Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 275, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order amendments by Representatives Deutch and Chu.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers. Their testimony reflected the strong bipartisan support for this legislation and the work both Members have invested in moving it forward.

I personally thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and the Judiciary Committee staff on both the majority and minority side for their work on this legislation.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to participate in the committee markup where we debated numerous amendments and enjoyed a thorough discussion of this bill. The Judiciary Committee ultimately adopted an amendment by my colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, to strengthen the bill. H.R. 1695 passed the Judiciary Committee in a show of overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 27-1.

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is supported by numerous outside groups, including the American Conservative Union, SAG-AFTRA, the AFL-CIO, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, CreativeFuture, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Gospel Music Association, the American Chemical Society, the Church Music Publishers Association, Oracle, and many, many others. These groups represent only a sampling of the broad support behind this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, H.R. 1695 has brought together many groups of people who don't traditionally have similar interests. From creators to labor organizations to conservative groups, the diversity of support behind this legislation speaks to its significance in the copyright industry and to our economy as a whole.

H.R. 1695 also enjoys the public support of our two former Registers of Copyright, individuals who filled the very position this bill seeks to address. Former Registers Marybeth Peters and Ralph Oman have both made clear their belief in the importance of an ``independent copyright advice straight and true from the expert agency'' to Congress.

These former Registers correctly point out that this bill addresses a ``structural, not personal or political'' issue between the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office. Despite what some may say, this is what the bill simply does.

H.R. 1695 is a necessary first step toward any larger efforts toward modernizing the Copyright Office. It helps ensure that the Register can implement policy and advise Congress effectively, and this legislation will ultimately help strengthen our copyright system. This is particularly relevant today, as today is World Intellectual Property Day.

As I discussed earlier today in this Chamber, the importance of strong IP protections, including a strong copyright system, is clearer than ever. In fact, the copyright system in our country is so critical that our Nation's Founders sought to recognize it in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

While robust intellectual property protections have always been a foundational principle of our Nation, today such protections are also a major economic driver creating and fueling the American Dream. In fact, core copyright industries in the United States are now responsible for $1.2 trillion in GDP, representing nearly 7 percent of our economy and employing more than 5.5 million people. In my home State of Georgia alone, more than 19,000 copyrights are registered annually to State residents.

Yet the head of the Copyright Office, which oversees such a massive sector of our economy, is unilaterally selected by the Librarian of Congress. This is the case, despite the fact that the Copyright Office is statutorily designed as Congress' adviser and the massive role that copyright plays in our economy and our society.

I want to be clear. I think the role of the Library is a critical one, and the Librarian performs many important duties. Historically, however, the Librarian has not been an expert in copyright and isn't expected to be, Mr. Speaker.

Does it make sense, then, to make the Librarian--any Librarian--to be solely responsible for the selection of the person responsible for overseeing the Nation's copyright policy? I don't think it does. In fact, the current selection is more an accident of history than an example of carefully conceived policy.

By way of historical background, in 1870, the Library of Congress believed it would make sense for copyrighted works to be placed in the Library as a means to grow the collection. While this made sense at that point in history and while the collections are still an important function of the Library, this provision neither requires nor justifies the role of the Register of Copyrights to be subordinate to the Librarian.

Today, with the major role that the Copyright Office plays in our culture and our economy, we can no longer justify the head of the Copyright Office--and Congress' designated expert adviser--being hired under the umbrella of the Library of Congress. Currently, the Register is hired according to the same unilateral process as much more junior positions are filled. Under today's system, the Register can serve for an unlimited duration without review or removal, despite the importance of this position.

And finally, the Register is not Presidentially appointed, and there have been questions in the courts regarding the authority of the Copyright Office to conduct rulemaking.

We need a copyright system for the 21st century. We need a system that will take us into the future by protecting and promoting innovation. Copyright is the foundation of innovation, and innovation is the force that drives our economy. A strong copyright system allows the millions of kids and young adults throughout our 50 States to make their dreams a reality, to build a career out of what they produce in their minds and imaginations. Today's rule provides for an underlying bill that will help ensure that our copyright system is equipped to rise to the challenges of the future and to support Americans as they strive to make their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into reality.

The underlying bill promotes American innovation by recognizing the importance of the Register of Copyrights position. This bill would create a selection committee composed by bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership and the Librarian of Congress to recommend candidates to the President for nomination. The bill would establish a Senate confirmation process for the position and establish a 10-year term for the Register of Copyrights position.

This legislation represents the product of more than 4 years of bipartisan collaboration. It reflects the consensus view that the Copyright Office is better positioned to serve the public if the Register is no longer treated like a subordinate official within the Library, but as the seat of expertise and property protection that it is, regardless of

who the Librarian or who the President may be.

To reiterate, this issue has been under discussion since before anyone knew the former Librarian would be leaving or a new Librarian would be taking over.

When these discussions began, there was a Democrat in the White House, and it was clear that our next President would be, possibly, a Democrat as well. Yet both Republicans and Democrats have supported the reality that undergirds this bill, and we have supported what is good for American innovation and our creators and our dreamers, rather than worry about what specific President may make the next appointment to this Office.

The legislation is the first step in the Judiciary Committee's work to modernize the Copyright Office, which is now needed more than ever. As the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will continue to push that effort forward, to look at ways to promote better infrastructure and technology at the Copyright Office, and to work to update our music licensing laws.

H.R. 1695 is the beginning, rather than the end, and our commitment to copyright modernization and the support of these ideas underpinning it continue to receive broad support.

The rule provides for a bill that is, simply put, good policy. The opportunity before us is not about one individual but establishing the right process for selecting the Copyright Register and future Registers. The bill would increase accountability within the Copyright Office and take the first steps toward making sure our Copyright Office works for this century.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I thank the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the ranking member, John Conyers, for their hard work on this; and also a special commendation to Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who sponsored an amendment that actually strengthened this bill and provided a process moving forward that will help and, I think, bring all parties some semblance of structure and form as we move forward in this process, a beginning, as I said, the first step in a modernization of our Copyright Office.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will have more time to discuss especially the IG report and what it may say here in just a moment. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), another strong advocate in our protections of copyright and others in this intellectual property debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is about policy. This is about moving forward in the modernization process. I believe that Ms. Hayden is fully qualified to be Librarian of Congress. I think the issue comes in the Copyright Register's Office, not the Librarian herself.

There are some issues also. It has been interesting because I have been involved in this now my whole time in Congress, and this issue of copyright protection and intellectual property, I have to say Electronic Frontier Foundation are good folks, but we disagree, many of us in the content community and also the intellectual property, with the views of a more open or less inhibited copyright protection, which we believe is the very heartbeat of the innovative system. It is protecting the copyright as we go forward.

So just simply to have somebody saying that they are looking out for the big guy, I am looking out for the single songwriter. I'm looking out for the person right now in their home pecking out their first novel, working on their first articles. These are the kinds of things that need protecting. This is the little guy we are talking about. This is making this modernization happen, and we are going to continue to move forward.

We have differences of opinion. That is fine. But I think in looking at this

big picture, we are talking about a Register's Office that has so much work in our economy as a whole, we are just simply looking toward the first step of modernization.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness, hopefully, we will get this rule passed and we will get to this bill so the gentleman can be in support of it, that is as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, regardless of the last discussion, there are things about this bill that I have talked about when we first started, and doing this actually brings us into a position of modernizing the Copyright Office, which has been discussed a long time.

I do want to address, just briefly, that there has been some discussion about an IG report. There has been discussion about, especially, the former Register of Copyrights.

As I made clear in the conference, this has nothing to do with that being brought up. Implying things that were out of this IG report was basically attempting a character assassination of the former Register of Copyrights.

I think in doing so, it has to be understood that, even in that IG report that is discussed, one of the Library's own responses back to the concerns of the IG report was that, in 2015, the inspector general found that the Copyright Office was compliant with all library methodology. With respect to its primary software applications, the Electronic Copyright Office and Copyright Imaging System, which support registration and recordation functions and are managed by the CTO, were all in compliance. I think that is really interesting as we look at this.

But also what this IG report actually did say was that there were a lot of other problems. In fact, the GAO report in 2015 said the Library does not have the leadership to address IT management. That is why the Copyright Office was having to look at this because, also, in August 2015, of the Library's poor response and modernization, which are things that we are looking toward and how much this affects our economy. Because of the Library's problems, the electronic licensing system went down; and for 10 days, no one could register a copyright.

In fairness, you may not like this bill, you may not like the current structure, and that is fine; but when we discuss the Library, there are a lot of issues that I am sure will be addressed in the relevant committees in their oversight on this IG report. That is what they are designed to do.

What we are designed to do here is also not take and pick and choose and cherry-pick what parts of the report we want to talk about because we are trying to justify the current Librarian's decision last fall. When we understand this, we will begin to move forward on the Copyright Modernization Act.

Let's get back to the real functionality of what this is, not who we appoint or how they are appointed, but the fact that this matters to millions of people and also accounts for trillions of dollars in our industries across the world.

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is an important and bipartisan step. I repeat again, it came out with a vote of 27-1 in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I serve on that committee. That is not a usual vote on legislation that is making a positive, large, lasting impact that we are seeing on this. It is the first step rather than the last step in modernization.

As we look forward to this, I will simply say this is a good bill. It has been perfected by both Republicans and Democrats. As I have said before, Sheila Jackson Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, was very helpful putting this package together, along with the chairman and ranking member on both sides of the aisle, as we come forward with this.

It is sort of a shame that, when we come to this bill, we diverge into rabbit trails away from the real issue. The real issue is let's help those folks who depend on the Copyright Office. Let's make modernize it. Let's make it the tool it is supposed to be, and that is the adviser of the expert in these issues for Congress. When we do so, at that point in time our economy continues to flourish, we get aside from the theatrics, and we get back to the real importance of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by wishing my colleague from Georgia a happy International Copyright Day, right up there with Thanksgiving and Christmas as great American holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. Look, first of all, 60 hours; we have less than 60 hours before the Federal Government of the United States will shut down, and here we are filling time with a bill. Of course, the concept deserves to be debated and fleshed out, but is it really what we should be talking about when we are 60 hours away from the shutdown of our Federal Government?

Now, it feels like we have been here before. Now, sometimes it is because, unfortunately, we have been brought to the brink of economic disaster, just as Republicans seem to do every time government funding or the debt ceiling is about to expire. We know it has happened before. We know it will happen again.

Maybe it is time for a short-term CR; maybe it is an omnibus, but, look, that is what we should be doing right now. There will be plenty of time, plenty of time to figure out the intricacies of copyright and the oversight of the Office after we make sure that the basic functions of government are able to continue after 60 hours.

And even if we do keep the government open, all we are doing is kicking the can down the road and not allowing American businesses or individuals to plan for the future.

Can you imagine if your family didn't know if you would have a job or what salary it would be at every few months?

Now, look, congressional salaries, they are exempt from government shutdowns, of course. If they weren't, perhaps we would be discussing the government shutdown with 60 hours to go until other Federal workers are prevented from coming to work.

Even at this moment, we don't have a full-year appropriations bill. We have a continuing resolution that expires midnight on Friday. Those are the priority issues that the American people want us to focus on. When we deal with what is urgent, that will allow us the time and the space for thoughtful consideration of Copyright Office oversight.

We need to get past this bitter partisanship and this brinksmanship. Even the rule we are considering today is problematic and partisan, which is why I am in staunch opposition. It doesn't allow all the amendments to come to the floor, including one from my colleague, Ms. Lofgren, that I tried to amend the rule to allow, and it was turned down in Rules Committee by a partisan vote.

We don't have an open rule, as Speaker Ryan promised to provide as we got back to what was called regular order, allowing our Democratic and Republican colleagues to improve and enhance bills, offer their ideas up for consideration. If a majority adopt them, they can be included in the overall bill.

Instead, we are considering a rule that effectively stops debate on important amendments that were omitted and brings forward a politically motivated bill about the head of the Copyright Office.

Simply put, this bill would take the authority of hiring and firing the Copyright Register, who is the head of the Copyright Office, from the Librarian of Congress, and give it to the President, with Senate approval. It effectively politicizes the Office of the head of the Copyright Office.

Now, it sounds innocuous, but what it means is that special interests will be involved with picking the person to make decisions over who receives a copyright. Yet, again, through this bill, Congress is choosing the big, powerful interests over the consumers, over innovation, and over the little guy.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: this bill is ``designed to . . . allow powerful incumbent interests to use their lobbying power to control this increasingly politicized Office. And while the Librarian of Congress still oversees the Copyright Office, the Librarian of Congress would not be able to remove the Register no matter how poorly they perform their job.''

Under this bill, the position of Register of Copyrights will be yet another political position and will, frankly, stall one of the great projects they are embarking on, the modernization effort that is desperately needed at the Copyright Office. The last thing we need is political cronyism in the Copyright Office.

Let's talk a little bit about the history of the position of the head of the Copyright Office. Most of the first century of America, U.S. District Court clerks processed copyright applications themselves. Now, that was obviously inefficient to foist on the judicial branch, and, in 1870, Congress centralized the power of copyrights at the Library of Congress. Seven years later, the Copyright Office was created as a separate department within the Library, and the Register of Copyrights was established as the head of that Office.

Why depart from history so radically now? Why give in to increasing executive authority in a time when many of us are concerned about the growing powers of the Presidency? Frankly, some of this seems to be about the personal dislike of the Librarian, Dr. Carla Hayden, or the general situation with the most recent Register who departed last October, Maria Pallante.

It appears that some believe that Dr. Hayden should not have reassigned Ms. Pallante, so there is a micromanaging of particular personnel issues, but an inspector general's report stated that Ms. Pallante was clearly deficient in her duties, especially around those of modernization of the Office.

As just one example, the inspector general discovered that the Copyright Office wasted 6 years and nearly $12 million attempting to implement an Electronic Licensing System. Based on the IG report, it would seem that the Librarian had a valid reason to reassign the Copyright Register last October, and she definitely had every right to do so, as the head of the Library. The last thing we want is politically motivated decisionmaking in a personnel process around performance at the Library of Congress.

Since the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was appointed in 2015, she has been pulling the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office into the 21st century. And if we move the appointment into the hands of the President, we are taking away the ability for the Librarian to supervise the Office of Copyright and continue to do this work. We are going to stop progress dead in its tracks.

With hundreds of Presidential appointees who haven't even been nominated, no less approved, and the glacial pace of Congress, it could be years before a Librarian is confirmed under this new scheme.

Look, we all understand and agree that there are problems that we need to work on together with regard to the copyright process to bring it into the 21st century. Again, with 60 hours away from a government shutdown, now might be a time to focus on keeping government open and perhaps having a more thoughtful debate, removing the passions around the personnel involved after we continue to keep government open.

This bill, unfortunately, does not solve the problems with copyrights. It makes the situation worse because it slows down a desperately needed modernization indefinitely and would hurt the public and consumers.

The last thing we need is a more autonomous Copyright Office. After the obscene wasting of taxpayer dollars, do we really want to provide for more politically motivated decisionmaking within the Office of the Copyright? I think the answer is no; that is why I oppose the rule. I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee of Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today President Trump plans to unveil a tax cut proposal that would vastly reduce the business tax rate for international corporations and even for his own real estate empire. We have no way of knowing how many millions he personally might save through this so- called Trump loophole--no idea--unless he releases his tax returns. Democrats have been calling on the President to release his tax returns for this reason and so many others. We cannot allow the White House to be used as a tool to enrich the President and his family.

Up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a basic level of transparency to help to ensure the public's interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this administration. If they continue to refuse to provide it, then we, as the people's elected Representatives, should hold the executive branch accountable.

If not us, who?

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to simply release their tax returns.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our excellent proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I really think this bill is about is President Trump wanting to put a Big Business friend in charge of an office that can do personal favors for him and his family. We know that the President and his family have, or are seeking, dozens of copyrights. Here is a great one--here is a copyright on his book, ``Trump: The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received.'' Now, don't get me wrong, he probably deserved a copyright. I am sure a ghostwriter wrote it for him and he had a strong contract with that ghostwriter. Since it seems that all the President spends his weekends and our taxpayer dollars doing is golf, the last thing we want is want him to put one of his golfing buddies in charge of the Copyright Office.

Who is to say the next copyright application from Donald Trump won't be disputed?

Placing his friends, business associates, and, yes, golfing partners in high places could help tip the scales in his favor, providing profits for him and his family at the expense of the American people.

I would like to take a moment to speak to a few of the defenses I have heard about the need for this bill. There is the one stating the President would pick the Register from a list of experts provided by a group, including the Librarian.

But guess what?

That list is nonbinding, so the President can easily ignore the recommendations and do whatever he wants, which is what this President usually does anyway.

I have also heard the argument that the Register will be more accountable and somehow transparent as a Presidential appointee. Hogwash. That is the opposite of the truth. There is as much transparency for a non-Presidential appointee once in their position; and it is much less likely that a President is going to demand the resignation of the Register than the Librarian is going to reassign them, as the Librarian did last year when the Register was failing, as confirmed by the inspector general report.

Finally, there seems to be the argument that there were a large number of hearings in the committee on this issue and that somehow this is the work product of those hearings. Well, if you look at the record, there was not one hearing on this bill. There were hearings about general copyright reform. There was no hearing on how this bill might have a devastating impact on the need to modernize the Copyright Office, creating huge delays for important efforts. There was no hearing on whether this bill could profit the President and his family at the expense of the American people.

This is a problematic bill under a problematic rule that doesn't allow good ideas to come forward and be debated. We aren't even able to debate helpful amendments.

I know of at least one important amendment that isn't being allowed to be debated on the floor, which is Representative Lofgren's amendment that would allow the current Librarian to fill the existing vacancy at the Copyright Office, and when that Register leaves, the new process would then apply. It seems like a commonsense transition process. Why can't we get a simple vote on that amendment?

I say again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, this bill makes the problem worse by giving the President the chance to put his business associate and golf buddies in charge of his own copyrights.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President's personality is perfectly charming. I certainly wouldn't disparage his personality. What I am talking about is him putting a golf buddy or a business associate in charge of an office that he receives a direct profit from. That is called conflict of interest. That is what we are debating here today. It is not about the President's personality. Obviously, he is perfectly charming in person. I would be happy to have dinner with him. I am still waiting for the invitation.

The Copyright Office has an important function. In order to fulfill that function of registering copyrights, it needs to be a neutral arbiter. By making the head of the Copyright Office a political advocate, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it will increasingly politicize copyrights, the basic protection Americans

rely on regarding the tradeoff between payoffs for innovation and the right of consumers for dissemination. There is no chance a political appointee will be neutral, by nature of them being a political appointee.

A political appointee will likely be the puppet of big corporations and the administration in their decisions around registration of copyrights. That doesn't help the budding author, it doesn't help the budding musician in a dispute, and it certainly doesn't help anyone trying to navigate an outdated and archaic system that needs to be modernized. This bill will indefinitely delay the modernization process.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the bill. The last thing we need is President Trump's golf buddies to be in charge of his own copyrights to further profit the President and the First Family, who have pleasant personalities.

Do we really want to give more power to the administration so they can do favors for themselves and their own business interests? I hope not. Let's vote ``no.''

We should be considering a funding bill to keep the government open instead of waiting until the absolute last second, hurting businesses and Americans with the huge amount of uncertainty created.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan and all of my colleagues that have spoken on this job-creating legislation and recognition of how great America is with all of the creative talent that

we have mustered, the music that you enjoy, the songwriters and others who created both the visual and musical arts. This is what this is about.

Now, I have listened to some of my colleagues from California. I am not from California. I am from Houston, Texas. But we know that creative artists and writers and those who invent and those who write wonderful stories are all part of the arena of what America is great about. They generate genius and they create jobs. The Copyright Office is that protector that ensures that those jobs will be protected.

We, over a series of years in the Judiciary Committee, have looked at reforming the copyright system. We have had hearings even with the former Copyright Register, who indicated that putting her position in a Senate confirmation would be the right thing to do. But it has taken 4 years.

So today we have come not to be out of order and not doing other major aspects of reform. In fact, I want to congratulate the Librarian of Congress who, now, is engaged in modernization. I applaud her. Her appointment has been significant. She is innovative and is already working to make sure that the Library and the creative arts and assets and property of those of great talent is protected.

Today we address an aspect of that work, and that is we want to continue to see the progress that our Librarian has made. We want to be able to make on an equal status that individual that is dealing with copyright just as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office status as a Presidential appointee does not compromise that person's ability to execute their duties as head of the USPTO, nor should it compromise or interfere with the responsibilities of cooperation, collaboration, jurisdictional compromise, and work between the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights.

To the Librarian of Congress, my view is keep working, keep doing the modernization work. I believe that as we move forward, regardless of who at this point is in the Office of President, that we can ensure that Congress has insight and oversight over this important position.

Let me also suggest to my colleagues that the Library of Congress is an important part of the work of Congress, and I think all of us should be interested stakeholders in the work that it does and should be supporters of that.

We encourage the Library of Congress to work with America's constituency by having programs and letting them know of the wonderful artifacts that are there, that are held, that tell the history of this great Nation. It is always important to be able to do research there and to see the storied history.

Now, we come to this bill that does nothing to undermine that storied history or the Librarian of Congress. What it does, as I have indicated, is it helps us create jobs.

Now, in order to recognize the importance of the Librarian of Congress, in this instance, Dr. Carla Hayden, I am very grateful that my colleagues accepted an amendment that I have that, in fact, does do something, and it does a very important action. It respects and recognizes the value of Congress' insight on putting forth nominees or names that will be selected from to become the Register of Copyrights, not to have limited input, but to actually produce the names.

Ultimately, I hope that an amendment going forward after this bill, working with the Senate, can be that there is a limit to the names being put forward and that those names are the names that are put forward to the President of the United States. I think that is an element that should be included.

In the amendment, it has that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the Librarian of Congress will be, in fact, the deciders of who gets nominated to be the Register of Copyrights.

As we well know, the AFL-CIO has provided a letter of support, along with the American Federation of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, the Graphic Artists Guild, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and Screen Actors Guild. All of these create jobs and all of these unions have representatives all around the Nation.

Finally, I would say it is extremely important that the musicians and artists of color have indicated that they see no bias in this particular legislation against the present Librarian and have written a letter indicating that they believe that there is no bias.

So I ask my colleagues to work together and to pass H.R. 1695 to continue the process of modernization of the Copyright Office and continue the collaborative work between the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights. There is no difference in the cooperation of decades before and, as well, there is no indication that that will not occur in the future. Both of them will have 10-year terms, and I believe that we will move forward on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the rule under consideration for H.R. 1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017,'' as amended to include the Jackson Lee Amendment.

H.R. 1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017,'' if enacted, would change the selection process for the Register of Copyrights, who is the Director of the United States Copyright Office, which is housed in the Library of Congress.

The Librarian of Congress, an appointed position subject to Senate confirmation since 1987, is currently tasked with modernizing the Library of Congress.

This legislation is not about taking power away from any individual.

In fact, Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress, is by all accounts serving the various needs of the Library of Congress very well.

This legislation and the Jackson Lee Amendment only further the Library's efforts to effectively modernize its copyright selection and approval process.

Just as the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's status as a Presidential appointee does not compromise her ability execute her duties as head of the USPTO, the Copyright Register will not be compromised by the fact he or she is a Presidential appointee.

Dr. Hayden is an exceptional administrator and the bill before us in no way reflects adversely upon her.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, accepted during markup with bipartisan support by the members of the Judiciary Committee to improve the bill, recognizes the dual role of the Library of Congress as both a legislative and a national institution, militating against giving President carte blanche in nominating the Register of Copyrights.

Specifically, the bill's amended provision establishes a 7-person panel to recommend a list of at least three (3) individuals to the President for appointment as the Register of Copyrights.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Content Creators Coalition, dated April 25, 2017, in support of this legislation.

April 25, 2017.

Congressional Black Caucus Member: On behalf of the Content

Creators Coalition, we write in support of H.R. 1695, the

Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act,

which would modernize and provide greater transparency to the

process of selecting the Register of the Copyright Office.

This is vital legislation that will strengthen the

Copyright Office. We believe this selection process should be

granted a similar import, rigor, and transparency as the

processes of selecting other organizations, such as the U.S.

Patent and Trademark office, that oversee large industries:

Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In light of

the specialized knowledge required to lead this office, we

also support the appointment of an advisory group to suggest

candidates for consideration.

This legislation would place the Copyright Office on equal

footing as other economically and culturally vital agencies.

It has wide bipartisan support and was passed out of the

typically polarized House Judiciary Committee on a vote of

27-1.

As artists of color, we find it deeply offensive that

opponents of this bill have attempted to recast their anti-

creators' rights goals into a smear campaign against its

sponsors and supporters, insinuating that the legislation is

about the race and gender of the current Librarian of

Congress. The Register of Copyrights Selection and

Accountability Act is co-authored by the Dean of the House

and the Congressional Black Caucus, Judiciary Ranking Member

John Conyers, and supported by Congressman John Lewis. Their

lifelong and unshakeable commitment to civil rights is a

historical fact and should be honored and respected, not

opportunistically and baselessly questioned just to score a

few empty political points.

We would be the first to speak out against prejudice or

bias anywhere--in business, culture, the arts, or politics.

But here, we know these charges are false. The bill has

nothing to do with the current Librarian at all--in fact,

these reform proposals pre-date her appointment.

Nor does this bill have anything to do with the former

Register of Copyrights. We are grateful for her tireless

efforts and advocacy on behalf of working musicians and find

it appalling that some have engaged in efforts to drag her

record through the mud to defeat these reforms.

And certainly the bill has nothing to do with the current

President--once again, these proposals to modernize the

Copyright Office long pre-date his election. It is the height

of cynicism for bill opponents to attempt to ride on the

powerful coattails of the ``RESIST'' movement by falsely

wrapping this bipartisan pro-artist, pro-creator legislation

in the controversies surrounding the President, especially in

light of his proposal for massive cuts to funding for the

arts. In our view, misleading the President's critics by

leveraging fear into opposition for a non-controversial

proposal like this ultimately undermines and disrespects our

movement.

The need for this legislation is plain. The current system

in which the Librarian of Congress selects the Register is

the result of a unique moment in history and outdated

concerns: in 1870, the Librarian of Congress asked Congress

to give him the authority to appoint the Register in order to

deal with a massive influx of new works and the need to

quickly grow the Library's collection.

Nearly 150 years later, the functions of the Copyright

Office have changed. It is no mere registry of creative

works, but has become the most trusted advisor on Copyright

law and its interpretation for the United States Congress.

The process of selecting a leader to this office should

reflect the importance of copyright to the U.S. economy.

Congress is reviewing and revising copyright laws to ensure

they continue to protect all music creators in a time of

rapid transition online. It deserves the best advice it can

get, and reform of the Register selection process is long

overdue.

Thank you for consideration of our views,

Melvin Gibbs.

Nona Hendryx.

Ernie Isley.

Ramsey Jones.

Darrell McNeill.

V Jeffery Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1695.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Intellectual property is a critical and growing part of our Nation's economy, and the Register of Copyrights has a crucial role in the numerous copyright policy issues that impact it.

Four years ago, the Judiciary Committee began considering how to modernize our Nation's copyright laws, including how the Copyright Office is structured. Making the Register position subject to the nomination and consent process with potential candidates identified by a congressional selection panel was among the many issues considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

Because the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, who has an equally important voice on patent and trademark issues, is already subject to the nomination and consent process, it provided a precedent for this approach.

However, unlike the Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch. Thus, it is appropriate to also follow the precedent set for other legislative branch agencies, which gives Congress a greater say in selecting candidates for the heads of legislative branch entities to ensure those agencies are more accountable to Congress.

Because the Register position is now vacant, filled on an acting capacity by a well-regarded Acting Register, Ranking Member Conyers and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to update the Register selection process. To mirror a recent change to the Librarian of Congress position that is now subject to a 10-year term limit, the legislation also makes the Register of Copyrights position subject to a 10-year term limit.

The selection panel would be bipartisan and would consist of leaders of the majorities and minorities of the House and Senate, and would also include the Librarian of Congress.

In the past, the authority of the Register of Copyrights to issue rulemakings has not been challenged in the courts because the Register is not subject to the nomination and consent process.

This legislation would remedy that question, once and for all. H.R. 1695 was reported by the House Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 27-1. In addition to strong support from traditional copyright groups, such as the Copyright Alliance, and the publishing, movie, music, and software industries, the bill has been supported by a wide range of diverse groups, such as the American Conservative Union; the AFL-CIO; Heritage Foundation scholars; the Directors Guild of America; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; MANA, A National Latina Organization; Americans for Tax Reform; and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

With such strong support from a wide range of over 70 groups and a vacancy at the Register of Copyrights that needs to be quickly filled under the new process created by this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1695.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I write to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on House

Administration in H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights

Selection and Accountability Act of 2017. The bill, as

reported from the Committee on the Judiciary on March 29,

2017, contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction

of the Committee on House Administration.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive Committee

consideration of provisions that fall within the Committee's

jurisdiction. However, agreeing to waive jurisdiction over

these provisions should not be construed as waiving,

reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on

House Administration.

Additionally, the Committee on House Administration

expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees on any

provision within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate

conference that may be convened on this, or any similar

legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request

by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 1695 for provisions

within the Committee's jurisdiction.

I ask a copy of this letter and your response be placed in

the Congressional Record during any floor consideration of

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close when Ranking Member Conyers concludes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I thank Ranking Member Conyers and many other Members across the aisle, as well as the subcommittee chair and the subcommittee vice chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet--Mr. Issa and Mr. Collins--for their hard work in support of this legislation, which is urgently needed. It is very straightforward. It has very broad bipartisan support here in the House.

It is also strongly supported in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate. A wide array of outside organizations--virtually every copyright organization in the country--as well as a number of other organizations concerned about the importance of intellectual property protection and particularly copyright law want to see the status of the Register of Copyrights elevated by Presidential appointment with input from six leaders in the House and the Senate and the Librarian of Congress to select the next Register of Copyrights and have a 10-year term, which is compatible with terms of other important legislative branch positions.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch has been a strong supporter of intellectual property as well as the modernization of the Copyright Office during the House Judiciary Committee's copyright review.

The needs of a modern copyright registration system require advanced information technology systems, so it is critical that all future Registers have a strong base of information technology knowledge within the Office to lead such efforts. By requiring all future Registers to have the skills necessary to identify and hire a chief information officer or other similar official to lead such efforts within the Office, the Deutch amendment ensures a strong Copyright Office. I want to thank the gentleman for making this important contribution to the legislation.

I neglected to mention earlier--I don't see him here now--but I also want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for the important contributions he has made to this legislation as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Ms. Judy Chu. She has been a strong advocate for the protection of intellectual property as well as the modernization of the Copyright Office during the House Judiciary Committee's copyright review, and we miss her on the committee.

One of the issues that has been raised while we have discussed updates to our Nation's copyright laws is the importance of preserving our mandatory deposit system. The mandatory deposit system that exists in our Nation's copyright law has resulted in numerous copyrighted works being added to the collections of the Library of Congress at no charge to taxpayers. Without the mandatory deposit system, the Library's collections would be vastly smaller, without a significant increase in taxpayer funding in order to buy these copyrighted works that are now provided free to the Library.

Ms. Judy Chu's amendment ensures that this system is not disrupted as the Register position is made subject to the nomination and consent process, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the ranking member from Michigan, for the time, and I appreciate the opportunity to join the majority of my committee colleagues as a cosponsor of this bill. It reflects the general consensus that Congress needs to step in to increase the autonomy of the Copyright Office, while still respecting its historic connection to the Library.

This bill is an important first step in reforming the Copyright Office, but it can't be the only step. Through the hearings this committee has held over the past few years, we have learned how truly behind the curve the Copyright Office is.

I have worked with colleagues to find a bipartisan and consensus- driven set of reforms for the Copyright Office that would go beyond just this step in the process of selecting a Register, as have the chairman and Ranking Member Conyers and others on the committee.

It should be obvious that, to bring the Office into the 21st century, we need to do more than just change the selection process for the Register of Copyrights. It requires a massive overhaul of the IT system of the Office to create both a smoother process for creators seeking to protect their work and a system to enable the public to search the broad catalog of American creativity.

It requires increased accountability and consultation with both the creative and the user communities so that we ensure that the improvements and investments meet the needs of all those who rely on the Copyright Office to do its job well.

Establishing the Register of Copyrights with authority outside of the Library of Congress is not a reflection on the Librarian of Congress. It is a recognition of the reality that the Library and the Copyright Office have two fundamentally different missions, and they deserve to be empowered to pursue those missions. It is a recognition that success for both of these important entities means allowing them to maintain their historic connection but operate on a day-to-day basis with greater autonomy.

I am glad that the chairman has taken up this first step, and I look forward to working with him and Ranking Member Conyers and others on the next steps as well.

This piece of legislation supports strong copyright laws in our country. Having strong copyright means the ability for creators to be able to do their work. It means the creation of jobs.

The reason that this piece of legislation has such strong bipartisan support, the reason that it is supported by the thousands and thousands of people who earn their living every day as a result of the creativity that strong copyright laws protect, the reason they are supporting this legislation is because it is an important first step.

I am glad to participate in this debate, and I look forward to passing this bill, H.R. 1695, in order to take that first step to promote stronger copyright, to provide the kind of autonomy that the Copyright Office needs so that it can move forward rapidly with modernization, and, most importantly, at this moment in our Nation's history, to ensure that we have the strongest possible avenue to create even more good jobs, well-paying jobs. That is what this legislation is about.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will place a much-needed priority on advancing the technological capabilities of the U.S. Copyright Office.

I support the underlying bill to make the selection of the Register of Copyrights more open and more transparent. I also support the additional congressional oversight that will be necessary to ensure that the Register is accountable to the American people.

I agree with Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and my other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that it is important that this bill move forward now. Making this improvement to the selection process for the next Register is an important first step before the committee advances broader Copyright Office modernization.

Even as we take this initial modest step to improve the appointment process, we can do more to strengthen the Copyright Office for today's economy. The Copyright Office's mission is to administer our Nation's copyright laws for the public good.

Securing Americans' rights to their intellectual property fosters creativity and benefits all Americans by advancing the arts and the sciences. In recent decades, this mission has been undermined by comically outdated information technology systems at the Copyright Office.

My amendment makes a simple change to the underlying bill to ensure that technology is always a part of the equation when selecting a new Register of Copyrights. My amendment would require the Register of Copyrights to be capable of identifying and supervising a chief information officer.

The CIO or a similar official would be responsible for managing information technology systems to advance the Copyright Office's capabilities and keep pace with our 21st century economy. One would assume that any qualified candidate for the Register of Copyrights has the skills and experiences necessary to guide the Office's technology office.

Why leave this vital aspect of the Copyright Office to assumptions?

Requiring the head of the Copyright Office to be ready to make this vital selection is not an overly burdensome obligation. For practical purposes, this capability is a necessity, and that is why my amendment would make technology an explicit part of the selection process.

My amendment merely requires that the person who will serve as the Register be capable of supervising the Office's chief information officer. Whatever happens next as we move forward with modernization, IT systems of the Copyright Office must keep pace with new advancements in technology. If Congress expects real progress toward improving the Copyright Office's technology, we must ensure that the leaders we select are prepared for the job.

I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Ms. Lofgren. She made this point in committee during the markup of this bill, and the language in this amendment takes her suggestion a step further. It is a small change to the underlying bill, but it sends a much-needed signal that the work of the Copyright Office must include a focus on improving its IT systems.

This is only the beginning of Congress' work to modernize the Copyright Office. H.R. 1695 is a good first step, and I strongly support the underlying bill, but any step forward toward modernization must have IT improvements at the front of mind. I hope my colleagues also support this change. I think it is a commonsense step.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan. I appreciate the strong support from Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this good amendment.

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