[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S501-S505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Alexander, Ms. 
        Harris, Mr. Corker, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Coons, and Mr. 
        Jones):
  S. 2334. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide 
clarity with respect to, and to modernize, the licensing system for 
musical works under section 115 of that title, to ensure fairness in 
the establishment of certain rates and fees under sections 114 and 115 
of that title, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise with my good friend from Tennessee 
to discuss some truly landmark legislation we are introducing today 
that is long overdue. It is called the Music Modernization Act, and it 
will reshape the music licensing landscape to bring it into the 21st 
century.
  As a songwriter myself, I have a deep interest in music issues and in 
ensuring we have a music licensing system that works. Unfortunately, 
our music licensing laws have not kept pace with technological change. 
We have an outdated, antiquated system that is designed for the era of 
CDs and cassette tapes rather than the era of digital streamlining and 
audio on demand.
  Most of us rarely think about the complex laws that govern who can 
listen to what music when and who gets paid when we purchase an MP3 or 
listen to an interactive stream. We pay our money to iTunes or the 
streaming service without thinking about how that money then gets 
distributed to dozens or even hundreds of actors across the music 
industry. You have songwriters and publishers and recording artists and 
record labels. You have agents and broadcasters and streaming services 
and performing rights organizations. You have multiple copyrights 
across multiple individuals for the same song. It is a dense, 
interconnected web of licenses, rights, and legal obligations that all 
need and should be carefully calibrated, but our current regime is not 
well calibrated--far from it.
  To begin with, the process of ensuring that songwriters are paid when 
the songs they have written are downloaded or played on the internet is 
a complete mess. The problem lies in matching sound recordings to the 
underlying musical work; that is, to the song performed in the sound 
recording. When a person downloads or streams a song, there are 
actually two sets of copyright holders whose interests come into play.
  The first is the recording artist who owns a copyright in the sound 
recording; that is, in the recorded version of the song. Often, the 
recording artist will have assigned his or her copyright to a record 
label.
  The other relevant copyright holder is the songwriter--the person who 
actually wrote the music and, in virtually every case, the lyrics that 
the recording artist performed. The songwriter owns a copyright in the 
song itself, in the actual words and music. Often, the songwriter will 
have assigned his or her copyright to a music publisher.
  When a sound recording is reproduced, whether by download, 
interactive stream, or fixing the song on a CD or other physical 
object, the recording artist and songwriter or their respective 
assignees will both receive royalties. The recording artist receives a 
royalty for the sound recording itself, and the songwriter receives a 
royalty for the underlying song. These are called mechanical royalties 
because, historically, the reproduction of sound recordings was done 
through mechanical means. Think of a vinyl record and its grooves.
  There is also a second type of royalty that comes into play when a 
song is performed publicly, such as on the radio, at a concert, or over 
a digital transmission service like Pandora. This type of royalty is 
called, sensibly enough, a public performance royalty. Just like with 
mechanical royalties, it is paid to both the recording artist and the 
songwriter or their assignees.
  As I said earlier, the problem lies in matching the sound recording 
to the underlying musical work; that is, in determining who should get 
paid when an individual downloads a song or listens to an interactive 
stream.
  Figuring out the recording artist is pretty easy. When digital music 
services play music, they play sound recordings. They play a song 
recorded by Taylor Swift or Jay-Z or Garth Brooks or they offer the 
sound recording for download. In either case, determining who recorded 
the song is straightforward. Figuring out who the songwriter is, 
however, can be much more complicated.
  A recording artist may play 10 different songs by 10 different 
songwriters on a single album or 10 separate writers may have 
contributed to a single song, with each being entitled to a cut. Unlike 
with recording artists, it is usually not apparent from the sound 
recording itself who the songwriter is.

  Of course, the recording artist--or the record label, if the 
recording artist has assigned his or her rights to a record label--may 
know who the songwriter is, but not always, and it is simply not 
feasible for digital music providers to independently track down

[[Page S502]]

every individual songwriter for the millions of songs they offer over 
their services.
  The problem of unmatched works--that is, works for which the sound 
recording has not been matched to the underlying songwriter--creates 
significant difficulties for both digital music providers and 
songwriters.
  Start with digital music providers. By law, these services are 
required to pay mechanical royalties to songwriters for interactive 
streams and digital downloads. But if they don't know who the relevant 
songwriter or publisher is, they can't pay the royalty. This exposes 
digital music providers to significant liability if a songwriter or 
publisher later appears and asserts their rights. At the same time, 
songwriters get short shrift because they don't get paid when they are 
supposed to be. Streaming services play their songs and digital 
platforms offer their songs for download without paying the required 
royalties. As you can see, this is a complicated system. It is a bad 
situation all around.
  That is where the legislation Senator Alexander and I are introducing 
today comes into play. Our bill, the Music Modernization Act, creates a 
blanket mechanical license for digital music providers. This license, 
which will be administered by a mechanical licensing collective, will 
enable digital music providers to obtain a single mechanical license 
for the music they play rather than having to individually seek out 
songwriters and publishers. Services that obtain the license will 
receive liability protection.
  Songwriters and publishers, in turn, will benefit from increased 
royalty payments. Among the mechanical licensing collective's duties 
will be establishing and maintaining a public database that identifies 
musical works and their owners. This will help reduce the number of 
unmatched works.
  In addition, the Music Modernization Act provides that royalties for 
unmatched works will be distributed after a holding period of 3 years 
to known copyright holders on a market-share basis. This means that 
rather than going unpaid, royalties for unmatched works will go to 
existing copyright holders according to how active each copyright 
holder is in the marketplace.
  Our bill also contains a critical update to the rate standard for 
mechanical royalties for songwriters. Current law requires the 
Copyright Royalty Board to consider a variety of statutory factors in 
setting mechanical royalties. These factors, however, do not accurately 
reflect market demand, with the result that songwriters are paid a 
below-market rate. Our bill revises this standard to instruct the Board 
to establish rates that reflect what a willing buyer and willing seller 
would agree to in the marketplace.
  Lastly, the bill makes two changes related to public performance 
royalties for songwriters. As I explained earlier, this type of royalty 
comes into play when a song is performed publicly, such as on the 
radio, at a concert, or over a digital transmission service like 
Pandora.
  Public performance royalties for songwriters and publishers are 
administered through performing rights organizations, or PROs, the best 
known of which are ASCAP and BMI. ASCAP and BMI offer blanket licenses 
to radio stations, restaurants, digital transmission services, and 
others that allow licensees to play all songs in the PRO's catalogue. 
These blanket licenses are governed by 1940s-era consent decrees that 
require all rates under the licenses to be set or approved by a Federal 
judge in the Southern District of New York.
  The Music Modernization Act makes two changes relevant to these 
consent decrees. First, it says that any judge in the Southern District 
of New York may hear a rate-setting case involving ASCAP's or BMI's 
license fees, not just the particular judge who oversees the consent 
decree.
  Second, the bill revises current law to allow judges in these rate-
setting proceedings to consider evidence of public performance 
royalties paid for sound recordings in setting public performance 
royalties for songwriters. The purpose of this provision is to better 
align public performance royalties for sound recordings with public 
performance royalties for the underlying musical work and to ensure 
that songwriters are properly rewarded when a song they write becomes a 
hit.
  As I mentioned earlier, music licensing is an incredibly complicated 
subject. I have endeavored today to explain the Music Modernization Act 
in a straightforward way that individuals not steeped in this subject 
can understand. The key points are as follows. First, the bill will 
have to solve the problem of unmatched works so that digital music 
providers are protected from liability and songwriters receive the 
royalties they are due. Second, the bill will better align royalties 
for songwriters with royalties for recording artists and with market 
demand. It will also bring much needed transparency to our music 
licensing system by creating a public database that identifies musical 
works and their owners.
  I am pleased to report that our bill has broad support across the 
music industry, which is a tremendous thing. One of the things that 
makes this legislation such a breakthrough is that we have been able to 
get the songwriting side of the industry--the songwriters and their 
representatives in all these matters in the publishing and PRO 
community--on board with the recording and distribution side of the 
industry--the record labels and digital music providers. Indeed, I 
don't think I have ever seen a music bill that has had such broad 
support across the industry. All sides have a stake in this, and they 
have come together in support of a commonsense, consensus bill that 
addresses challenges throughout the music industry.
  I should also note that introduction is just the start of the 
process. Bills change as they move through markup and floor 
consideration, and there are some outstanding issues in the latter part 
of the bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters. I am 
committed to working through these issues as the bill moves forward so 
that we have the broadest consensus possible.
  I said at the outset that I am a songwriter myself. I have a deep and 
abiding interest in these issues. These matters are personal to me. 
They are also an important part of my legacy. I am relatively unknown, 
and I don't expect to make a lot of money out of the music industry, 
but I am deeply interested in this, in making sure that those who do 
create these wonderful musical subjects will be treated more fairly 
than they are today.
  I have fought long and hard for strong copyright protections my 
entire time in the Senate. I have passed a number of landmark copyright 
bills, from the Copyright Term Extension Act to the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act to the Family Movie Act.
  The Music Modernization Act is another in that long line of landmark 
legislation. In fact, I view it as the capstone of my work on 
copyright. I say that because I want my colleagues to know how 
important this bill is, not just to me but to my friends, and I want my 
friends in the industry to know how important this bill is to me as 
well. I have less than a year left in this body, and one thing that I 
am dead set on is enacting this bill into law before I leave.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and sponsoring this 
bill. The music we create in our country is an important part of our 
culture and of the message we carry to the rest of the world. Let's do 
everything we can to ensure we have a music licensing system that is 
fair, that rewards creativity, and that creates the right incentives to 
write, perform, and sell music. That is exactly what the Music 
Modernization Act will do.
  I have a partner in this business of trying to get this bill through, 
the great Senator from the State of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who 
himself is a very accomplished musician. He is a great piano player, 
and he is a great friend, and he understands these issues as much as if 
not more than anyone else I know in the Congress of the United States. 
I just feel very indebted to him and blessed to have him as one of the 
people who will be working with me on this matter.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Utah 
for his leadership. He is not only the senior Republican Senator and 
former chair of the Judiciary Committee, which will hear this 
legislation, and chairman of the Finance Committee, he is a songwriter 
himself. He is not

[[Page S503]]

just a songwriter; he has a platinum record, he has a gold record, and 
he has another one that might become gold. So he knows what he is 
talking about.
  I think, for all of us in the Senate, when Orrin Hatch says that in 
his 40 years or so here--more than any other Republican Senator--this 
is the capstone of his career in his work on copyright and it is 
personally important to him, that means something to the rest of us 
here. I think that means--among all of the other issues here--we are 
going to pay more attention to this, and we are going to work hard to 
pass it. I hope it also means something to those outside this Chamber--
the songwriters themselves, the digital music companies, the music 
publishers, the broadcasters. This is something we intend to do. We 
intend to make this a law because it is right thing to do, because the 
songwriters aren't being treated fairly, and because it is important to 
Senator Hatch, whom we respect.
  When Senator Hatch stands up on the floor and says: I have been 
working since 1977 on copyright issues--and we know how many important 
issues he has dealt with--and he says this is a capstone of all those 
issues, we should pay attention to that, and we should deal with it. I 
think we will be able to deal with it because we start off with very 
strong bipartisan support.
  This afternoon, Senator Hatch and I will file the Music Modernization 
Act. We will begin with eight Members of the Senate, including Senator 
Hatch, as the lead sponsor; I will be there, in addition to Senator 
Whitehouse, a Senator from Rhode Island, a Democrat; Senator Corker, a 
Senator from Tennessee; and Senator Dick Durbin, the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Dick Durbin is in Nashville nearly as much as Orrin Hatch is in 
Nashville. He is not a songwriter, but he loves country music, and he 
loves songwriting and music, and he is the No. 2 Senator in the Senate, 
the Democratic whip. To begin to have that sort of cosponsorship, in 
addition to Senator Isakson, Senator Coons of Delaware, and our newest 
Senator, Mr. Jones of Alabama--those are the eight of us in the Senate 
who are starting this bill. We hope others on both sides of the aisle 
will see the wisdom of it.
  Italy has its art, Egypt has its pyramids, Napa Valley has its wine, 
and Nashville has its songwriters. Songwriters are the lifeblood of 
Music City. The mayor of Nashville was in my office today and we talked 
about that. We have thousands of songwriters in Nashville. We have a 
lot in Memphis too. We have many in Bristol and Knoxville in East 
Tennessee, where country music really started. They are waiters, they 
are bus drivers, they are teachers. They have other jobs as they build 
their songwriting careers. Their paychecks ought to be based on the 
fair market value of the work they create. Songwriters are paid when 
their songs are played. We want to make sure that their hits that are 
heard around the world are felt in their pocketbook.
  The arrival of the internet has transformed the music industry, but 
it has also meant that many songwriters simply aren't paid their 
royalties when their songs are played online. This is the first 
problem--the arrival of the internet.
  The second problem is, when the songwriters are paid, they are not 
paid a fair market value for their work. Senator Hatch, as I have 
mentioned, has long been an advocate for musicians. He understands 
this.
  We have worked together for over a year with Representative Doug 
Collins in the House of Representatives on the Music Modernization Act, 
which eight of us will introduce this afternoon. It is bipartisan. It 
represents the first major consensus legislation that has the support 
of songwriters, music publishers, digital music companies, and the 
record labels. Senator Hatch and I are going to continue to work 
together to make sure it has the support of broadcasters as well.
  More importantly, the legislation will have a real impact on 
songwriters in Tennessee and elsewhere. First, it creates a simple 
licensing system for direct music services, like Pandora and Amazon to 
reflect a changing music industry. Second, it will make it easier for 
the songwriters to be paid when their music is played or someone buys a 
song that they wrote. Third, it will allow them to be paid for the fair 
market value of their work.
  Now, to give you an idea of what this really means, let me tell you a 
story about songwriting. I do not have the experience that the Senator 
from Utah has. He has written more than a hundred songs over the years 
and cowritten some of them with a number of Nashville songwriters, as a 
matter of fact, and he even has a song that is a platinum record. But a 
few years ago, I was in East Tennessee, in my hometown of Maryville. I 
walked out of the pharmacy, and I saw an older couple sitting in a 
pickup truck, and I asked them how they were doing. The woman said of 
her and her husband: ``We're just falling apart together.''
  Well, that weekend my son Drew was having a songwriters' retreat at 
our home in East Tennessee. He is in the music business. So I told one 
of them, Lee Brice, about what the woman said to me: ``falling apart 
together.'' Lee Brice said: I think I can do something with that. So 
he, Billy Montana, and Jon Stone, the songwriters, wrote a song called 
``Falling Apart Together.'' Lee Brice put that on one of his albums, 
and I got one fourth of the song rights. That is the way it works in 
Nashville. If you contribute anything, including just the song name to 
a song, you get a part of the royalty. Well, Lee Brice is a pretty 
well-known singer, as well as a songwriter, and he put the song on his 
album. You would think the royalty would add up to a lot of money, but 
in 2016, on my Senate financial disclosure, I reported receiving 
$101.75 in royalties from my one-fourth of the song ``Falling Apart 
Together.'' If you are a songwriter living in Nashville, Memphis, Los 
Angeles, New York, or anywhere--or Provo or Salt Lake City--you can't 
make a living on $101.75.
  The other problem facing songwriters is that music is increasingly 
played online. Companies like Spotify, Pandora, Amazon, and Apple offer 
listeners virtually unlimited access to digital music libraries that 
they can play using the internet whenever they want. According to 
Nielsen, there are nearly 86 million paying subscribers to these types 
of digital music streaming services--86 million paying subscribers. In 
2016, these subscribers listened to more than 252 billion music 
streams, including repeated songs. So in 2016, for the first time in 
history, streaming music services--songs played online--generated more 
than half the music industry's revenues. Digital music services such as 
Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music generated the majority, or 51.4 
percent, of the music industry's revenues.
  So we know that the internet has changed our world. It has changed 
politics. It has changed newspapers. It has changed retail. We have 
seen the effect of it. It has changed the music industry too. One half 
of the music industry's revenues come from online songs that are played 
and, as Senator Hatch has said, our laws have not kept up with that 
and, as a result, our songwriters--the creators who have a right under 
our Constitution to be paid for their work a fair market value--aren't 
being paid. In many cases, when they are paid, they are not being paid 
a fair market value. Sales of compact discs fell below $100 million in 
2016, a 17-percent decline from 2015. This means that it is getting 
much more difficult for songwriters to make a living and Congress can't 
change the fact that the internet and other new technologies have 
changed the music industry, but we do have a responsibility to update 
our laws to keep up with what has happened.
  So how did we get in this mess, and what laws are we talking about 
updating? In 1909, more than a century ago, Congress gave copyright 
owners of musical works the exclusive right to make, reproduce, and 
distribute their own musical work. At the time, the works were 
primarily piano rolls. So we are talking about laws that were created 
for player pianos. Congress sets a royalty to be paid to the owners of 
those piano rolls at $0.02 per copy. The Copyright Royalty Board, a 
three-judge panel at the Library of Congress, still sets those royalty 
rates today. The current rate is 9.1 cents, and it is based on a below-
market standard.
  Another problem, as Senator Hatch mentioned, is that ASCAP and BMI, 
the two largest performance rights organizations, are subject to a 76-
year-

[[Page S504]]

old consent decree with the Department of Justice--that means an 
agreement agreed upon in 1940 or so--and ever since then, it has been 
governing these performance rights rates. These consent decrees never 
contemplated the internet, and today they are harming national 
songwriters. The biggest problem with these outdated consent decrees is 
that songwriters don't get paid the fair market value for their work.
  Songwriters negotiate with radio stations for the right to play their 
music in exchange for ``reasonable'' performance royalty. If 
songwriters and the radio stations can't agree on the reasonable 
royalty, the songwriters have to go to a Federal rate court, which 
means their case is heard by district judges in the Southern District 
of New York. Under current law, the judge is not allowed to consider 
what the song's performer earns when he sets a reasonable royalty. The 
Music Modernization Act changes that by allowing ASCAP and BMI to 
present new evidence about the fair market value of the songwriter's 
work, like what a performer might earn, to a Federal rate court judge 
when there is a dispute about royalty rates.
  The legislation also allows more Federal district judges to hear 
these types of cases. The music industry has changed dramatically in 
the past 109 years. It is time to update our music licensing laws to 
ensure that songwriters can continue to make a living.
  Now, what the Music Modernization Act does to solve the problem is 
this. It creates a new simplified licensing entity to make it easier 
for the digital music companies--this is Spotify, Pandora--to obtain a 
license to play songs and ensure songwriters are paid when their music 
is played. Instead of Spotify and Pandora tracking down each songwriter 
or a songwriter's publisher to get permission to play his song, they 
will be able to submit one license and start playing a song right away. 
Transitioning to a blanket license for reproductions was recommended by 
the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. In a February 2015 
report on music licensing reforms, the Copyright Office recommended 
this blanket licensing approach that is included in the Music 
Modernization Act. The Copyright Office report concluded that ``song-
by-song licensing is widely perceived as a daunting requirement for new 
services and as an administrative drag on the licensing system as a 
whole.'' The move to a blanket system would allow marketplace entrants 
to launch their services--and begin paying royalties--more quickly.
  Another important point is that the new licensing entity will not be 
a new government agency, and the digital music companies will pay to 
set it up and keep it running, not songwriters. The new entity will be 
governed by songwriters and music publishers, giving songwriters a say 
in how their work is used for the first time. The new entity helps 
songwriters because it will collect royalties each time a song is 
played, look for the songwriter, and hold on to the royalties for 3 
years until they can be found. This helps songwriters because it 
ensures they are paid royalties for their work, whether they have a 
publisher or not. This helps digital music companies because it makes 
sure songwriters are paid and that means fewer lawsuits.
  The legislation also improves transparency by creating a publicly 
accessible database for all music works, and it requires digital music 
companies to pay songwriters their royalties every month. Songwriters 
will receive usage reports on music that is played to make sure the 
money is all there. The new database is important because maybe a young 
aspiring songwriter co-wrote a song under an alias or moved or simply 
can't be located. The legislation allows songwriters to audit the 
licensing entity once a year, if the songwriter chooses.
  Finally, the legislation requires the Copyright Royalty Board at the 
Library of Congress to use a fair market standard of what a ``willing 
buyer'' would pay a ``willing seller'' when the Board sets royalty 
rates. This helps songwriters receive a fair market royalty when their 
song is played online.
  The Music Modernization Act, as Senator Hatch said, has broad 
support--unprecedented support. It is a consensus piece of legislation. 
It is supported by the National Music Publishers Association; the 
Digital Media Association; the American Society for Composers, Authors 
and Publishers, or ASCAP; Broadcast Music, Inc. or BMA; the National 
Songwriters Association International; and the Songwriters of North 
America. On January 8, these groups joined the Recording Industry 
Association of America, the Recording Academy, and more than a dozen 
music industry groups in endorsing the Music Modernization Act. It will 
help thousands of songwriters in Nashville, across Tennessee, and 
across this country.
  Songwriters, music publishers, and digital music companies have 
reached a consensus. Now it is up to Congress to provide a result. That 
is why I am working in such a bipartisan way and am so glad to be 
working with such imminent leaders as Senator Hatch, Senator Durbin, 
and others to pass the Music Modernization Act and give Tennessee and 
our Nation's songwriters the fair pay they have earned.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch's staff, as well as my own staff, once 
again, because they have been working on this issue for some time. 
Senator Hatch was the original cosponsor of legislation in the 114th 
Congress, titled the Songwriter Equity Act. I am proud to work with 
him.
  I want to thank Representative Doug Collins and Representative Hakeem 
Jeffries, who are the sponsors of the bill in the House of 
Representatives. They are leading the effort to get the bill through 
the House Judiciary Committee so it can be considered by the full 
House.
  Finally, I wish to thank Bart Herbison, with the National Songwriters 
Association; David Israelite, with the National Music Publishers 
Association; Beth Matthews, with ASCAP; Mike O'Neil, with BMI; and Greg 
Barnes and Chris Harrison, with the Digital Media Association. These 
individuals have all worked together and negotiated for months to try 
to produce consensus legislation to help songwriters and modernize the 
music licensing laws.
  So let me end where I began. This is a bill to help songwriters. This 
is a bill to modernize a copyright system. This is a bill to help our 
laws keep up with the digital age, the internet world. This is a bill 
that has consensus among digital companies and songwriters and 
publishers for the first time. This is a bill to honor Orrin Hatch, who 
has served in this body since 1977, who is a songwriter himself, and 
who has been our leader on modernizing copyright laws from the very 
beginning. I intend to work as hard as I can in a bipartisan way, both 
in the Senate and the House, to pass this bill for the good of our 
country and as a capstone of the career of our senior Senator, Mr. 
Hatch.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I can't express my appreciation well enough 
to thank the Senator from Tennessee for this wonderful set of remarks 
he has just given. He has outlined it as well as it could be done. 
Tennessee has always been very well represented, but Lamar Alexander is 
one of the great Senators here, and I am just grateful that he is 
standing side by side with me on this.
  The songwriters of America have been mistreated for years and years 
and years, and it is time to change it. It is time to get some equity 
and some fairness into this system, and I think Lamar has outlined that 
about as well as it could be outlined. I want to personally express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee for what he has said here 
today.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his 
leadership on intellectual property issues throughout his distinguished 
career in the Senate. I was pleased to join him in securing the passage 
of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in the last Congress, which established 
a Federal civil right of action to protect this valuable form of 
intellectual property.
  Likewise, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch as a cosponsor on the 
Music Modernization Act. This important piece of legislation will bring 
much-needed transparency and efficiency to the music marketplace and 
more fairly compensate songwriters for their valuable creative work. I 
note that there are some outstanding issues in the latter part of the 
bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters and other

[[Page S505]]

music licensees. Senator Hatch has indicated to me that he intends to 
work through these issues as the bill moves from introduction to markup 
so that we can have the broadest consensus possible for this 
legislation. I thank Senator Hatch for this commitment and commend him 
for his leadership on ensuring that the copyright laws stay apace with 
evolving technology.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Coons, for 
co-sponsoring the Music Modernization Act and for his engagement on 
this critically important subject. Like Senator Coons, I want this bill 
to achieve broad support so that it can move forward in a consensus 
manner. To that end, I intend to work with broadcasters to address 
their concerns as the bill moves from introduction to markup and look 
forward to a productive, successful dialogue on these issues.

                          ____________________