[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5904-5910]
[From the U.S. 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):
  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

[[Page 5905]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5906]]

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)--
       (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

[[Page 5907]]

       (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- 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

[[Page 5908]]

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.''.

     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

[[Page 5909]]

     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 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

[[Page 5910]]

       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.

                          ____________________