[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11811-H11818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1554, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND 
               COMMUNICATIONS OMNIBUS REFORM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  Mr. ARMEY. 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. I further ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each control 10 minutes 
on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the conference report on H.R. 1554.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the combined hard work 
of both the House and the Senate, which is, of course, long overdue. I 
am pleased to report that through this hard work we are able to present 
the House an agreement on changes to telecommunications and copyright 
law in order to provide the American consumer with a stronger, more 
viable competitor to their incumbent cable operator.
  This legislation will enact comprehensive reforms to the offering of 
satellite television service. I expect that the reforms contained in 
this bill will have a dramatic and beneficial effect on the 
multichannel video programming marketplace for years to come.
  Consumers today expect more from their video program providers, 
whether it is a cable company, a satellite company, their broadcaster 
or other distributors, including the Internet. Consumers are savvy and 
they now expect and indeed demand their video program distributor to 
offer a wide variety of programming at reasonable cost with exceptional 
picture quality.
  Today, there are some limitations on the ability of satellite 
carriers to meet consumer demands. These limitations put satellite 
carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable providers. 
The main limitation on satellite providers is the inherent difficulty 
in providing local broadcast programming via satellite. Even though 
broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in their overall 
viewing audience compared to a few years ago, the overwhelming number 
of consumers still want local broadcast programming. Consumer surveys 
conclude that the lack of local broadcast programming is the number one 
reason some consumers are unwilling to subscribe to satellite service.
  This conference report we are placing before the House today is 
designed to put satellite on a competitive, equal footing with cable. 
The bill provides for a compulsory license to retransmit local 
broadcast programming, and ensures carriage for local broadcast 
stations through retransmission consent/must-carry elections. The bill 
also provides consumers with the enjoyment of the benefit of distant 
signals.
  This bill is not what all the industry desires. I want to make that 
clear. Parts of our industry do not like the bill. But the bottom line 
is it is good for consumers, and that is what really matters. For C-
band users in my district and across America who have been calling, 
this bill grandfathers them. They are now legally eligible under this 
bill to receive signals they wrote and called about.
  Let me tell my colleagues some of the other good consumer things it 
does. It directs the FCC to develop a new program signal standard; that 
is, defines a better picture quality instead of the 1950 quality we 
were used to looking at and that currently exists. It gives it a year 
to do so and to come back to Congress with this new picture quality 
standard.
  It requires broadcasters to respond within 30 days to requests for 
waivers to receive distant signals, if they cannot get a good local 
signal.
  It makes it easier for consumers to either get the waiver or to take 
an eligibility test for the distant signal. And, by the way, it ensures 
that the consumer will not be required to pay for this testing.
  It directs the FCC to assist consumers in reviewing those eligibility 
disputes.
  It makes a national PBS satellite feed available nationwide to all 
satellite consumers and at a reduced copyright rate.
  It eliminates the 90-day waiting period for current cable subscribers 
who want to switch over to satellites.
  It sets the copyright rate for local signals at zero, ensuring such 
signals will be available at consumer friendly rates.
  It extends existing satellite copyright license for another 5 years, 
making sure they can get local signals.
  It cuts the copyright rates for distant network signals by as much as 
45 percent, making service to American consumers cheaper and more 
affordable.
  It even allows owners of recreation vehicles and long-haul trucks to 
be eligible to receive distant network signals in their vehicles 
through their satellite service.
  For those who have been concerned or angered by the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting sharing their donor list, worry no more. The bill 
prohibits the receipt of Federal funds to any CPB broadcast entity who 
shares their donor list, plain and simple, with any political entity.
  It also allows the contributor an added bonus. It allows an opt-out 
to make sure a name is not shared with anyone, whether affiliated or 
not affiliated.
  For those in rural America, this bill provides incentives.

  This is a good conference report. It combines the telecommunications 
provisions of H.R. 851, the Save Our Satellites Act of 1999, as 
reported, and the copyright provisions of H.R. 1027, the Satellite 
Television Improvement Act, as reported. The history of the bill can, 
therefore, be found in the applicable portions of the two reports filed 
by our two committees on these two bills.
  I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hard work of a large group of Members 
who had a role in bringing this conference report together: The 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
member; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the subcommittee 
ranking member; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) from the 
Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Illinois

[[Page H11812]]

(Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the subcommittee chairman; 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member; and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the subcommittee ranking 
member; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) from the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  This is a bipartisan, bicommittee approach to a very important 
legislative bill. If there is one bill that has to get done before we 
go home from this session, this is the must-pass bill. I am pleased we 
were able to work together to bring this compromise to the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in urban America, for a generation, we have not been 
able to take advantage of the satellite revolution. Yes, laws have been 
passed to make it possible for those that live in rural America, 
whether they have these 8-foot dishes in their back yard that would 
have required zoning variances in Boston, to be able to capture 
programming that benefits their consumers.
  In 1992, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I, out here on 
the floor, argued for better programming access so that satellite 
dishes would have better access to more programming. And that passed 
and actually gave birth to the 18-inch dish, this pizza-sized satellite 
dish, which would make it possible in urban America to put a satellite 
dish on one's home or in the back yard without having the neighbors 
protest in those densely populated communities.
  However, the problem existed for all urban consumers because they 
could not get their local TV stations on their satellite dish. So those 
who came from Boston could not get channel 4, channel 5, channel 7, 
channel 56, channel 38, channel 25, where the Bruins and the Celtics 
and the Red Sox reside. So, as a result, consumers in Boston and other 
urban areas were forced to continue to use cable as the other mechanism 
by which they could have programming other than broadcast plus 
broadcast come into their home.
  This bill changes that. This bill, for the first time, makes it 
possible for consumers in urban areas to really think seriously about 
getting a satellite dish, because for the first time they can get their 
local TV stations. They do not have to get up and start fooling with 
the rabbit ears on their TV set if they want to switch over from 
satellite to their local TV stations. They will not have to buy the 
local basic cable package if they want to get their local TV stations 
in concert with their satellite dish.
  So this local-into-local service is going to begin the revolution 
which will make it possible for urban Americans to enjoy the same video 
enjoyment which rural Americans have had access to for a generation. I 
know I am planning on considering that purchase this Christmas.
  I am, however, very disappointed that the conference committee did 
not accept the stronger House version of this provision that would have 
been more competitive, more pro-consumer, and would have ensured that 
we have telescoped the time frame fully to the point where every single 
urban American would have been able to consider immediately this new 
satellite service.
  In general, the House bill was a better bill than what the Senate 
produced or what we wound up with here at the end of the process. Late 
changes in the conference are a step in the right direction, and it 
made the bill more acceptable. And I believe that it is worthy of 
support, even though I believe Congress is giving up an excellent 
opportunity to promote greater choice and price competition, price 
competition to cable.
  I am hopeful that we can return in the next Congress and revisit 
these cable competition issues. Consumers deserve greater choice and 
they deserve greater efforts on the part of policymakers to make such 
choice ubiquitous and affordable.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has gone through the litany 
of legislative saints who played a role in bringing the bill this far, 
and I want to compliment in turn each of those that the gentleman from 
Louisiana has mentioned. This is, although not perfect, a step forward 
in bringing this technological revolution to urban Americans, and I 
hope that it can find support here on the floor this evening.
  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 am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 1554, the 
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999. 
Countless hours have been dedicated to fashioning the satellite 
provisions of this legislation, balancing the interest of our 
constituents, intellectual property owners, satellite carriers, and the 
local broadcasters. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to 
congratulate Members of both the House and the Senate for their hard 
work and dedication in bringing this legislation to fruition. Time does 
not permit me to call each Member by name, so I will just reiterate 
what my friend from Louisiana said and thank all of them who had a hand 
in contributing to the formulation of this package.
  We have spent the past 3 years working on this legislation, and I can 
say without hesitation, Mr. Speaker, that this is, indeed, a very good 
bill. The legislation will have a tremendously beneficial effect on the 
citizens of this country, whether they are subscribers to satellite 
television or not.
  We have all been concerned about a lack of competition in the 
multichannel television industry and what that means in terms of prices 
and services to our constituents. The bill gives the satellite industry 
a new copyright license with the ability to compete on a more even 
playing field, thereby giving consumers a chance.
  I have received numerous letters and calls from my constituents, as I 
am sure many of my colleagues have from theirs, distressed over their 
satellite service. Many customers claim they leave the store 
complaining 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 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 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 for 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 service for those signals. This, as my colleagues know, 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 as cable does.
  It protects existing subscribers from having their distant network 
services shut off at the end of the year, and protects all C-band 
customers from having their network service cut off entirely.
  It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of the 
Public Broadcasting Service.
  It provides an incentive for the development of a system to bring 
local signals to smaller, mostly rural areas and markets.
  It empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine the 
appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning which customers 
should be allowed to receive distant network Signals.

                              {time}  1830

  The legislation before us today is a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker. 
It is not perfect, like 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 
a distant network signal. The real winners, Mr. Speaker, are our 
constituents, the consumers.
  I urge all Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation.

[[Page H11813]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, paying due deference to all of the saints responsible 
for the bill listed by the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member, and our colleagues on 
both committees, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), this conference report has 
finally reached the floor.
  Some think it may be the signal that we will be released soon because 
this is a bill that had to go through. It represents the culmination of 
several years of debate on intellectual property issues that affect 
both consumers, broadcasters, satellite companies, domain name holders, 
and patent holders.
  The most important change the bill makes is allowing satellite 
carriers to offer local-to-local service. As we know, under current 
law, consumers may not receive local network signals along satellite 
services unless they are in a service area where local reception is 
blocked.
  By eliminating this restriction, we will allow the satellite 
companies to provide more viable competition with cable, which will 
enhance consumer choice and services. This is good.
  At the same time we are eliminating the barriers to entry by 
satellite, the bill also helps ensure that there is a level playing 
field between cable and satellite. This is good.
  Under current law, cable is subject to legal must-carry requirements, 
which ensure that they carry all local service channels. This bill 
provides for a mechanism for importing this requirement on satellite 
companies, which again will serve to broaden the choices consumers have 
in programming.
  Another important reform included in the bill includes loan 
guarantees provided for companies that want to retransmit local signals 
to rural markets. Far too much of the information revolution has passed 
by rural America. On our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) has done an excellent job in this regard and has helped the 
bill immeasurably.
  Telecommunication firms have argued that it is not economically 
feasible to offer satellite and other advanced services in these areas. 
We have done differently. The conference report will help to ensure 
that the capital exists to offer rural America access to their local 
signals.
  I urge support of the measure before us.
  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 for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my 
friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. Speaker, a provision in this legislation provides that Internet 
service providers may not avail themselves of the compulsory license 
for terrestial systems under Section 111 of the Copyright Act and 
satellite systems under Sections 119 and 122.
  I, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) believe that a wholesale exclusion from the compulsory license 
based solely on the technology used by potential licensees to 
retransmit the program may be inappropriate.
  If on-line service providers can meet the underlying requirements of 
the compulsory license, they should not be discriminated against simply 
because of the medium used.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman is committed to working 
with me, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) in addressing this concern this session.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is 
that correct?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and are in agreement to work to 
address this matter.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, without conceding any of the assumptions in 
the preface to the question of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), I would be enthusiastic about working with the gentleman on 
this issue.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce, for his remarkable work in getting this very 
important piece of legislation on the House floor tonight.
  I am particularly pleased with the bill's rural provisions, which 
include a fiscally responsible plan that will ensure that all 
customers, including medium size and small markets, will have access to 
local broadcast signals by way of satellite.
  The conference report includes a $1.25 billion Agriculture Department 
loan guarantee to help support the launch of satellite systems 
dedicated to provide television service to hundreds of rural and 
underserved markets.
  Without this plan, only the largest television markets in America 
will be able to receive local-into-local service which is authorized by 
this legislation. The cities that will be served will only be those 
with millions-of-television households.
  Even under the most optimistic local-to-local plan, it will require 2 
to 3 years to put into service, and then it will only be available in 
about 70 of the 210 television markets in the United States.
  The two largest television markets in Wyoming are Casper and 
Cheyenne. They both rank under 177. They would probably never receive 
local-into-local service without the loan guarantee provisions that are 
included in this bill.
  Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Bliley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Chairman Coble), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) for all of their hard work in getting this bill to the floor 
in a timely manner.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends and colleagues 
from Massachusetts and from Michigan for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the conference agreement and offer 
congratulations to my fellow conferees for performing well the 
challenging task of balancing a range of complex policy choices.
  The new ``satellite home viewer act'' will be good for consumers. It 
assures that millions of rural Americans who live a long way from local 
TV stations can continue to receive network signals delivered by 
satellite. It fully authorizes an entirely new satellite service for 
the benefit of TV viewers.
  For the first time, satellite companies will be able to offer not 
just national programs but also local television stations. They will 
up-link local stations to the satellite and spot beam those stations 
back into the markets of their origination.
  With this advance, satellite companies will become completely viable 
competitors for cable TV companies and will offer all of the choices 
including local programs that cable companies offer at the present 
time.
  This advance will benefit consumers by giving them a viable 
alternative to cable for multi-channel video services. It will serve as 
a competitive check on cable rates, benefiting even those viewers who 
continue to subscribe to cable television. And it will assure local 
broadcasters that, for the first time, they can reliably reach every 
viewer within their market.
  I particularly want to thank the conferees in the House and in the 
other

[[Page H11814]]

body for accepting a proposal that I made in partnership with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), to facilitate 
the offering of the new local-into-local satellite service, not just in 
the largest cities but in all 211 local television markets nationwide.
  The commercial satellite companies have announced their intention to 
offer the local-into-local service only in the largest 67 cities.
  The provision that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I 
sponsored, which is a part of this conference report, will enable the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide a loan guarantee in the 
amount of $1.25 billion to make feasible the construction, launch, and 
operation of enough satellites to provide the local-into-local service 
in all television markets nationwide, including the medium sized and 
the smaller markets that the commercial companies do not intend to 
serve.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
for his excellent efforts; and I thank other members of the conference 
for accepting this proposal. The interest of rural viewers will be well 
served by this advance, as they will by the adoption of this conference 
report. I am pleased to encourage its adoption by the House.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chair how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Roanoke Valley, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Hyde) of the Committee on the Judiciary for their outstanding work on 
this.
  This is truly a bipartisan effort. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) as well and the Committee on Commerce. This is 
a cooperative venture between two committees that have worked out this 
very fine legislation.
  But I, most especially, want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher), my colleague, for his very fine leadership on the rural 
local-into-local provisions in this bill. Because without those 
provisions, this bill would not do very much for those many, many tens 
of millions of Americans living in those smaller markets in this 
country.
  And so it is truly exciting to have the opportunity to now know that 
in the near future my constituents who are having a problem being able 
to get their local news, weather, sports, emergency information, 
community information broadcast to them by satellite so they have a 
competitive alternative to cable, or in the rural areas the only 
alternative. And to be able to get that local broadcast is truly an 
exciting part of this bill.
  But there are many other outstanding provisions, as well. That 
competition I just referred to that we will get now between satellite 
and cable in urban areas is a great development. The legislation in 
this bill dealing with cyber-squatting and cracking down on those who 
would steal other people's trademark names, as well as the patent 
provisions in this bill, are also all worth noting.
  Now, one provision has been raised that is of concern to the on-line 
service provider industry, and I want to make it clear that I strongly 
support preserving the current law on this issue. On-line service 
providers should not be precluded from competing with satellite and 
cable providers if they qualify for the same license.
  Especially important is this issue for people in rural areas to be 
able to get the choice of where they will get their programs, and 
Congress should be conscious of the unintended consequences of 
excluding an exciting new medium and the unintended consequences of 
excluding that medium.
  So I intend to work with the other Members who have worked on this 
legislation to be sure that we find another vehicle to address those 
concerns before the House adjourns for the year.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member on our 
subcommittee; and I thank him for his excellent work.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, a bill which 
is truly enormous in its scope.
  Its central purpose, of course, is to afford more American consumers 
the opportunity to view their own local stations by satellite, a 
sensible goal that I strongly endorse.
  At the same time that I endorse the competitive parity 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 important principles.
  I have made no secret in the past of my distaste for compulsory 
licenses. Yet this bill extends such a license, indeed one that has 
been massively violated by its beneficiaries, for another 5 years.
  I might just add at this particular point and for the comments of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that there is some thought that, without 
hearings, without consideration, we are going to take the copyrighted 
content of our creative communities around this country and around this 
world and all of a sudden, by legal brief or by interpretation of a 
definition enacted when no one had any idea about this dreaming 
technology, assume that now there is compulsory license for Internet 
service providers without hearings, without discussion, without 
consideration.

                              {time}  1845

  I would like to hear the compelling case for that particular move 
before this House is asked to consider it.
  On another point, I strongly supported the marketplace approach taken 
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 set at fair market value. 
Yet this conference report discounts the rate set by the Copyright 
Arbitration Royalty Panel and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia.
  Finally and unfortunately in the last few days of the conference 
committee deliberations, a provision was added, which I strongly 
oppose, which delays for 6 months the obligation of multichannel video 
programming distributors to obtain consent for the retransmission of 
the signals of television broadcast stations in their local markets.
  I look at these features of the conference report and I am struck by 
the degree to which this Congress, indeed this Republican majority, is 
imposing artificial, government-contrived impediments to the ability of 
the marketplace to determine the terms for delivery of broadcast 
signals.
  Notwithstanding all of that, I am a supporter of this conference 
report, because it does provide the competition by satellite to cable 
that is needed through the delivery of local-to-local, through the 
addition of provisions fought for by the gentleman from Virginia. And 
if the urban legislators who once this passes have multifaceted choices 
for different media, in regular, free, on-the-air television, cable and 
satellite, are not willing to help the people in rural areas at least 
have some competitive alternative, it would be a very sad day.
  I endorse the provisions of this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, up in Boston, there is one man whom we revere whose 
philosophy is instilled in each of us. His philosophy was, ``All 
politics is local.'' His name was Tip O'Neill. Tonight he would be 
saying, ``All politics is local-into-local,'' making sure you can take 
your local TV stations, beam them up to a satellite and bring them 
right back down, watch the Red Sox, watch the Bruins, watch the 
Celtics, on their local TV stations. Then you can disconnect your cable 
company if you like. If they are not coming soon enough to satisfy you 
and there is bad service, if they are putting up the rates too high for 
the limited number of

[[Page H11815]]

channels they are providing you, this option now becomes one that you 
can consider. My father used to say to me, ``Eddie, I'd disconnect 
cable in a second, but it would just be a pain to have to get up and 
flick the switch and then try to move the rabbit ears.''
  Mr. Speaker, tonight for my father and for millions like him across 
the country, this gives them the opportunity to begin to make that 
decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues tonight in support of 
the conference agreement. This legislation will significantly increase 
competition in the satellite broadcast market and provide consumers 
across the United States with cutting edge services.
  In addition, the bill offered earlier by my good friend from Virginia 
and I is now incorporated as title III in this conference report. Our 
legislation, the Cyberpiracy Prevention Act of 1999, will address the 
issue of cyberpiracy.
  Cyberpiracy is the deceptive practice of registering an Internet 
domain name using the name of an existing entity or individual for the 
purpose of commercial gain. This bill prevents cybersquatting when a 
trademark, service mark, famous name or any personal name is involved. 
Typically, cybersquatters act against registered trademarks in a 
variety of ways.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill as amended will protect the interests of the 
public mark owners and famous individuals from these fraudulent 
practices on the Internet. This bill provides legal recourse for those 
who have been exploited by cybersquatters, and extends current 
trademark protections to the world of e-commerce.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to thank my good friend, my 
subcommittee chairman, for his leadership on this. I want to commend 
the leadership of my friend from Virginia who has just done exceptional 
work. I want to commend the staffs of both parties and also the 
distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman in the other body for his 
leadership. This is a good measure. I look forward to its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to support this measure 
before us this evening, because it is going to help me answer a 
question that my constituents have been asking over and over again, 
which is why would Congress prevent local channels from being received 
by satellite dishes? I can see no reason for controlling competition in 
the way that we have done so. This measure will help bring competition 
to TV transmission.
  There is a further issue that I think is enormously important, and 
that is the inclusion of patent reform. This Congress has been on 
record several times urging and hoping that we could bring American 
patent law into the modern era. Although we are making sausage here 
tonight, maybe this by way of process is not pristine, the absolute end 
result of a good patent reform bill is well worth our support, and I am 
grateful that it has been included.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
The winner in this is the consumer.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It has been a long road, Mr. Speaker, to reach this point. We began 
in our committee probably 25 years ago with the cable revolution 
forcing telephone companies and electric companies to allow cable 
companies to put their wires on their poles. We had to pass laws 
forcing then as the cable companies got very large to force them to 
sell their programming to satellite companies so that the satellite 
companies would be able to compete against cable companies.
  Each one of these steps is part of a government plan, part of a 
bipartisan, Federal Government plan to add more competition to the 
marketplace. If it was left just to the incumbent companies, we would 
never have any additions to the video revolution. We would never have 
reached the day here where we can debate whether or not streaming 
video, America OnLine, should be part of this debate. It is only 
because we have made these tough government decisions to break down 
barriers to entry to new technologies that we are able to debate this 
tonight.
  For millions of Americans for the first time beginning this 
Christmas, they may have the opportunity of deciding just to disconnect 
their cable and to get their local television stations for the first 
time from a new place, a satellite dish, and to also have at the same 
time the freedom of having the couple of hundred channels that 
satellite offers to them. That is what makes me so excited about this 
bill. It no longer will be a rural revolution, it now becomes 
officially an urban revolution.
  Again, not all of the provisions that I wanted are in this bill. I do 
not think we are going to see the price competition which would have 
been made possible if we had made some tougher decisions, but I do 
think we are tonight taking that first step towards making urban 
Americans equal citizens with rural Americans in this satellite 
revolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report and to show my support for this legislation, 
especially with the local-into-local commitment for our rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the passage of this conference 
report.
  On behalf of the thousands of people in rural Oregon whose only clear 
reception to the world of television is via satellite, passage of this 
measure is a welcome relief.
  I would also like to commend the Committee for providing the 
resources to help bring local stations to rural areas. It would be 
unfair for the viewer in the smallest of TV markets if they were left 
behind while the satellite companies provide local to local service in 
only the largest and most lucrative markets. People in rural Oregon 
deserve to be able to watch the local news, weather and community 
service programming, provided by their community broadcasters.
  This bill is a good piece of legislation that will provide new 
alternatives, and more competition in the market place. It deserves our 
support tonight in the House.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Conference Report to H.R. 1554 
and its positive impact on consumers in the 6th District of Florida. 
This legislation restores television signals to those consumers who 
truly cannot receive their local television broadcast stations while 
also laying a framework for establishing local-into-local signals. And 
in smaller, more rural markets such as mine, it establishes loan 
guarantees to provide service in such areas.
  But I also support this Conference Report for the privacy protections 
it extends to donors of public broadcasting entities. As everyone knows 
by now, the public broadcasting stations engaged in swapping their 
donor lists with Democratic party. As a result, I introduced H.R. 2791, 
to prohibit public broadcasting stations receiving any funding through 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from making available any lists 
of their financial donors.
  Though the Commerce Committee did not have time to mark-up my 
legislation, this Conference Report extends the protections of my 
legislation to donors of public broadcasting entities by prohibiting 
any funds to a public station which swaps lists with a political entity 
or disclosed donor names without their consent.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the report.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of at least a 
provision, if not the entire conference report, because I just would 
like to talk

[[Page H11816]]

 about a provision that I know about and where I have a little bit of 
expertise, and that has to do with the American patent system.
  Part of this conference report has a very strong patent reform 
provision that has been the subject of much debate and hard work in 
this body for the last 5 years. It is a victory for the American 
inventor. We have provisions in this bill that protect American 
inventors from prepublication which was a major issue of contention. It 
protects the patent term. And it ensures a strong patent system for the 
money that is going in there. It is going to be kept in the patent 
system to strengthen it and educate the patent examiners and to make 
sure that America remains the number one technological power on this 
planet from the bottom up. There is nothing we can do from the top down 
when it comes to the great inventiveness of the American people.
  This bill contains provisions, as I say, which we worked so hard on. 
A great victory for the American inventors is contained in this 
conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to observe the pro-consumer part of this bill a 
little more carefully, because this is generally a pro-consumer bill. 
Could we have provided greater reforms in the area of retransmission 
consent? I think so. Currently, large broadcasters can enter into 
sweetheart deals with large cable and satellite companies. That is why 
I supported including strong antidiscrimination language which would 
have allowed new firms to more fairly compete against the entrenched 
monopolies. Although the final language prevents exclusive contracts, 
it could have been tougher. It could have done more to prevent 
discriminatory contracts. I think we will have to continue to watch for 
that.
  I am also a strong supporter of those provisions dealing with patent 
reform and cybersquatting. The patent provisions will help prevent the 
deceptive practices of submarine patents, extend the length of patent 
terms and provide for a more streamlined patent office and patent 
examination system. The Patent and Trademark Office is a critical cog 
in our high-tech economy, and the changes will help keep our country at 
the forefront of innovation. The cybersquatting changes will help 
prevent abusive registration of Internet domain names and ensure that 
trademark rights are respected in cyberspace.
  This is a good conference report. I encourage its support by all of 
the Members.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is the second omnibus copyright bill in as many Congresses, Mr. 
Speaker, revealing our commitment to address the challenges of the 
digital age as it involves the most important element, content. Without 
music, movies, software and books, all the machines in the world, Mr. 
Speaker, are meaningless. I am proud with my colleagues here today to 
stand up to protect property on the Internet, to help owners and 
consumers. This bill does that. This bill balances the interests 
involved. I urge support.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to conclude by congratulating my good friend the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his excellent work on this bill. We 
have worked many years on these issues.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who wanted to be here, he is in 
another conference working on a health care-related issue right now; 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), each one a saint, but I 
especially want to identify myself with the comments again of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). It would have been far better if 
we had built in language which would have ensured that 
nondiscriminatory conduct against certain satellite companies could not 
have been engaged in. It would have been preferable if we had dealt 
with that issue today. Instead, our responsibility will be to monitor 
very closely marketplace activities and to identify wherever it occurs 
actions that are meant to harm those who seek to compete in this new 
marketplace.
  Let us hope that this bill will be a success. I think each of us 
hopes that the revolution begins tonight.
  I want to start off by commending Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, and 
Chairman Tauzin, as well as Chairman Hyde, Mr. Conyers, Chairman Coble, 
and Mr. Berman from the Judiciary Committee, for bringing back to the 
floor today the conference report on the Satellite Home Viewer Act 
(SHVA). And I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and for 
the excellent work they have done in helping to bring a bipartisan, 
consensus approach to these complicated issues.
  The impetus for Congress' activity on the Satellite Home Viewer Act 
this year is two-fold. First, having deregulated cable programming 
services effective in April of this year, many members of this body 
sought ways in which to foster greater competition to incumbent cable 
systems. Second, lawmakers were responding to a series of court 
decisions that found that people were illegally selling distant network 
signals to consumers in violation of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. In 
proceeding legislatively, we have tried to remain true to two important 
communications values, namely localism and universal service. We have 
tried to balance these values even as we factor in the innovative 
changes that have occurred in satellite technology, as well as the dire 
need for greater competition to incumbent cable companies in the video 
marketplace.
  In the Commerce Committee, I offered an amendment to accelerate the 
development of so-called ``local-to-local'' service. The local-to-local 
amendment that I offered was designed to help accelerate competition to 
incumbent cable systems by authorizing a service that would permit 
satellite carriers the ability to provide consumers a video service 
that was more comparable to cable. There's no question that many 
consumers today who would otherwise have switched to satellite TV do 
not do so because they cannot effectively receive their local channels.
  This service avails a consumer of the opportunity to receive his or 
her local TV stations by way of satellite. This promotes our policy of 
localism and makes satellite service more attractive to consumers. I 
believe that local-to-local is the future of satellite broadcasting and 
that it will make satellite service more comparable to cable and I am 
very pleased that it is included in the legislation before the House.
  At a time when cable programming has been deregulated, we must work 
quickly to provide incentives for greater competition to incumbent 
cable companies and we must do so in a way that fully recognizes the 
market power that the cable industry continues to wield in the 
marketplace.
  I am very disappointed that the Conference Committee did not accept 
the stronger House version of this provision that would have been more 
competitive and more pro-consumer. In general, the House bill was a 
better bill than what the Senate produced, or what we have wound up 
with here at the end of the process. Late changes to the bill in the 
conference are a step in the right direction and have made the bill 
more acceptable. I believe that it is worthy of support, but we still 
have much work to do in order to promote greater choice and price 
competition to cable.
  I am hopeful that we can return as a Congress and revisit these cable 
competition issues. Consumers deserve greater choice and they deserve 
greater efforts on the part of policymakers to make such choice 
ubiquitous and affordable.
  Again, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, and Chairman Hyde for 
bringing this bill to the floor and for their leadership in working 
with Mr. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Coble, and 
myself as well as others on the Committee in attempting to fashion a 
consensus, bipartisan approach to this difficult issue.
  I continue to believe that newly-granted retransmission consent 
rights for both local and distant signals must have appropriate 
safeguards against potential anticompetitive activity stemming from the 
cable industry's continued market dominance. Broadcasters have a non-
marketplace safeguard built into the bill in the form of must-carry. 
Cable competitors must have similar protection against potential 
anticompetitive action because of the dominant position that incumbent 
cable companies are able to exercise. I hope that the FCC can clarify 
language in the bill as it is intended to serve consumers and our 
competition policy where it addresses the obligation for ``good faith'' 
negotiations.
  Local-to-local service however, will not reach many markets 
initially. And even the most robust business plans on the drawing board 
today do not envision extending local-to-local beyond the top 70 
markets or so. For that reason, we still need to address issues related 
to how we can supplement satellite service with the delivery of local 
TV channels

[[Page H11817]]

in those smaller, rural markets with other wireless cable, terrestrial 
wireless, or cable broadcast-only basic tier availability.

  Facilitating deployment of new technologies, such as wireless 
terrestrial service, could also advance the important priority of 
stimulating direct competitors to cable in all markets. Strong price 
and quality competition to incumbent cable systems is still woefully 
absent in today's marketplace. There are, for example, several 
companies poised to offer competition to cable through wireless 
services. One of these potential cable rivals is Northpoint Technology, 
which could provide cable services using existing equipment.
  Finally, the conference agreement requires the Commission to conduct 
a number of rulemaking proceedings related to the rights of television 
broadcast stations, such as network nonduplication. These rulemaking 
procedures shall apply to commercial and noncommercial televisions 
stations.
  Again, my congratulations to the Commerce and Judiciary Committee 
conferees. I urge support of the bill and I urge members who support 
more effective competition to incumbent cable systems to support strong 
rules at the FCC clarifying ``good faith'' negotiating obligations on 
those entities offering retransmission consent of their station's 
signal. Phone companies, cable overbuilders, and satellite operators 
need clear, pro-competition rules at the FCC and I believe the 
Commission ought to do this on an expedited basis. There's no reason to 
delay. I again urge support of the bill.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that this has been a long battle. 
I say congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Today, we see real competition for cable. We know that when cable 
faces real competition, rates can fall as much as 25 percent. Today, 
real competition; tomorrow, real choice. This is a victory for 
consumers.
  For those of my colleagues who want to read the bill, it is on the 
web site at http://clerkweb.house.gov. My colleagues can pick it up on 
the web. More importantly, Americans will soon be able to pick up local 
television off of their satellite.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, Satellite television has emerged in recent 
years as a major competitor in the multichannel video marketplace. This 
is especially so in suburban and rural regions such as Ohio's Fourth 
Congressional District. It is a development which has been welcomed by 
consumers and policy makers alike.
  The measure before us permits satellite television providers to 
deliver local broadcast channels to local viewers, bringing local news, 
sports, and weather to satellite customers. This will provide a major 
boost to satellite as a competitor to cable television.
  The legislation will provide greater consumer choice and enhanced 
price competition for multichannel video services.
  The bill also grandfathers DBS subscribers outside of the 
metropolitan Grade A contour who have had or are soon to have their 
distant network signals terminated. In addition, all owners of the 
larger, C-Band dishes are grandfathered. I strongly support the 
grandfather provisions as a matter of basic fairness for consumers.
  In addition, the measure includes an amendment I offered in 
conference committee to protect the privacy of donors to public 
broadcasting stations. As members know, a scandal erupted this summer 
when it was discovered that PBS and NPR stations around the nation had 
been swapping lists of their donors with the Democrat National 
Committee and other partisan entities.
  The amendment prohibits the sharing of lists with political 
committees and campaigns. In addition, my amendment requires that 
donors to public broadcasting stations be given the opportunity to opt-
out of any sharing of their personal data. The third-party opt-out is 
similar to the privacy amendment which I added to S. 900, Financial 
Services Modernization. I'm pleased that the conference committee has 
taken this step to protect the privacy of public broadcasting 
contributors.
  Mr Speaker, I urge support for the conference report.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the satellite 
television conference report.
  I am very pleased we are able to consider this important legislation 
that will enable satellite television users to receive network signals. 
This bill represents an important victory for consumers across the 
country.
  My constituents in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties in 
California have been heavily affected by this issue. My district is a 
rural, mountainous area, and thousands of people have turned to 
satellites as the only way to receive television signals. These people 
bought their satellites with the understanding that they would be able 
to receive national network stations. I am pleased that this bill will 
enable them to continue to do so.
  It is clear that satellite users expect--and deserve--access to all 
television signals. And most importantly, they should be able to 
receive local network stations. Local TV is in many ways our modern 
town square. Our constituents need local TV stations for complete and 
up-to-date news, weather, and information about community events. The 
local-into-local satellite broadcasting provision, which enables 
households to receive their local stations through their satellite 
package, is perhaps the most important in the bill.
  As this bill made its way through the legislative process, I was 
concerned that limited satellite technological capacity could provide 
local-into-local coverage for only the largest media markets. This 
would mean that Central Coast citizens would not be able to get their 
local TV stations through their satellites since we live in a small, 
rural market. I brought these concerns to the attention of the 
conferees and am pleased that the bill now creates a loan guarantee 
program to encourage satellite service in rural areas and smaller 
markets. This provision should ensure that all consumers will have 
access to local television through their satellite dish.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and restore fairness for 
satellite viewing customers.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
on H.R. 1554.
  Consumers will greatly benefit from the bill. They will finally be 
legally entitled to receive their local broadcast stations when they 
subscribe to satellite television service. No longer will consumers be 
required to fool with rabbit ears, or erect a huge antenna on their 
rooftop, to receive their local network stations. The satellite dish 
they buy this holiday season will be able to provide them with a one-
stop source for all their television programming.
  But the bill helps consumers in another very important way. Cable 
television prices were deregulated on April 1st of this year, despite 
the fact that effective competition to these systems was practically 
non-existent at that time. This bill now will allow satellite companies 
to compete more effectively with cable systems, and provide a real-
market check on the rates they charge consumers. If cable rates 
continue to climb, as they have done for the past several years, 
consumers will be able to fight back--they'll now have a real choice 
for their video programming service.
  Despite these benefits, it is true that in some of the smaller 
markets around the country, satellite companies will not provide local 
broadcast signals right away. This is due to technical capacity 
limitations that currently exist. In those smaller markets, consumers 
who subscribe to satellite TV will still be required to get their local 
stations over-the-air through the use of a conventional antenna.
  This raises an important question that is the subject of considerable 
debate. The question is whether these consumers can actually receive an 
acceptable picture over-the-air, through the use of an antenna. The 
House bill would have given the Federal Communications Commission 
authority to change the rules governing which consumers receive an 
acceptable picture, and which do not. Those who do not would be allowed 
to subscribe to out-of-market, or ``distant'' network signals as part 
of their satellite television service.
  Unfortunately, the House position was not adopted by the Conferees. 
Instead, the Conference Report simply requires the FCC to study this 
question and report back to Congress. A study will not help consumers 
who want satellite service, but are denied access to network 
programming. I hope that the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce 
Committee will take swift and appropriate action when that FCC report 
comes back to this body with its recommended changes. These rules need 
to be changed if we are ever going to have truly effective competition 
to cable.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Conference Report, on balance, is a 
pro-consumer, pro-competitive piece of legislation and recommend its 
approval.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference 
Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property and Communications 
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a significant achievement for the 
106th Congress. When the Committee on Commerce began its deliberations 
on this measure nearly a year ago, we established that our overarching 
objective would be to produce a bill that creates competition with 
incumbent cable operators.
  Because in the end, it is competition--and competition alone!--that 
will discipline cable operators. We tried cable rate regulation. And it 
failed--miserably.
  But now the House stands on the brink of passing a strong pro-
competition, pro-consumer bill.
  I should add that, as early as last week, this legislation was headed 
in the wrong direction.

[[Page H11818]]

The draft legislation preserved the status quo * * * rather embracing 
the future and providing meaningful competition.
  But during the last several days, several key provisions were 
included that put this legislation back on track. The Conferees 
included a provision that will jump-start local-into-local, and also 
included a provision that will permit many consumers to continue 
receiving two distant network signals.
  With the addition of these two provisions, Congress can now genuinely 
represent to consumers that they will have a choice--and soon. This 
holiday season, for the first time, consumers will be able to go into 
their local consumer electronics store and purchase a true alternative 
to cable.
  Until today, many consumers who considered buying satellite service 
decided not to buy it because satellite was missing a key ingredient: 
local broadcast channels. This legislation adds the missing ingredient. 
And every indication is that satellite subscribership will increase as 
a result.
  Moreover, by phasing in local broadcasters' retransmission consent 
rights, this bill will jump-start local-into-local service. By this 
Christmas, tens of millions of satellite consumers will have access to 
local broadcast channels. DIRECTV alone will offer local broadcast 
channels to up to 50 million homes.
  That accounts for about half of the nation's TV households. That's 
also a recipe for meaningful competition. And that's why I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this Conference Report.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the work of several of my 
colleagues on the Conference. I commend the work of Mr. Tauzin, Mr. 
Oxley, and Mr. Markey, as well as the commitment of Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Coble, and Mr. Goodlatte.
  I also want to extend a special thanks to the Chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch. He and I worked closely together these 
last few days in an effort to forge a bill that not only would be good 
for consumers, but also a bill that key industry participants could 
jointly support. I commend him for his fine work in this area.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of 
H.R. 1554, which I supported in an earlier vote on the floor. This 
conference report redefines the role of our telecommunications industry 
by establishing fair competition for those participating within this 
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 until now, been traditionally dominated by 
cable companies.
  In the past, satellite service providers, unlike their land-based 
competitors, have not been allowed to re-broadcast 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 bill rectifies this situation, by finally allowing satellite 
service 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. 
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 chose who will have the rights to 
re-broadcast their signals.
  Most of all, however, I am convinced that we are addressing a topic 
that is vital to our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank 
this bill's sponsors and those who participated in the conference on 
moving forward with this needed bill.
  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 
agree to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 1554.
  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.

                          ____________________