Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009.'' This Act will authorize the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of Justice.

Whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, I believe we should have strong and vigorous oversight of the Department of Justice. At present, however, the Department of Justice Inspector General is limited in his ability to investigate allegations of misconduct. Instead, present law, to the surprise of many, requires that all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys be investigated not by the Inspector General, but by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility.

In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General. It is absolutely contrary to human experience to believe that the counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility can aggressively and independently investigate high level officials in the department when the Attorney General himself has authority over such investigation.

This limitation on authority does not exist for any other Inspector General of other agencies. Accordingly, the Department's Inspector General should have the same power Inspector Generals have throughout the government to investigate any and all allegations of wrongdoing that arise in their department.

In the last Congress, I offered this provision as an Amendment to H.R. 924, the Improving Government Accountability Act. It passed the House, however, it was stripped from the final Bill when the measure went to the Senate. I am introducing this legislation again today because I believe that transparency and vigorous oversight are essential to maintain the checks and balances of our constitutional system.

As documented in my recently released report, ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,'' there was serious misconduct on the part of Department of Justice attorneys, including alleged misconduct by high level politically appointed attorneys, in connection with hiring attorneys for the Civil Rights Division or in other components of the Department. However, due to the unique limitations on his power, it was difficult for the Inspector General to fully investigate these allegations. I certainly trust those sorts of abuses are unlikely to recur in this Administration.

This legislation will help prevent future abuses and politicization of the Department of Justice by improving the Inspector General's tools to effectively carry out his mission. Such vigorous oversight is a matter of good government, regardless of the political party in power.

Madam Speaker, on October 14, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 775 through 779. Had I been present, I would have casted a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 768, Expressing support for the designation of the month of October as ``National Work and Family Month''; H.R. 1327, Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009; H. Res. 816, Mourning the loss of life caused by the earthquakes and tsunamis that

occurred on September 29, 2009 in American Samoa and Samoa; H.R. 3371, Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 and H. Res. 786, Commemorating the canonization of Father Damien de Veuster, SS.CC. to sainthood.

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 788 and 789. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``nay'' vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 2442 and I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, on October 13, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 772 and 773. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3689. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote on final passage of H.R. 3476.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act. While this legislation addresses many important defense related matters, such as military readiness and pay raises for our troops. It also includes other provisions like reform of the Federal Employee Retirement System. Most important, from the perspective of my Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee and as author of the House legislation, it also touches on the issue of hate crimes by including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Some have objected loudly to the inclusion of hate crimes legislation in a defense authorization bill. However, hate crimes legislation is of critical importance to this nation and has passed with broad bipartisan support in the House for the last three (3) Congresses, only to fail in the other body by being stripped out at Conference. I hope that this year is different.

As the names in the title of this provision demonstrate, hate crimes are a blight on this nation. Despite what some would claim, the number of hate crimes each year demonstrate that federal action is crucial to bringing these offenses under control. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 118,000 hate crimes. In the year 2007, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed against an individual because of their personal characteristics. These offenses range from assaults to murder.

This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement and amend federal law to streamline the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It is important to note that states will retain primary responsibility for prosecuting these offenses, but with aid of the Federal government.

In the cases of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard local prosecutors acknowledge the crucial role of federal investigative assistance in obtaining prosecutions. In the Shepard case in particular, the local officials could have used a key provision of the bill to help defray the costs of the prosecutions and thus avoid the furlough of law enforcement personnel.

The key element of the bill is its expansion of federal jurisdiction to cover crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. I believe that the expansion of jurisdiction to cover additional groups is the key issue to those opposing this legislation. After all, our first hate crimes statute was enacted in 1968 and there has been no move to repeal that law (18 U.S.C.A. Section 245).

At the core of this bill is its protection of First Amendment rights, while protecting communities from bias-based violence. The bill contains a provision that protects the First Amendment rights of the accused at trial and provisions that protect freedom of speech and conduct generally. Despite argument to the contrary, no person can be prosecuted under this act for mere speech or belief. This legislation sanctions violent conduct and the Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

These hate crimes prevention provisions are supported by a long list of groups (more than 300), including law enforcement groups, religious groups, civil rights groups, disability groups, and numerous other organizations. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community.

After more than a decade, it is time to send hate crimes legislation to the President.

While I strongly support certain provisions of the bill, I remain concerned about the military commission system despite the reforms that are included in Title XVIII of the Conference Report. Those changes undoubtedly improve existing law in several important ways. For example, the bill prohibits the admission of statements that have been obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation methods. It also expands the scope of appellate review of military commission trial decisions to allow the reviewing court to consider issues of fact as well as law. Congress previously restricted all appeals to issues of law only, an unprecedented departure from how our existing military justice and Article III courts operate. So these changes are positive. In many respects, however, the reforms simply do not go far enough. Several recommendations made by the Judiciary Committee--including a sunset provision for the law, limiting the use of military commissions for trial of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; requiring a voluntariness standard for all statements; adopting a different appeals structure; and prohibiting the trial of child soldiers in military commissions--should also have been adopted.

In July, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held two hearings on military commissions and possible reforms. Though I voted against the Military Commission Act of 2006, I participated in those hearings with an open mind to determine why military commissions are necessary and whether we can create a system that complies with our laws and our Constitution. After hearing from several witnesses, including representatives from the Departments of Justice and Defense, I am not convinced that we need military commissions or that, even with these reforms, the military commission system is lawful. The last administration seemed to believe that military commissions were desirable because they made it easier to obtain convictions, regardless of the evidence. President Obama has assured us that he seeks a system that is fair, legitimate, and effective. We have just that in our existing Article III courts and courts-martial system. Our efforts to create an alternative system already have proven unwise and unconstitutional. We should work toward retiring, not reforming, this system. In the meantime, however, I cannot in good conscience oppose changes that will improve the existing system.

I urge a vote in support of the rule.

I am so glad we are doing this, and I am glad to be with both of you.

Dr. McDermott has been working on this for so long, and he brings a clear voice of experience, not congressional but medical. That's what makes this so important. Of course you, Mr. Ellison, are a young person who has jumped into this in a way that makes me very proud that you grew up in Detroit, probably in my district.

I have something that just came in from the 14th Congressional District in northwest Detroit.

We had an examination of how many seniors in my congressional district hit the doughnut hole in the bill, the current legislation. There were 5,400 seniors that were forced when they hit that doughnut hole to pay their full drug costs, despite the fact that they had part D medical coverage.

And the current bill before us that we are working on, H.R. 3200, it would cut brand-name drug costs in the doughnut hole by half and ultimately eliminate the doughnut hole. That is very important, especially in this day and age.

We found that there were 2,230 health care related bankruptcies in my congressional district alone. At our next Special Order, I am going to have these same numbers for the whole State of Michigan. So 2,230 people in the 14th Congressional District had to go into bankruptcy court in the year of 2008, primarily caused by the costs of health care not covered by their insurance.

In 2008, health care providers in the district were provided $31 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and who were unable to pay their bills.

How many people don't have insurance, my colleagues, in the 14th District, have no health care coverage at all. This is last year's figures, which have undoubtedly gone up since 2008: 1,300 people in my district are uninsured. How many are uninsured, my colleagues, in your districts? That is 17 percent of all of the people in the district that are uninsured, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of all Americans will have insurance coverage if H.R. 3200 takes effect.

Now, if this benchmark is reached in the district, 85,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. There is another factor I would like to introduce. I haven't discussed it with you, but this as good a time as any to do it.

There is a stress factor coming into this whole discussion of health coverage in America because of all of the people that are losing their jobs, especially in Michigan and Ohio, industrial States that are hit the hardest. We have the highest unemployment rates. But there is something else that kicks in. When you lose your job, you, of course, lose your income; and, frequently, if you have a mortgage payment, you could end up losing your house.

One of the things, Dr. McDermott, I was in a shelter in midtown Detroit off Woodward Avenue at Peterboro, and both of you have been there. I went into the shelter in the morning, and they were having breakfast. I was astounded by this one visual picture I got. These were not people that were

homeless, wandering around or were disheveled. These were well-dressed people being fed in a shelter who had just recently lost everything. When you get hit, you lose your house, your car, your job, your insurance, your pension. So you come into a shelter, you're dressed like we are, but you don't have anywhere to eat, you don't have anywhere to stay. I have never experienced that phenomenon before in my life.

One other factor that is up to date and in real-time is that with all the people suffering under this economic--well, it's called a severe recession, but I call it a depression--there are people now that are working who have jobs, who have health insurance, but there is a little something beginning to bother them: Maybe this could happen to me too. We all know people who were going along quite well; and all of a sudden their company announced at 3 p.m. on Friday that, You don't have to come back anymore, or, We're closing down in 2 weeks. Sorry about that. We can't explain it now, but this is it.

There are people now--and you may be able to comment on the stress factor--there are people that are working. Nobody said they were going to close their job down. Nobody has heard any rumors about anything. But they can't help but think about all the other people that were going along smoothly, and they lost their jobs. People are beginning to worry about the fact that--I know it's not me. I know I'm working. I know I've got insurance, but it could be me next month. It could be me in December. It could be me in January. What about that?

But, Dr. McDermott, I'm talking about the people that didn't lose their jobs, income and health insurance. I'm talking about the folks that are working, and they know about that. They can't help but think, That could happen to me. I don't know what you call this, but you start another stressful situation from that. There is nothing happening to them, but it's happening to people around them. It happens, like these people that I saw in this shelter in Detroit, where if we weren't in a shelter, they would be people I would expect to see at Starbucks.

Well, when you say 130 percent increase, that's more than double, isn't it?

A 100 percent increase would be double. A 130 percent increase is one and a third more than what they're paying. Is this an annual increase rate?

Oh, I see. It's a period of over 10 years. What it's saying to me is that these folks don't have any option of changing insurances or doing anything. What are their alternatives? If you don't pay, where are you going? Is there some private insurance company offering a lower premium? Can we call up insurance companies and say, My insurance has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and I want out. What happens then?

Will the gentleman yield?

More and more Members of the Congress are coming on our universal single-payer health care bill. I'm very pleased about that.

The judiciary, one of the subcommittees, we had a hearing about this McCarran-Ferguson bill that exempts from antitrust obligation insurance companies, and health insurance companies in particular. And I received a letter, a nice letter, from the CEO of the America's Health Insurance Plans. Her name is Ms. Karen Ignagni, and she sent us a nice letter back. She declined to be a witness. That's a subject we'll probably pursue later on.

But I just checked in my little file of health insurance executive compensation, and this is public information, so I don't think she'd be offended by my discussing it here on the floor. Ms. Ignagni earns $1.580 million in compensation, but her base salary was $700,000. This was from 2007 filings. But she did also receive $170,000 in deferred compensation and a bonus. She probably works very long hours, and we concede that.

But we looked at others that we want to talk with, another person that we are beginning to be in negotiations with. We have to, all of us, come around the table and discuss these matters.

Let's take Aetna; one of the biggest, I presume. Its distinguished chairman and CEO is Mr. Ron Williams. Mr. Williams, I don't know what it is he does, but his income is $24,300,112 per year. Now, he's got some heavy responsibilities. Do you know how much more money he makes than the President of the United States?

Look, capitalism, a love story, I'm for capitalism. He earned a total of $24 million plus for compensation in 2008 with more than half of that, $13.5 million, coming from stock option awards. I don't know how that works. He also received $6.4 million in stock awards to go along with his base salary, which was only $1 million plus. But, in addition, he has the personal use of corporate aircraft plus a land vehicle as well as financial planning and a 401(k) company matches, adding up to another $101,000 plus for Mr. Ron Williams.

Now, I sent out a friendly invitation for the head of Aetna to come before my committee to discuss the incredibly important decisions involved in reforming health care in America. Here is a person who has a lot of experience in the subject matters that are being debated in three committees in the House, two committees in the Senate, and heaven only knows how many of the people in the White House are working on this. K Street, we know, is fully occupied in this matter. We need to talk.

What about CIGNA? That's another big company. Its CEO, unfortunately he only makes half of what the CEO of Aetna earns. Maybe he's not as efficient or maybe he doesn't produce. I don't know what it is.

But would anybody object if we invited these folks in to discuss this? I mean, we have the unemployed. Our colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee is going to have people coming in Tuesday at 5 o'clock next week to tell their problems. These are people that not only don't have income but they have huge debts.

But I want to go from the other end of this, Mr. Ellison. I sympathize with all those that are suffering, but I want to try to understand--I've got to comprehend the view from the top with those who are not unemployed, who are not marginal, who are not lower income, not middle income. They're wealthy. So we have to extend these conversations both ways.

What about the chairman and the CEO of CIGNA, $12.2 million annual income? What about WellPoint, Ms. Angela Braly, its president and CEO, $9.8 million every year? What about Coventry Health Care, President Dale Wolf, another $9 million? Centene Insurance Chairman Michael Neidorff, $8.7 million; James Carlson, chairman of AMERIGROUP, $5.2 million; Humana's President Michael McCallister, $4.7 million; Mr. Jay Gellert, the distinguished president of Health Net, $4.4 million; Universal American, Chairman Richard Barasch, $3.5 million; Stephen Hemsley, UnitedHealth Group, president and CEO, $3.2 million.

I want to get the picture from the top. They could explain to us and maybe put into more perspective why there's such a maldistribution of health care to everybody, because these are health insurance companies. If they don't know--I mean, they have a lot to tell us, and I would like to hear them in their own way and in their own words explain this situation, because we've got big decisions to make.

We don't just represent the poor and the left out and the marginal; we represent the whole country. When I cast a vote in the House of Representatives, it's from my district that they sent me, but the vote applies to everybody in the United States of America, all 350

million people, including the upper 1 percent of income earners especially in health care.

But they make the policy. I'm not a work inspector that wants to know how many hours they worked or what they did, but they make the decisions that lead us to be here, the whole Congress, two committees in the Senate, three committees in the House. We have caucuses every single day. Talk to me, somebody. If I'm going to be working on something this enormous, a multitrillion dollar decision, the people that have been making the decisions all these years, they have got to send me some letters.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I don't claim them to be voices of opposition. I don't know what their position is.

I just want to find out.

And I offer the hand of cordial exchange of views that we always do in the Judiciary Committee, and that is can we talk. Let's see where we have areas of agreement and where we have areas of disagreement. That's how the legislative process works. And then get all of the facts out on the table and decide what form and shape health care reform is going to take.

I can't predict it now. If somebody asked me to tell them what a strong public option is--I've never seen a public option in my life. I don't know what it is. I know that it's an alternative to the 1,300 private insurance companies, that every industrial company has at least one or more public options. But what its precise characteristics are, nobody's ever handed me a sheet of paper and said, This is a public option.

Could we have friendly CEOs of health insurance companies join us at that hearing? Would they be invited too?

I just want to close the debate hoping that one of the dozen presidents of the health insurance companies will join us--maybe all of them or as many as schedules will permit. What I want them to know is that they've never said that they didn't care about the 47 million people who aren't insured.

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2009, I regret that I was not present for the following vote:

On the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question for the Rule on the Conference Report on H.R. 2997. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and service of General Casimir Pulaski, who gave his life on October 11, 1779, to the cause of American independence. General Pulaski, born in Warsaw, Poland, on March 6, 1745, arrived in Philadelphia in 1777, where he met General George Washington and made the heroic decision to support the colonies through the American Revolution. Through subsequent battles, General

Pulaski distinguished himself as a relentless, courageous, and unwavering leader towards the fight for our Nation's independence.

The life and valor of General Pulaski is celebrated with great pride back in my home district of Michigan. A statue of General Pulaski was erected in 1966 at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Washington Boulevard in Detroit, a mere block and a half from my District office, as a gift from the large Polish-American population in the Metropolitan Detroit area. This community is one of many that together contribute to the richness and diversity of my home district, and that of this great Nation.

Even before America was a Nation, General Pulaski exhibited two traits that Americans still embody today: self-sacrifice and fighting for a cause greater than oneself. It is with great honor that I rise to express my support for House Joint Resolution 26, which will proclaim General Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, on September 29, due to personal reasons, I was unable to cast the three votes that were called on that day. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 740 (H.R. 905); 741 (H. Res. 16) and 742 (H.R. 2997).

Madam Speaker, on September 30th, due to personal reasons, I was unable to cast the three votes that were called on that day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 743 (H.R. 2442); 744 (H.R. 1771) and 745 (H.R. 1053).

Mr. Speaker, on September 24, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes:

On the passage of H. Res. 766, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the passage of H. Con. Res. 163, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of my fellow jazz enthusiast, Jimmy Cobb. Born in Washington, D.C. in 1929, Jimmy has for more than fifty years moved audiences with his recordings and live performances.

Jimmy's passion for jazz began at an early age. He performed his first recording with Earl Bostic, and then played extensively with Dinah Washington, Billie Holiday, Pearl Bailey, Clark Terry, and Dizzy Gillespie.

In 1957, Jimmy Cobb joined Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, John Coltrane and Julian Adderley; two years later they recorded the groundbreaking Kind of Blue album. Kind of Blue stands in American history today as one of the most influential albums in jazz history, ranking number 12 in Rolling Stone magazine's 500 greatest albums of all time.

He collaborated with Wynton Kelly and Paul Chambers to produce the Wynton Kelly Trio Albums, and later released albums with Kenny Burrell, and J.J. Johnson, among others. Jimmy then worked with Sarah Vaughn for 9 years, and freelanced with other acclaimed artists worldwide throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s including, Sonny Stitt, Nat Adderly, Ricky Ford, Hank Jones, Ron Carter, George Coleman, Fathead Newman, The Great Jazz Trio, Dave Holland and Warren Bernhardt. Jimmy has also performed on Sketches of Spain, Someday My Prince will Come, Live at Carnegie Hall, Live at the Blackhawk, and Porgy and Bess.

Jimmy was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz in 2005 when New York's longest running jazz series Highlights in Jazz chose Jimmy Cobb for its annual salute to a living jazz legend. In 2008, Jimmy received the Don Redman Heritage award. He was one of six chosen on October 17, 2008 to receive the 2009 National Endowment for the Arts, NEA Jazz Masters award. He was also honored with his own album on the Marsalis Music Honors Series.

He currently performs and tours with his So What Band, featuring Miles Davis' protege Wallace Roney on trumpet, Vincent Herring on alto saxophone, Javon Jackson on tenor sax, Larry Willis on piano, and Buster Williams on bass.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kind of Blue, Jimmy and the So What Band will perform on September 24, 2009 in Washington, D.C. for the Congressional Black Caucus' Jazz Forum and Concert.

Today, Jimmy Cobb stands as the only surviving musician of the original Kind of Blue Sextet. His work remains a legendary standard in American jazz. Through the medium of music, he continues to inspire generations of performers and audiences.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. Both the House and Senate today have introduced identical language to reduce insurance prices for consumers. I want to thank my friend Senator Leahy for his leadership on the bill and for working with the House on this joint introduction.

I am joined in my efforts on the House side by the honorable Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, and Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The purpose of this bill is to extend antitrust enforcement over health insurers and medical malpractice insurance issuers, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This immunity can serve as a shield for activities that might otherwise violate federal law.

This bill would specifically prohibit price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation, pernicious practices that are detrimental to competition and result in higher prices for consumers.

The House Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on the effects of the insurance industry's antitrust exemption throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It became clear that policyholders and the economy in general would benefit from eliminating this exemption.

The bill I introduce today is intended to root out unlawful activity in an industry grown complacent by decades of protection from antitrust oversight. In doing so, we aim to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for a motion to recommit on H.R. 3200 and did not vote for final passage. I intended to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yea'' on final passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act,'' legislation that modernizes, simplifies and improves the compulsory copyright licenses governing the retransmission of distant television signals by cable and satellite television operators. I am joined by Representative Boucher, Representative Wasserman Schultz and Representative Johnson.

Both the cable and satellite industries rely on these licenses to provide television programming to their customers. The satellite Section 119 license will expire on December 31, unless we act. This legislation renews the satellite license for five years.

These compulsory copyright licenses were designed to facilitate investment in new creative works by the satellite and cable industries by eliminating direct negotiation with the copyright owners for the use of distant signal programming. These companies pay copyright royalty fees to a pool, at a rate set by statute, and are then distributed to the copyright owners by the United States Copyright Office.

In the five years since we last addressed these issues, the cable and satellite industries have changed dramatically. The country underwent a transition from analog to digital television, the cable industry has grown and consolidated, and the satellite industry has expended its reach, signing up more subscribers and providing more markets with local-into-local service.

This legistion reflects the recent transition to digital television by clarifying that the compulsory licenses apply to digital streams instead of just analog streams, and by providing for an updated technological model to predict the eligibility of satellite subscribers for distant signals under the Section 119 license. It also takes into account the advent of multicasting, which is a direct result of the new capacity created by the transition to digital signals and was not contemplated by the previous licensing schemes.

One important purpose of the Section 119 license is to ensure that consumers who live in markets that may be missing certain network affiliates can receive the full complement of network programming. The new language clarifies the ways in which the license can be used by satellite companies to accomplish this.

Changes in the cable television marketplace have resulted in confusion over the proper way to calculate royalties under the Section 111 cable compulsory license. This so-called ``phantom signal'' uncertainty has chilled both the cable and content industries, creating legal ambiguity that deters investment and growth, and threatens to raise cable price and disrupt cable service. This legislation alters the way the royalty rates are calculated to restore certainty to the marketplace and make the compensation for copyrighted content more fair.

This legislation also gives television and cable providers the flexibility they need to assist the United States Government in times of national emergency. Previously, during national emergencies, the compulsory licenses precluded cable and satellite companies from broadcasting certain distant signals to government organizations. Now the licensees can provide the government with the information it needs to monitor and respond to a natural disaster or man-made catastrophe.

This legislation also attempts to help rural markets that are currently not receiving ``local-into-local'' service. To incentivize satellite companies to serve these disadvantaged markets, the legislation restores the section 119 license to DISH network, which lost its license three years ago for noncompliance, on the condition that DISH enter all television markets in the United States. It is anticipated that this change will spur price and market competition between the major satellite providers to broaden and improve service to consumers.

The legislation streamlilnes and updates the compulsory license system in several other ways. It substantially heightens the penalties for copyright infringement. It provides a verification right for copyright owners to ensure that they are being properly compensated for the use of their intellectual property. It corrects and updates provisions related to rate-setting proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Judges. It adds a royalty filing fee to defray the administrative costs of disbursing the copyright payments to the pool. And it moves provisions for low power television and ``significantly viewed'' stations from Section 119 to Section 122 to reflect the ``local'' nature of those signals.

The current compulsory licenses were not designed for this new digital era. This legislation is necessary to avoid immediate disruption in service to satellite consumers, long-term deterioration of service to cable consumers, and to enhance and protect the rights of content-creators.