Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.

Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers.

Under the AWA, Class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some Class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions.

As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a Class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents during this week-long search. The investigation of this facility is ongoing, and an indictment is pending.

The complaint being investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleges that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It is also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. The undercover investigation of this facility has revealed that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and also revealed a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries.

Inadequate veterinary care is one of the worst violations of the AWA committed against these animals. The expense for quality veterinary care is one that irresponsible Class B dealers do not wish to incur, and animals often die as a result of their untreated injuries or diseases. This was one of the violations uncovered by the investigation, and often resulted from another violation of the AWA that requires compatible grouping of animals. Vicious or diseased animals were not separated from the general population and posed a risk to all of the animals housed with them. In addition, this particular dealer also provided inadequate housing facilities that exposed the animals to injury from sharp wires. Fecal waste was allowed to accumulate in the housing facility, and often dead dogs were left where they fell in cages with other living animals. Food receptacles were found to be contaminated with moldy and rotten food, and potable water was not readily available to the animals. All of these are direct violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In addition to neglect, these animals often suffer abuse at the hands of dealers. Evidence of gross cruelty is being uncovered while the USDA continues to investigate this case.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of Class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. My legislation would not be a burden on research facilities because only two percent of the approximately 2,051 Class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some Class B dealers.

My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed Class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from Class B dealers.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation.

I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2349, ``The Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative'' or ``PLAI [play] Act.''

This legislation is designed to ensure the continued vitality of American theater. 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 pen to paper. While this artistic independence--and the individual expression it fosters--are absolutely central to the continuing vitality of quality live theater in America, it has resulted in individual playwrights being increasingly forced into a situation where they bargain alone against corporate behemoths and organized labor groups over terms of compensation and artistic control when their works are performed on Broadway.

Due to the interaction of Federal labor law, the antitrust laws, and the Copyright Act, playwrights and their voluntary peer membership organization, the Dramatists Guild of America, operate under the shadow of possible antitrust litigation, which has substantially and detrimentally decreased their ability to coordinate their actions in protecting their artistic and financial interests. This has impeded the ability of playwrights to act collectively in dealing with highly- organized and unionized groups--such as actors, directors, and choreographers on the one hand--and the increasingly consolidated producers and investors on the other.

Playwrights contribute enduring, thoughtful entertainment and cultural enrichment to our lives. I know that many of my colleagues here in the Senate share my appreciation for the creative work they do. Despite the importance of their work, our current antitrust laws prevent them from negotiating a standard form contract for the production of their works. As a result, playwrights--who are frequently at a substantial bargaining disadvantage--are forced to accept contracts on a take it or leave it basis.

If we truly want the American stage to flourish, we must remedy this situation. The PLAI Act is a narrow measure that allows playwrights, composers and lyricists--through either the Dramatists Guild or any other voluntary peer organization--to act collectively in dealing with other industry groups that operate both under and behind the bright lights of the American stage.

The PLAI Act enables playwrights to act collectively without violating the antitrust laws. It allows these men and women to sit down with their creative colleagues in the industry to negotiate, adopt and implement a standard form contract for the production of their works. Actors, stagehands, directors, producers and venue owners of live theater--nearly all other theater workers and artists--already have this right. Importantly, this extends only to the adoption and implementation--but not any collective enforcement--of an updated standard form contract. Thus, it would merely allow dramatists to replace the terms of the current standard contract--which I am given to understand has remained virtually unchanged for several decades--with amended terms that reflect the changing business and artistic landscape on Broadway.

My hope is that the basic ability to develop a standard form contract as well as provisions ensuring that certain artists' rights are respected in the production of their plays will encourage young, struggling playwrights to continue working in the field. Too often, playwrights with great potential abandon their writing--or choose to write for a different audience or venue--because they are powerless to negotiate even minimum levels of compensation or artistic copyright protection for their work. William Shakespeare himself was paid no more than eight pounds apiece for his plays, and was not able to make his living from writing. This was, of course, back in the late 16th century.

We should not allow today's antitrust laws to be used to discourage some of our most creative citizens from pursuing careers in live theater. When talented individuals are pushed away from their craft because of the unintended consequences of legislation, it is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to set things right.

As a long time enthusiast of live theater, and a lyricist myself, I am proud to co-sponsor this bill. It is my belief that the PLAI Act will help foster the next Arthur Miller, the next Andrew

Lloyd Webber, or the next Wendy Wasserstein. By helping playwrights in this way we encourage the continued vibrancy of American live theater and artistic and literary culture.

I commend my co-sponsor Senator Kennedy for his efforts on this bill. His leadership and support represent a significant step forward in preserving the future of live theater in America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the PLAI Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2349, ``The Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative'' or ``PLAI [play] Act.''

This legislation is designed to ensure the continued vitality of American theater. 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 pen to paper. While this artistic independence--and the individual expression it fosters--are absolutely central to the continuing vitality of quality live theater in America, it has resulted in individual playwrights being increasingly forced into a situation where they bargain alone against corporate behemoths and organized labor groups over terms of compensation and artistic control when their works are performed on Broadway.

Due to the interaction of Federal labor law, the antitrust laws, and the Copyright Act, playwrights and their voluntary peer membership organization, the Dramatists Guild of America, operate under the shadow of possible antitrust litigation, which has substantially and detrimentally decreased their ability to coordinate their actions in protecting their artistic and financial interests. This has impeded the ability of playwrights to act collectively in dealing with highly- organized and unionized groups--such as actors, directors, and choreographers on the one hand--and the increasingly consolidated producers and investors on the other.

Playwrights contribute enduring, thoughtful entertainment and cultural enrichment to our lives. I know that many of my colleagues here in the Senate share my appreciation for the creative work they do. Despite the importance of their work, our current antitrust laws prevent them from negotiating a standard form contract for the production of their works. As a result, playwrights--who are frequently at a substantial bargaining disadvantage--are forced to accept contracts on a take it or leave it basis.

If we truly want the American stage to flourish, we must remedy this situation. The PLAI Act is a narrow measure that allows playwrights, composers and lyricists--through either the Dramatists Guild or any other voluntary peer organization--to act collectively in dealing with other industry groups that operate both under and behind the bright lights of the American stage.

The PLAI Act enables playwrights to act collectively without violating the antitrust laws. It allows these men and women to sit down with their creative colleagues in the industry to negotiate, adopt and implement a standard form contract for the production of their works. Actors, stagehands, directors, producers and venue owners of live theater--nearly all other theater workers and artists--already have this right. Importantly, this extends only to the adoption and implementation--but not any collective enforcement--of an updated standard form contract. Thus, it would merely allow dramatists to replace the terms of the current standard contract--which I am given to understand has remained virtually unchanged for several decades--with amended terms that reflect the changing business and artistic landscape on Broadway.

My hope is that the basic ability to develop a standard form contract as well as provisions ensuring that certain artists' rights are respected in the production of their plays will encourage young, struggling playwrights to continue working in the field. Too often, playwrights with great potential abandon their writing--or choose to write for a different audience or venue--because they are powerless to negotiate even minimum levels of compensation or artistic copyright protection for their work. William Shakespeare himself was paid no more than eight pounds apiece for his plays, and was not able to make his living from writing. This was, of course, back in the late 16th century.

We should not allow today's antitrust laws to be used to discourage some of our most creative citizens from pursuing careers in live theater. When talented individuals are pushed away from their craft because of the unintended consequences of legislation, it is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to set things right.

As a long time enthusiast of live theater, and a lyricist myself, I am proud to co-sponsor this bill. It is my belief that the PLAI Act will help foster the next Arthur Miller, the next Andrew

Lloyd Webber, or the next Wendy Wasserstein. By helping playwrights in this way we encourage the continued vibrancy of American live theater and artistic and literary culture.

I commend my co-sponsor Senator Kennedy for his efforts on this bill. His leadership and support represent a significant step forward in preserving the future of live theater in America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the PLAI Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia continues to be a top priority of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia which I chair. Today I would like to highlight the tremendous impact the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program--D.C. TAG--has had on promoting higher education for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital and introduce legislation that would permanently authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

In 1999, I worked with the House and fellow Senators Jeffords and Durbin to craft the District of Columbia College Access Act which was signed into law on November 12, 1999. Soon after, under the direction of Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. TAG Program was created to implement this important legislation. The first grants were awarded in 2000.

The aim of the Program was to afford D.C. high school graduates the same opportunity that high school seniors in each of the 50 States have, the ability to attend public universities and colleges at in- State tuition rates in all 50 States and participating private schools--Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) nationwide or private colleges or universities in Virginia or Maryland. The program has made it possible for D.C. residents to attend college who did not have access to similar State-supported systems.

The D.C. TAG scholarships are used by D.C. residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition, up to $10,000 per student per

school year with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, as of March 2002, D.C. residents attending participating private institutions started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student.

To date, D.C. TAG has dispersed more than $63 million to a total of 6,527 students, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. All current high school students who are D.C. residents are eligible for these scholarships and participation is increasing.

The powerful impact of the program on high school graduates continuing on to college is hard to deny. Data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that the number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created. This is the highest level of college attendance of District students and exceeds the national average, over the same period, of a 5-percent increase.

Mayor Williams stated that `'No State in the Union can make that claim. This unprecedented figure is due in large part, if not almost exclusively, I believe, to D.C. TAG.''

According to a survey conducted by the D.C. TAG Office, the grants have become an essential part of higher education planning for D.C. residents. The majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college, and also played a role in deciding which college to attend.

It is important for my colleagues to know that thousands of D.C. students have taken advantage of this program. It can help to turn around years of economic and educational despair in the District.

We are now coming to the end of the 5-year authorization for the program which expires in November 2005. Because of this and the success of the program, Senators Durbin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and I are introducing this bill to permanently reauthorize the D.C. College Access Act.

In closing I would like to quote two D.C. Residents. La Rue Purry, currently a freshman at the University of Alabama states that ``This program gave me the opportunity to get the education I always wanted, the education my family couldn't have provided for me.''

Brian Ford, a former D.C. TAG recipient, who testified at the House committee on Government Reform Hearing on March 25, 2004, stated that ``The D.C. Tuition Assistance Program is a necessity for the city of Washington, DC, and for its residents. I urge Congress to please continue to provide financial support to the D.C. TAG program so one day students like myself can have a college diploma hanging on the wall for the world to see.''

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, after 17 years of hard work on the part of many individuals, especially World War II veterans, the World War II memorial will become a reality on Saturday, May 29, 2004 with a dedication ceremony in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans and their families are expected to attend. In recognition of this important occasion, I am introducing a Senate Joint Resolution along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan, to honor our World War II veterans, their families and this dedication next month.

The idea for the National World War II Memorial was first presented to Congresswomen Marcy Kaptur during a conversation with a constituent and World War II veteran, Roger Durbin in 1987. Shortly after that conversation, Congresswoman Kaptur introduced legislation to create a memorial, and Congress passed legislation authorizing the national memorial in 1993.

The National World War II Memorial will pay tribute to the more than 16,112,000 veterans of all military services--Army, Army Air Corps, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine--who served in World War II between the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the surrender of Japan in 1945. Approximately 69,000 of these servicemen were from North Dakota. The memorial will acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of more than 400,000 military personnel, including 1,569 North Dakotans, who lost their lives between 1939 and 1945.

As veterans and their families visit Washington over the coming weeks, many will recall the heroism and sacrifices from some of the remarkable campaigns and famous battles of World War II, including the attack on Pearl Harbor, December, 1941; the Battle of Midway, June, 1942; the Allied campaign across North Africa, November, 1942; Operation Overlord (D-Day), June 1944; the capture of Iwo Jima, February, 1945; and the Tokyo bombing raids of March, 1945.

The Memorial will also have special meaning for North Dakotans as they remember the heroic efforts of the 164th Infantry Regiment of the American Division, a unit of the North Dakota Army National Guard and the

first unit of the United States Army to land on Guadalcanal in October, 1942. Some of the fiercest fighting of World War II took place in the effort to recapture the island.

The Memorial will also hold special meaning for Senators and Members of Congress of the 108th Congress as we recognize and honor current members including Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John W. Warner, Congressman Cass Ballenger, Congressman John D. Dingell, Congressman Ralph M. Hall, Congressman Amo Houghton, Congressman Henry J. Hyde, and Congressman Ralph Regula.

As we pause during the Memorial Day weekend to remember World War II veterans who served and sacrificed so much more than 59 years ago, it is my hope that Americans will honor and remember this ``Greatest Generation'' for the contributions that have enabled millions of Americans, for more than 50 years, to enjoy unparalled prosperity and the blessings of freedom. Let us also remember the ongoing sacrifices of our active duty military personnel who are currently serving in all parts of the world, but especially in Iraq and the conflict against terrorism in Afghanistan.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.