[Pages S14187-S14194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2149. A bill to authorize resources to provide students with
opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill--the
``STEP UP Act''--to establish grants for summer school enrichment
programs to increase the academic skills of students in need.
According to the 2005 Nation's Report Card of Educational Progress,
the gap in reading scores between fourth grade children in poverty and
their more affluent peers did not decrease between 1998 and 2005. Fewer
than half of the fourth graders eligible for free or reduced priced
lunch are able to read at even the basic level--a level attained by
more than three-quarters of wealthier students. This data confirms that
too many of our children are not attaining skills at levels that will
lead to success, and too often, it is the children most in need who are
left behind by the educational system.

[[Page S14188]]

Teachers understand that students return to school in the fall at
levels below their performance of the previous spring. Educators know
this as summer learning loss. Research has shown that students, on
average, lose more than one month of reading skills and two months of
math skills over the summer. That is the average.
But the impact of summer learning loss is greatest for children
living in poverty, children with learning disabilities, and children
who do not speak English at home. Achievement levels for such children
often plummet during the summer, so that that the reading skills of
disadvantaged students can fall more that three months behind the
scores of their more affluent peers. The summer learning losses for
children in poverty accumulate over the elementary school years, so
these students end up falling further and further behind in school.
Several programs have been successful in countering summer learning
loss. The BELL programs and the Teach Baltimore Summer Academy provide
evidence that students can achieve months of progress, rather than
months of decline, when they participate in structured enrichment and
education programs for several weeks during the summer. These programs
are successful but reach too few of the students who need them.
The bill I am introducing today establishes a grant program for
states to support summer learning in selected local districts. These
grants would be used to help students in the early elementary grades
who are living in poverty, by supporting their participation in six
weeks of summer school. These summer opportunities could be offered by
a variety of providers, including the public schools, but also by other
community organizations that have shown success in providing
educational enrichment, such as youth development organizations,
nonprofits, and summer enrichment camps. These summer programs would be
aligned with the school year curriculum to increase the reading and
math skills of students in need and to provide them with learning
opportunities to avoid a path that might otherwise lead to failure in
school--a path that too often ends, years later, with these students
dropping out of the educational system.
The achievement gap in education begins in the early grades and
remains a burden for too many throughout their time in school. It is
becoming increasingly clear that much of this early difference can be
combated by structured summer learning opportunities. That is the
purpose of this bill, and I hope my colleagues will support this
important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2149

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 ``Summer Term Education
Programs for Upward Performance Act of 2005'' or the ``STEP
UP Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) All students experience learning losses when they do
not engage in educational activities during the summer.
(2) Students on average lose more than 1 month's worth of
reading skills, and 2 months or more in mathematics facts and
skills, during the summer.
(3) The impact of summer learning loss is greatest for
children living in poverty, for children with learning
disabilities, and for children who do not speak English at
home.
(4) While middle-class children's test scores plateau or
even rise during the summer months, scores plummet for
children living in poverty. Disparities grow, so that reading
scores of disadvantaged students can fall more than 3 months
behind the scores of their middle-class peers.
(5) Summer learning losses by children living in poverty
accumulate over the elementary school years, so that their
achievement scores fall further and further behind the scores
of their more advantaged peers as the children progress
through school.
(6) This summer slide is costly for American education.
Analysis by Professor Harris Cooper and his colleagues finds
that 2 months of the school year are lost: 1 month spent in
reteaching and 1 month spent not providing new instruction.
(7) Analysis of summer learning programs has demonstrated
their effectiveness. In the BELL programs in Boston, New
York, and Washington, DC, students gained several months'
worth of reading and mathematics skills in 6 weeks, with a
majority of those students moving to a higher performance
category, as assessed by standardized mathematics and reading
tests. In the Center for Summer Learning's Teach Baltimore
Summer Academy, randomized studies show that students who
regularly attended the program for not less than 2 summers
gained advantages of 70 to 80 percent of 1 full grade level
in reading over control-group peers who did not attend summer
school.
(8) Summer learning programs are proven to remedy,
reinforce, and accelerate learning, and can serve to close
the achievement gap in education.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to create opportunities for
summer learning by providing summer learning grants to
eligible students, in order to--
(1) provide the students with access to summer learning;
(2) facilitate the enrollment of students in elementary
schools or youth development organizations during the summer;
(3) promote collaboration between teachers and youth
development professionals in order to bridge gaps between
schools and youth programs; and
(4) encourage teachers to try new techniques, acquire new
skills, and mentor new colleagues.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Educational service agency.--The term ``educational
service agency'' has the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means an
entity that--
(A) desires to participate in a summer learning grant
program under this Act by providing summer learning
opportunities described in section 6(d)(1)(B) to eligible
students; and
(B) is--
(i) a local educational agency;
(ii) a for-profit educational provider, nonprofit
organization, or summer enrichment camp, that has been
approved by the State educational agency to provide the
summer learning opportunity described in section 6(d)(1)(B),
including an entity that is in good standing that has been
previously approved by a State educational agency to provide
supplemental educational services; or
(iii) a consortium consisting of a local educational agency
and 1 or more of the following entities:

(I) Another local educational agency.
(II) A community-based youth development organization with
a demonstrated record of effectiveness in helping students
learn.
(III) An institution of higher education.
(IV) An educational service agency.
(V) A for-profit educational provider described in clause
(ii).
(VI) A nonprofit organization described in clause (ii).
(VII) A summer enrichment camp described in clause (ii)

(3) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means
a student who--
(A) is eligible for a free lunch under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(B) is served by a local educational agency identified by
the State educational agency in the application described in
section 5(b); or
(C)(i) in the case of a summer learning grant program
authorized under this Act for fiscal year 2006, 2007, or
2008, is eligible to enroll in any of the grades kindergarten
through grade 3 for the school year following participation
in the program; or
(ii) in the case of a summer learning grant program
authorized under this Act for fiscal year 2009 or 2010, is
eligible to enroll in any of the grades kindergarten through
grade 5 for the school year following participation in the
program.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(5) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United
States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
(8) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).

SEC. 5. DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under section
8 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall carry out a
demonstration grant program in which the Secretary awards
grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies
to enable the

[[Page S14189]]

State educational agencies to pay the Federal share of summer
learning grants for eligible students.
(2) Number of grants.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall award not more than 5 grants under this section.
(b) Application.--A State educational agency that desires
to receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
require. Such application shall identify the areas in the
State where the summer learning grant program will be offered
and the local educational agencies that serve such areas.
(c) Award Basis.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretary shall take into consideration an equitable
geographic distribution of the grants.

SEC. 6. SUMMER LEARNING GRANTS.

(a) Use of Grants for Summer Learning Grants.--
(1) In general.--Each State educational agency that
receives a grant under section 5 for a fiscal year shall use
the grant funds to provide summer learning grants for the
fiscal year to eligible students in the State who desire to
attend a summer learning opportunity offered by an eligible
entity that enters into an agreement with the State
educational agency under subsection (d)(1).
(2) Amount; federal and non-federal shares.--
(A) Amount.--The amount of a summer learning grant provided
under this Act shall be--
(i) for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009, $1,600;
and
(ii) for fiscal year 2010, $1,800.
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of each summer
learning grant shall be not more than 50 percent of the
amount of the summer learning grant determined under
subparagraph (A).
(C) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of each
summer learning grant shall be not less than 50 percent of
the amount of the summer learning grant determined under
subparagraph (A), and shall be provided from non-Federal
sources, such as State or local sources.
(b) Designation of Summer Scholars.--Eligible students who
receive summer learning grants under this Act shall be known
as ``summer scholars''.
(c) Selection of Summer Learning Opportunity.--
(1) Dissemination of information.--A State educational
agency that receives a grant under section 5 shall
disseminate information about summer learning opportunities
and summer learning grants to the families of eligible
students in the State.
(2) Application.--The parents of an eligible student who
are interested in having their child participate in a summer
learning opportunity and receive a summer learning grant
shall submit an application to the State educational agency
that includes a ranked list of preferred summer learning
opportunities.
(3) Process.--A State educational agency that receives an
application under paragraph (2) shall--
(A) process such application;
(B) determine whether the eligible student shall receive a
summer learning grant;
(C) coordinate the assignment of eligible students
receiving summer learning grants with summer learning
opportunities; and
(D) if demand for a summer learning opportunity exceeds
capacity--
(i) in a case where information on the school readiness
(based on school records and assessments of student
achievement) of the eligible students is available, give
priority for the summer learning opportunity to eligible
students with low levels of school readiness; or
(ii) in a case where such information on school readiness
is not available, rely on randomization to assign the
eligible students.
(4) Flexibility.--A State educational agency may assign a
summer scholar to a summer learning opportunity program that
is offered in an area served by a local educational agency
that is not the local educational agency serving the area
where such scholar resides.
(5) Requirement of acceptance.--An eligible entity shall
accept, enroll, and provide the summer learning opportunity
of such entity to, any summer scholar assigned to such summer
learning opportunity by a State educational agency pursuant
to this subsection.
(d) Agreement With Eligible Entity.--
(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall enter
into an agreement with the eligible entity offering a summer
learning opportunity, under which--
(A) the State educational agency shall agree to make
payments to the eligible entity, in accordance with paragraph
(2), for a summer scholar; and
(B) the eligible entity shall agree to provide the summer
scholar with a summer learning opportunity that--
(i) provides a total of not less than the equivalent of 30
full days of instruction (or not less than the equivalent of
25 full days of instruction, if the equivalent of an
additional 5 days is devoted to field trips or other
enrichment opportunities) to the summer scholar;
(ii) employs small-group, research-based educational
programs, materials, curricula, and practices;
(iii) provides a curriculum that--

(I) emphasizes reading and mathematics;
(II) is primarily designed to increase the literacy and
numeracy of the summer scholar; and
(III) is aligned with the standards and goals of the school
year curriculum of the local educational agency serving the
summer scholar;

(iv) applies assessments to measure the skills taught in
the summer learning opportunity and disaggregates the results
of the assessments for summer scholars by race and ethnicity,
economic status, limited English proficiency status, and
disability category, in order to determine the opportunity's
impact on each subgroup of summer scholars;
(v) collects daily attendance data on each summer scholar;
and
(vi) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local civil
rights laws.
(2) Amount of payment.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
State educational agency shall make a payment to an eligible
entity for a summer scholar in the amount determined under
subsection (a)(2)(A).
(B) Adjustment.--In the case in which a summer scholar does
not attend the full summer learning opportunity, the State
educational agency shall reduce the amount provided to the
eligible entity pursuant to subparagraph (A) by a percentage
that is equal to the percentage of the summer learning
opportunity not attended by such scholar.
(e) Use of School Facilities.--State educational agencies
are encouraged to require local educational agencies in the
State to allow eligible entities, in offering summer learning
opportunities, to make use of school facilities in schools
served by such local educational agencies at reasonable or no
cost.
(f) Access of Records.--An eligible entity offering a
summer learning opportunity under this Act is eligible to
receive, upon request, the school records and any previous
supplemental educational services assessment records of a
summer scholar served by such entity.
(g) Administrative Costs.--A State educational agency or
eligible entity receiving funding under this Act may use not
more than 5 percent of such funding for administrative costs
associated with carrying out this Act.

SEC. 7. EVALUATIONS; REPORT; WEBSITE.

(a) Evaluation and Assessment.--For each year that an
eligible entity enters into an agreement under section 6(d),
the eligible entity shall prepare and submit to the Secretary
a report on the activities and outcomes of each summer
learning opportunity that enrolled a summer scholar,
including--
(1) information on the design of the summer learning
opportunity;
(2) the alignment of the summer learning opportunity with
State standards; and
(3) data from assessments of student mathematics and
reading skills for the summer scholars and on the attendance
of the scholars, disaggregated by the subgroups described in
section 6(d)(1)(B)(iv).
(b) Report.--For each year funds are appropriated under
section 8 for this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and
submit a report to Congress on the summer learning grant
programs, including the effectiveness of the summer learning
opportunities in improving student achievement.
(c) Summer Learning Grants Website.--The Secretary shall
make accessible, on the Department of Education website,
information for parents and school personnel on successful
programs and curricula, and best practices, for summer
learning opportunities.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 2150. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain Bureau of Land Management Land to the City of Eugene, Oregon;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce, with my friend and
colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, a small bill that should pack a
big score for ecological education in the City of Eugene. This bill
authorizes the transfer of 12 acres from the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to the City of Eugene on which the City of Eugene plans to
construct the West Eugene Environmental Education Center (WEEEC). The
WEEEC is a planned campus that will eventually hold laboratories,
greenhouses, a reference library, and public gathering places including
an exhibit hall, auditorium, and three classrooms. Transfer of this
acreage by this bill is the first step towards making the promise of
this educational center a reality.
The WEEEC and this bill are supported by the West Eugene Wetland
Partnership (Partnership). The Partnership is made up of the BLM,
Eugene School Districts, Northwest Youth Corp, and the Willamette
Resources and Educational Network (WREN) which was formed to assist in
planning, funding, building, and operating portions of this education
center. This bill

[[Page S14190]]

is also supported by the Oregon and California Counties (O&C counties)
who originally had issue with the land transfer because they opposed
loss of the 12 acres from the BLM land base. They are now in support of
this bill because the City of Eugene has stepped up to the plate and is
transferring land they currently own to the BLM to keep the public land
roles consistent.
The WEEEC will be the culmination of over a decade of work on the
part of local folks to preserve the West Eugene Wetlands. I urge its
swift passage.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2150

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 ``Eugene Land Conveyance
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Eugene,
Oregon.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the
City, without consideration and subject to all valid existing
rights, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the land described in subsection (b)(1) for the
purposes of--
(1) establishing a wildlife viewing area; and
(2) the construction and operation of an environmental
education center.
(b) Description of Land.--
(1) In general.--The land referred to in subsection (a) is
the parcel of approximately 12 acres of land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
in Lane County, Oregon, as depicted on the map entitled ``Red
House Property'' and dated April 11, 2005.
(2) Survey.--
(A) In general.--The exact acreage and legal description of
the land described in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a
survey acceptable to the Secretary, including an existing
survey.
(B) Cost.--If the Secretary determines that a new survey of
the land is required, the City shall be responsible for
paying the cost of the survey.
(c) Reversion.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the land
conveyed under subsection (a) is not being used for the
purposes described in that subsection--
(A) all right, title, and interest in and to the land
(including any improvements to the land) shall revert to the
United States; and
(B) the United States shall have the right of immediate
entry to the land.
(2) Hearing.--Any determination of the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall be made on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions for the
conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2151. A bill to authorize full funding of payments for eligible
federally connected children under title VIII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 by fiscal year 2011; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2151

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 ``Fair Share for Military
Children in Public Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN
UNDER TITLE VIII OF THE ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

Section 8014(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7714(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Basic Payments; Payments for Heavily Impacted Local
Educational Agencies.--For the purpose of making payments
under section 8003(b), there are authorized to be
appropriated--
``(1) for fiscal year 2007, such sums as may be necessary
to pay to each local educational agency for such fiscal year
70.4 percent of the full amount computed for such agency for
such fiscal year under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
8003(b);
``(2) for fiscal year 2008, such sums as may be necessary
to pay to each local educational agency for such fiscal year
77.8 percent of the full amount computed for such agency for
such fiscal year under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
8003(b);
``(3) for fiscal year 2009, such sums as may be necessary
to pay to each local educational agency for such fiscal year
85.2 percent of the full amount computed for such agency for
such fiscal year under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
8003(b);
``(4) for fiscal year 2010, such sums as may be necessary
to pay to each local educational agency for such fiscal year
92.6 percent of the full amount computed for such agency for
such fiscal year under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
8003(b); and
``(5) for fiscal year 2011, such sums as may be necessary
to pay to each local educational agency for such fiscal year
the full amount computed for such agency for such fiscal year
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 8003(b).''.
______

Mr. ENZI:
S. 2152. A bill to promote simplification and fairness in the
administration and collection of sales and use taxes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sales Tax
Fairness and Simplification Act, a bill that will level the playing
field for all retailers--in-store, catalog, and online--so each
retailer has the same sales tax collection responsibility. All retail
sales should be treated equally. The bill will also help States begin
to recover from years of budgetary shortfalls.
This bill is not a disguised attempt to increase taxes or put a new
tax on the Internet. Consumers are already supposed to pay sales and
use taxes in most States for purchases made over the phone, by mail, or
via the Internet. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware they are
required to pay this use tax on purchases the retailer does not choose
to collect sales tax on at the time of purchase.
That means consumers who buy products online are required to keep
track of their purchases and then pay the outstanding use tax
obligation on their State tax forms. This has proven to be unrealistic,
but what is real is most people do not know this or do not comply with
the requirement. As such, States are losing billions of dollars in
annual revenue. This legislation will help both consumers and States by
reducing the burden on consumers and providing a mechanism that will
allow States to systematically and fairly collect the taxes already
owed to them.
This bill is not about new taxes. Simply put, if Congress continues
to allow remote sales taxes to go uncollected and electronic commerce
continues to grow as predicted, other taxes--such as income or property
taxes--will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue. I want to
avoid that. That is why we need to implement a plan that will allow
States to generate revenue using mechanisms already approved by their
local leaders.
This bill is about economic growth. Sales and use taxes provide
critical revenue to pay for our schools, our police officers,
firefighters, road construction, and more. It will bring more money--
money that is already owed--into rural areas that are struggling
economically. It will also help businesses comply with the complicated
State sales tax systems. That means the business resources that have
historically been spent on tax compliance could be used, among other
things, to hire new people and buy new equipment.
This bill is about tax simplification. As the Supreme Court
identified in the Quill versus North Dakota decision in 1992, the
complicated State and local sales tax systems across this country have
created an undue burden on sellers. The Quill decision stated that a
multitude of complicated and diverse State sales tax rules made it too
onerous to require retailers to collect sales taxes unless they had a
physical presence in the State of the buyer. Local brick-and-mortar
retailers collect sales taxes, while many online and catalog retailers
are exempt from collecting the same taxes. This is not only
fundamentally unfair to Main Street retailers, but it is costing States
and localities billions in lost revenue.
The bill will help relieve this burden by requiring States to meet
the simplification standards outlined in the Streamlined Sales and Use
Tax Agreement. Working with the business community, the States
developed the Agreement to harmonize State sales tax rules, bring
uniformity to definitions of items in the sales tax base, significantly
reduce the paperwork burden

[[Page S14191]]

on retailers, and incorporate new technology to modernize many
administrative procedures. This unprecedented Agreement will increase
our Nation's economic efficiency and facilitate the growth of commerce
by dramatically reducing red-tape and administrative burdens on all
businesses and consumers. However, most importantly, the Agreement
removes the liability for collection errors from the retailer and
places it with the State. This historic Agreement was approved by 34
States and the District of Columbia on November 12, 2002.
The States have made tremendous progress in changing their State tax
laws to become compliant with the Agreement. Already, 19 States have
enacted legislation to change their tax laws and implement the
requirements of the Agreement. On October 3, 2005, the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement became effective.
This bill requires States to implement and maintain these
simplification measures before they can require any seller to collect
and remit sales tax. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
includes dramatic simplification in almost every aspect of sales and
use tax collection and administration, especially for the sellers who
sell their products in more than one State. Areas of simplification
include exemption processing, uniform definitions, State level
administration of local taxes, a reduced number of sales tax rates,
determining the appropriate tax rate, and reduced audit burdens for
sellers using the State-certified technology.
While the States have made great progress, the Quill decision held
that allowing States to require collection is an issue that, ``Congress
may be better qualified to resolve, and one that it has the ultimate
power to resolve.'' The States have acted. It is now time for Congress
to provide States that enact the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement with the authority to require remote retailers to collect
sales taxes just as Main Street retailers do today.
Congress needs to ``level the playing field'' for all retailers--in-
store, catalog, and online--so each has the same sales tax collection
responsibility. All retail sales should be treated equally. I believe
Congressional action is needed to provide States that implement the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement with the authority to collect
sales and use taxes from remote retailers. Adoption of the Agreement
and Congressional authorization will provide a level playing field for
brick and mortar and remote retailers.
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and I have worked tirelessly to
assist sellers and State and local governments to find true
simplification in almost every aspect of sales and use tax collection
and administration. I want to thank Senator Dorgan for working with me
on this policy issue for so many years. We have been successful in
moving this issue forward from discussing it at the Federal level with
Members of Congress to the drafting of the Streamlined Sales and Use
Tax Agreement to approving the Governing Board this year to push
forward with implementation.
For the past eleven months, Senator Dorgan and I have worked with all
interested parties to try to find a mutually agreeable legislative
package to introduce this year. Many hours have been dedicated in
trying to find the right solution to address all concerns. I appreciate
everyone's hard work on this piece of legislation and believe it is
time to introduce the bill before the end of the year.
Senator Dorgan and I will be introducing two separate bills this
year, but will continue to work with each other and all interested
parties to find compromise on the outstanding policy issues of concern
to the stakeholders. Some of the issues that will be further discussed
include, but are not limited to, modifications to the small business
exception language, inclusion of tribal governments language, and
modifications to the language about transactional taxes on
telecommunications services. Bill introduction does not stop us from
negotiating and working together to improve the final product that
should be enacted into public law. I look forward to working with
Senator Dorgan and all interested parties to produce a compromise bill
in 2006 that addresses all concerns raised over the past year.
The Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act provides States that
implement the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement with the
authority to collect sales or use taxes equally from all retailers.
Adoption of the Agreement and Congressional authorization will provide
a level playing field for brick and mortar and remote retailers.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2152

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 ``Sales Tax Fairness and
Simplification Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.

The Congress consents to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

(a) Sales and Use Tax System.--It is the sense of the
Congress that the sales and use tax system established by the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, to the extent that
it meets the minimum simplification requirements of section
6, provides sufficient simplification and uniformity to
warrant Federal authorization to Member States that are
parties to the Agreement to require remote sellers, subject
to the conditions provided in this Act, to collect and remit
the sales and use taxes of such Member States and of local
taxing jurisdictions of such Member States.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to--
(1) effectuate the limited authority granted to Member
States under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement; and
(2) not grant additional authority unrelated to the
accomplishment of the purpose described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE
TAXES.

(a) Grant of Authority.--
(1) In general.--Each Member State under the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement is authorized, subject to the
requirements of this section, to require all sellers not
qualifying for the small business exception provided under
subsection (d) to collect and remit sales and use taxes with
respect to remote sales sourced to that Member State under
the Agreement.
(2) Requirements for authority.--The authorization provided
under paragraph (1) shall be granted once all of the
following have occurred:
(A) 10 States comprising at least 20 percent of the total
population of all States imposing a sales tax, as determined
by the 2000 Federal census, have petitioned for membership
and have become Member States under the Agreement.
(B) The following necessary operational aspects of the
Agreement have been implemented by the Governing Board:
(i) Provider and system certification.
(ii) Setting of monetary allowance by contract with
providers.
(iii) Implementation of an on-line multistate registration
system.
(iv) Adoption of a standard form for claiming exemptions
electronically.
(v) Establishment of advisory councils.
(vi) Promulgation of rules and procedures for dispute
resolution.
(vii) Promulgation of rules and procedures for audits.
(viii) Provisions for funding and staffing the Governing
Board.
(C) Each Member State has met the requirements to provide
and maintain the databases and the taxability matrix
described in the Agreement, pursuant to requirements of the
Governing Board.
(3) Limitation of authority.--The authorization provided
under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall be granted notwithstanding any other provision of
law; and
(B) is dependent upon the Agreement, as amended, meeting
the minimum simplification requirements of section 6.
(b) Termination of Authority.--
(1) In general.--The authorization provided under
subsection (a) shall terminate for all States if--
(A) the requirements contained in subsection (a) cease to
be satisfied; or
(B) any amendment adopted to the Agreement after the date
of enactment of this Act is not within the scope of the
administration of sales and use taxes or taxes on
telecommunications services by the Member States.
(2) Loss of member state status.--The authorization
provided under subsection (a) shall terminate for a Member
State, if such Member State no longer meets the requirements
for Member State status under the terms of the Agreement.
(c) Determination of Status.--
(1) In general.--The Governing Board shall determine if
Member States are in compliance with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Compliance determination.--Upon the determination of
the Governing Board that all the requirements of subsection
(a) have been satisfied, the authority of each Member

[[Page S14192]]

State to require a seller to collect and remit sales and use
taxes shall commence on the first day of a calendar quarter
at least 6 months after the date the Governing Board makes
its determination.
(d) Small Business Exception.--No seller shall be subject
to a requirement of any State to collect and remit sales and
use taxes with respect to a remote sale if--
(1) the seller and its affiliates collectively had gross
remote taxable sales nationwide of less than $5,000,000 in
the calendar year preceding the date of such sale; or
(2) the seller and its affiliates collectively meet the
$5,000,000 threshold of this subsection but the seller has
less than $100,000 in gross remote taxable sales nationwide.

SEC. 5. DETERMINATIONS BY GOVERNING BOARD AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF SUCH DETERMINATIONS.

(a) Petition.--At any time after the Governing Board has
made the determination required under section 4(c)(2), any
person who may be affected by the Agreement may petition the
Governing Board for a determination on any issue relating to
the implementation of the Agreement.
(b) Review in Court of Federal Claims.--Any person who
submits a petition under subsection (a) may bring an action
against the Governing Board in the United States Court of
Federal Claims for judicial review of the action of the
Governing Board on that petition if--
(1) the petition relates to an issue of whether--
(A) a Member State has satisfied or continues to satisfy
the requirements for Member State status under the Agreement;
(B) the Governing Board has performed a nondiscretionary
duty of the Governing Board under the Agreement;
(C) the Agreement continues to satisfy the minimum
simplification requirements set forth in section 6; or
(D) any other requirement of section 4 has been satisfied;
and
(2) the petition is denied by the Governing Board in whole
or in part with respect to that issue, or the Governing Board
fails to act on the petition with respect to that issue not
later than 6 months after the date on which the petition is
submitted.
(c) Timing of Action for Review.--An action for review
under this section shall be initiated not later than 60 days
after the denial of the petition by the Governing Board, or,
if the Governing Board failed to act on the petition, not
later than 60 days after the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the day after the date on which the petition was
submitted.
(d) Standard of Review.--
(1) In general.--In any action for review under this
section, the court shall set aside the actions, findings, and
conclusions of the Governing Board found to be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.
(2) Remand.--If the court sets aside any action, finding,
or conclusion of the Governing Board under paragraph (1), the
court shall remand the case to the Governing Board for
further action consistent with the decision of the court.
(e) Jurisdiction.--
(1) Generally.--Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1510. Jurisdiction regarding the Streamlined Sales and
Use Tax Agreement

``The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over actions for judicial review of
determinations of the Governing Board of the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement under the terms and conditions
provided in section 5 of the Sales Tax Fairness and
Simplification Act.''.
(2) Conforming amendment to table of sections.--The table
of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``1510. Jurisdiction regarding the streamlined sales and use tax
agreement.''.

SEC. 6. MINIMUM SIMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--The minimum simplification requirements
for the Agreement, which shall relate to the conduct of
Member States under the Agreement and to the administration
and supervision of such conduct, are as follows:
(1) A centralized, one-stop, multistate registration system
that a seller may elect to use to register with the Member
States, provided a seller may also elect to register directly
with a Member State, and further provided that privacy and
confidentiality controls shall be placed on the multistate
registration system so that it may not be used for any
purpose other than the administration of sales and use taxes.
Furthermore, no taxing authority within a Member State or a
Member State that has withdrawn or been expelled from the
Agreement may use registration with the centralized
registration system for the purpose of, or as a factor in
determining, whether a seller has a nexus with that Member
State for any tax at any time.
(2) Uniform definitions of products and product-based
exemptions from which a Member State may choose its
individual tax base, provided, however, that all local
jurisdictions in that Member State shall have a common tax
base identical to the State tax base of that Member State. A
Member State may enact other product-based exemptions without
restriction if the Agreement does not have a definition for
the product or for a term that includes the product. A Member
State shall relax the good faith requirement for acceptance
of exemption certificates in accordance with section 317 of
the Agreement, as amended through the date of enactment of
this Act.
(3) Uniform rules for sourcing and attributing transactions
to particular taxing jurisdictions.
(4) Uniform procedures for the certification of service
providers and software on which a seller may elect to rely in
order to determine Member State sales and use tax rates and
taxability.
(5) Uniform rules for bad debts and rounding.
(6) Uniform requirements for tax returns and remittances.
(7) Consistent electronic filing and remittance methods.
(8) Single, State-level administration of all Member State
and local sales and use taxes, including a requirement for a
State-level filing of tax returns in each Member State.
(9) A single sales and use tax rate per taxing
jurisdiction, except that a State may impose a single
additional rate, which may be zero, on food, food
ingredients, and drugs, provided that this limitation does
not apply to the items identified in section 308 C of the
Agreement, as amended through the date of enactment of this
Act.
(10) A Member State shall eliminate caps and thresholds on
the application of sales and use tax rates and exemptions
based on value, provided that this limitation does not apply
to the items identified in section 308 C of the Agreement, as
amended through the date of enactment of this Act.
(11) A provision requiring each Member State to complete a
taxability matrix, as adopted by the Governing Board. The
matrix shall include information regarding terms defined by
the Agreement in the Library of Definitions. The matrix shall
also include, pursuant to the requirements of the Governing
Board, information on use, entity, and product based
exemptions.
(12) A provision requiring that each Member State relieves
a seller or service provider from liability to that Member
State and local jurisdiction for collection of the incorrect
amount of sales or use tax, and relieves the purchaser from
penalties stemming from such liability, provided that
collection of the improper amount is the result of relying on
information provided by that Member State regarding tax
rates, boundaries, or taxing jurisdiction assignments, or in
the taxability matrix regarding terms defined by the
Agreement in the Library of Definitions.
(13) Audit procedures for sellers, including an option
under which a seller not qualifying for the small business
exception in section 4(d) may request, by notifying the
Governing Board, to be subject to a single audit on behalf of
all Member States for sales and use taxes (other than use
taxes on goods and services purchased for the consumption of
the seller). The Governing Board, in its discretion, shall
authorize such a single audit.
(14) As of the day that authority to require collection
commences under section 4, each Member State shall provide
reasonable compensation for expenses incurred by a seller
directly in administering, collecting, and remitting sales
and use taxes (other than use taxes on goods and services
purchased for the consumption of the seller) to that Member
State. Such compensation may vary in each Member State
depending on the complexity of the sales and use tax laws in
that Member State and may vary by the characteristics of
sellers in order to reflect differences in collection costs.
Such compensation may be provided to a seller or a third
party service provider whom a seller has contracted with to
perform all the sales and use tax responsibilities of a
seller.
(15) Appropriate protections for consumer privacy.
(16) Governance procedures and mechanisms to ensure timely,
consistent, and uniform implementation and adherence to the
principles of the streamlined system and the terms of the
Agreement.
(17) Each Member State shall apply the simplification
requirements of the Agreement to taxes on telecommunications
services, except as provided herein. This requirement is
applicable to Member States as of July 1, 2008, except that
sales and use taxes on telecommunications services shall be
subject to the Agreement and the authority granted to the
Member States when the requirements of section 4(a) are met.
On or after July 1, 2008, for those Member States which meet
the requirements of this paragraph, the authority granted
such Member States under section 4 may be exercised by such
Member States, pursuant to the terms of section 4 and section
5, with respect to taxes on telecommunications services other
than sales and use taxes on such services. The following are
exceptions to the requirement established under this
paragraph:
(A) The requirement for one uniform return shall not apply,
provided, however, there shall be one uniform return for each
type of tax on telecommunications services within a State.
(B) The requirements for rate simplification are modified
to require that each taxing jurisdiction shall have only one
rate for each type of tax on telecommunications services.
(C) The requirements for tax base uniformity in section 302
of the Agreement shall apply to each type of tax on
telecommunications services within a State, but shall not be
construed to require that the tax base for

[[Page S14193]]

different types of taxes on telecommunications services must
be identical to the tax base for sales and use taxes imposed
on telecommunications services.
(18) Uniform rules and procedures for ``sales tax
holidays''.
(19) Uniform rules and procedures to address refunds and
credits for sales taxes relating to customer returns,
restocking fees, discounts and coupons, and rules to address
allocations of shipping and handling and discounts applied to
multiple item and multiple seller orders.
(b) Requirement to Provide Simplified Tax Systems.--
(1) In general.--The requirements of this section are
intended to ensure that each Member State provides and
maintains the necessary simplifications to its sales and use
tax system to warrant the collection authority granted to it
in section 4.
(2) Reduction of administrative burdens.--The requirements
of this section should be construed--
(A) to require each Member State to substantially reduce
the administrative burdens associated with sales and use
taxes; and
(B) as allowing each Member State to exercise flexibility
in how these requirements are satisfied.
(3) Exception.--In instances where exceptions to the
requirements of this section can be exercised in a manner
that does not materially increase the administrative burden
on a seller obligated to collect or pay the taxes, such
exceptions are permissible.

SEC. 7. LIMITATION.

(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as--
(1) subjecting a seller to franchise taxes, income taxes,
or licensing requirements of a Member State or political
subdivision thereof; or
(2) affecting the application of such taxes or requirements
or enlarging or reducing the authority of any Member State to
impose such taxes or requirements.
(b) No Effect on Nexus, Etc.--
(1) In general.--No obligation imposed by virtue of the
authority granted by section 4 shall be considered in
determining whether a seller has a nexus with any Member
State for any other tax purpose.
(2) Permissible member state authority.--Except as provided
in subsection (a), and in section 4, nothing in this Act
permits or prohibits a Member State from--
(A) licensing or regulating any person;
(B) requiring any person to qualify to transact intrastate
business;
(C) subjecting any person to State taxes not related to the
sale of goods or services; or
(D) exercising authority over matters of interstate
commerce.

SEC. 8. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Three-Judge District Court Hearing.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any civil action challenging the
constitutionality of this Act, or any provision thereof,
shall be heard by a district court of three judges convened
pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code.
(b) Appellate Review.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of
the court of three judges in an action under subsection (a)
holding this Act, or any provision thereof, unconstitutional
shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to
the Supreme Court.
(2) 30-day time limit.--Any appeal under paragraph (1)
shall be filed not more than 30 days after the date of entry
of such judgment, decree, or order.

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act the following definitions
apply:
(1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means any entity
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with a seller.
(2) Governing board.--The term ``Governing Board'' means
the governing board established by the Streamlined Sales and
Use Tax Agreement.
(3) Member state.--The term ``Member State''--
(A) means a Member State as that term is used under the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement as of the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(B) does not include associate members under the Agreement.
(4) Nationwide.--The term ``nationwide'' means throughout
each of the several States and the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(5) Nondiscretionary duty of the governing board.--The
phrase ``nondiscretionary duty of the Governing Board'' means
any duty of the Governing Board specified in the Agreement as
a requirement for action by use of the term ``shall'',
``will'', or ``is required to''.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
trust, estate, fiduciary, partnership, corporation, or any
other legal entity, and includes a State or local government.
(7) Remote sale.--The term ``remote sale'' refers to a sale
of goods or services attributed to a particular Member State
with respect to which a seller does not have adequate
physical presence to establish nexus under the law existing
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act so as to
allow such Member State to require, without regard to the
authority granted by this Act, the seller to collect and
remit sales or use taxes with respect to such sale.
(8) Remote seller.--The term ``remote seller'' means any
seller who makes a remote sale.
(9) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States of America and includes the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession
of the United States.
(10) Streamlined sales and use tax agreement.--The term
``Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement'' (or ``the
Agreement'') means the multistate agreement with that title
adopted on November 12, 2002, as amended through the date of
enactment of this Act and unless the context otherwise
indicates as further amended from time to time.
(11) Tax on telecommunications services.--The term ``tax on
telecommunications services'' or ``taxes on telecommunication
services'' shall encompass the same taxes, charges, or fees
as are included in section 116 of title 4, United States
Code, except that ``telecommunication services'' shall
replace ``mobile telecommunications services'' whenever such
term appears.
(12) Telecommunications service.--
(A) In general.--The term ``telecommunications service''
means the electronic transmission, conveyance, or routing of
voice, data, audio, video, or any other information or
signals to a point, or between or among points.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``telecommunication service''--
(i) includes transmission services in which computer
processing applications are used to act on the form, code, or
protocol of the content for purposes of transmission,
conveyance, or routing without regard to whether such
services are referred to as voice over Internet protocol
services or are classified by the Federal Communications
Commission as enhanced or value added services; and
(ii) does not include the data processing and information
services that allow data to be generated, acquired, stored,
processed, or retrieved and delivered by an electronic
transmission to a purchaser where the primary purpose of such
purchaser for the underlying transaction is the processed
data or information.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON DIGITAL GOODS AND SERVICES.

It is the sense of the Congress that each State that is a
party to the Agreement should work with other States that are
also party to the Agreement to prevent double taxation in
situations where a foreign country has imposed a transaction
tax on a digital good or service.
______

By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 2153. A bill to promote simplification and fairness in the
administration and colleciton of sales and use taxes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been working closely with Senator
Mike Enzi of Wyoming for several years now on Federal legislation that
encourages and rewards State and local governments that radically
simplify their sales tax systems by granting them authority to require
large sellers to collect taxes on remote sales after substantial
simplifications are implemented. This year we have delayed
reintroducing related legislation that we cosponsored in the last
Congress, S. 1736, primarily due to concerns that some parties have
raised about the bill's small business exemption language.
After months of negotiation, there's still disagreement among the
stakeholders about how the bill should define small remote sellers who
would be exempted from the bill's sales tax collection requirements.
Regrettably, the small business exemption issues have not been resolved
to the satisfaction of all parties and Senator Enzi is re-introducing
essentially our same proposal from the 108th Congress as he promised. I
certainly respect his right and decision to do so.
However, I have been working on small business language that I think
is a fair approach and will greatly improve the odds that this bill
will become law.
The bill I am introducing today is identical to the bill that Senator
Enzi is introducing today in every respect--except one. Instead of
putting a small business exemption in the bill with a specific dollar
threshold, my proposal sets up a process that I believe will help us
get to the right answer. Under my proposal, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) is required, after considering all relevant
factors and soliciting input from the Treasury Department, the
Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board and others, to develop a
rulemaking and propose to Congress a definition of those small sellers,
including small businesses, which would not be required to collect and
remit sales and use taxes. My bill provides

[[Page S14194]]

for the expedited consideration of SBA's proposal by the U.S. House and
Senate and takes steps to ensure that a small sellers' exemption will
ultimately be approved by Congress. States would be allowed to require
impacted remote sellers to collect sales taxes only after federally
mandated simplification is accomplished and a small business exemption
is approved by Congress.
All of the other parts of my bill are identical to those included in
Senator Enzi's bill. These provisions also deserve our immediate
attention. There are over 7,000 tax jurisdictions across the country
that rely on sales taxes to fund a range of local activities, from
education and fire suppression to police protection and road
construction. But billions of dollars in needed sales tax revenues go
uncollected year after year in many jurisdictions due to a ruling by
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 that said current State and local sales
tax systems impose an undue burden on sellers without a physical
presence in each State.
Internet and catalog sellers have argued that collecting and
remitting sales taxes for thousands of different tax authorities is
exceedingly complex. This is a legitimate complaint. And I understand
why the U.S. Supreme Court in its Quill decision said that States and
localities could not require sellers to collect sales tax on remote
sales until the States and localities have first dramatically reduced
the complexity and burden of collecting sales taxes.
The States and localities have stepped up to the challenge outlined
in the Quill decision. For five years now, the States have been working
with the retail community and local governments to develop a
streamlined and uniform sales tax system agreement that will alleviate
the burden of sales tax collection on local retailers and remote
sellers.
The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which was approved by 34
States and the District of Columbia in November 2002, requires
participating States to comply with dozens of stringent simplification
requirements that streamline how State sales and use taxes are
identified and collected. By early next year, 19 States will have
enacted legislation to bring them into compliance with the Agreement
and will be members of its Governing Board.
By harmonizing their State sales and use tax rules, bringing
uniformity to definitions in the sales tax base, significantly reducing
the paperwork burden on retailers, and incorporating a seamless
electronic reporting process, compliance with the Agreement will result
in a significantly reduced tax collection burden on all sellers.
As the volume of remote on-line retail sales grow, states are losing
more and more sales tax revenues. An estimated $15 billion in sales and
use taxes will go uncollected in 2005. This threatens the future
ability of states and localities to make critical investments in even
the most basic community services, while forcing local retailers who
are required to collect sales taxes today to compete with large remote
competitors who are not. Senator Enzi and I are determined to address
this problem.
I think that the legislation I am introducing today strikes a
reasonable balance between the interests of consumers, local retailers,
remote sellers and the states. Having said that, I will be working with
Senator Enzi early in the next session to see if we can put together a
single approach that would address any remaining concerns about the
small business exemption and help us move this legislative effort
forward in the next session.
We will also have an opportunity to more fully examine some issues
raised by the representatives of local governments and some Indian
tribes about the impact of our initiative on their constituencies.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
S. 2155. A bill to provide meaningful civil remedies for victims of
the sexual exploitation of children; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Isakson and I introduce
legislation to increase civil penalties for child exploitation. Our
legislation is a small piece of a larger battle that we believe will
stop would-be child predators and protect our children. Predators like
the ones who exploited Masha, a little girl who was featured on Prime
Time Live a few weeks ago, and the thousands of other children who are
victims of these horrific crimes.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar internet business.
With the increasingly sophisticated technology of digital media, child
pornography has become easier to produce and purchase. Countless people
around the world have instant access to pictures and videos posted on
the Internet and, unfortunately, millions of these images are
pornographic depictions of infants and children. Masha is one of these
children, whose images--hundreds of them--are on the Internet and being
downloaded around the world. And while the man who sexually abused
Masha and posted the pictures on the web is in jail, the damage has
been done and will continue until people stop downloading pictures of
her off the internet.
Under current law, a victim of child exploitation is entitled to
civil statutory damages in U.S. District Court in the amount of
$50,000--less than the civil penalty for illegally downloading music
off the internet. This penalty is far too low to effectively deter
would-be child pornographers. This legislation increases the civil
penalties recoverable by victims of child sexual exploitation,
including internet child pornography, to at least $150,000. This
increased penalty will serve as a deterrent to those who disseminate
and possess child pornography, as well as a means of compensating
victims of this terrible abuse. If someone downloads a song off the
Internet, Federal copyright law provides for statutory damages to be
awarded to the copyright holder in the amount of $150,000. Downloading
child pornography is far more detrimental to the victim than
downloading copyrighted music and, as a result, the penalty should
reflect that.
But it is not only the statutory damages that are flawed. The current
statute states that ``Any minor who is a victim of a violation [of the
act] may sue in United States District Court''. This language has been
interpreted literally by a Federal district court to restrict recovery
to plaintiffs whose injuries occurred while they were minors. Thus,
when victims turn 18 they cannot recover against their perpetrators
even if pornographic images of them as children are still distributed
via the internet. Our legislation would clarify the statute to include
victims of child pornography who are injured as adults by the
downloading of their pornographic images.
This bill takes an important step towards ensuring justice for
victims of child exploitation. I would urge speedy passage of this
legislation as a stand alone bill or encourage its inclusion in a
larger child protection package. It is the very least Congress can do
for Masha and the thousands of children like her who have suffered at
the hands of these criminals. I thank Senator Isakson for his co-
sponsorship, and I look forward to working with him and all my
colleagues to see that it passes the Senate.

____________________