PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-303.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 6, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on July 13, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act - (Sec. 3) Amends provisions regarding copyright royalty judges to: (1) make technical changes; (2) provide that when the last day of a time limit for performance of an action with or by the Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) falls on a nonbusiness day, the action may be taken on the next succeeding business day; (3) provide that CRJs are to act in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act; (4) include prior determinations and interpretations of copyright arbitration royalty panels that are not inconsistent with a decision of the Librarian of Congress or the Register of Copyrights among the precedents that CRJs must consider; (5) allow participation in a proceeding to determine distribution of royalty fees without the payment of a filing fee if the petition to participate is accompanied by a statement that the petitioner (individually or as a group) will not seek a distribution of more than $1000, in which case the amount distributed to the petitioner shall not exceed $1000; (6) allow CRJs to order a discovery schedule in connection with written rebuttal statements; (7) allow CRJs to issue an amendment to a written determination to correct any technical or clerical errors in the determination or to modify terms, without approval of the Register; and (8) require that the Librarian receive authorization from the CRJs before distributing statutory licensing fees for secondary transmissions by cable systems or satellite carriers even when no controversy about such distribution exists.
(Sec. 5) Allows Copyright Royalty Judges to make a partial distribution of cable and satellite royalty fees at any time after the filing of claims for distribution of such fees. (Current law authorizes a partial distribution during the pendency of a distribution proceeding.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 6) Makes this Act effective as if it were included in the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, except the partial distribution of royalty fees provisions are effective upon enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-303.
Became Public Law No: 109-303.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H6962-6963; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6962)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H6962-6963; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6962)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1036.
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7934-7936; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S7934-7935; text as passed Senate: CR S7936)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7934-7936; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S7934-7935; text as passed Senate: CR S7936)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 515.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10243-10245)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10243-10245)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1036.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10243-10246)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 31.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-64.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-64.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1036 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1036 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1036 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1036 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.