A joint resolution expressing United States policy on Iraq.

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Some of this decline is due to outdated business models and competition from other entertainment products, some due to illegal actions and piracy, and some is due to outdated music licensing laws.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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the

joint resolution be printed in the Record.