[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3508-S3514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Salazar, Ms.
Cantwell, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2643. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes are eligible to receive
grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native
American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2006.
Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine
Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible
applicants in some of the newly-authorized grant programs. The bill I
am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Baucus, Cantwell,
Inouye, Johnson, Feinstein, Feingold, Murray, and Salazar, would simply
ensure that tribes are able to apply for these funds and give Native
American communities the resources they need to fight scourge of
methamphetamine use.
The recently-enacted Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005
authorized new funding for three grant programs. The Act authorized $99
million in new funding for the COPS Hot Spots program, which helps
local law enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need reduce the
production, distribution, and use of meth. Funding may also be used to
clean up meth labs, support health and environmental agencies, and to
purchase equipment and support systems.
The Act also authorized $20 million for a Drug-Endangered Children
grant program to provide comprehensive services to assist children who
live in a home in which meth has been used, manufactured, or sold.
Under this program, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, child
protective services, social services, and health care services, work
together to ensure that these children get the help they need.
In addition, the Combat Meth Act authorized grants to be made to
address the use of meth among pregnant and parenting women offenders.
The Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program is aimed at facilitating
collaboration between the criminal justice, child welfare, and State
substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant
women and those with dependent children.
Although tribes are eligible applicants under the Pregnant and
Parenting Offenders program, they were not included as eligible
applicants under either the Hot Spots program or the Drug-Endangered
Children program. I see no reason why tribes should not be able to
access all of these funds.
Meth use has had a devastating impact in communities throughout the
country, and Indian Country is no exception. Last month there was an
article in the Gallup Independent newspaper about a Navajo grandmother,
her daughter, and granddaughter, who were all arrested for selling
meth. There was also a one-year-old child in the home when police
executed the arrest warrant. It is absolutely disheartening to hear
about cases such as this, with three generations of a family destroyed
by meth.
I strongly believe that we need to do everything we can to assist
communities as they struggle to deal with the consequences of meth, and
ensuring that Native American communities are able to access these
funds is an important first step. I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting this important measure.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Frist):
[[Page S3509]]
S. 2644. A bill to harmonize rate setting standards for copyright
licenses under sections 112 and 114 of title 17, United States Code,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act, or the
PERFORM Act, along with Senators Graham and Frist.
The need to protect creative works has been an important principle
recognized in our country since its inception.
The founding fathers accurately understood the importance of
intellectual property by including protective language in our
Constitution, and in doing so they established a principle that would
stand the test of time.
However, they could not have predicted that the path of innovation
would eventually produce the amazing new technologies that we now take
for granted.
While many of us still enjoy traditional analog radio, this, too, is
rapidly changing. We now have music radio programs provided over the
Internet, cable, and satellites. Even traditional radio is changing
with the advent of new digital radio.
With the entry into the marketplace of these new music providers
consumers are receiving the songs and artists they enjoy in new and
innovative ways.
Yet, as these new business models and technologies are developed we
must ensure that the artists and musicians who create and perform the
music continue to be fairly compensated for their works.
Unfortunately, some of the new innovations have been used to supplant
music sales and avoid fair compensation to the songwriters and
performers.
From 1999 to 2004, total music sales have declined by 30 percent.
Over the same period, CD sales declined 18 percent. The decline
continued in 2005 as total album sales fell 7.2 percent year-over-year.
Some of this decline is due to outdated business models and
competition from other entertainment products, some due to illegal
actions and piracy, and some is due to outdated music licensing laws.
I believe our laws must strike the proper balance between fostering
new business models and technology and protecting the property rights
of the artists whose music is being broadcast.
I strongly support advancements in technology and I encourage
ingenuity. The birth of the digital music place has been a boon for
businesses and consumers. It is important that these new forums succeed
and grow.
However, these new technologies and business models have become so
advanced that the clear lines between a listening service and a
reproduction and copying service has been blurred.
Historically, a radio service simply allowed music to be performed
and listened to by an audience. However, many new services using the
new digital transmissions and new technological devices have allowed
consumers to also record, manipulate, and collect individual music
play-lists off their radio-like services.
Thus, what was once a passive listening experience has turned into a
forum where consumers can record, manipulate, reprogram and save songs
to create their own personalized playlists.
As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so
must our laws change. The government granted a compulsory license for
radio-like services by Internet, cable, and satellite providers in
order to encourage competition and new products.
However, as new innovations alter their services from a performance
to a distribution the law must respond.
In addition, as the changing technology evolves, the distinctions
between the services become less and less, and the differences in how
they are treated under the statutory license make less sense.
Therefore I am introducing a bill that will begin to fix the
inequities currently in the statute and open the door to further debate
about additional issues that need to be addressed.
The bill I am introducing today with Senators Graham and Frist would:
create rate parity--all companies covered by the government license
created in Section 114 would be required to pay a fair market value for
use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards
apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music; and
establish content protection--all companies would be required to use
reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically
reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not
provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to
create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and
maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.
This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It
simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music
through the market rather than under the statutory license.
The bill also contains language to make sure that consumers' current
recording habits are not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the
consumer chooses to do manually will still be allowed. In addition, if
the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel,
or time period that would still be allowable under the statutory
license.
For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news
station every morning at 9:00; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00;
a blues station every Friday at 3:00; and a talk radio show every
Saturday at 4:00; that would be allowable. In addition, that listener
could then use their recording device to move these programs so that
all programs of the same genre are back to back.
What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the
Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record
those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new
business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and
performers in the process.
Unfortunately, anytime legislation is introduced there is a lot of
misinformation about what it does. Often criticisms are lobbed without
reviewing the actual text of the bill. So, let me be clear about some
of the concerns I have heard.
The bill would not apply to over-the-air broadcasting. Terrestrial
radio, i.e. traditional radio distributed by the broadcasters is not
covered under this bill. This legislation only covers businesses that
are under the 114 license--Internet, cable, and satellite.
The only application to broadcasters would be if they were to act as
webcasters and simulcast their programs over the Internet, in which
case they would be treated the same as all other Internet radio
providers.
The bill would not inhibit technological advances. It would place
limits on the types of recording devices cable, Internet and satellite
providers may offer, IF they want to enjoy the benefit of a government
license.
If, however, a company wants to offer new technologies that allow for
manipulation of music so that a consumer may create their own music
libraries, similar to a downloading service, they may. There is nothing
in this bill prohibiting the use or creation of new technologies the
company would simply lose the benefit of a government license.
The bill simply states that if a company wants to change its service
from a performance to a distribution then they no longer are covered by
the government license and must go to the record companies directly to
negotiate a licensing agreement through the market.
The bill would not be discriminatory. Some argue that changing the
rates or establishing content protection is discriminatory. However,
under current law some businesses are required to pay higher licensing
rates than others even though they provide essentially the same
services.
In addition, if a new satellite company were to be formed today they
would be required to pay a higher rate than the current two companies
in the market--that is not fair. Instead this bill would establish the
same rates and protections for all companies.
The argument that this bill is discriminatory ignores the inequities
of current law as it applies to Internet, cable, old and new satellite
providers and instead focuses on the differences between these new
radio providers versus terrestrial or traditional over-the-air radio.
[[Page S3510]]
The argument is that there are already devices available and new
technologies that allow consumers to capture and manipulate music being
played by over-the-air broadcasters. Yet this bill does not apply to
broadcasters and instead only applies to Internet, cable and satellite.
The conclusion being that by not covering broadcasters we are giving
them a free pass and being unfair to the new businesses.
While the obvious argument is that the Judiciary Committee does not
have jurisdiction to regulate over-the-air broadcasters, I think it is
important to acknowledge that the Commerce Committee is actively
looking into this issue right now. In addition, I am aware that there
are active negotiations occurring between broadcasters and the record
labels to develop similar protections for their services.
Thus, while some may be frustrated that jurisdiction may lie in
different committees, efforts are on-going in each to address these
issues. I do not believe we, in the Judiciary Committee, should wait
and do nothing to protect artists and songwriters simply because the
Commerce Committee has not yet moved legislation to deal with the same
concern for terrestrial radio.
Having said that, let me be clear, this is the beginning of a process
to address a very specific problem. I believe that as the process
unfolds there will be additional improvements or other issues that may
need to be added.
Already, some have raised questions about language in the bill and
additional modifications to Section 114 that I believe should be looked
at more closely.
I understand there is some concern about what fair market value
means, especially under a government licensing scheme where there is
not an actual competitive market. I think it makes sense to look into
this issue and see if there is a definition that can be developed.
In doing this, I believe we should look at all the different models
that have been used. We should look at what the courts have held, what
the copyright office has used, what a real competitive market would
entail, as well as other factors that may not have been considered.
The bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied
to Internet, cable, and satellite services in order for them to get the
benefit of the statutory license. The one that I am most concerned with
is interactivity.
I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed
under the current statute. How much personalization and customization
may these new services offer?
Currently licensing rates are higher for interactive services.
However, there are clear disagreements as to what constitutes an
interactive service.
I tried to have the parties meet to negotiate a solution to this
issue so that we could include new language this in the bill.
However, after two weeks and hours and hours of negotiations the
parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached. Despite
this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be
addressed.
Therefore, I put a placeholder in the bill that calls for the
copyright office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am hopeful
that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can
develop a solution sooner rather than later.
I am hopeful that the parties will again meet and try to develop a
compromise, however, if that does not occur I may try to work with my
colleagues to develop a legislative solution independently.
Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection
to all providers is unfair. They argue that if there is no connection
between the distributor of the music and the technology provider that
allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they should
not be required to protect the music that they broadcast.
In general, I do not agree. We know that there are websites out there
now that provide so-called stream-ripping services that allow an
individual to steal music off an Internet webcast. It is not enough to
turn a blind eye to this type of piracy and do nothing simply because
there is no formal connection between the businesses.
At the same time, I am sympathetic to the concerns that if the type
of technology a company uses is inadequate or ineffective, through no
fault of their own, they can be saddled with huge mandatory penalties.
I am willing to look at this issue more closely and see if there is
some way to address this concern and find a compromise solution.
As I have said, this is the beginning of the process. I think this
legislation is a good step forward in addressing a real problem that is
occurring in the music industry.
Changes or additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but
I believe to wait and do nothing does a disservice to all involved.
Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies
and changing delivery systems provide exciting new options for all
consumers. As we continue to move forward into new frontiers we must
ensure that our laws can stand the test of time.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record along with letters of support for the legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2644
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Platform Equality and
Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006'' or the
``Perform Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. RATE SETTING STANDARDS.
(a) Section 112 Licenses.--Section 112(e)(4) of title 17,
United States Code, is amended in the third sentence by
striking ``fees that would have been negotiated in the
marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller''
and inserting ``the fair market value of the rights licensed
under this subsection''.
(b) Section 114 Licenses.--Section 114(f) of title 17,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated under this
subsection)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking all after
``Proceedings'' and inserting ``under chapter 8 shall
determine reasonable rates and terms of royalty payments for
transmissions during 5-year periods beginning on January 1 of
the second year following the year in which the proceedings
are to be commenced, except where a different transitional
period is provided under section 6(b)(3) of the Copyright
Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, or such other
period as the parties may agree.'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``affected by this
paragraph'' and inserting ``under this section'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``eligible
nonsubscription transmission''; and
(iii) in the third sentence--
(I) by striking ``eligible nonsubscription services and new
subscription''; and
(II) by striking ``rates and terms that would have been
negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a
willing seller'' and inserting ``the fair market value of the
rights licensed under this section'';
(iv) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``base its'' and
inserting ``base their'';
(v) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(vi) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'';
(vii) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the degree to which reasonable recording affects
the potential market for sound recordings, and the additional
fees that are required to be paid by services for
compensation.''; and
(viii) in the matter following clause (ii), by striking
``described in subparagraph (A)''; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) The procedures under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall
also be initiated pursuant to a petition filed by any
copyright owners of sound recordings or any transmitting
entity indicating that a new type of service on which sound
recordings are performed is or is about to become
operational, for the purpose of determining reasonable terms
and rates of royalty payments with respect to such new type
of service for the period beginning with the inception of
such new type of service and ending on the date on which the
royalty rates and terms for preexisting subscription digital
audio transmission services, eligible nonsubscription
services, or new subscription services, as the case may be,
most recently determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) and
chapter 8 expire, or such other period as the parties may
agree.''.
(c) Content Protection.--Section 114(d)(2) of title 17,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
[[Page S3511]]
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(C) by adding after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps
to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or
phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses
technology that is reasonably available, technologically
feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making
of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole
or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in
this subsection;'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking clause (vi); and
(B) by redesignating clauses (vii) through (ix) as clauses
(vi) through (viii), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv), the mere offering of
a transmission and accompanying metadata does not in itself
authorize, enable, cause, or induce the making of a
phonorecord. Nothing shall preclude or prevent a performing
rights society or a mechanical rights organization, or any
entity owned in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of,
such organizations or entities, from monitoring public
performances or other uses of copyrighted works contained in
such transmissions. Any such organization or entity shall be
granted a license on either a gratuitous basis or for a de
minimus fee to cover only the reasonable costs to the
licensor of providing the license, and on reasonable,
nondiscriminatory terms, to access and retransmit as
necessary any content contained in such transmissions
protected by content protection or similar technologies, if
such licenses are for purposes of carrying out the activities
of such organizations or entities in monitoring the public
performance or other uses of copyrighted works, and such
organizations or entities employ reasonable methods to
protect any such content accessed from further
distribution.''.
(d) Definition.--Section 114(j) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (15) as
paragraphs (11) through (16), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10)(A) A `reasonable recording' means the making of a
phonorecord embodying all or part of a performance licensed
under this section for private, noncommercial use where
technological measures used by the transmitting entity, and
which are incorporated into a recording device--
``(i) permit automated recording or playback based on
specific programs, time periods, or channels as selected by
or for the user;
``(ii) do not permit automated recording or playback based
on specific sound recordings, albums, or artists;
``(iii) do not permit the separation of component segments
of the copyrighted material contained in the transmission
program which results in the playback of a manipulated
sequence; and
``(iv) do not permit the redistribution, retransmission or
other exporting of a phonorecord embodying all or part of a
performance licensed under this section from the device by
digital outputs or removable media, unless the destination
device is part of a secure in-home network that also complies
with each of the requirements prescribed in this paragraph.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a consumer
from engaging in non-automated manual recording and playback
in a manner that is not an infringement of copyright.''.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 114.--Section 114(f) of title 17, United States
Code (as amended by subsection (b) of this section), is
further amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), in the first sentence, by striking
``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``under paragraph
(4)'' and inserting ``under paragraph (3)''.
(2) Section 804.--Section 804(b)(3)(C) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and 114(f)(2)(C)''; and
(B) in clause (iv), by striking ``or 114(f)(2)(C), as the
case may be''.
SEC. 3. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS MEETING AND REPORT.
(a) Meeting.--Not later than 60 days after the Copyright
Royalty Board's final determination in Docket No. 2005-1 CRB
DTRA, the Register of Copyrights shall convene a meeting
among affected parties to discuss whether to recommend
creating a new category of limited interactive services,
including an appropriate premium rate for such services,
within the statutory license contained in section 114 of
title 17, United States Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the convening of
the meeting under subsection (a), the Register of Copyrights
shall submit a report on the discussions at that meeting to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
____
National Music Publishers' Association Welcomes Introduction of the
Perform Act
April 25, 2006.--National Music Publishers' Association
President and CEO David Israelite today released the
following statement regarding the Platform Equality and
Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act, or the ``PERFORM
Act,'' new legislation to protect songwriters and music
publishers while encouraging the growth of digital radio:
``The National Music Publishers' Association supports this
important legislation, which will protect music as it is
transmitted over digital radio, It is crucial that Congress
update antiquated copyright laws in these days of rapidly
emerging technologies.''
``The songs we love and their creators need to be protected
under the law. By passing the PERFORM Act, Congress will make
certain that songwriters, music publishers and other members
of the music community are compensated for their intellectual
property.''
``Platforms like High Definition and Satellite radio should
be able to thrive and expand, but not at the expense of those
who worked so hard to create the music that fans crave.
Ultimately, this bill will allow the consumer more ways than
ever to get high-quality digital music, while fostering an
environment that will lead to the creation of more music.''
``The NMPA applauds Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for their efforts on the behalf of
music Publishers, songwriters and music fans everywhere.''
____
New Bipartisan Senate Bill Levels Digital Music Playing Field, Assures
Satellite Firms Play by Same Rules as Others
Members of Music Community Hail Bill, Says Will Help Ensure That
Artists and Songwriters Fairly Paid
Washington, April 25, 2006--The Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) today hailed the introduction
of new legislation to level the playing field for digital
radio as a major step forward in the music industry's drive
for parity among digital music services. The bill--introduced
today by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lindsey Graham (R-
SC)--would reform the appropriate section of copyright law to
assure satellite services play by the same rules as Internet
music services--both in rate setting and content protection
standards.
``There is a critical need for the government to harmonize
the current protections and rate regimes that make for the
haphazard patchwork covering digital music services today,''
said RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol. ``This patchwork is
allowing satellite radio to morph into something altogether
different--a digital distribution service--with the creators
of music left in the lurch. This legislation seeks to right
that wrong and ensure a marketplace where fair competition
can thrive. We're extremely grateful for the leadership of
Senators Feinstein and Graham. This bill moves us far closer
to achieving the platform parity that is so key to the health
of the music industry in years to come.''
The digital music marketplace is undergoing a convergence
across all platforms--a convergence creating arbitrary
advantages for certain services over others at the expense of
creators. While offering great opportunities for the music
community, satellite broadcasters and music fans, the
convergence of radio-like services and downloading capability
requires changes in the law to protect against a satellite
company transforming its model into a download service
without the appropriate license.
The RIAA and others in the music community have made it
clear that satellite radio services should be required to
obtain a license in the marketplace to offer the capability
to cherry pick individual songs and then permanently store
them in a digital library. Legislation--such as the
Feinstein-Graham bill--is needed to ensure that satellite
services play by the same set of rules everyone else does and
not profit from becoming a download/subscription model
without acquiring the appropriate license and compensating
artists and songwriters.
Because traditional terrestrial radio is not covered by the
government license or this legislation, private market
negotiations on measures to similarly protect high-definition
(HD) radio are currently in progress. The RIAA has also
praised the introduction of legislation by Rep. Mike Ferguson
(R-NJ) that requires users of free government spectrum to
protect content delivered through HD radio receivers through
private market agreements.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2646. A bill to create a 3-year pilot program that makes small,
nonprofit child care businesses eligible for loans under title V of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958; to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Congress comes back in session for a
five-week work period, it is high time we put partisan bickering aside
and take up real issues that will improve the lives of America's hard-
working families. Today, I rise to address one such problem--the
growing shortage of quality child care for our country's future
generations. Over the past 50 years, the United States has witnessed a
43 percent increase in the number of dual-
[[Page S3512]]
earner and single-parent families. Furthermore, the Census Bureau
estimates that more than six million children are left home alone on a
regular basis. Nationwide, more households than ever are struggling to
make ends meet, while providing safe, nurturing environments for their
children to grow up in. For many, child care is not a choice, but a
necessity in this endeavor. That is why we owe it to our Nation's
families to increase the availability of quality child care--because
strong, healthy families build a stronger America.
As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I firmly believe that we can work with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) to cultivate and expand existing child
care facilities. In light of this, I rise today to introduce the Child
Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006, which establishes a three-year pilot
program enabling small, non-profit child care businesses to be eligible
for the SBA's 504 loans.
With affordable fixed low interest rates and long terms, 504 loans
play a vital role in spurring economic development and the rebuilding
of communities. Current law permits for-profit child care small
businesses to finance building repairs and expand existing facilities
through these 504 loans. However, their non-profit counterparts are
unable to access the same financing through the SBA. Given that the
majority of child care centers in many States across the country
operate as non-profits, this system is shutting out the lion's share of
facilities from obtaining necessary funds to provide quality care for
the families they serve. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006
reverses this trend. By allowing non-profit child care businesses to
apply for 504 lending, the legislation enables these entities to put
down only 10 to 20 percent of the loan with a term of up to 20 years.
With low, predictable monthly payments, these non-profit centers can
then invest in the families they provide services to, by updating and
improving their buildings and materials without breaking the bank or
raising fees.
Since the industry is not high-earning overall, a majority of child
care centers do not have an abundance of easily accessible capital.
Proposals that call for centers to simply charge less or cut back on
employees are not the way to make child care more affordable for
families and do not serve in the children's best interests. An adequate
staff is crucial in ensuring that children receive proper supervision
and support to foster their development and learning. Furthermore, if
centers are asked to decrease operating costs in order to lower costs
absorbed by families, the safety and quality of the child care provided
would most likely be in jeopardy.
In recent years, the Children's Defense Fund estimated that in all
but one State, the average annual cost of child care in urban area
child care centers is more than the average annual cost of public
college tuition. Additionally, they projected that child care can
easily cost between $4,000 to $10,000 per year in cities and States
across the Nation. Clearly, these high costs pose virtually
insurmountable hurdles for low-income families in need of quality care
for their children. Although many States have implemented grant and
loan programs to help these child care small businesses, more must be
done--not only to improve the quality of care, but also the overall
supply of child care facilities for the Nation's neediest families.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and allow
non-profit child care providers to access SBA 504 financing for their
facilities and the children they serve. Funded entirely through fees,
this legislation requires no appropriation. Additionally, it is
consistent with the three-year SBA reauthorization cycle. This
legislation is the product of work on this issue in both the 107th and
108th Congresses. Similar legislation was introduced in 2002, S. 2891,
however the four year provision made this program inconsistent with the
cycle of SBA reauthorization. To remedy this, I reintroduced the
measure in 2003 as S. 822, making the act a three-year pilot program
consistent with the cycle of reauthorization. This pilot program was
also part of the larger Senate Small Business reauthorization
legislation in the last Congress, S. 1375. Unfortunately, this
innovative proposal to expand child care, which had bipartisan support,
was cut out of the final authorization package when a scaled-back
version of the reauthorization legislation, without most Democratic
initiatives, was added to the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill.
Although there is no quick-fix solution for the Nation's child care
shortage and lack of quality facilities, this bill marks an important
step in the right direction by allowing non-profit child care centers
to receive SBA loans. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle will recognize the vital role that early education plays in the
development of fine minds and productive citizens, and realize that in
this great Nation, child care should be available to all families in
all income brackets. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006 is a
sound investment in our Nation's future--our children.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2646
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care
Lending Pilot Act of 2006''.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively; and
(2) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
SEC. 2. CHILD CARE LENDING PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 502 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 696) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``The Administration'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Authorization.--The Administration'';
(B) by striking ``and such loans'' and inserting ``. Such
loans'';
(C) by striking ``: Provided, however, That the foregoing
powers shall be subject to the following restrictions and
limitations:'' and inserting a period; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Restrictions and Limitations.--The authority under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the following restrictions
and limitations:''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting after ``Use of proceeds.--'' the
following:
``(A) In general.--;'' and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Loans to small, nonprofit child care businesses.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), the
proceeds of any loan described in subsection (a) may be used
by the certified development company to assist a small,
nonprofit child care business, if--
``(I) the loan is used for a sound business purpose that
has been approved by the Administration;
``(II) each such business meets all of the same eligibility
requirements applicable to for-profit businesses under this
title, except for status as a for-profit business;
``(III) 1 or more individuals has personally guaranteed the
loan;
``(IV) each such business has clear and singular title to
the collateral for the loan; and
``(V) each such business has sufficient cash flow from its
operations to meet its obligations on the loan and its normal
and reasonable operating expenses.
``(ii) Limitation on volume.--Not more than 7 percent of
the total number of loans guaranteed in any fiscal year under
this title may be awarded under this subparagraph.
``(iii) Defined term.--For purposes of this subparagraph,
the term `small, nonprofit child care business' means an
establishment that--
``(I) is organized in accordance with section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(II) is primarily engaged in providing child care for
infants, toddlers, pre-school, or pre-kindergarten children
(or any combination thereof), and may provide care for older
children when they are not in school, and may offer pre-
kindergarten educational programs;
``(III) including its affiliates, has tangible net worth
that does not exceed $7,000,000, and has average net income
(excluding any carryover losses) for the 2 completed fiscal
years preceding the application that does not exceed
$2,500,000; and
``(IV) is licensed as a child care provider by the State,
the insular area, or the District of Columbia in which it is
located.
``(iv) Sunset provision.--This subparagraph shall remain in
effect until September 30, 2009, and shall apply to all loans
authorized under this subparagraph that are applied for,
approved, or disbursed during the period beginning on the
date of enactment of this subparagraph and ending on
September 30, 2009.''.
[[Page S3513]]
SEC. 3. REPORTS.
(a) Small Business Administration.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter until
September 30, 2009, the Administrator shall submit a report
on the implementation of the program under section
502(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as
added by this Act, to--
(A) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Contents.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
contain--
(A) the date on which the program is implemented;
(B) the date on which the rules are issued under section 4;
and
(C) the number and dollar amount of loans under the program
applied for, approved, and disbursed during the previous 6
months--
(i) with respect to nonprofit child care businesses; and
(ii) with respect to for-profit child care businesses.
(b) Government Accountability Office.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 31, 2009, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a
report on the child care small business loans authorized by
section 502(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958, as added by this Act, to--
(A) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall contain
information gathered during the first 2 years of the loan
program, including--
(A) an evaluation of the timeliness of the implementation
of the loan program;
(B) a description of the effectiveness and ease with which
certified development companies, lenders, and small business
concerns have participated in the loan program;
(C) a description and assessment of how the loan program
was marketed;
(D) by location (State, insular area, and the District of
Columbia) and in total, the number of child care small
businesses, categorized by status as a for-profit or
nonprofit business, that--
(i) applied for a loan under the program (and whether it
was a new or expanding child care provider);
(ii) were approved for a loan under the program; and
(iii) received a loan disbursement under the program (and
whether they are a new or expanding child care provider); and
(E) with respect to businesses described under subparagraph
(D)(iii)--
(i) the number of such businesses in each State, insular
area, and the District of Columbia, as of the year of
enactment of this Act;
(ii) the total amount loaned to such businesses under the
program;
(iii) the total number of loans to such businesses under
the program;
(iv) the average loan amount and term;
(v) the currency rate, delinquencies, defaults, and losses
of the loans;
(vi) the number and percent of children served who receive
subsidized assistance; and
(vii) the number and percent of children served who are low
income.
(3) Access to information.--
(A) In general.--The Administration shall collect and
maintain such information as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection from certified development centers and child
care providers, and such centers and providers shall comply
with a request for information from the Administration for
that purpose.
(B) Provision of information to government accountability
office.--The Administration shall provide information
collected under this paragraph to the Comptroller General of
the United States for purposes of the report required by this
subsection.
SEC. 4. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall issue final rules to carry out
the loan program authorized by section 502(b)(1)(B) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by this Act.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2651. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to make
grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs
about the Holocaust; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Simon
Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act.'' This important
legislation would provide competitive grants for educational
organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available
throughout this Nation.
And I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for
cosponsoring this legislation and my former colleague in the House,
Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on this issue.
This legislation could not come at a more important and solemn day in
our lives. Today is Yom Hashoah, a day when we commemorate the
approximately six million men, women and children of Jewish faith, as
well as millions of others who were persecuted and murdered 65 years
ago in a systematic, state sponsored genocide. Today, we also honor
those who stood up against the genocide and risked their own lives to
save others.
Today we stand in solidarity with Israel and the Jewish faith, and
with all people throughout the world, in remembering these tragic
events.
And today we honor Simon Wiesenthal who dedicated his life to making
sure that those who perpetrated the horrors of the Holocaust were
brought to justice.
Sixty-five years may seem like a lifetime away, and generations may
have been raised thinking that the Holocaust, and events like it, is
from a distant past. But let me be clear--these events are not so
distant and are not in the past. In fact, they are in our present.
Just recently, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hatefully and
outrageously declared the Holocaust a ``myth'' and Israel a ``fake
regime'' which ``cannot continue to live.''
And just two months ago, an anti-Semitic gang that calls themselves
``the Barbarians'' tortured 23-year-old Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish
man, for three weeks before leaving him for dead near a train station
in Paris.
It is these events that make us aware of the destructive messages of
hate and violence that arise from Holocaust denial. It is these events
that show us the importance of Holocaust education, abroad and in our
own Nation.
For although some States now require the Holocaust to be taught in
public schools, this legislation goes further and makes grants
available to organizations that teach students, teachers, and
communities the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our
society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate
resources and training to teach accurate historical information about
the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust provides for
all people.
We must recognize that by remembering the millions who were murdered
in the Holocaust, we create a sense of responsibility to stop genocide
wherever it takes place. But we must also remember that hate crimes and
genocide could, and are still, happening today.
We are reminded, through the deplorable comments made by Iranian
President Ahmadinejad against Israel and through the murder of young
Ilan Halimi in France that anti-Semitism still exists even 65 years
after the Holocaust. The awful acts of murder and rape in Darfur are a
horrific example of genocide in the 21st century.
And those who believe that anti-Semitism is an attack that need not
be answered by those who are not Jewish do not recognize the
consequences of history. In fact, an attack against anyone simply
because of race or religion is ultimately the beginning of the
unraveling of civilization. It is in our common interest to raise our
voices against anti-Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination.
We must fight the chorus of anti-Semitism and fight the fear and the
hate. As a Nation proud of our diverse heritage, we must, each of us,
take a stand. With our words, but most importantly with our actions, we
will turn the tide against this new wave of anti-Semitism. And funding
accurate educational programs on the Holocaust is a step toward winning
this battle.
In the words of Samantha Power, a renowned expert on genocide, ``the
sharpest challenge to the world of bystanders is posed by those who
have refused to remain silent in the age of genocide.''
So today, the United States of America stands with Israel and all
followers of the Jewish faith in commemorating Yom Hashoah, and
condemning all anti-Semitism and hatred. And I am proud to join in the
stand against anti-Semitism here and around the world.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Reed):
S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution expressing United States policy on
Iraq; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the
[[Page S3514]]
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 34
Whereas there has been a strong consensus among the senior
United States military commanders that a broad-based
political settlement involving the three main Iraqi groups is
essential for defeating the insurgency;
Whereas the two parts of that political settlement are (1)
agreement on a national unity government that serves the
interests of all Iraqis, and (2) compromises to amend the
Iraq Constitution to make it an inclusive document;
Whereas such a two-part political settlement is also
essential to prevent all-out civil war and is a critical
element of our exit strategy for United States military
forces in Iraq;
Whereas the Iraqi Council of Representatives' approval on
April 22, 2006, of the Presidency Council consisting of Jalal
Talabani as President and two Vice Presidents, and the
election of a Speaker and two Deputy Speakers is a
significant step, as is the decision by the Iraqi political
leadership to select Jawad al-Maliki as the Prime Minister
designate;
Whereas the Council of Representatives still needs to
consider the nomination of Jawad al-Maliki and his still-to-
be-chosen Cabinet, including an Interior Minister and a
Defense Minister, and still needs to form a committee to
recommend changes to the Iraq Constitution;
Whereas under the Iraq Constitution, Prime Minister
designate Jawad al-Maliki has 30 days from April 22, 2006, to
choose and present a Cabinet to the Council of
Representatives for its approval;
Whereas under the Iraq Constitution, the Council of
Representatives, at the start of its functioning, is required
to appoint a committee from its members which will have four
months to present recommendations to the Council for
necessary amendments to the Iraq Constitution;
Whereas while the three main Iraqi groups have differing
views about the duration of the presence in Iraq of the
United States-led Coalition forces, none of them favor the
immediate withdrawal of United States military forces from
Iraq;
Whereas section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109--163; 119 Stat.
3465; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) provides in part that ``[t]he
Administration should tell the leaders of all groups and
political parties in Iraq that they need to make the
compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and
sustainable political settlement that is essential for
defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the timetable they
set for themselves'';
Whereas the United States Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay
Khalilzad, has done an exceptional job in working with Iraqi
political, religious, and tribal leaders in an effort to
achieve consensus on the prompt formation of a national unity
government; and
Whereas the American public has become increasingly and
understandably impatient with the failure of the Iraqis to
form a national unity government: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is
the sense of Congress that the Iraqi political, religious,
and tribal leaders should be told by the Administration
that--
(1) the continued presence of United States military forces
in Iraq is not unconditional;
(2) whether the Iraqis avoid all-out civil war and have a
future as a nation is in their hands;
(3) the Iraqis need to seize that opportunity and only they
can be responsible for their own future; and
(4) completing the formation of a government of national
unity and subsequent agreement to modifications to the Iraq
Constitution to make it more inclusive, within the deadlines
the Iraqis have set for themselves in the Iraq Constitution,
is--
(A) essential to defeating the insurgency and avoiding all-
out civil war; and
(B) a condition of the continued presence of United States
military forces in Iraq.
____________________