermined the ability of dish providers to provide meaningful 
competition to cable, notwithstanding the development of small dish-
based systems that are more affordable than ever before. This inequity 
has only been further highlighted by cable companies, who in the spirit 
of American advertising, have waged a successful marketing war against 
satellite-based systems by point out the fact that even those customers 
with the finest satellite systems are still destined to be encumbered 
by old-fashioned ``rabbit ear'' antennas if they wanted to receive 
their regular local programming.
  This bill rectifies this situation, by finally allowing satellite 
system providers to provide local television programming to their 
customers. This means that my constituents in Houston will be able to 
select between at least two services to satisfy their television 
needs--something that many of us have looked forward to for a long 
time. The fact that we are giving dish-providers the ability to 
rebroadcast local signals, however, does not come without additional 
responsibility. Under this bill, dish-providers will not be able to 
carry only those signals that stand to earn them a great deal of 
profit--they must also carry all of those local signals that are 
required of the cable companies. After all, this bill was designed in 
order to erase inequities, not further them.
  Another mechanism in this bill that provides for an equal footing is 
the non-discrimination clause, which tells broadcasters that they must 
make their signals available for rebroadcast by cable and satellite 
companies. This prevents broadcasters from altering the landscape of 
competition in their markets by tipping the scales in favor of one side 
over the other by allowing them to choose whom will have the rights to 
rebroadcast their signals.
  Having said that, although the debate on this bill, which came out of 
both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees, has been feverish at times, 
I believe we have reached an amicable situation to each of the 
interested parties involved. Most of all, however, I am convinced that 
we are addressing a topic that is vital to the comfortable living of 
our constituents. During debate on several of the more controversial 
provisions, we have received a great deal of mail from constituents, 
both satellite and cable customers, asking us to address this issue in 
earnest. I feel that with this bill, I can go back to Houston and 
reassure my community that relief is on the way.
  I urge each of you to support this legislation, and to support 
meaningful competition for our constituents.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity 
to thank my colleagues from the Commerce and Judiciary Committees for 
dedicating so much of their valuable time to this legislation.
  Over the past few months I have received an overwhelming number of 
phone calls and letters from constituents who are outraged over the 
loss of their television stations. These families live in rural New 
York, among the peaks and valleys of the Catskill Mountains. They 
turned to the satellite industry to provide them with broadcast signals 
because cable service was not an option. Moreover, satellite service 
offered them the clear, unobstructed signal they could not receive from 
a rooftop antenna. These hard working families do not deserve to lose 
the quality of the only service they have the option of enjoying.
  As a cosponsor of the original legislation, I support H.R. 1554, 
``The Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 
1999.'' I watched the development of this bill closely and I am very 
grateful to the Members who have worked together to bring this 
legislation to the floor. H.R. 1554 is more than a quick fix; by 
focusing on competition rather than regulation, this legislation 
addresses the heart and future of this market.
  Each year more Americans subscribe to satellite service. However, 
these Americans can-not always access their local news, weather, or 
community stations. H.R. 1554 brings to the table the same ``must 
carry'' requirements that Congress implemented on the cable industry. 
Local broadcasting serves a ``public good'' by providing community 
programming and local information. If satellite service is to become an 
equal competitor in the broadcast market, they must be held to the same 
set of standards as their competition.
  Moreover, this legislation addresses the discrepancies in the present 
``graded contour system,'' which fails to recognize the topography of 
certain regions. This system has unfairly prohibited many of my 
constituents from continuing to receive certain broadcast signals 
because of the location of their home. Thankfully, this legislation 
will require the FCC to review and reconstruct this outdated system and 
return service to the those who rely on this service.
  Once again, I want to thank Chairman Bliley, Chairman Hyde, and all 
the members of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees for bringing this 
bill to the floor of the House.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
1554.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1554, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________