[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6886-S6889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Levin, Ms. Moseley-
Braun, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2202. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the pet protection and safety act of 1998
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pet
Protection and Safety Act of 1998, a bill to close a serious loophole
in the Animal Welfare Act.
Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act over 30 years ago to stop the
mistreatment of animals and to prevent the sale of family pets for
laboratory experiments. Despite the Animal Welfare Act's well-meaning
intentions and the enforcement efforts of the Department of
Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners
with reliable protection against the actions of USDA-licensed Class B
animal dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers.
Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against
disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight
against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. Animal
research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in
medicine. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not
be used in research; rather, I am addressing the unethical practice of
selling stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities.
There are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating
throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats.
Many of these animals are family pets, acquired by so-called
``bunchers'' who resort to theft and deception as they collect animals
and sell them to Class B dealers. ``Bunchers'' often respond to ``free
pet to a good home'' advertisements, tricking animal owners into giving
away their pets by posing as someone interested in adopting the dog or
cat. Random source dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a
time in squalid conditions, providing them with little food or water.
The mistreated animals often pass through several hands and across
state lines before they are eventually sold by a random source dealer
to a research laboratory for $200 to $500 each.
Mr. President, the use of animals in research is subject to
legitimate criticism because of the fraud, theft, and abuse that I have
just described. Dr. Robert Whitney, former director of the Office of
Animal Care and Use at the National Institutes of Health echoed this
sentiment when he stated, ``The continued existence of these virtually
unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the public confidence in our
commitment to appropriate procurement, care, and use of animals in the
important research to better the health of both humans and animals.''
While I doubt that laboratories intentionally seek out stolen or
fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the fact
remains that these animals end up in research laboratories--and little
is being done to stop it. Mr. President, it is clear to most observers,
including animal welfare organizations around the country, that this
problem persists because of random source animal dealers.
The Pet Protection and Safety Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act
by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of
dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, The Pet
Protection and Safety Act preserves the integrity of animal research by
encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate
sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are
USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders; municipal pounds that choose
to release dogs and cats for research purposes; legitimate pet owners
who want to donate their animals to research; and private and federal
facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable
of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs
than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least
in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save
money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to $200 and
$500 per animal charged by random animal dealers. The National
Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has
already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from
random source dealers.
The Pet Protection and Safety Act also reduces the Department of
Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its
resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of
thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers.
To combat any future violations of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet
Protection and Safety Act increases the penalties under the Act to a
minimum of $1,000 per violation.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2207. A bill to amend the Clayton Act to enhance the authority of
the Attorney General to prevent certain mergers and acquisitions that
would unreasonably limit competition; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
antitrust improvements act of 1998
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that consumers are becoming
more and more concerned about the merger mania that has hit the United
States--they see the potential for higher prices to consumers and
poorer service as industries become far more concentrated in fewer
hands.
I am also concerned about this trend, particularly when mergers take
place between incumbent monopolies. Specifically, the mergers among
Regional Bell Operating Companies, which continue to have a virtual
strangle-hold on the local telephone loop, pose the greatest threat to
healthy competition in the telecommunications industry.
Indeed, incumbent telephone companies still control over 99% of the
local residential telephone markets. In other words, new entrants have
captured less than 1% of local residential phone service.
The Telecommunications Act's promise of competition was a sales pitch
that has not materialized to benefit American consumers. Instead of
competition, we see entrenchment, mega-mergers, consolidation and the
divvying up of markets. Even Edward Whitacre, Jr., the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of SBC Communications, testified several weeks
ago before the Antitrust Subcommittee that ``The Act promised
competition that has not come.''
At a recent judiciary committee hearing on mergers, Alan Greenspan
acknowledged that the Act has not lived up to its promises of lower
consumer costs and more competition.
Since passage of this law, Southwestern Bell has merged with PacTel
into SBC Corporation, and Bell Atlantic has merged with NYNEX. Now, SBC
Corporation is seeking to purchase Ameritech. What once had been seven
separate local monopolies will soon be
[[Page S6887]]
four, with the possibility of more on the horizon. One of my home state
newspapers--the Rutland Daily Herald--commented in an editorial that,
``It might even seem as if Ma Bell's corpse is coming back to life.''
I voted against the Telecommunications Act because I did not believe
it was sufficiently procompetitive. I raised a number of concerns as
that Act was being considered by the Senate. I said in my floor
statement on the day the new law passed:
Mega-mergers between telecommunications giants, such as the
rumored merger between NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, or the
gigantic network mergers now underway, raise obvious concerns
about concentrating control in a few gigantic companies of
both the content and means of distributing the information
and entertainment American consumers receive. Competition,
not concentration, is the surest way to assure lower prices
and greater choices for consumers. Rigorous oversight and
enforcement by our antitrust agencies is more important than
ever to insure that such mega-mergers do not harm consumers.
I am very concerned that this concentration of ownership in the
telecommunications industry is currently proceeding faster than the
growth of competition. We are seeing old monopolies getting bigger and
expanding their reach.
Upon completion of all the proposed mergers among the Bell companies,
most of the local telephone lines in the country will be concentrated
in the hands of three to four companies. This will affect not only the
millions of people who depend on the companies involved for both basic
telephone service and increasingly for an array of advanced
telecommunications services, but also competition in the entire
industry. The Consumers Union recently testified before the Judiciary
Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee that the mergers between Regional
Bell Operating Companies could lead to even more mega-mergers within
this industry.
I know personally that at my farm in Vermont and here at my office in
the District of Columbia and at my home in Virginia, I still have only
one choice for dial-tone and local telephone service. That ``choice''
is the Bell operating company or no service at all. The current mantra
of the industry seems to be ``one-stop shopping.'' But if that stop is
at a monopoly that is not competing on price and service, I do not
think it is the kind of ``one-stop shopping'' consumers want.
I have been concerned that the distraction of these huge mergers
serve only to complicate and delay the companies' compliance with their
obligations under the Telecommunications Act to open their networks.
That is not good for competition in the local loop. Consolidation is
taking precedence over competition. We need to reverse that priority,
and make opening up the local loop the focus of the energies of the
Bell Operating Companies. Then consolidation, if it happens, would not
pose the current risk of creating additional barriers to effective
competition.
Big is not necessarily bad. But the Justice Department in the late
1970's worked overtime to divide up the old Ma Bell to assure more
competition and provide customers with better service at lower rates.
It is ironic that the Telecommunications Act, which was touted as the
way to increase competition, is having the reverse effect instead of
promoting consolidation among telephone companies.
Before all the pieces of Ma Bell are put together again, Congress
should revisit the Telecommunications Act. To ensure competition among
Bell Operating Companies and long distance and other companies, as
contemplated by passage of this law, we need clearer guidelines and
better incentives. Specifically, we should ensure that Bell Operating
Companies do not gain more concentrated control over huge percentages
of the telephone access lines of this country through mergers, but only
through robust competition.
As the Consumers Union recently testified, ``If Congress really wants
to bring broad-based competition to telecommunications markets, it must
rewrite the Telecommunications Act, giving antitrust and regulatory
authorities more tools to eliminate the most persistent pockets of
telephone and cable monopoly power.''
Today I am introducing antitrust legislation that will bar future
mergers between Bell Operating Companies or GTE, unless the federal
requirements for opening the local loop to competition have been
satisfied in at least half of the access lines in each State. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation to make the
Telecommunications Act live up to some of its promise.
The bill provides that a ``large local telephone company'' may not
merge with another large local telephone company unless the Attorney
General finds that the merger will promote competition for telephone
exchange services and exchange access services. Also, before a merger
can take place the Federal Communications Commission must find that
each large local telephone company has for at least one-half of the
access lines in each State served by such carrier, of which as least
one-half are residential access lines, fully implemented the
requirements of sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934.
The bill requires that each large local telephone company that wishes
to merge with another must file an application with the Attorney
General and the FCC. A review of these applications will be subject to
the same time limits set under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976.
The bill also provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws of
the United States, or any authority of the Federal Communications
Commission, or any authority of the States with respect to mergers and
acquisitions of large local telephone companies.
The bill is effective on enactment and has no retroactive effect. It
is enforceable by the Attorney General in federal district courts.
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. 2207
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 ``Antitrust Improvements Act
of 1998''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the authority of the
Attorney General to prevent certain mergers and acquisitions
that would unreasonably limit competition in the
telecommunications industry in any case in which certain
Federal requirements that would enhance competition are not
met.
SEC. 3. RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 27. RESTRAINT OF TRADE REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
``(a) Large Local Telephone Company Defined.--In this
section, the term `large local telephone company' means a
local telephone company that, as of the date of a proposed
merger or acquisition covered by this section, serves more
than 5 percent of the telephone access lines in the United
States.
``(b) Restraint of Trade Regarding Telecommunications.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a large local
telephone company, including any affiliate of such a company,
shall not merge with or acquire a controlling interest in
another large local telephone company unless--
``(1) the Attorney General finds that the proposed merger
or acquisition will promote competition for telephone
exchange services and exchange access services; and
``(2) the Federal Communications Commission finds that each
large local telephone company that is a party to the proposed
merger or acquisition, with respect to at least \1/2\ of the
access lines in each State served by that company, of which
at least \1/2\ are residential access lines, has fully
implemented the requirements of sections 251 and 252 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251, 252), including
the regulations of the Commission and of the States that
implement those requirements.
``(c) Report of the Attorney General.--Not later than 10
days after the Attorney General makes a finding described in
subsection (b)(1), the Attorney General shall submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the
finding, including an analysis of the effect of the merger or
acquisition on competition in the United States
telecommunications industry.
``(d) Application Process.--
``(1) In general.--Each large local telephone company or
affiliate of a large local telephone company proposing to
merge with or acquire a controlling interest in another large
local telephone company shall file an application with both
the Attorney General and the Federal Communications
Commission, on the same day.
``(2) Decisions.--The Attorney General and the Federal
Communications Commission
[[Page S6888]]
shall issue a decision regarding the application within the
time period applicable to review of mergers under section 7A
of this Act.
``(e) Jurisdiction of the United States Courts.--
``(1) In general.--The district courts of the United States
are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain any
mergers or acquisitions described in subsection (d) that are
inconsistent with a finding under subsection (b) (1) or (2).
``(2) Actions.--The Attorney General may institute
proceedings in any district court of the United States in the
district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an
agent and that court shall order such injunctive, and other
relief, as may be appropriate if--
``(A) the Attorney General makes a finding that a proposed
merger or acquisition described in subsection (d) does not
meet the applicable condition under subsection (b)(1); or
``(B) the Federal Communications Commission makes a finding
that 1 or more of the parties to the merger or acquisition
referred to in subsection (b)(2) do not meet the requirements
specified in that subsection.''.
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments made
by this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, or
supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws, or any
authority of the Federal Communications Commission under the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), with
respect to mergers, acquisitions, and affiliations of large
incumbent local exchange carriers.
(b) Antitrust Laws Defined.--In this section, the term
``antitrust laws'' has the meaning given that term in the
first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12).
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
a merger or acquisition of a controlling interest of a large
local telephone company (as that term is defined in section
27 of the Clayton Act, as added by section 3 of this Act),
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 2208. A bill to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
HEALTHCARE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to advocate better healthcare
for Americans and to introduce legislation strengthening the scientific
foundation of healthcare quality improvement efforts. Let me make a few
introductory comments before summarizing the ``Healthcare Quality
Enhancement Act of 1998.''
First, I want to make it clear: all patients deserve better
healthcare quality, not just HMO enrollees as recent discussions have
most frequently focused on regarding consumer protections.
All Americans deserve better healthcare. We need healthcare quality
improvement that reaches everybody through better healthcare plans,
tertiary care centers, fee-for-service solo practices, and all other
kinds of patient care.
We should not wait for another movie like the one titled ``As Good as
It Gets'' to talk about healthcare quality for 70% percent of employees
and 86% of Medicare beneficiaries who are not traditional-HMO
enrollees.
Quality of care fundamentally rests on the achievements of biomedical
research. We all know that sound science is the best way to improve
quality in patient care. All components of the outcome of healthcare
can be effectively improved by statistically valid science: health
status can be turned around by transplantation when someone's life is
in jeopardy due to a diseased organ; social functioning can be improved
by shock wave lithotripsy that leads to faster recovery; and patient
satisfaction can be better when children with moderate or severe asthma
get proper anti-inflammatory treatment.
While being amazed by the promise of new scientific achievements, few
patients realize the implications of abundant and growing production in
biomedical research.
Over the past 20 years, the number of articles indexed annually in
the Medline database of the National Library of Medicine nearly
doubled.
Randomized clinical trials are considered sources of the highest
quality evidence on the value of a new intervention. Over the past two
decades, the number of clinical trials in my own field of cardiology
have increased five-fold.
In health services research, 10 times more clinical trials are
published today than 20 years ago (e.g., clinical trials comparing
inpatient care with outpatient care, trials of physician profiling and
other information interventions).
But we are falling short in our success to disseminate our findings
and influence practice behavior.
In spite of all these scientific achievements, we cannot further
build up biomedical research production for the next millennium if our
network for sharing it with practitioners remains on a nineteenth's
century level.
The landmark Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study was published
in 1985. This randomized controlled clinical trial validated a
scientific achievement almost a decade earlier. The American Diabetes
Association published its eye care guidelines for patients with
diabetes mellitus in 1988. Today, the national rate for annual diabetic
eye exam is still only 38.4%.
There are more scientific discoveries than ever before, but practical
introduction of new scientific discoveries does not seem to be much
faster today than it was more than 100 years ago. We need to close the
gap between what we know and what we do in healthcare. That requires a
federal role in sharing information about what works to improve
quality.
All Americans want better healthcare and the federal government must
respond by offering helpful information on quality, channeling
scientific evidence to clinicians, and investing in research on
improving health services.
For this reason, today I am introducing legislation to establish the
``Agency for Healthcare Quality'' which builds on the platform of the
current Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research, but refocuses it on
quality to become the central figure in our efforts to improve the
quality of healthcare.
Healthcare quality is a matter of personal preference--it means
different things to different people. We all remember when healthcare
quality became a political showdown, the low back pain guidelines
backfired because they were viewed as an attempt to mandate ``cook
book'' medicine, and the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research had
a near death experience.
Over the past three years, since I first came to the United States
Senate, I have looked very closely at this agency. The Subcommittee on
Public Health and Safety, which I chair, has held three hearings to
invite public input on this agency. As a result, this legislation
responds to many of the past criticisms of the agency. This legislation
will take AHCPR--under a new name--to new heights and will establish it
as the center of healthcare quality research for the country.
The new Agency for Healthcare Quality will:
1. promote quality by sharing information. While proven medical
advances are made daily, patients are waiting too long to benefit from
these discoveries. We must get the science to the people by better
sharing of information and more effective dissemination. In addition,
the Agency will develop evidence-rating systems to help people in
judging the quality of science.
2. build public-private partnerships to advance and share true
quality measures. Quality means different things to different people.
In collaboration with the private sector, the Agency shall conduct
research that can figure out what quality really means to patients and
to clinicians, how to measure quality, and what actions can improve the
outcome of healthcare.
3. report annually on the state of quality, and cost, of the nation's
healthcare. Americans want to know if they receive good quality
healthcare. But compared to what? Statistically accurate, sample-based
national surveys will efficiently provide reliable and affordable data
--without excessive, overly intrusive, and potentially destructive
mandatory reporting requirements.
4. aggressively support improved information systems for health
quality. Currently, quality measurement too often requires manual chart
reviews for such simple data as frequency of procedures, infection
rates, or other complications. Improved computer systems will advance
quality scoring and facilitate quality-based decision-making in patient
treatment.
[[Page S6889]]
5. support primary care research, and address issues of access in
underserved areas. While most policy discussions this year are
targeting managed care, quality improvement is just as important to the
solo private practitioner. The Agency's authority is expanded to
support healthcare improvement in all types of office practice--not
just managed care. The agency shall specifically address quality in
rural and other undeserved areas by advancing telemedicine services
which share clinical expertise with more patients.
6. facilitate innovation in patient care with streamlined evaluation
and assessment of new technologies. Patients should benefit from proven
breakthrough technologies sooner, while inefficient methods should be
phased out faster. Today, manufacturers and distributors of new
technologies face major hurdles in trying to secure coverage. The
Medicare technology committee has been particularly criticized for its
process. Criteria are unclear, delays are long, and decisions are
unpredictable. The Agency will be accessible to both private and public
entities for technology assessments and will share information on
assessment methodologies.
7. coordinate quality improvement efforts of the government. Most of
the many federal healthcare programs today support some kind of health
services research and conduct various quality improvement projects. The
Agency shall coordinate these many initiatives to avoid disjointed,
uncoordinated, or duplicative efforts.
In summary, we need to practice, not just publish, better patient
care. We all want to see better quality.
Real improvement can come from progress in health sciences, from
promoting innovation in patient care, and from better practical
application of new scientific advances. The Agency for Healthcare
Quality will focus on overall improvement in healthcare and enable us
to judge the quality of care we receive.
Americans want better healthcare and the federal government shall
respond by offering helpful information on quality, channeling
scientific evidence to clinicians, and investing in research on
improving health services.
Mr. President the ``Healthcare Quality Enhancement Act of 1998'' will
reduce the gap between what we know and what we do in healthcare. The
refocused Agency for Healthcare Quality is the right step forward and I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to improve healthcare
for all Americans.
____________________