[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4245-4248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUITIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2082. A bill to modify the application of the antitrust laws to 
permit collective development and implementation of a standard contract 
form for playwrights for the licensing of their plays; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Playwrights' 
Licensing Relief Act of 2002. I thank Senator Schumer, my cosponsor on 
this bill, for his interest and leadership on this important 
legislation.
  This bill is necessary both to ensure the continued vitality of 
American live theater and to protect the intellectual property and 
artistic rights of playwrights. When the theater is crowded and the 
curtain rises, it is easy to forget that the entire show began with one 
person: the lone playwright who put the pen to paper.
  Playwrights and their voluntary peer membership organization, the 
Dramatists Guild, operate under the shadow of the antitrust laws, and 
substantially without the ability to coordinate their actions in 
protecting their interests. This has impeded playwrights' ability to 
act collectively in dealing with highly-oranized and unionized groups, 
such as actors, directors, and choreographers, on the one hand, and the 
increasingly consolidated producers and investors on the other.
  I am proud that this legislation enables playwrights to act 
collectively without violating the antitrust laws. It lets them develop 
standard form contracts as well as provisions ensuring that certain 
artists' rights are respected in the production of their plays. These 
steps will help support playwrights, especially young playwrights, as 
they enter this increasingly sophisticated and consolidated market. By 
helping playwrights in this way we encourage the continued vibrance of 
our American theater and culture.
  I am pleased to introduce this bill and look forward to working with 
Senator Schumer on this important legislation.
  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. 2082

       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 ``Playwrights Licensing Relief 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. NONAPPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the antitrust 
     laws shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, 
     review, action, or agreement for the express purpose of, and 
     limited to, the development of a standard form contract 
     containing minimum terms of artistic protection and levels of 
     compensation for playwrights by means of--
       (1) meetings, discussions, and negotiations between or 
     among playwrights or their representatives and producers or 
     their representatives; or
       (2) joint or collective voluntary actions for the limited 
     purposes of developing a standard form contract by 
     playwrights or their representatives.
       (b) Adoption and Implementation.--Subject to subsection 
     (c), the antitrust laws shall not apply to any joint 
     discussion, consideration, review, or action for the express

[[Page 4246]]

     purpose of, and limited to, reaching a collective agreement 
     among playwrights adopting a standard form contract developed 
     pursuant to subsection (a) as the participating playwrights 
     sole and exclusive means by which participating playwrights 
     shall license their plays to producers.
       (c) Amendment of Contract.--A standard form of contract 
     developed and implemented under subsections (a) and (b) shall 
     be subject to amendment by individual playwrights and 
     producers consistent with the terms of the standard form 
     contract.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
     meaning given it in section (a) of the first section of the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) except that such term includes 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) 
     to the extent that such section applies to unfair methods of 
     competition.
       (2) Playwright.--The term ``playwright'' means the author, 
     composer, or lyricist of a dramatic or musical work intended 
     to be performed on the speaking stage and shall include, 
     where appropriate, the adapter of a work from another medium.
       (3) Producer.--The term ``producer''--
       (A) means any person who obtains the rights to present live 
     stage productions of a play; and
       (B) includes any person who presents a play as first class 
     performances in major cities, as well as those who present 
     plays in regional and not-for-profit theaters.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2083. a bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to make 
grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs 
about the Holocaust; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague 
from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to introduce the Holocaust Education 
Assistance Act. This legislation provides for grants to support 
Holocaust education programs that teach the lessons that the Holocaust 
provides for all people, including developing curriculum guides and 
providing training to help teachers incorporate those lessons in their 
classes. This bill is especially timely this week, as we observe the 
Holocaust Days of Remembrance. The Holocaust has always been a 
difficult issue to teach; the complexities and the sheer horror of what 
occurred in Nazi Germany can seem overwhelming. But, I am confident 
that this bill will help educators to undertake the difficult but vital 
task of helping this and future generations understand the meaning of 
the Holocaust.
  In the wake of the events of September 11, it is more important than 
ever to understand the damage and suffering that acts of hatred and 
racism can reap. The Holocaust was one of history's darkest moments and 
it must be remembered in order to prevent its repetition. Indeed, we 
are constantly reminded of why we must be vigilant against ethnic 
hatred and violence. In the past 10 years, for example, we have seen 
ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The old axiom 
remains true: ``those who do not learn from history are doomed to 
repeat it.''
  Yet, even today, there are some who not only refuse to learn from the 
Holocaust, but who refuse even to accept that it happened. The 
Holocaust, of course, did happen. We saw the remains of the camps at 
Treblinka and Auschwitz; we read letters sent among Nazi leaders 
discussing the ``final solution,'' and we hear the eloquent words of 
countless survivors such as Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi describing the 
atrocities they witnessed and were forced to endure. In the face of all 
that, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and our children 
about the horrors of the Holocaust and help to build a world in which 
such events never happen again.
  Knowledge is the most effective tool in breaking down the barriers 
between groups and creating more inclusive and tolerant societies. This 
legislation will help with the critical task of spreading such 
knowledge through education.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 2084. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the exemption from tax for small property and casualty insurance 
companies; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
addresses an inequity facing an important segment of the small business 
community. This legislation is simple and straight forward, it adjusts 
the current tax exemption that has existed since 1942 for small 
property and casualty, (P&C), insurance companies so that it keeps pace 
with inflation.
  As the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have heard from many small P&C insurers in Missouri 
and across the Nation that they are having to consider raising their 
premiums simply because the tax laws have not kept pace with inflation. 
Under current law, mutual and stock P&C insurance companies are exempt 
from Federal income taxes if the greater of their direct or net written 
premiums in a taxable year do not exceed $350,000.
  For companies that grow above the $350,000 threshold, current law 
permits electing P&C insurance companies to be taxed only on their 
investment income, provided their premiums do not exceed $1.2 million. 
Unfortunately, these thresholds, which were last updated in the Tax 
Reform Act of 1986, have not been adjusted for inflation.
  This situation has created an unintended outcome. Take, for instance, 
a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers 
in the late 1980s. Over the ensuring years, the company's client base 
changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to 
keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business 
itself has not grown, its premium base has and with it the loss of the 
tax exemption, (or the alternative tax on investment income).
  For the farmers and ranchers covered by the small P&C insurer, this 
loss is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client 
with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of 
which is a real option. And for our agricultural community over the 
past few years, this choice is about the last thing they need.
  The bill I introduce today would correct this problem by simply 
adjusting the $350,000 and $1.2 million thresholds to bring them up to 
the level they would have been this year if the 1986 tax code had 
included an inflation adjustment. Accordingly, the tax exemption would 
apply to P&C insurers with premiums that do not exceed $551,000, and 
the alternative for taxation of investment income would apply to 
companies with premiums above $551,000 but not more than $1,890,000. 
The bill would apply for taxable years beginning in 2002 and would 
index both thresholds for inflation thereafter.
  According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, 
this legislation will help at least 652 small P&C insurance companies 
nationwide. In my State, at least 62 small insurance companies will 
continue to be covered under the current tax provisions, thereby 
enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to 
small businesses across Missouri.
  With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness 
into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, 
ranchers, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this 
country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look 
forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into 
law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be provided in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2084

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR SMALL 
                   PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

       (a) Premium Limitations Increased To Reflect Inflation 
     Since First Imposed.--
       (1)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 501(c)(15) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``$350,000'' and inserting ``$551,000''.
       (B) Paragraph (15) of section 501(c) of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) In the case of any taxable year beginning in a 
     calendar year after 2001, the $551,000

[[Page 4247]]

     amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) $551,000, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If the amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $1,000.''
       (2)(A) Clause (i) of section 831(b)(2)(A) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) the net written premiums (or, if greater, direct 
     written premiums) for the taxable year exceed the amount 
     applicable under section 501(c)(15)(A) but do not exceed 
     $1,890,000, and''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 831(b) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Inflation Adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2001, the $1,890,000 
     amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) $1,890,000, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If the amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $1,000.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
        Hutchinson):
  S. 2085. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
clarify the definition of homebound with respect to home health 
services under the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today 
legislation that is cosponsored by Senators Cleland, Bond, and 
Hutchinson, that would modernize the current outdated homebound 
requirement that has impeded access to needed home health care services 
for far too many of our Nation's frail, elderly, and disabled Medicare 
beneficiaries. I thank former Senator Bob Dole, one of our Nation's 
leading advocates, on behalf of individuals with disabilities, for 
bringing this issue to my attention.
  The highly skilled and often technically complex care that our home 
health care agencies provide has enabled millions of our most 
vulnerable older and disabled citizens to receive health care just 
where they want to be: in the security, comfort, and privacy of their 
own homes.
  Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered homebound to 
be eligible for home health services. While an individual is not 
actually required to be bedridden in order to qualify, his or her 
condition must be such that ``there exists a normal inability to leave 
home.'' Moreover, leaving home must require ``a considerable and taxing 
effort by the individual.'' The law does allow for absences from the 
home of ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration.''
  Unfortunately, the law does not define precisely what this means. It 
leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many 
absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short these absences must 
be. The result is that interpretations of the law vary widely from 
region to region. As a consequence, there have been far too many 
instances where an overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the 
definition has turned elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries who 
are dependent on Medicare home health services and medical equipment 
into virtual prisoners in their own homes. We have heard disturbing 
accounts of individuals on Medicare who have had their home health care 
benefits terminated for leaving their homes briefly to visit a 
hospitalized spouse or to attend a major family gathering, including in 
one case, to attend the funeral of their own child.
  Another mother did not attend the funeral of her own child out of 
fear that by doing so, she would jeopardize her home health benefits. 
This does not make sense, and it is just cruel.
  The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, 
disabled Medicare patients. For example, People magazine reported a 
story last year about a Georgia resident, David Jayne, a 40-year-old 
man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who was confined to a wheelchair and 
could not swallow, speak, or even breathe on his own. Obviously, he 
needed skilled nursing visits several times per week in order for him 
to remain at home and not at an inpatient facility.
  Despite his disability, however, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with 
youth and church groups. He is an inspirational person. He speaks using 
a computerized voice synthesizer and gives inspirational talks about 
how the human spirit can endure and even overcome great hardship.
  The Atlantic Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne 
and his activities, including a report about how he had, with great 
effort and help from his family and friends, attended a football game 
to root for the University of Georgia Bulldogs.
  A few days later, unbelievably, at the direction of the fiscal 
intermediary, his home health agency--which had been sending a home 
health nurse to his home for 2 hours, 4 mornings a week--notified him 
that he was no longer considered homebound and terminated his benefits. 
His benefits were subsequently reinstated due to the enormous amount of 
media attention to this case, but this experience motivated him to 
launch a crusade to modernize the homebound definition and led him to 
found the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound 
Restriction.
  So even out of this terrible experience, once again this 
inspirational individual who is suffering so greatly from Lou Gehrig's 
disease has managed to launch a crusade to try to prevent what happened 
to him from happening to other severely disabled individuals who are 
dependent on home health care.
  The fact is, the current requirement that Medicare beneficiaries be 
homebound in order to be eligible for home health benefits reflects an 
outmoded view of life for persons who are elderly or live with 
disabilities. The legislation I am introducing attempts to correct this 
problem. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.
  I hope we can make this change, which will make a real difference for 
millions of disabled and elderly Medicare beneficiaries.
  The homebound criteria for home health may have made sense thirty 
years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might expect to live in 
the confines of their home, perhaps cared for by an extended family. 
The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and 
medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with 
significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to 
reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals--like Mr. 
Jayne--which allows them brief periods of relative wellness. It also 
fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity and physical 
stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the body and 
mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four walls of a 
home.
  The legislation that we are introducing today will amend the 
homebound definition to base eligibility for the home health benefit on 
the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition, rather 
than on an arbitrary limitation on absences from the home. It would 
retain the requirements in current law that the individual must have 
either a condition, due to illness or injury, that restricts the 
ability of the individual to leave his or her home except with the 
assistance of another individual or the aid of a supportive device; or 
a condition such that leaving his or her home is medically 
contraindicated.
  In addition, the condition of the individual must still be such that 
``there exists a normal inability to leave home'' and that ``leaving 
home requires a considerable and taxing effort.'' Under our 
legislation, however, the current arbitrary requirement that patients 
be allowed ``only infrequent absences of short duration'' from the home 
would be dropped. Our legislation builds upon major improvements in the 
definition of homebound that were initiated in the last Congress by 
Senator

[[Page 4248]]

Jeffords, Reed and others which specifically allow Medicare patients to 
leave the home to attend religious services and participate in adult 
day care.
  Our proposal is supported by the Leadership Council of Aging 
Organizations, the National Association for Home Care, and the Visiting 
Nurses Association of America. It is also consistent with President 
Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' which has, as its goal, the removal 
of barriers that impede opportunities for those with disabilities to 
integrate more fully into the community. By allowing reasonable 
absences from the home, our legislation will bring the Medicare home 
health benefit into the 21st century, and we encourage all of our 
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2087. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers a credit against income tax for the provision of independent 
investment advice to employees; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will facilitate 
the flow of investment advice by providing businesses with a Federal 
income tax credit for small businesses of up to $30 per participant, 
$20 for larger businesses, for providing qualified independent 
investment advice. This legislation is a continuation of our efforts to 
help 401(k) participants better understand their investment options and 
enable them to make sound financial decisions. Last year, Senator 
Collins and I introduced S. 1677, ``The Independent Investment Advice 
Act of 2001'' that will create a safe harbor for employers to relieve 
them of liability for the selection and monitoring of qualified 
independent investment advisers. Combined, these pieces of legislation 
will facilitate the flow of investment advice to all plan participants 
regardless of their income or net worth.
  As introduced, this legislation will provide small businesses, as 
defined as having 50 employees or less, with a 60 percent tax credit on 
the first $50 of the cost associated with providing qualified 
independent investment advice. All other employers will be eligible for 
a 40 percent credit on the same amount of expenses. This legislation 
will limit the benefit for any plan sponsor to a total of $50,000 of 
credits per year under this provision.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in advancing this legislation.
  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 folllows:

                                S. 2087

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INDEPENDENT INVESTMENT ADVICE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45G. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INDEPENDENT INVESTMENT ADVICE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     employer-provided independent investment advice credit 
     determined under this section for the taxable year is an 
     amount equal to 40 percent (60 percent in the case any small 
     employer (as defined in section 220(c)(4))) of the qualified 
     independent investment advice services paid for by the 
     taxpayer in such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Services taken into account per employee.--The amount 
     of qualified independent investment advice services which may 
     be taken into account for any taxable year with respect to 
     each employee shall not exceed $50.
       ``(2) Total credit allowed per taxpayer.--The amount of the 
     employer-provided independent investment advice credit which 
     is allowable under subsection (a) in any taxable year (when 
     added to such credits allowed for all preceding taxable 
     years) may not exceed $50,000.
       ``(b) Qualified Independent Investment Advice Services.--
     For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified independent 
     investment advice services' means, with respect to any 
     employee, individualized independent investment advice 
     services provided by an independent investment adviser who 
     certifies to the taxpayer that such employee received such 
     services.
       ``(2) Nondiscrimination.--Independent investment advice 
     services shall not be treated as qualified unless the 
     provision of such services (or the eligibility to receive 
     such services) does not discriminate in favor of employees of 
     the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the 
     meaning of section 414(q)).
       ``(c) Application of Rules.--For purposes of this section, 
     the rules of section 45F(e) shall apply.''.
       (b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
     Subsection (b) of section 38 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph 
     (14), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(16) the employer-provided independent investment advice 
     credit determined under section 45G(a).''.
       (c) Denial of Double Benefit.--Section 280C of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Credit for Employer-Provided Independent Investment 
     Advice.--No deduction shall be allowed for that portion of 
     the expenses otherwise allowable as a deduction for the 
     taxable year which is equal to the amount of the credit 
     determined for the taxable year under section 45G(a).''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 45G. Employer-provided independent investment advice.''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid or incurred in the taxable years 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________