Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: no...@house.gov
Subject: 1998CRH1456A COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT, Part 4/4
Date: 1998/03/26
Message-ID: <1998CRH1456Ap4@us.govnews.org>
X-Deja-AN: 337928667
Approved: gov-us-fed-congress-record-modera...@us.govnews.org (GPO Gateway)
References: <1998CRH1456Ap1@us.govnews.org>
X-Content-Type: Message/Partial; number=4; total=4; id="1998CRH14...@us.govnews.org"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The House of Representatives
Newsgroups: gov.us.fed.congress.record.house


Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/1998/mar/25/1998CRH1456A/part4

[[Page H1477]]

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would hope that there 
is an understanding in general when it is background music and not 
primarily, something that is the primary business of the company that 
is playing the music.
  But there is an understanding that this helps promote, to some 
degree, the music involved with the individuals, and they are not going 
to be helped by restaurants going silent. They are not going to be 
helped by higher prices in restaurants either. That is really what I 
have a question about in this Republican controlled Congress. Are we, 
in effect, going to pass another backdoor tax increase?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, to begin, I want to answer the question posed by the 
gentleman from Indiana about whether Members of Congress who play music 
when people are on hold are paying ASCAP.
  My understanding of this bill is that you incur that obligation if 
you are charging people, that is, if you are selling them a meal. So I 
assume those Members who have charged people to call them would owe 
ASCAP money. So if you have a separate line for contributors, then you 
better talk to ASCAP.
  For those of us who do not charge our constituents to call us, I 
think we are probably not in this situation. Although I do not play 
music on my phone, I do not sing or dance for my constituents, I have 
more mundane services I try to perform for them.
  But I would say to the gentleman, if you are charging people to call 
you, then you better be in touch with BMI and ASCAP.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. A 
microphone will probably help. The gentleman will not be charged for 
using it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that it is a violation 
of Federal copyright law if one is not paying a licensing fee, whether 
or not it is for profit.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the 
gentleman is simply playing it in his office.
  Let me put it this way to the gentleman. There is a commercial nexus 
here. No, not every time one turns on the radio and someone else 
listens does one have to pay the fee. If one turns on the radio in 
one's office and people wander in to talk, one does not owe them a 
thing, and that is the point that some of the opponents I think are 
missing here.
  This is a charge for people who are charging the public to come in. 
Owners of businesses are not irrational, they do not do things 
randomly, at least not as a whole. When the owner of a restaurant plays 
music, he or she does it to enhance the attractiveness of the 
restaurant; it is part of the package of things that bring people in. 
And what we are saying is, yes, if you are going to use other people's 
work product to enhance the attractiveness of your commercial 
establishment, you should pay them something.
  I was surprised to hear this referred to as a tax. I thought a tax 
was when one collected the money for the government. I do not think 
enforcing an obligation that one private owner owes another is a tax. 
People play the music in the restaurants or elsewhere because it brings 
in more customers. If not, there would not be a problem.
  People say, well, it would cost more for the consumer. That is true. 
And if one could get one's food for free, it would be cheaper for the 
consumer. If one could get people to work for free, that would be 
cheaper for the consumer.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, there is a misperception with what the 
gentleman said, and knowing the gentleman, I know that he did not 
intend to make this mistaken statement, but he is talking about, it is 
going to be a new back-door tax increase, it is going to be a new 
expense. The gentleman was talking about a new expense.
  It is not a new expense. It is existing, it is already there. In 
fact, even this compromise language subtracts how much restaurants 
would have to pay a hundredfold.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the gentleman is correct. We are talking about enforcing the existing 
obligation, and I guess if we agreed with the gentleman, we would have 
to assume that if the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin would 
pass, restaurant prices would drop, because suddenly they would not owe 
as much.
  I do not think anyone in this building believes that.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I guess if the gentleman from Wisconsin had 
offered an amendment saying that everyone who owns a restaurant gets to 
deduct 50 percent of their lease price, the gentleman from Indiana 
would say, in a Republican-controlled Congress, we have to support that 
amendment; otherwise, we will have an unnecessary tax increase on the 
patrons of that restaurant.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the gentleman is right. We are talking about an existing obligation.
  But I want to talk about what it is all about. What we are saying is, 
if one earns money in part by playing music, then one should share some 
of that with the people whose music one is playing. There was reference 
to the fact that well, it might be played on one television on the 
local station and the network will charge in the long term; yes, 
because they want to make money off of it. Yes, the network makes money 
off the program, they sell advertising, and then the local people do 
it. This notion that there should only be one source of revenue for 
each program does not comport with reality.
  This is the principle: If one is enhancing one's own money-making 
ability, which is a good thing, by playing music and increasing the 
attractiveness of one's place, one owes some small percentage. The 
gentleman calculated that it would only be about 5 percent of income.
  Well, I do not think any of us think a 5 percent reduction in income 
is a minor or trivial matter. If we were talking about .005, maybe we 
would be in that category, but a 5 percent reduction in one's income 
seems to me a significant factor, and we ought not to be doing it.
  I want to stress one other very important point here which will cause 
problems if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. We 
spend a lot of time, overwhelmingly supported in this Congress, in 
trying to enforce American intellectual property rights overseas.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The time of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out by the gentleman from 
Florida, the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, unlike that of 
the gentleman from Florida, abolishes the doctrines of vicarious and 
contributory liability here.
  What that means is that if one is not the one who is actually playing 
the music, even if one is facilitating that in various ways through 
one's economic arrangements with them, we cannot go after them and they 
may have deep pockets.
  Here is the problem. If the United States Congress, in this, so 
substantially diminishes this notion of contributory and vicarious 
liability and exempts people who are making money by playing other 
people's music, or maybe showing other people's movies, or in other 
ways using other people's products, if we exempt them in some ways, we 
drive a hole in our efforts to enforce American intellectual property 
rights overseas that is enormous.
  Think what the People's Republic of China could do with the amendment 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin. All they would have to do is say, 
okay, we are going to take these principles that the American Congress 
has adopted; there will be no vicarious and contributory liability. If 
you catch the individual, that is fine; otherwise, no, there is

[[Page H1478]]

no liability. And if it is only incidental to some other use, there is 
going to be no liability.
  We severely threaten our ability to protect one of the major sources 
internationally by which America profits, and that is intellectual 
property.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us 
follow that a little further.
  If a company in Russia proliferates missile technology in Iran, we 
are not going to make the Russian Government responsible. They did not 
make the decision, it was just some company in Russia. It undermines 
every aspect of enforcement here when we eliminate the major inducement 
to do something to ensure the law is not violated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me 
stress that because the doctrines of contributory and vicarious 
liability are not obscure, what they say is, if one has rented the 
premises to people, and as I read the amendment, even if one has rented 
the premises and one knows what they are using them for and one knows 
there is this symptomatic effort to violate other people's rights, one 
is not at all liable.
  I ask Members to think what the People's Republic of China and other 
notorious abusers of intellectual property rights could do with these 
principles, and I guarantee the Members that if we enact these into law 
here in the United States House of Representatives, efforts by the 
United States Trade Representative or any others to enforce 
intellectual property overseas goes down the drain.
  We are talking about movies. We are talking about books. We are 
talking about music. We are talking about a number of very important 
efforts. I do not think that this is an enormous burden.
  By the way, we have heard from restaurant owners. People have said, 
well, it is a problem for appliance owners, this one, that one, 
convention centers. Nobody has heard from the convention centers of 
America complaining about this.
  What this amendment does, the underlying amendment of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is to make it very, very difficult for us 
internationally to defend our intellectual property rights. The 
gentleman from Florida has responded sensibly to the complaints of 
restaurant owners. He exempts most restaurant owners. He says, if one 
is a larger restaurant and playing this music enhances one's ability to 
make money, one will share a little with those who created it. That is 
a reasonable approach.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, about 8 or 9 months ago, 4 or 5 of us from the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property were chatting one 
night, and in the group was the late Sonny Bono. One of the Members, I 
do not recall his identity, but one of the Members said to Sonny, Bono, 
you are a restaurateur, you are a song writer. Who do you support on 
this issue?
  Sonny said, can we not support both? He said, must I reject one in 
favor of the other?
  And I said to him, amen, Sonny.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has crafted such a 
compromise, a compromise I am told that the song writers and the 
restaurateurs, neither of whom is completely ecstatic, but both of whom 
can live with.
  I have said before, Mr. Chairman, I am a friend of restaurants in my 
district. Restaurateurs speak to me frequently, and if anybody accuses 
me of trashing restaurants just because I am supporting the McCollum 
amendment, I will meet him in the back lot, because that is simply not 
the case. But restaurateurs come to me and say, this issue is 
important, but there are other issues that are far more vital to us as 
operators of restaurants than music licensing. You all get that over 
with, and there will be other issues on our agenda that we want you to 
visit before you adjourn in the fall.
  We had conducted 2 hearings on this, Mr. Chairman. Fair and open-
minded, we invited all parties who had interest in the matter to 
appear. The second hearing occurred in Washington last July. One of the 
witnesses, a tavern and restaurant owner from Mr. Sensenbrenner's home 
State of Wisconsin, in his testimony in response to a question, he 
admitted that his gross earnings for the current period were in excess 
of $400,000, and he furthermore admitted that his payment to play music 
was $500. Some of the folks almost fell out of their respective chairs 
when he announced that his gross was over $400,000, yet he was only 
required to pay $500.
  Now, I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that that gentleman typifies 
restaurant and tavern owners around the country; I am suggesting that 
he was the witness who was selected to appear by the coalition that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) represents.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, these are issues that talk about big business 
versus little business. That is not the case at all, and I tried to 
portray that earlier. I think both sides of the aisle have portrayed 
it, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, mugwumps, if there 
are any, everybody has come to the plate on this.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and also my strong 
support for the McCollum amendment.
  The Sensenbrenner amendment would be devastating to our Nation's song 
writers. Rather than deny their right to make a living, Congress should 
recognize the importance and significance of these gifted and talented 
individuals. As a Representative from Nashville, Tennessee, or as I 
might say it, Music City, USA, I am deeply concerned about this 
amendment's effort to compromise the intellectual property rights of 
our song writers and assault their ability to make a living.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment devalues the achievements and diligent 
efforts of our song writers and musicians. The property rights of any 
individual should not be considered secondary to the rights of others. 
For Congress to single out song writers would send a signal to both the 
American creative community and to the world at large that intellectual 
property no longer holds any value in the United States.
  John F. Kennedy once said,

       I look forward to an America which will reward achievement 
     in the arts as we reward achievement in business or 
     statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily 
     raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will 
     steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our 
     citizens. I look forward to an America which commands respect 
     throughout the world, not only for its strength, but for its 
     civilization as well.

  Songs are born in any number of magical and mystical ways. But what 
might appear to take 15 minutes to create often takes 15 years of hard 
work, sacrifice, dedication, practice, and persistence. We should be 
rewarding these creators and not punishing them by the Sensenbrenner 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
and support the McCollum substitute amendment in an effort to uphold 
intellectual property rights for all.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I always thought that we were 
great when we got behind Radio Free Europe and others, and I thought we 
had free radio here in the United States. It is a shame to me that we 
are even arguing over this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  The gentleman from North Carolina, when he gave his statement, 
referred to the testimony of a Peter Madland who used to be the 
President of the Tavern League of Wisconsin, talking about how big his 
place was and how much his gross income was.

                              {time}  1315

  But what the gentleman from North Carolina did not tell us, and he 
would not yield to me so I could enlighten him, is that under the 
Sensenbrenner amendment, Mr. Madland's establishment would not be 
exempt from paying ASCAP fees.

[[Page H1479]]

  He testified before the subcommittee of the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) on July 17, 1997, that he has 20,000 to 25,000 
square feet in his establishment. It is a big bar. I have never been 
there, it is in the district represented by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). But the exemption contained in both the McCollum 
amendment and the Sensenbrenner amendment goes to 3,500 square feet, 
and Mr. Madland's establishment is way over that. He does not get a 
free ride. He is going to pay the same ASCAP fee as he has paid before 
because he has a big establishment.
  For the gentleman from North Carolina, having presided over the 
hearing where Mr. Madland testified on how big his establishment is, to 
make a representation that this major operator was going to get a free 
ride I think is regrettable.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  I want to formally apologize to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman, in the heat of debate we become 
embroiled, and I should have yielded to him. But I assume, I would ask 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), that he is not 
suggesting that my testimony was inaccurate, or is he?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman from Texas will yield to me, Mr. 
Chairman, absolutely not. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 
might have forgotten that Mr. Madland testified on how big his 
establishment is, and might not have made the connection with the 
exemption contained in the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  I am just here to inform the gentleman from North Carolina that Mr. 
Madland would not be exempt, and representations that the operator of 
that big an establishment, whether it is in Chetek, Wisconsin, or 
anyplace else in the country, would be exempt, that person simply has 
not read what is in the text of the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Mr. Madland pays, and anybody else that has that big an establishment 
would pay under my amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
just wanted to apologize to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and to the Members. I should have yielded, but we are 
embroiled in this, and for that purpose, Mr. Chairman, I want to get 
that on the record.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a couple of issues that have been 
brought up. The first has to do with what a good friend of mine, the 
gentleman from Indiana, talked about. He talked about the back-door tax 
increase. Again I want to reiterate to my friends who may be listening 
to this, this is a red herring. It is not a back-door tax increase. It 
is one small business owner paying another small business owner for 
their property, for using their property.
  Secondly, there will be no increase in payments. This is talking 
about an existing payment that has to be done.
  He also talked about the phone system. I think it is very important 
to realize, we talked about incidental use, or we talked about using 
music to enhance business, to make more money. There are marketing 
firms out there that actually get paid to tell dentists what type of 
music to play on their phone systems. I know, because I have a father-
in-law who is a dentist. There are marketing firms who pay people to 
tell law firms what type of music to play on their phone systems to 
help them lure more business, more money.
  It is a means, music is a means to make more money. I think it is 
unconscionable that all these people that have stormed Capitol Hill in 
the name of property rights in 1994, just 4 years later want to take 
away property rights from others, when it is clear that this property 
is being used to make a profit.
  I wonder if these bar and tavern owners that are so offended about 
five different entities actually using the same property to make money 
would be that offended when they charge five people to come into their 
restaurant to use the same property, or 500 people? Or how about the 
Titanic? If we have theater owners who allow people to see the Titanic 
four or five times, do they pay once and get a free pass for the other 
four times they see it? Absolutely not. This is ridiculous. They are 
red herrings.
  Unfortunately, a process was set up where reasoned people could get 
together, could compromise, and regrettably, one party did not want to 
compromise.
  We have heard, talking about apologies on the floor, we have heard 
the McCollum amendment called ``a sham,'' when most reasoned people 
have said that the McCollum amendment was where the two parties were 
going before one party went aside.
  We also heard somebody talked about property rights for songwriters 
being ``a scam.'' That is not the case. We have also heard people 
parade up to the microphone saying they have to go to New York, they 
have to hire a god-awful New York attorney. That is not the case 
anymore. The McCollum amendment makes sure that we have boards go 
throughout the land.
  For those people to suggest that we set up an arbitration system with 
absolutely no oversight whatsoever, we are talking about a wild, wild 
West judicial system with no oversight, with no guidance, and would 
lead to the most bizarre, inconsistent, crazy results. It is dangerous.
  I hear people coming up to the microphone saying, well, there is no 
such thing as a free lunch. Yet, they turn around and advocate an 
amendment that provides a free lunch. We hear people coming up talking 
about how the small restaurants will be hurt.
  Let me tell the Members, again, it needs to be reiterated, CRS has 
estimated a 406 percent increase in restaurants exempted under this 
provision. There is 406 percent of restaurants that will be exempted 
under this provision. Only the largest restaurants will pay any fee. 
The average paid is $30 a month, $30 a month.
  When I hear people come up talking about how this is going to be 
crushing to small business, it is laughable. Small business is using 
this property to make a profit. I am a capitalist, I am a supporter of 
small business. I talk to the restaurant owners, I talk to the 
restaurant owners that elected me, talk to the people that I fought 
against the minimum wage for, talk to the people that I fought for to 
eradicate the capital gains tax.
  I believe in free enterprise. I believe in the free market system, 
and I believe that if somebody has a product that helps somebody else 
make money, then I am all for it. Get it out in the marketplace. But 
let us forget this free market concept. Let us support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and let us make 
sure people get paid fairly for their property rights.
  Let us make sure we do not send the wrong message to China. China 
feels very, very free in taking our property rights, be it CDs or 
software. I do not hear anybody here saying Microsoft should only 
charge once for their program. I have yet to hear one person say that. 
Yet, it is the same concept. If you can copy a Microsoft program over 
and over and over again without paying Microsoft, what is the 
difference there? It is the same exact thing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Scarborough was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I ask my conservative brethren that 
came here in 1994 fighting for property rights, if they were to fight 
for Bill Gates' right to make sure that he protects what is his to 
protect, then we do the same thing for the small, struggling 
songwriter.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He 
has eloquently expressed where we are at this point.
  I just wanted the gentleman to yield to bring out the fact that we 
are near the end of this debate, we may have one or two more speakers. 
The bottom line is that what I am offering truly is

[[Page H1480]]

a compromise. I would like to make the point, and drive it home, that a 
great many restaurants are going to be exempted by my amendment. We 
have already talked about a 400 percent increase over the current law.
  These folks have been paying, restaurants have been paying these 
royalties, these fees for years. This is nothing new. We are talking 
about exempting 75 or 80 percent of those restaurants. I think probably 
it will be even more, because in this amendment we bumped up from what 
the negotiated status was, which is what I am trying to offer, pretty 
much, here; we bumped up the number of television sets you can have in 
a restaurant that get you exempted, no matter what your square footage 
is, to four. If you have six speakers in the restaurant you are 
exempted, no matter what your square footage is, how big you are. I 
think that takes care of anything but really big restaurants.
  So I do not know what the squabble is about. We need to pass a 
copyright extension bill, we need to get this debate passed, and we 
need to do what the gentleman has suggested, and that is protect the 
property rights interests of both the small business restaurateur and 
the small business songwriter. Adopting the McCollum amendment 
substitute to Sensenbrenner will do that. His will not do that. It is 
not fair. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment.
  I am reminded by the remark the gentleman from California said a few 
minutes ago, that a lot of people would be absolutely shocked that they 
would be coming to the floor voting for legislation such as the 
gentleman's, an amendment such as that of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum), because we have compromised so much, and yet we are 
still told that is enough.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, on the international side, 
people have said the restaurant owners should not have to pay because 
someone has already paid for this once, the national TV, et cetera.
  Put that doctrine in the hands of the Chinese or others overseas and 
you say to them, okay, as long as something was once paid for in 
America, this book, this movie, this recording, this CD, then I can 
sell it without paying the owner, and you have destroyed our capacity 
to defend American intellectual property overseas.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. It would be absolutely devastating to the computer 
industry, the software industry. It is a dangerous, dangerous 
precedent.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of 
this issue. Let me just take a quick moment to try to summarize where 
we are, please.
  The main bill that we are debating today is the Copyright Extension 
Act. What that does is extend the copyrights for music and film in this 
country to the same level of other countries around the world. If we do 
not do this, then the United States is going to lose hundreds of 
millions of dollars in revenue from other countries that should come in 
to the United States.
  That is very reasonable, and I think most everybody agrees with that. 
But then, unfortunately, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has taken this noncontroversial bill and added a 
completely unrelated, very controversial amendment.
  What the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) basically says is that unlike the present and the past, 
that restaurants and bars should not have to pay for the music or the 
royalties for the music that they play in their establishments, which 
amounts to just a little over $1.50 a day.
  It really is somewhat amazing that the gentleman from Wisconsin, who 
is a strong property rights advocate, it is really ironic, he would 
never say that these same bars and restaurants should not have to pay 
the supplier for the chairs and tables, for the paint on the walls, for 
the chandeliers, or for anything else that helps them make the 
atmosphere for that particular restaurant or bar. However, for some 
reason they should not have to pay $1.50 a day for the music, knowing 
that if this $1.50 is not worthwhile, if the music does not enhance 
their establishment, they can turn it off. Nobody is telling them they 
have to play it. Only that they need to pay for it if they use it, like 
the tables and chairs.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has come 
along and introduced an amendment to that of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a compromise, and is trying to bring 
some rationality to this issue. He is, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), exempting the smallest bars and restaurants in the country; 
as a matter of fact, two-thirds of the restaurants and bars in the 
country, which is a very reasonable amendment. Because we have to 
remember, if the songwriters are not paid, they cannot produce the 
songs, and when they do not produce the songs, the music is going to 
stop.
  I would like to share with the Members a song that one of the 
songwriters back home has written about this issue. I say to my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am going to spare 
him me singing this, so I am going to read it here for the gentleman.
  It is ``Dear, dear, U.S. Congress:
  ``Some merchants want to use my song, but they don't want to pay me, 
and I think that is wrong. How would you like to have a job where you 
work hard every day, you love what you are doing, but you don't get any 
pay? I can't give away my songs for free 'cause this is the way I feed 
me and my family. And if you merchants disagree, that's fine. Go write 
your own songs, just don't use mine.''
  Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask the Members today to keep the music. Do 
not stop the music from coming forward. I support a very reasonable 
compromise offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) to keep 
the music for all America.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a debate that involves small business, and I 
think all of us who believe in the American way and in driving the 
American economy understand that small business is the backbone of that 
culture that drives the American economy.
  Too often this Congress dumps on them: more regulations, higher 
mandated wages, taxes that are too high. So we have people, for 
example, that are running small restaurants in this country that are 
asking us not to dump on them one more time.

                              {time}  1330

  In my hometown of San Antonio, small businesses and restaurants are 
at the forefront of job creation and economic opportunity. Anyone who 
has visited San Antonio and the River Walk know how these small 
businesses enhance my town's premier tourist attraction.
  These businesses cannot afford in many cases any more ruinous fees. 
This amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), which I am supporting, provides a reasonable compromise 
to protect jobs while protecting the copyrights of artists.
  Simply put, the Sensenbrenner amendment makes needed changes in 
Federal law by providing for local arbitration of music licensing fee 
disputes. Small businesses will no longer be forced to travel across 
the country to New York to make their case. They could not afford to do 
that anyway. Today's small business has no local recourse. This is a 
more than reasonable compromise the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
offering in his amendment.
  The amendment does not fully exempt businesses from paying royalties 
or change existing penalties. It merely recognizes that changing 
technology makes some of the current fees unfair and represents a 
double charge for licensing.
  Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored H.R. 789, the Fairness in Music Licensing 
Act, because I believe it represents a responsibility compromise. I 
urge my colleagues to please join me in voting for the Sensenbrenner 
amendment, which will help ensure that small business remains the 
engine driving our economy.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H1481]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose strongly the Sensenbrenner amendment 
and to support the McCollum amendment to the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  The Sensenbrenner amendment would be essentially a license for 
restaurants, taverns, and other establishments to use songwriters' work 
product, their property, without paying for it. It would be a license 
to steal from America's creative community and, therefore, I must 
oppose it vigorously.
  The late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that, ``It is true that 
the music is not the sole object, but neither is the food,'' referring 
to a restaurant.

       The object is the repast and surroundings that give 
     luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. 
     If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays 
     or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is 
     enough.

  Mr. Chairman, several people have said, and I will say it for myself, 
that I never thought I would come before the House, advocating support 
of an amendment that would exempt an establishment as large as 3,500 
square feet. The McCollum amendment, frankly, I think goes far too far. 
But it is acceptable to the songwriters. I do not think they are 
getting as fair a deal as they ought out of it, but I will support it 
as the best we can get.
  Mr. Chairman, I looked at this issue very carefully when I was a 
member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and I remember coming to several 
conclusions after hearing from both sides. The first conclusion is the 
question of equity. Ninety percent of songwriters make less than 
$10,000 a year. Many make more, but are still struggling. The average 
restaurant pays $400 to $450 a year for songwriter fees. The average 
income of the restaurant makes that a small proportion, a very small 
proportion, and yet for the songwriters it is very important. So as a 
matter of equity, when something is very important for one side as a 
percentage of their income and very small for the other, it makes sense 
to go with the side that we would really hurt if we went the other way.
  Second of all, and here I fail to see how some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle can even think of supporting this amendment, we 
are talking here about private property. We are talking about private 
arrangements between one group of property owners, the songwriters who 
own the songs that they have produced, and another group of property 
owners, the restaurant owners who want to purchase the use of those 
songs.
  I am not a total believer in the efficacy of the free market in all 
circumstances, unlike some of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle. But I do believe that before the government should come in and 
pass a law dictating the terms of an arrangement between property 
owners, before we should come in and say some can use that music for 
free and some must pay, there has got to be a very, very strong showing 
of the public policy necessity. There has got to be a showing of why 
the free market and private negotiations cannot work its will to the 
best interest of the economy and the people of the country, as it 
usually does. One has to make a showing why the free market cannot work 
in a situation before we ask for government regulation.
  What do we have here? We have some people coming in, some people who 
are normally great supporters of private property rights and against 
regulation and, based on nothing at all, saying let us dictate the 
terms of the arrangement and say to the restaurant owners they can use 
the other people's property for free.
  Why? What is the necessity? Why do we not trust the market to work 
this out? Why do we not trust the songwriters and the restaurants to 
negotiate deals as they have for the last, I do not know, 70 or 80 
years?
  I see no reason. We hear that here it is a question of secondary use; 
that they have already paid once for it. Well, so what? So what? I 
would not be permitted, none of us would be permitted to purchase a CD 
or a tape of a movie, purchase it, go in and pay $15 for a tape of a 
movie, and then going go to my machine and making a lot of tapes of it 
and selling those. None of us would be permitted to do that. We are 
using that property, and it is exactly the same thing.
  So on these grounds I do not see why we should pass any amendment at 
all on the subject. I will reluctantly go along with the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) as a reasonable 
compromise, and certainly more reasonable than an attempt, frankly, to 
appropriate the songwriters' property for free, for the benefit of 
restaurant owners.
  Mr. Chairman, I love restaurant owners. I have plenty of them in my 
district. But they are not entitled to the free use of other people's 
property. Period. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Sensenbrenner 
amendment and support the McCollum amendment to the Sensenbrenner 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but I rise in support of the 
McCollum-Conyers substitute and in opposition to the Sensenbrenner 
amendment.
  I want to address two issues quickly. Number one, I do not think this 
is an issue of big business against small business or a small business 
issue. It seems to me that restaurants are small businesses, but music 
writers are also small businesses. So either way we vote on this, we 
are going to be trying to support, as all of us I believe do, small 
business in this country.
  The second is an argument that I have heard a number of restaurant 
owners advance from time to time that music is just background music, 
and we ought not be obligated to pay for it, even though we are using 
somebody else's work product. And my typical response to that is, if 
what they are saying is true, if this is of no benefit to their 
company, if this is truly background music, cut it off. And if they cut 
it off, then nobody obligates them to pay for the use of it.
  So I just think, as a matter of fairness and equity, that a person 
who has written a song and dealt with that song and put it in the 
stream of our intellectual property ought to be compensated for the use 
of it. And I think the McCollum amendment represents a reasonable 
approach to it. I have some concerns about it also, but I will support 
that substitute and vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) for his remarks and support him in his support of the 
McCollum-Conyers amendment. I think the gentleman hit the nail on the 
head when he talked about that these are small businesspeople, all of 
the folks who write songs, who write music for a living. This is an 
important work. It brings great joy and great dignity to our society. 
They pour their heart and soul into their work.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just finishing a book called Lush Life, the story 
of Billy Strayhorn, one of the great song people of our time. And 
reading that gives a sense of the dignity and the tough work, but the 
joyous work of these individuals. And it just seems to me that they 
need as much protection as the folks who own the bars and the 
restaurants and all the other facilities that we have talked about.
  So I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his 
comments and his remarks, and I hope that we will adopt the McCollum-
Conyers amendment this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the 
Chair announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the 
period of time within which a recorded vote may be taken without 
intervening business on the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 259, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H1482]]

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               AYES--150

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Callahan
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Yates

                               NOES--259

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rothman
     Royce
     Schiff
     Stark
     Waters

                              {time}  1400

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McDermott for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  Messrs. SMITH of Texas, HULSHOF, DICKS, FOX of Pennsylvania, PICKETT, 
THOMPSON, BATEMAN, COX of California, CUMMINGS, BERRY, Ms. STABENOW, 
Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. UPTON and Mr. FARR of California changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MOAKLEY, SHAYS, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. STOKES, Mr. RUSH, 
Mrs. MORELLA, and Mr. HINCHEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 297, 
noes 112, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--297

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt

[[Page H1483]]


     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--112

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rothman
     Royce
     Schiff
     Stark
     Waters

                             {time}   1414

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Kleczka for, with Mr. McDermott against.

  Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. FORBES and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on Rollcall Nos. 68 and 69, I was 
unavoidably detained on other business and unable to be present in the 
House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 68 
and ``yes'' on No. 69, respectively.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other 
amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gibbons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2589) to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with 
respect to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 390, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/