[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19236-19237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES PROGRAM TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1036) to amend title 
17, United States Code, to make technical corrections relating to 
Copyright Royalty Judges, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       On page 16, line 4 through 7, strike and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 5. PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ROYALTY FEES.

       Section 801(b)(3)(C) of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking all that precedes clause (i) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding section 804(b)(8), the Copyright 
     Royalty Judges, at any time after the filing of claims under 
     section 111, 119, or 1007, may, upon motion of one or more of 
     the claimants and after publication in the Federal Register 
     of a request for responses to the motion from interested 
     claimants, make a partial distribution of such fees, if, 
     based upon all responses received during the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date of such publication, the Copyright 
     Royalty Judges conclude that no claimant entitled to receive 
     such fees has stated a reasonable objection to the partial 
     distribution, and all such claimants--''; and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``such'' and inserting 
     ``the''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be 
     effective as if included in the Copyright Royalty and 
     Distribution Reform Act of 2004.
       (b) Partial Distribution of Royalty Fees.--Section 5 shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1036, the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1036, the Copyright Royalty 
Judges Program Technical Corrections Act. This legislation amends 
certain technical aspects of the copyright act that were substantively 
amended by Congress' enactment of the Copyright Royalty and 
Distribution Reform Act of 2004.
  At the outset, it should be noted that H.R. 1036 was considered by 
the House under suspension of the rules last November and passed by a 
voice vote. The other body took up the bill in July and amended it to 
incorporate related noncontroversial language from the text of H.R. 
5593, the Royalty Distribution Clarification Act of 2006.
  Copyright Royalty Judges are responsible for distributing hundreds of 
millions of dollars in royalty payments to rightful copyright holders 
to make partial distributions of any noncontested royalties prior to 
the end of a distribution proceeding. The purpose of H.R. 5593 and the 
Senate amendment now before us is to provide the judges the ability to 
more efficiently administer their fiduciary duties and enable copyright 
holders whose works are used under the various compulsory licenses 
contained in title 17 of the United States Code to have greater access 
to their own funds.
  Like the earlier version approved by the House, this iteration of 
H.R. 1036 makes only noncontroversial changes in the copyright royalty 
and distribution system.
  The enactment of this bill will assist the CRJs and the Library of 
Congress in administering the copyright royalty and distribution system 
and help to resolve disputes in a more efficient, predictable, and 
rational and manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the 
President for his signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Royalty Technical Corrections Act is just 
that. It is a major accomplishment of the Subcommittee on Courts and 
makes a number of technical corrections.
  Two substantive improvements I would bring to the floor's attention 
at this point:
  It clarifies the decisions of the new copyright tribunal will serve 
as precedent for later decisions, establishes consistency for written 
statements to the tribunal, and provides for fee waivers for those 
claiming royalties in excess of $1,000.
  The other major substantive change resolves the ambiguity about when 
partial payments or distributions of royalties to content owners are 
allowed.
  This measure before us would permit Copyright Royalty Judges, upon 
the motion of a claimant and after publication of a request for 
responses, to make a partial distribution of cable and satellite 
royalty fees at any time after the filing of claims for distribution if 
no eligible claimant has stated a reasonable objection.
  I think the committee is in accord with this bill. I urge that 
Members of the House support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Sensenbrenner just stated, H.R. 1036, the 
Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, amends 
certain technical aspects of the Copyright Act which itself was amended 
by the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004.
  A chief objective of the Copyright Reform Act was to delineate 
between functions of the Copyright Office and the functions of the 
newly established Copyright Royalty Judges, or CRJs.
  Unfortunately, during the bill enrollment process, the law was 
written to state that the Librarian of Congress was charged with 
authorizing the distribution of funds. The language could be subject to 
an interpretation that Congress wanted the Librarian to retain a role 
that had clearly been intended to be exercised only by the new CRJs.
  The purpose behind this bill is to correct errors such as this and to 
enable the reform act to operate as Congress originally intended.
  In addition, the bill contains a number of other noncontroversial 
stylistic, technical, clarifying, and conforming changes that have been 
considered and agreed to by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, H.R. 1036 has already passed the 
House of Representatives without objection on November 16, 2005.
  The reason the bill has returned is because the other body amended it 
to include language from H.R. 5593, the Royalty Distribution 
Clarification Act of 2006, which was a bill I authored and introduced 
along with Ranking Members Conyers and Berman. The purpose of that bill 
and the incorporated language is to provide the CRJs with explicit 
statutory language to distribute, prior to the end of a royalty 
distribution proceeding, part of the royalty pool when it is 
established who the rightful claimants are.

[[Page 19237]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the amended Copyright Royalty 
Judges Program Technical Corrections Act and send the bill directly to 
the President for his signature.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1036.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________