H.R. 3046 · 101st Congress · enacted
Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform and Miscellaneous Pay Act of 1989
Became Public Law No: 101-319.
Latest official action 1990-07-03 · Enacted
The bill, briefly
Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform and Miscellaneous Pay Act of 1989 - Amends Federal copyright law to decrease Copyright Royalty Tribunal membership to three commissioners. Places the compensation rate for the Register of Copyrights under Level IV of the Executive Schedule. Mandates that the Register be assisted by three Associate Registers of Copyrights. Places under Level V of the Executive Schedule the compensation rates for: (1) Tribunal commissioners; (2) Associate Registers of Copyrights; (3) United States Parole Commissioners; and (4) the Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, the Assistant Commissioner for Patents, and the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks.
Congressional Research Service · 1989-11-03
Who reported lobbying on this bill?
Amount spent specifically on this bill: not disclosed
The reports below name this bill and disclose an organization’s overall lobbying expenses or a firm’s client income for the period. They can cover many bills and issues. These amounts are not payments to the bill or its politicians.
2,409 latest lobbying reports imported. Some source imports are still in progress.
Politicians behind the bill
Sponsors and cosponsors from the official source, limited to members currently in office. Campaign amounts are cycle-wide and are not payments for this bill.
9 of 9 source cosponsor records retrieved; only current officials and unwithdrawn sponsorships appear.
PAC donors to the listed sponsors
These are all-cycle contributions to the listed sponsors’ and cosponsors’ campaigns. FEC does not attribute them to this bill. A donation plus sponsorship does not establish why a politician acted.
The largest 40 donor totals appear here. Open each politician for their complete, paginated PAC donor list.
What happened after enactment?
Dated agency-reported implementation and uptake measures are shown with their scope. They do not by themselves establish causal success. If no evidence is listed, the outcome is not established.