24 1 SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 2 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 3 sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 4 Act. S 1301 IS A family day care center is not a huge business enterprise. A family day care center, by definition, is operated in an individual's home. It presents a child care option that many working parents prefer-day care for a small group of children who are closely su pervised in a home setting often in the same neighborhood where the parents live. Additionally, most States have regulations or licensing requirements that set limits on the number of children that may be served and ensure that the setting is safe, clean, and pleasant. Considering these circumstances, I do not feel that a definition of residence which excludes family day care centers is appropriate. The bill I am introducing today would amend the Federal charters for Federal National Mortgage Associa tion and the Federal Home Loan Mort rage Corporation to permit mortgages for homes with family day care centers to be eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae Ginnie Mae, and Freddie Mr. President,, the need for quality, affordable day care in our country is tremendous More than half of the women with children younger than 3 work and, the number is even higher for women with preschool and school age children. And this is a growing trend. In 1979, these were 4.2 million children under 4, 4. with mothers in the labor force 1985, there were 9.5 millies. That number is expected to Increase to 14.6/million in 1906. The need for child care is particularly acute in Minnesota where the percent age of women working outside the home is the third highest in the cou try. Lack of affordable child care can pose a significant barrier to low income families striving for self-suffi ciency, denying parents the opportuns ty to work, participate in employment programs or attend school. Child care can also affect the productivity of working parents. A study of 5,000 workers in the Midwest found that 58 percent of the women workers and 33 percent of the men with young children felt their child care concerns affected their time at work in unproductive ways As policymakers at the national level, we have a role to play in encouraging the development and growth of affordable, quality child care options. The bill I am introducing will remove existing policy which penalizes family day care providers who wish to pur chase or refinance their homes. There is no cost associated with this bill. I am pleased to note that this bill will be incorporated into the Economic Equity Act of 1987 and that Congresswoman MARY KAPTUR of Ohio will be introducing the bill in the House. I invite my colleagues to support his val uable initiative. 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: 8. 1300 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled MORTGAGES ON PROPERTIES INCLUDING DAY SECTION 1. (a) Section 302(b) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the last sentence of paragraph (1) the following: ". and such term includes any loan that is secured by a single family residential property that is occupied as a single family residence in which community child care service is provided in compliance with all applicable State or local laws if the loan is otherwise eligible for pur chase under this title". (b) Section 302(h) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act la amended by adding at the end thereof the following "Such form also includes a loss of advance of credit that is secured by a single family residential property that is couples single family residence in which community child care service is provided in compliance loan or advance is otherwise eligible for p with all applicable State or local lawa if i chase under this title."@ By Mr. LEAHY & 1301. A bill to as United States Code, to implem Berne Convention for the Paste of Literary and Artistle Working as revised at Paris on July 24, 1973, and for other purposes; ta the Comme se on the Judiciary, -, *.. BRENE CONVENTION TOPLINARPRAKSİM'ACT Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presidents in the gloomy picture of Americans compets tion is world trade, there are a few bright spota: One of these is the trade in works of authorship protected by copyright. The world's appetite for American-books, sound recordings, motion pictures computer software and other copyrighted works appears insatiable. There are many reasons why the United States is the world's largest ex porter of copyrighted works. Prime among them are the skill, inventive neas, and imaginativeness of American authors, musicians, software develop ers, and other creators. But like any other resource, American creativity will continue to flourish only in the proper environment. Our primacy in the trade in copyrighted works gives us a vital stake in strengthening the world system for the protection of copyright. Today I introduce legisla tion to advance that goal, by bringing US copyright law into compliance with the standards of the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. better known as the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention is 101 years old. What began as a treaty among 10 European nations has grown to be the Faghest internationally recognized standard for the protection of works $ 7369 of authorship of all kinds. Seventyeight nations, including all our major trading partners, now measure their copyright laws against this yardstick. Over the past century, the Berne Convention has adapted well to dramatic changes in the technology of creating. distributing, and consuming the products of the human imagination. World trade in copyrighted works faces even more sweeping challenges in the 21st century. In the years ahead, as in the past, the Berne Convention will provide the central forum in which the rights of creators and consumers can be properly addressed. Perhaps in the past it was enough for the United States to observe these developments from a distance, or to participate in them only through the medium of the Universal Copyright Convention, with its lower standards of copyright protection. But today, and ir future years, vital American interests can be fully represented in the international copyright system only if we get off the sidelines and onto the playing field by joining the Berne Conventioncurs This legislation builds on am sece ating tempe recent pu ment 99th nd govern favor of U.S. adher ence to Berne There is also a degree of consensus about the changes that would be needed in the US copyright law in order to meet Berne standards. Last October: Senator Mathias, the chairman of the Patents, Coyrights and Trademarks Subcommittes, introduced a Berne implementation bill, 8. 2904-99th Congress. More recently, on March 16 of this year, Representa tive ROBERT KASTENCHES, the Congreas' foremost authority on copyright matters, introduced H.R. 1623, a somewhat different legislative approach to the same goal. The bill I introduce today, the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987, seeks to synthesize the best of these two proposals. Its goal is to bridge the relatively narrow gap that now prevents the United States from assuming its rightful place among the leaders of the world copyright community. That gap used to be a wide one, and the contortions that would have been required to bridge it have doomed previous efforts to bring the United States into the Berne Convention. But most of those problems were resolved in 1976, when the US. Copyright Act was completely rewritten. Today, our copyright law requires only fre tuning in order to meet Berne's standards The bill I introduce today genera..y follows the minimalist approach of S 7370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE making only those changes to our law which are necessary in order to comply with Berne, without disrupting the smooth operation of the U.S. copy right system. Like the previous legisla tion on this subject, it proceeds on and makes explicit the well-founded as sumption that the Berne Convention is not self-executing, and can only be implemented through legislation passed by both Houses of Congress and approved by the President. Surely as Berne implementation leg islation proceeds through the legisla tive process, it will be refined and improved. Many of the required changes in domestic law are narrow and technical. For the moment, I will point out just three areas in which the Berne Convention Implementation Act would change U.S. copyright law in order to meet Berne standards. First, nations adhering to Berne are required to provide copyright proteetion for architectural works. There is no dispute that U.S. law currently falls short in this area. While the Mathias bull in the last Congress called for pretection of architectural works, the formulation in the Kastenmater ap pears superior in this area, and my bill adopts the provisions of HL.B. 1639 with only maituor cimangon♫ as registration has been accomplished. May 29, 1987 ages, which not only increases the incentive to register, but also takes into account Inflation since these levels were originally established in 1978, and enhanced penalties for failure to deposit works with the Library of Congress, since this is an alternative, noncopyright means by which the com pleteness of the Library's collections may be assured. As this proposal is reviewed in the legislative process, these incentives may need to be adjusted. We must scrutinize the evidence, as contrasted with the speculation, that simple elimination of the section 411 requirement will have a deleterious effect on the volume of registrations, and ensure that the force of new registration incentives is commensurate with the strength of the incentive that is being eliminated. The effect of any new incentives to register should be carefully examined, and different incentives ld be considered that However, in my view, some weight Second, the existing compulsory cense for the performance of musical works on juke boxes, is clearly incosspatible with Berne The Mathias bill simply eliminated the compulsary cense, but the Copyright Offiane has argued persuasively that such a dras tic step may not be required. H.R. 1633 envisions the negotiation of voluntary of license agreements between the performing rights societies such ASCAP and BMI, and juke box operators, in order to permit juke box par formances with adequate compense tion to composer. The existing com pulsory license mechanism, adminis tered by the Copyright Royalty Tribur nal, is retained only as a back up. My bill generally adopts this approach as well, although it differs from HR 1623 in spelling out the applicable pro cedures if voluntary license agres ments are not reached, or if they lapse In the future. Third, the question of copyright reg istration presents some thorny prob lema. Berne standards stress the elimination of formalities as preconditions to copyright protection. For this reason, for example, the requirement of copyright notice as a prerequisite for copyright protection is incompatible with Berne, and all the bills proposed on this subject would eliminate the notice requirement. Registration of a copyrighted work with the Copy right Office is not, technically speak. ing. a condition for the existence of copyright under current U.S. law. It is, however, a precondition for the exercise of any of the bundle of rights conferred by copyright, since, under sec tion 411 of the Copyright Act, no court action for infringement of the copyright may be maintained until pyright, adequa bol and the valuable fee ration system: The the remov The ad hoc committee on copyright experts convened by the State Depart ment studied the moral rights issue in some detail. Its report states that: There are substantial grinds for c cluding that the totality of 13 x1 vides protection for the rights of pate and integrity sufficient to cuma k ticiel stis (of the Berne Cor applied by artons Bermenta This conclusion is support of ba record of the Senate teatres Berne during the 99th Congress, including advocates of domestic moral rights legislation. This record provides persuasive evidence that no changes in U.S. copyright law are needed in order to meet Berne's minimum standards with respect to moral rights. Any moral rights amendment to the Copyright Act would be highly controversial. The debate on any such proposal could be a contentious distraction from the effort to bring the United States into the Berne Convention. Whatever the merits of various proposals to strengthen protection for moral rights under the Copyright Act, none of them would advance the goal of Berne adherence, which is the only object of this legislation. Accordingly, like the Berne implementation legisla tion previously introduced in the Senate, the Berne Convention Imple mentation Act of 1987 does not contain any provision on moral rights. Mr. President, as I have noted, the consensus in support of the principle of U.S. adherence to the Berne Convention is today stronger than ever. Within the introduction of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987, which parallels in many important respects the provisions of Representative KASTENMEZER's bill on the subject, we take a giant step closer to a consensus on the legislative means of reaching this valuable goal. I look for ward to working with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks, Senator DeConcret, and with my other col leagues on that subcommittee, and with Representative KASTENIR and his colleagues on the counterpart subcommittee on the other body, in order to resolve the few remaining differ ences between the bills. In this Congrem, the long-delayed goal of bring ing the United States into the premier world copyright agreement is within our grasp. We should reach now to attain it, and thereby strengthen the system of international copyright protection under which American creativ. ity has flourished, to the benefit and enjoyment of the entire world. resources to support new initiatives in, tion, not currently eligible for existing Today, I rise to introduce legislation to create a self-supporting technology trust fund to finance future long-term basic scientific research and student assistance in math, science, computer scierice and engineering. The trust fund would be financed by royalties from federally funded research and development and royalties resulting from technology transfers from the Federal Government to the private sector. The trust fund is also authorized to accept charitable contributions from the private sector. The trust fund is expected to collect or distribute large sums of money for a number of years. It is intended to be a forward looking proposal to provide future supplemental funds in an era of continuing budgetary restraint. Under this proposal, an independent entity would be established known as the science and technology advisory committee. The committee would be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and would advise the National Science Foundation on the management of the science and technology trust fund. There shall be three primary sources of funds for the trust fund. Wherever possible, the Federal Government will secure from recipiants of any Federal research and development funds a promise to grant to the science and technolgy trust fund a percentage of any profits or ownership of patents directly resulting from such federally funded research and development. The legislation does not set a specific minimum royalty. It will be the responsibility of each Federal depart ment to establish appropriate arrange menta. It is my suggestion that the royalty be in the 2-percent to 5-per cent range. This level will not discour age research efforts, but could eventually provide a significant source of funds. The second source of funding is from existing technology transfer royalties. Under current law, Federal re search facilities can transfer technoloy to the private sector under a royalty arrangement. Under the proposal those funds which simply go into the general fund will be earmarked for the technology trust fund. Finally, the trust fund would be authorized to solicit and accept charita ble contributions. The science and technology trust fund will provide a source of funds for student assistance and student facilities. The trust fund will make grants or loans available for students for study in science, engineering, math and computer sciences; and grants to educational institutions for infrastruc ture development in science, engineer. ing, math and computer sciences. The trust fund will also fund basic scientific research and development. There shall be funds available for long term basic research grants for projec's worthy of scientific investiga technology trust grants would only be Under this program, science and available to U.S. citizens or institutions and development funds shall only be available where development results in domestic manufacture or use. Unlike any other competitiveness trust fund attempts to make a fair disprograms, the science and technology tribution of its resource among the ation will be given to geographic distriStates. In making grants, considerbution. States which receive few grants from existing Federal research and development programs will receive special consideration in evaluating grant applications. In essence, there will be an affirmative aétion factor for States which do not receive many grants from existing science and technology programs. Over a period of several years, the legislation requires that there be a relatively equal balance of grants between student assistance and facilities; and scientific research. Mr. President, the United States faces tough new economic competi tors. The strength of our Nation and its economy has been our edge in science and technology. I regret to say that our competitors are closing on our lead. Now is the time to look into the future and establish the mechanisms which can keep the United States at the forefront of science and technoloBY. I ask my colleagues to take a careful look at this proposal and I invite their support and recommendations. 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: 8. 1302 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of America in Congress assembled, Representatives of the United States of SHORT TITLE, DEFINITION SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the Basic Scientific Research and Student Assistance Act". (b) As used in this Act, the term "person" means any individual, corporation, educa tional institution, or other entity PROJECTS SEC. 23) The National Sc tion, in consultation with the A". mittee established by section 3 f authorized to make grants agreements with any petion more of the follbatrg pure [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4262) to amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an Ă. The Berne Convention in International Copyright.. 1. History of the Convention.. 2. Successive Revisions of the Berne Convention.......... 3. The Administration of the Convention..... 4. The Relationship between the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention. 5. The Berne Convention and Developing Countries.. B. The Berne Convention and International Trade |