Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution expresses the view of Congress supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act and states that Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge on local radio stations or businesses for broadcasting sound recordings over the air. It does not create or change any law; it is a formal statement of opinion and recommendation. The text lists reasons for that view, including radio promotion of music, local news and emergency broadcasting, and possible economic harm to small stations and businesses. By itself it urges policy makers not to adopt such fees but does not legally prevent them from doing so.
Concurrent resolutions must be adopted by both the House and the Senate but are not presented to the President and do not have the force of law. This means the resolution is nonbinding and serves to record Congresss collective opinion unless separate binding legislation is enacted.
This concurrent resolution expresses Congress’s opposition to imposing any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge on local radio stations or businesses for over‑the‑air public performances of sound recordings.
It asserts that local radio provides promotional value to the recording industry, public service programming, and that new fees would harm stations, small businesses, and consumers.
The resolution urges that Congress should not adopt such a performance fee for broadcasting sound recordings.
As a concurrent resolution making a policy statement, it is nonbinding and cannot itself become law; passage probability differs from 'become law' likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a declaratory concurrent resolution that clearly articulates a policy position opposing new performance fees on local radio and related businesses. Its substantive rationale is explicit and detailed for a statement of sentiment. Because it is non-binding, it contains little procedural, fiscal, or enforcement scaffolding—an omission that is consistent with the type but leaves no path for action.
Progressives emphasize artist compensation and fairness for musicians
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize artist compensation and fairness for musicians
Generally supports protecting local news and community media but is concerned about fair compensation for music creators.
Likely to view the blanket prohibition skeptically because it could preclude policies that pay artists for use of their work.
Balances support for local media and small businesses with concern for creator compensation and flexible policy making.
Views the resolution as symbolic but worries the absolute prohibition could limit negotiated, targeted solutions.
Strongly favors the resolution as a safeguard against new fees, taxes, or regulatory burdens on local broadcasters and small businesses.
Views local radio as vital to community information and opposes adding costs that could harm operations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a concurrent resolution making a policy statement, it is nonbinding and cannot itself become law; passage probability differs from 'become law' likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize artist compensation and fairness for musicians
As a concurrent resolution making a policy statement, it is nonbinding and cannot itself become law; passage probability differs from 'beco…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a declaratory concurrent resolution that clearly articulates a policy position opposing new performance fees on local radio and related businesses. Its substantive…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.