Royalty Distribution Clarification Act of 2006

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.