Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the bill (H.R. 2152) to require States and units of local government receiving funds under grant programs operated by the Department of Justice, which use such funds for pretrial services programs, to submit to the Attorney General a report relating to such program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. 2152.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). A little over 50 years ago, there were three pretrial options for defendants accused of a crime: they were released on their own recognizance, granted commercial bail, or remanded to custody. When considering the options on whether to grant ROR, set a bail amount, or remand, the judge considers a number of factors, including the severity of the crime charged, the suspect's criminal record, the danger posed to the public if the suspect is released, and the suspect's ties to community, family, and employment. Commercial bail ensures the appearance of the defendant in court at no cost to the taxpayer. The situation for defendants began to change in the 1960s. The first U.S. pretrial services program, the Manhattan Bail Project, was established in 1961. The Manhattan Bail Project was intended to help defendants who were financially unable to post the surety bond conditions set in New York City. The program interviewed defendants to gather information on community ties to determine a defendant's likelihood to appear in court. Based on these interviews, low-risk individuals were recommended for release on their own recognizance or the defendant's promise to appear without financial obligation. Unfortunately, over the last four decades, pretrial release programs have expanded well beyond their original scope and purpose. Today, there are over 300 pretrial release programs nationwide, whose participants routinely include violent and repeat offenders, many of whom are able to post a commercial bond and have done so in the past. In many instances, the Federal Government has become a major source of funding for pretrial release programs. Currently, these pretrial release programs funded by the taxpayers are not required to report any information about the defendants released through their programs into the communities. Basic information on defendants is neither collected nor reported in any systematic fashion. H.R. 2152 requires jurisdictions that receive grant money from the Department of Justice to operate a pretrial release program to report certain information concerning the defendants to the Attorney General. The bill requires the jurisdiction to submit the criminal histories of the defendants and the number of times the defendant has failed to appear as ordered by the court. It also requires the Attorney General to make public the information the Department of Justice receives. In my mind, that isn't a whole lot to ask these jurisdictions. In fact, this bill is beneficial because citizens have the right to know what types of defendants are being released prior to their trial. If a defendant has a long history of criminal behavior or frequent failures to appear in court, the community should know that. Likewise, residents should be aware if their community is running a successful pretrial services program where defendants are regularly making it to their court appearances. Simply put, no matter what side of the bail or no-bail debate you find yourself on, you should support this bill. Information like this, in the hands of the public, is never a bad thing. It will also be helpful to those of us who make policy on these matters. I want to thank Mr. Poe for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2152. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by those who oppose this very simple and straightforward legislation. Not a single Member in this Chamber should be opposed to the Citizens' Right to Know Act. When has more data in the hands of this body ever been a bad thing? We have a number of obligations we owe our constituents. Two of those obligations are to make sure our communities are safe and that tax dollars are spent wisely. This bill accomplishes both. Without the Citizens' Right To Know Act, we and our constituents lack the ability to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. Without the required data, hundreds of Federally funded pretrial release programs lack sufficient accountability to U.S. taxpayers. This lack of accountability has the potential to allow many repeat and violent offenders to get out of jail on our tax dollars. We and our constituents deserve to know if resources are being spent wisely and our communities are being protected. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2152, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5447) to modernize copyright law, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 materials on H.R. 5447, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, the House brings early 20th century music laws for the analog era into the 21st century digital era. These changes are a culmination of years of effort by interested parties as well as by many members of the Judiciary Committee. The problems and failures in our Nation's music laws have imposed real financial costs upon artists and creators. Music is no longer written on piano rolls and our laws shouldn't be based on that technology any longer either. Several years ago, the Judiciary Committee began a comprehensive review of our Nation's copyright laws. We held dozens of hearings, heard from over 100 witnesses, and traveled to multiple cities across the country to hear directly from stakeholders who use these laws. This review provided the foundation upon which several bills to reform our copyright laws were constructed. During the course of this review, we learned that our music licensing laws were no longer working as intended for songwriters, artists, and creators, or for the companies that deliver the music in innovative ways for consumers. Specifically, we have heard about several key problems, including a dysfunctional mechanical licensing system that seems to generate more paperwork and attorneys' fees than royalties; a need to provide protection for pre-1972 performances; a lack of recognition in the law for the creative input of producers, sound engineers, and mixers; and a lack of a unified rate standard for music royalties. The Judiciary Committee regularly hears from a variety of groups interested in copyright law, and it will not surprise anyone to know that, typically, not everyone agrees regarding what changes to title 17 are necessary. One person's problem may be another's benefit, and some have preferred a broken system over an unknown change. However, in a reflection of how bad our music statutes are, the opposite is true with respect to the bill before us today. Every party that has spoken about music recognizes the problems caused by our current licensing framework and wants real solutions. The existing music provisions of title 17 are simply that bad. I tasked the industry to come together with a unified reform bill and, to their credit, they delivered, albeit with an occasional bump along the way. Today, the major players in the music industry are unified in supporting comprehensive music licensing reform to bring the state of our Nation's copyright laws into the digital age that the industry itself has already transitioned to. While no bill is perfect, by all accounts, this is a bill with overwhelming consensus behind it. Groups that represent songwriters, musical works copyright owners, digital music providers, individual artists, sound recording copyright owners, artist guilds, and performing rights organizations all support the bill. The reasons for such widespread support are clear: The Music Modernization Act boosts payments for copyright owners and artists by shifting the reasonable costs of a new mechanical licensing collective onto digital music services that, themselves, benefit from reduced litigation costs as a result of other provisions in the bill. Songwriters gain a seat at the table in seeing how their royalties are collected and then allocated. Pre-1972 artists who currently go unpaid will finally see royalties for their creations, as will sound engineers, mixers, and producers. The public benefits, too, by having immediate access to all music on their favorite services. Furthermore, libraries and archives gain educational and fair use access to pre-1972 works currently governed under State law. This bill is the work product of many stakeholders and many Members. I want to highlight the work of several of my colleagues, including the ranking member, who were leaders in working on the underlying components of this bill. I want to especially thank Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries for their leadership on section 115 reform. I would like to thank Mr. Issa and Mr. Nadler for their leadership on behalf of pre-1972 performers. I would also like to thank Mr. Crowley and Mr. Rooney for their efforts on behalf of producers, mixers, and sound engineers. And last but not least, I would like to thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on these issues and for his willingness to partner with me in putting these pieces together into a comprehensive and consensus music licensing reform package. Sometimes big pieces of legislation can come together only through the efforts of a large number of people who invest their time in making change happen, as so many Members and so many stakeholders in the music and digital delivery communities have done. It also has to happen at the right time. I would note that only 1 week ago, GRAMMYs on the Hill brought hundreds of artists to D.C. to explain to their own Members of Congress how important an updated licensing system is to them. This bill delivers that for them just 1 day before World Intellectual Property Day, when we recognize the value of intellectual property and those who create it. So I am on safe ground when I say that this bill fits right into the perfect sweet spot on both timing and substance. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a key legislator in making sure that this legislation moves forward. He has worked very, very hard on it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is from music- loving Tennessee and a great champion for the music industry and people who love music around our country.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), another Member from music-loving Tennessee and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.