[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 42 (Thursday, April 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2347-S2355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2369. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to waive
federal preemption State law providing for the awarding of punitive
damages against motor carriers for engaging in unfair or deceptive
trade practices in the processing of claims relating to loss, damage,
injury, or delay in connection with transportation of property in
interstate commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
MOVING COMPANY RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving
Company Responsibility Act of 1999 to improve the protections afforded
to consumers who hire moving companies to carry their possessions from
one state to another. Under current law, consumers whose goods are lost
or stolen during transit have no redress against moving companies that
deceive or mistreat them during the claims process.
This problem was first brought to my attention by my constituents,
Jane Rini and John Pucci. In 1990, Ms. Rini hired a moving company to
transport her household goods from South Carolina to Massachusetts to
attend Smith College's Ada Comstock Program. Among Ms. Rini's
possessions were valuable original paintings and art objects that had
been passed down through her family. When her belongings were delivered
by the driver employed by the moving company, Ms. Rini noticed that the
boxes containing the works of art were missing. Although the company's
driver was not able to locate the boxes, he demanded that Ms. Rini sign
inventory sheets indicating that her goods had been properly delivered
and refused to leave her house until she signed for the delivery. Under
pressure, Ms. Rini signed the inventory sheets, noting on them that
boxes containing the works of art were missing. She was not informed by
the company that she should note missing boxes on the bill of lading,
nor was she given the pamphlet containing this information, as required
by federal law. The next day, Ms. Rini and her family unpacked the
boxes that had been delivered and determined conclusively that eleven
works of art were missing. They have never been recovered.
From that point on, Ms. Rini did everything to obtain redress that
reasonably could be expected of a consumer. She filed her claim with
the moving company in a timely manner, and she went to great lengths to
supply the moving company's claims adjusters with all the information
they needed to process her claim. However, her efforts to recover
damages for the lost artwork were met with abusive and deceptive
tactics seemingly designed to discourage her claim.
At the beginning of the claims process, the company demanded that Ms.
Rini provide it with documentation such as canceled checks, recent
appraisal information, insurance riders, or cash receipts. Ms. Rini had
no recent information on the works because they had been handed down
through her family for generations, but she was able to supply the
company with photographs of most of the missing pieces, and she even
paid for professional appraisals of the works based on the photos. She
also provided the company with a letter from 1929 which reflected the
authenticity of some of the pieces.
Mr. President, this should have been more than enough to satisfy the
company as to the validity of Ms. Rini's claim, but the company refused
to accept appraisals unless they were based upon actual examination of
the objects. Meanwhile, Ms. Rini was told by a company representative
that a thorough investigation of her claim would be conducted, but the
representative negligently failed to interview or take written
statements in a timely manner from any of the employees involved in the
move who might have been able to substantiate the claim.
Almost nine months later, the company denied Ms. Rini's claim on the
grounds that all items were delivered and signed for on the bill of
lading without a notation indicating missing items; that the company
had not received adequate documentation to substantiate Rini's claims;
and that the company had not uncovered any evidence that the works had
not been delivered to Northampton.
[[Page S2348]]
Ms. Rini finally took her case to a District Court in Massachusetts.
During the trial, the moving company's own expert witnesses testified
that reliable and fair estimates of the value of works of art are
commonly obtained through examination of photographs, but the company
maintained that Ms. Rini's documentary proof was insubstantial and
denied that it had a duty to settle the claim. Upon hearing the
testimony, the court found Ms. Rini's documentation provided sufficient
evidence upon which the moving company should have settled her claim.
It further characterized the company's tactics as ``unfair,''
``unethical,'' and ``deceptive,'' and found that Ms. Rini was entitled
to recover damages for injury she suffered as a result of the company's
negligence and misrepresentation throughout the claims process.
However, the District Court's decision, which was based on
Massachusetts law, was overturned by the First Circuit Court of
Appeals, which found that state law providing relief to Ms. Rini is
preempted by the federal law establishing uniform liability for motor
carriers.
Mr. President, Ms. Rini's story is just an illustration of the larger
problem. Under current law, irresponsible, unethical moving companies
are allowed to mistreat those who depend on them for service, and there
is no recourse for consumers who are the victims of negligence or
deception. Consumers who place their trust in moving companies should
have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated with
consideration and respect at all times; and when a company fails to
deliver on its promise to transport household goods in good condition,
consumers' efforts to recover damages should not be met with the kind
of abuse and deception that Ms. Rini experienced. No consumer should
have to suffer that sort of treatment.
Unfortunately, current law provides little or no incentive for moving
companies to make sure that customer claims are handled fairly. In
fact, under current law, moving companies can act irresponsibly and
unfairly with impunity. According to the Department of Transportation,
well over 2,500 complaints were filed against moving companies in 1998,
the most recent year for which this information is available. That's
more than 2,500 consumers who believe they were treated unfairly--and
those are just the consumers who actually took the time to file
complaints. The time for Congress to act to protect consumers is now,
and passage of the Moving Company Responsibility Act is the first step.
The Moving Company Responsibility Act would provide customers with a
means of redress against unethical companies by allowing them to pursue
claims under state law. The penalties and fines available under state
laws would serve as an incentive to companies to treat customers fairly
throughout the business relationship. This is a simple bill, but it is
needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected when they
contract with moving companies.
I would like to thank my constituents, Ms. Rini and Mr. Pucci, for
bringing this important consumer protection matter to my attention.
This bill will provide important protections to consumers, and I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it
so that we can pass it quickly.
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. 2369
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STATE COURT AWARDS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR UNFAIR
OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN
CONNECTION WITH CLAIMS FOR LOSS, DAMAGE,
INJURY, OR DELAY OF TRANSPORTED PROPERTY.
(a) Punitive Damages Authorized.--Section 14706 of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Punitive Damages for Unfair or Deceptive Practices.--
Nothing in this section limits the liability of a carrier for
punitive damages authorized under applicable State law for
any act or omission of the carrier in connection with the
investigation, settlement, adjudication, or other aspect of
the processing of a claim under this section that constitutes
an unfair or deceptive trade practice under such State
law.''.
(e) Retroactive Effective Date and Applicability.--
Subsection (h) of section 14706 of title 49, United States
Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect as of
January 1, 1990, and shall apply with respect to receipts and
bills of lading referred to in subsection (a)(1) of such
section that are issued on or after that date.
______
By Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Byrd, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Wyden,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Grams):
S. 2370. A bill to designate the Federal Building located at 500
Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
legislation s. 2370 to name the federal courthouse at 500 pearl street
in new york city for senator daniel patrick moynihan
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today with 61 of my colleagues to
introduce a bill to name the beautiful Federal Courthouse located at
500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, after my esteemed colleague and champion
of this project, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
When I think about the many accomplishments of the distinguished
Senator or the numerous accolades that he has received, I am left with
very big shoes to fill and very few words that have yet to be used to
describe the man and his legacy. His roles throughout his 47-year
career in public service include legislator, scholar, reformer, teacher
and last, but definitely not least, builder. In New York, Pat Moynihan
has taught us the value of beautiful public works.
It is especially for his role as builder that we honor Pat Moynihan
today. The Federal Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street embodies the same
spirit as his previous architectural endeavors--an extraordinary work
of art, inside and out. Completed in 1994, the Courthouse was designed
by the distinguished architectural firm of Kohn Pederson Fox with a
dignity worthy of the weighty judicial matters considered within its
walls. It is a magnificent structure of solid granite, marble, and
sturdy oak, built to last 200 years, adorned with public art from
notable contemporary artists Ray Kaskey and Maya Lin.
Not coincidentally, the Courthouse's presence and elegance befit the
man who was most responsible for its creation--Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, who has been an enduring champion of excellence in public
architecture, both here in Washington and at home in New York. Senator
Moynihan toiled for nearly a decade prodding the Congress, General
Services Administration, three New York City mayors, and anyone else he
needed, to see this spectacular Courthouse built.
Senator Moynihan has always been an important force for architecture
in New York. He was responsible for the restoration of the spectacular
Beaux-Arts Custom House at Bowling Green in Lower Manhattan and beloved
in Buffalo for reawakening that city's appreciation for its
architectural heritage, which includes Frank Lloyd Wright houses and
the Prudential Building, one of the best-known early American
skyscrapers by the architect Louis H. Sullivan--a building which
Moynihan helped restore and then chose as his Buffalo office. Moynihan
has also spurred a powerful popular movement in Buffalo to build a new
signature Peace Bridge over the Niagara River.
But the project for which he is best known is his beloved
Pennsylvania Station. In 1963, Pat Moynihan was one of
[[Page S2349]]
a group of prescient New Yorkers who protested the tragic razing of our
City's spectacular Penn Station--a glorious public building designed by
McKim, Mead & White, the Nation's premier architectural firm of the
time.
It was Pat Moynihan who recognized years ago that across the street
from what is now a sad basement terminal that functions--barely--as New
York City's train station, sits the James A. Farley Post Office
Building, built by the same architects, in much the same grand design,
as the old Penn Station. Pat Moynihan recognized that we could use the
Farley Building to once again create a train station worthy of our
great City. I, along with many of my colleagues, offered a bill last
year to name that new train station after him, but Senator Moynihan,
with characteristic modesty, asked that the station keep the Farley
name.
Fortunately, the Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street will serve as an
equally fitting tribute and provide an enduring monument in the heart
of the City that Pat Moynihan and I both love so dearly, a monument for
the millions of New Yorkers and their fellow Americans who love and
admire Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
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. 2370
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED
STATES COURTHOUSE.
The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New
York City, New York, shall be known and designated as the
``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend Senator Schumer for
submitting this resolution. I, too, have had the privilege of working
with Senator Pat Moynihan on the Environment and Public Works Committee
for almost 18 years. There are few people who have a better knowledge
of history, design, and concept than does our friend, Pat Moynihan.
I join Senator Schumer in his comments about Senator Pat Moynihan. I
am very familiar with the railroad station. Many people from New
Jersey, and people from all over the country, will get to see this
station and the contributions Senator Moynihan has made to our national
well-being.
I urge passage of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as has the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey, I have had the privilege of serving with our friend, Senator
Moynihan, for many years on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
If I may say with some little immodesty, I have been sort of a silent
partner with Senator Moynihan, not so much on this project--this was
entirely his, I say to the junior Senator--but the Ronald Reagan
Airport, for example, and the completion of the Federal Triangle are
major, significant landmarks which will go forward for future
generations. But for this quiet, modest, knowledgeable man--I doubt if
he would ever be a cosponsor of this resolution--it is most befitting
that this be done to recognize a man who stands for the rule of law.
I thank the Senator.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr.
Bryan):
S. 2378. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to improve the safety of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
stop all frequent errors (safe) in medicare and medicaid act of 2000
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this
important legislation today with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Kerrey, and Senator Bryan. This bill represents an important
step toward ensuring patients receive safe, quality health care in our
nation's hospitals and healthcare facilities.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report released last fall indicates
that nearly 44,000 to 98,000 people die or are seriously hurt in
hospitals every year. That is equivalent to having three jumbo jets
filled with passengers crash every two days. Should we be safer flying
in an airplane than going to a hospital for routine surgery?
Take the case of Gary Masiello, who lost his daughter when her
breathing tube was accidentally disconnected. Nine months later he lost
his wife in another hospital when she choked on her medication. He no
longer has the confidence that he or his family are safe when entering
the hospital.
The case of Betsy Lehman, a Boston Globe health reporter, is yet
another example of how medical mistakes can lead to death. She received
a drug overdose in 1994 during her chemotherapy treatment.
Ironically, even one of the contributors to the IOM report was
touched by a medical error. Mary Wakefield, while she was preparing the
report, discovered that her 83 year old mother was operated on the
wrong hand.
Today, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan, and I are
introducing a bipartisan bill to make patient safety a national
healthcare priority. We recognize that mistakes happen, and that in our
complex healthcare system, problems will occur. But in a country that
is the leader in healthcare research, technology, and advancement, we
should be able to do much, much better when it comes to patient safety.
We are not here today to point the finger or to blame. We are here to
provide a solution to this disturbing problem--a problem we think is
preventable.
Our legislation establishes a reporting and patient safety program
for hospitals and other healthcare providers that participate in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, which would include virtually every
healthcare facility in the United States. Billions of federal tax
dollars go to these programs. The taxpayers deserve to know that the
healthcare system they invest in provides safe, high-quality care.
This bill extends confidentiality protections to ensure that
providers will report without risk of retaliation by trial lawyers. By
creating a safe environment, this bill will foster reporting and
corrective action plans in hospitals and healthcare facilities across
the country.
Our legislation will improve patient safety and give providers the
tools they need to address medical mistakes before patients are harmed.
These errors are not intentional by any means, but they are
preventable. So, I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill to ensure that medical errors become a thing of the
past.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Section-By-Section of the Stop All Frequent Errors (SAFE) in Medicare
and Medicaid Act of 2000
Section I. Title and Table of Contents.
Section II. Purpose--This section describes the intent of
the legislation which is to create a non-punitive medical
error reduction program under the Medicare and Medicaid
programs through identification of medical errors, extension
of confidentiality with limited disclosure, and
implementation of systems and processes to reduce the number
of adverse events that occur.
Section III. Improvement of Patient Safety under the
Medicare Program--This section establishes the guidelines for
the medical error reduction program in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs as a condition of participation.
Facilities that choose to participate in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs including hospitals, critical access
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies,
hospice, renal dialysis facilities, and ambulatory surgery
centers would have to meet the requirements of this Act.
Hospitals would be required to participate one year after
the date of enactment of this Act. The other institutions
would be phased-in on a timetable to be determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Providers would have to implement a patient safety program
to reduce medical errors. The program will target both
sentinel events and additional events associated with injury
as targeted by the Secretary, or local providers. The program
shall utilize active investigation to discover health care
errors and achieve measurable improvement in the rates of
health care errors.
[[Page S2350]]
In addition, providers would be required to report sentinel
events and additional designated errors to the following: (1)
their state health department; (2) a national accrediting
organization when applicable, i.e. the Joint Commission on
the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO); and
(3) the Medicare peer review organizations. The facility
would be responsible for performing a root-cause analysis and
implementing a corrective action plan that reduces the risk
of such event happening in the future. Providers can
designate which agency or entity described above to approve
their compliance with the reporting and correction program.
Aggregated reports without identifiers would be submitted to
the Secretary by the agency or entity.
Confidentiality and privacy protections based on current
peer review protections would be extended to ensure that
institutions would be encouraged to report and to implement
effective patient safety programs. Information would also be
protected for the purposes of conducting peer review
activities and root cause analysis.
A definition of poor performance is complying with the
reporting and correction program will be specified by the
Secretary, JCAHO, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), the peer review organizations, providers and
consumer organizations. When a facility has a pattern of
poor performance, this information is reported to the
Secretary and the Secretary shall then release this
information to the public. This would occur if the pattern
of poor performance continues for more than two years, and
a provider fails to report sentinel events and implement
corrective actions to address safety problems.
Section IV. Improvement of Patient Safety Under the
Medicaid Program--This section extends the Medicare
provisions above to congregate care providers in the Medicaid
program. Congregate care provider is defined as facilities in
the Medicaid program that provide hospital services, nursing
facility services, services of intermediate care facilities
for the mentally retarded, hospice care, residential
treatment centers for children, services in an institution
for mental diseases, and inpatient psychiatric hospital
services for individuals under age of 21.
Section V. Establishment of the Center for Patient Safety--
This section establishes a Center for Patient Safety (Center)
within HHS. The mission of the Center is to improve patient
safety and reduce the incidence of medical errors. The Center
would establish national goals for patient safety and
mechanisms to track such goals. In addition, the Center would
prepare and submit an annual report to the President and
Congress with recommendations concerning patient safety.
Among some of its duties, the Center would develop a national
health care patient safety research agenda, disseminate
information and evaluate mechanisms to improve patient
safety, and conduct pilot projects to conduct new or
innovative patient safety reporting systems.
Section VI. Grants to Establish Patient Safety Programs--
This section authorizes the Center to award grants to
providers and health professionals affiliated with such
providers for the establishment and operation of patient
safety programs.
Section VII. Authorization of Appropriations--This section
authorizes the following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2001, $30,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2002, $35,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2003, $40,000,000.
(4) For each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as may be
necessary.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr. Graham):
S. 2379. A bill to provide for the protection of children from
tobacco; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
kids deserve freedom from tobacco act of 2000
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by
Senators Chafee and Graham to introduce the ``KIDS Deserve Freedom from
Tobacco Act of 2000.''
Just over 2 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, Chafee and
Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan
legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce
that Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the
same goal. This bill is the first bipartisan Senate effort to restore
the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from
tobacco.
We feel it is absolutely critical to show bipartisan support for
picking up the ball the Supreme Court dropped in our lap just two weeks
ago. We hope that our announcement today will be the beginning of a
bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed.
The need is clear. As the Supreme Court recognized, tobacco use among
children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat
to public health in the United States. A new study released just
yesterday shows how the tobacco industry continues to successfully
target our children. Seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing
tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33% of
adults. And 77% of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes.
That is why 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of
them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3
jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. And that is why
cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There
is no question we face a public health crisis of unmatched proportions
and we have the opportunity this year to stop it.
Passing comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce the
number of American children hooked on this deadly habit is a once and a
lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate in
Washington has so far been largely partisan. That's why we've joined
arms across party lines behind the KIDS Deserve Freedom From Tobacco
Act, the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our
bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the
odds that reforms will be made this year.
Let me be clear. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes
kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big
Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the
nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted.
The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court two weeks ago,
were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an
investment in the future of our kids.
Our legislation will re-affirm the FDA's authority over tobacco
products. It will classify nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as
drug delivery devices. It will allow FDA to implement a ``public
health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. By
codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation will also allow for
continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It will
provide needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco
products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It
will also include sensible advertising limits as well as other
important provisions of the original FDA rule designed to reduce teen
access to tobacco.
For the sake of our kids and the public health, we have a
responsibility to act quickly on this. Today, we begin that important
effort.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to examine our legislation and
give us their comments. We should not leave this year without taking
this type of common sense step to protect our kids.
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin
and Bob Graham in introducing the Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act
of 2000, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the
authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco. This
legislation is a common-sense and bipartisan approach to ensure that
tobacco products do not get into the hands of minors, especially in
light of the Supreme Court's recent decision that the FDA does not have
the authority to regulate tobacco products.
The Supreme Court's recent decision is disappointing. This judgment,
while following the letter of the law, will cause unnecessary harm to
millions of people unless Congress acts quickly to stem its affects. We
must ensure that the FDA regulations are enacted into law.
Not only does tobacco pose a significant risk to the individual
smoker, but it reaps a high cost from the American public. The
widespread use of tobacco is eating away at our society's physical and
financial health. Tobacco's physical toll in deaths and diseases is
well-documented. However, the financial weight that tobacco places on
America's overburdened health care system is often overlooked. As the
single most preventable cause of premature death, disease and
disability facing our nation, tobacco use is also the single biggest
preventable expense to our nation's health care system.
America's publicly financed health care system has also suffered.
Nearly half the costs of treating tobacco related illnesses--
approximately $25 billion in 1993, according to the Centers for Disease
Control--fall to state and federal governments through such programs as
Medicare and Medicaid. This
[[Page S2351]]
unnecessary fiscal burden has hit the health care industry hard,
increasing the cost of health care, while driving millions into the
ranks of the uninsured. As Congress struggles to pull the Medicare
program back from the brink of insolvency, it is clear that the huge
costs of the preventable illnesses caused by tobacco need to be
addressed. We have a clear choice: attack the problem of preventable
disease, or place a greater burden on our already financially strapped
health care system.
The Supreme Court did not argue the scientific evidence: nicotine is
a drug and cigarettes are drug delivery devices. Nicotine is addictive,
it lures children, kills adults, and drives up our nation's health care
costs. In fact, the Court's majority opinion admitted that tobacco use
was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in
the United States.''
The only thing the FDA lacks, they said, was explicit authority to
regulate tobacco products. Fine! Today, we propose to give them that
authority. This bipartisan measure will abide by the intent of the
Court's ruling by granting the FDA explicit authority to regulate these
deadly and addictive products as it does for all other drugs.
Congress cannot afford to wait. The three thousand children who get
hooked on tobacco each day cannot afford to wait. Our overburdened
health care system cannot afford to wait. I hope my colleagues in both
Houses of Congress will come together in a bipartisan spirit to grant
the FDA authority to stop the spread of the tobacco contagion.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for far too long, the health and welfare
of America's children have been jeopardized by a relatively unregulated
tobacco industry.
``The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has amply demonstrated that
tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps
the single most serious threat to public health in the United States.''
These words aren't mine. They are Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's, the
author of the majority opinion in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown
and Williamson--the recent case which prevents the FDA from effectively
regulating tobacco.
We have worked hard to protect our children from the perils of
tobacco, but we clearly have not done enough.
A study recently released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that over 18 percent of youth
between the ages of 12 and 17 are smokers.
That translates into 4.1 million kids. And, every day, another 3,000
children join the ranks of their smoking peers.
Not only are these children exposing themselves to the long-term
health risks that we know tobacco to pose, they are increasing the
likeliness that they will develop other harmful addictions.
SAMHSA's study has revealed that children who smoke are over 11 times
more likely to use illicit drugs and 16 times more likely to drink
heavily than are their nonsmoking peers. Specifically, children who
smoke are 100 times more likely to also smoke marijuana and 32 times
more likely to use cocaine than nonsmoking children.
Today, of the 4.1 million children who currently smoke,
approximately: 35% smoke marijuana; 8% take hallucinogenic drugs; 5%
use cocaine; and 4% sniff inhalants.
The Supreme Court has placed the burden of protecting not only these
children, but all children from tobacco squarely on the shoulders of
the Congress. This is indeed a heavy weight to bear, but it is one from
which we cannot afford to shy away.
We are here today to announce that we have accepted this charge, and
are introducing legislation that will provide America's children with
real protections from tobacco.
Currently, the FDA has the authority to regulate virtually all
products which we consume or apply to our skin--food, drugs, cosmetics
and medical devices--protecting Americans by ensuring that these
products meet certain health standards.
Yet, today, FDA authority--and thus, FDA protection--does not apply
to tobacco.
Congress can extend these protections by giving the FDA the authority
to truly regulate tobacco products.
Our legislation would do just that. It would give the FDA authority
to: (1) reduce harmful components--such as nicotine--in tobacco
products; (2) impose appropriate advertising and marketing restrictions
to reduce teenage tobacco use; (3) require manufacturers to submit
information about the health effects of their product to the FDA; (4)
require strong warning labels; and (5) regulate health claims and
``Reduced Risk'' products.
Mr. President, we are all in agreement that it is our responsibility
to promote a healthier America. This legislation will help us achieve
that collective goal, by giving the FDA the authority to regulate the
tobacco industry. I urge my colleagues to support this important
measure.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 2380. A bill to provide for international family planning funding
for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
saving women's lives through international family planning act of 2000
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Saving Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of 2000.
I would like to thank Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, and Senator Murray
for joining me as cosponsors and I invite others to join us.
Congresswoman Maloney introduced this legislation in the House in
February, and it has gained the support of 94 cosponsors on both sides
of the aisle in that body.
Mr. President, while global population growth has slowed, the world's
population reached 6 billion in 1999 and is expected to rise to 8.9
billion by 2050. Nearly all of this growth is occurring in developing
nations. High population density puts tremendous strain on water and
other resources and takes an increasing toll on the quality and length
of human life.
Each year, more than 585,000 women die from complications related to
pregnancy and childbirth. And millions of women suffer serious health
problems following childbirth.
International family planning programs are our best hope to slow
population growth and decrease mortality rates, and that's why the
legislation I'm introducing today is so important.
Tomorrow is World Health Day, an appropriate occasion to remember
that international family planning programs save the lives of millions
of women all over the world. Providing reproductive health care and
health education results in safer pregnancies and safer motherhood.
Yet this country is paying hundreds of millions of dollars less on
international family planning programs today than it did five years
ago. We need to restore this country's commitment to helping those in
developing countries raise their standards of living, and family
planning must be an important part of that assistance. Without this
renewed commitment, high fertility rates and rapid population growth
will prevent people in the poorest countries from rising out of
poverty.
The Saving Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of
2000 authorizes $541.6 million--the funding level requested by
President Clinton--for bilateral family planning programs and related
assistance abroad. It also provides $35 million for the United Nations
Population Fund, known as UNFPA. This would return our level of
international family planning assistance to where it was in fiscal
1995. This is a sound investment that will bring returns for decades to
come.
This bill would also reverse the so-called ``gag rule'' that
restricts USAID grants to non-governmental organizations abroad that
use their own funds to advocate a woman's right to choose or to perform
legal medical procedures. Under this bill, the requirements we apply to
NGOs would not be more restrictive that the requirements on foreign
governments that receive similar assistance.
I have fought for years, as a member of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations subcommittee, for adequate funding for international
family planning programs without restrictions which would limit the
reach or effectiveness of our aid.
[[Page S2352]]
Last year, we were forced to accept the gag rule in exchange for
congressional agreement to pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations. It
was a bitter pill to swallow and we must eliminate this provision now.
It's unfair and undemocratic. By restricting the freedom of
organizations to engage in public policy debates, the gag rule
undermines a central goal of U.S. foreign policy, the promotion of
democracy--which has at its core the principles of free and open debate
and citizen involvement in government decisions. And this restriction
is a serious impediment to our efforts to bring global population
levels under control and to protect the lives of millions of women by
letting them choose to have only as many children as they can care for
responsibly.
Mr. President, family planning is even more critical to the health of
people in developing countries than it is here in America. Many
developing countries lack the hospitals and clinics and doctors and
other health-care professionals to provide women with the advice and
care they need to have a safe pregnancy. Many lack the facilities and
expertise to provide obstetrical and prenatal care women need to
deliver healthy babies.
Sometimes, a pregnancy can be dangerous, especially if the woman is
too young or too old to bear a child. In many poor societies, families
have many children because so many die before they reach adulthood and
children provide the only support in their parents' later years. As a
result, families too often have more children than they can
realistically support and face malnutrition or even starvation.
Finally, there are those who do not properly consider the potential
transmission of deadly diseases such as AIDS or who do not have access
to contraceptive devices.
For many poor women abroad, family planning clinics offer the only
general health care available. Without the critical funding provided in
this bill, many of these women will unnecessarily suffer and even die.
With this assistance, women and children will have a better chance of
living longer, healthier lives.
We need this legislation to reduce mortality rates, to combat the
spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and to give the poorest nations
an opportunity to meet their social, environmental, and economic needs
by making family planning available worldwide.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Saving
Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of 2000. We all
have a stake in helping people in the worlds poorer nations plan their
families and helping control the impact of population growth on the
planet we share.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Akaka, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Ashcroft, Mr. Biden, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Graham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Sessions,
and Mrs. Feinstein):
S.J. Res. 44. A joint resolution supporting the Day of Honor 2000 to
honor and recognize the service of minority veterans in the United
States Armed Forces during World War II; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
May 25--``DAY OF HONOR 2000''
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator
Daniel Inouye, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, along with 24 other
Senators, are introducing a Senate Joint Resolution to designate May
25, 2000, as a national Day of Honor for minority veterans of World War
II. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas is introducing an
identical resolution in the House of Representatives.
Forty-five years ago, the bloodiest war in our history came to an end
and millions of American service men and women returned to the United
States to rebuild their lives after fighting so courageously and
successfully to defend our country.
These brave veterans included large numbers of minorities. More than
1.2 million African Americans, more than 300,000 Hispanic Americans,
more than 50,000 Asian Americans, more than 20,000 Native Americans,
more than 6,000 Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and more than 3,000
Native Alaskans risked their lives to preserve our democracy.
On land, sea and air, far from their homes, they fought brilliantly
to defeat fascism and protect our freedom. And large numbers of them
did so in spite of the racism and injustice they had suffered in our
society, and even in their military service.
Too often, when they returned to America and raised the question of
freedom and equal justice here at home, the answer came back, ``no.''
Too often, when fundamental issues of equality and respect of their
service in the war arose, Jim Crow and racial discrimination replied
with a resounding ``no.''
Even during the war itself, these brave men and women in uniform had
faced racial discrimination and violent and cruel treatment from their
fellow citizens--and often from their fellow American service men and
women. Even here on American soil during the war, German prisoners of
war were allowed to go to places in the United States where black
Americans were not allowed to go.
Last December, President Clinton dealt at long last with one example
of these injustices when he pardoned Freddie Meeks, one of 50 African-
American sailors who were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to prison
and hard labor in 1944 for refusing to continue loading ammunition
after a deadly explosion at the Port Chicago naval facility new San
Francisco. That explosion of 10,000 tons of ammunition at the loading
dock resulted in the deaths of 320 persons, two-thirds of whom were
black.
As President Clinton noted, Meeks had participated in the
``extraordinarily difficult job of picking up human remains'' following
the blast. White sailors were given 30-day leaves after the blast, but
black sailors were ordered back to work. Meeks and 257 others were
court-martialed after they refused to continue loading the ammunitions,
because the order was so blatantly racist and the danger was so great.
The pardon, granted by the President, was eminently justified. The Navy
had agreed in a 1994 review of the case that the sailors had been
victims of racial discrimination, but it had not overturned their
convictions.
Historians feel that the Port Chicago case was a major factor in
convincing President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive order
in 1948, banning segregation in the armed forces.
Japanese Americans were also subjected to shameful discrimination
during the war. The Supreme Court upheld the internment of tens of
thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during the war, because
the government was fearful that their allegiance might to be to Japan.
In recent years, reparations have been paid as amends for these
shameful deeds against Japanese Americans, but no reparations can ever
fully compensate for such gross violations of human liberties.
As a nation, we have long since recognized the unfair treatment of
minorities as a travesty of justice. The landmark decisions of the
Supreme Court and the enactment of fundamental civil rights laws by
Congress over the past half century have remedied the worst of these
injustices and made our nation a freer and fairer land. But we have yet
to give adequate recognition to the service, struggles and sacrifices
of these brave Americans who fought so valiantly in World War II for
our future.
Veterans of that war are now dying at a rate of more than 1,000 a
day. It is especially important, therefore, for Congress and the
Administration to do their part now to pay tribute to these men and
women who served so valiantly in that conflict. This Day of Honor
Resolution is part of The Day of Honor Celebration being planned for
communities across the country, which is being organized by the
Massachusetts-based Day of Honor 2000 Project. Our goal is that the
nation will have an opportunity to pause on that day to express our
gratitude to the veterans of all minority groups who served the nation
so well.
Included in that group of honored veterans are two of our outstanding
colleagues in the Senate, Senator Akaka of Hawaii and Senator Inouye of
Hawaii, and my former colleague from
[[Page S2353]]
Massachusetts, Senator Edward W. Brooke. Senator Inouye and Senator
Brooke both speak eloquently and passionately of their World War II
experiences in the film, ``The Invisible Soldiers: Unheard Voices,''
which is a part of the Day of Honor events in local communities.
By recognizing May 25th as a national Day of Honor in tribute to
these extraordinary men and women, we can help to remedy the many
wrongs inflicted on them in years gone by, and we can take another step
toward true justice in this country. These men and women are part of
what has been called America's greatest generation. In a very real
sense, we owe them our liberty today and we shall never ever forget
them.
I urge all members of the Senate to join in sponsoring this
resolution.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 459
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 459, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State ceiling on private
activity bonds.
S. 514
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 514, a bill to
improve the National Writing Project.
S. 805
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 805, a bill to
amend title V of the Social Security Act to provide for the
establishment and operation of asthma treatment services for children,
and for other purposes.
S. 1006
At the request of Mr. Torricelli, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1006, a bill to end the use
of conventional steel-jawed leghold traps on animals in the United
States.
S. 1017
At the request of Mr. Mack, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1017, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State ceiling on the low-
income housing credit.
S. 1163
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1163, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
research and services with respect to lupus.
S. 1345
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1345, a bill to
amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate
conduct relating to exotic animals.
S. 1448
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1448, a bill to
amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize the annual enrollment
of land in the wetlands reserve program, to extend the program through
2005, and for other purposes.
S. 1638
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1638, a bill to
amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend
the retroactive eligibility dates for financial assistance for higher
education for spouses and dependent children of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty.
S. 1762
At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1762, a bill
to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost share assistance for the
rehabilitation of structural measures constructed as part of water
resources projects previously funded by the Secretary under such Act or
related laws.
S. 1800
At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1800, a bill to amend the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve onsite inspections of State food
stamp programs, to provide grants to develop community partnerships and
innovative outreach strategies for food stamp and related programs, and
for other purposes.
S. 1822
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1822, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage
and group health plans provide coverage for treatment of a minor
child's congenital or developmental deformity or disorder due to
trauma, infection, tumor, or disease.
S. 1921
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1921, a bill to authorize
the placement within the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial of a
plaque to honor Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the
Vietnam war, but as a direct result of that service.
S. 1939
At the request of Mr. Helms, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1939, a bill to amend the internal
revenue code of 1986 to allow a credit against income tax for dry
cleaning equipment which uses reduced amounts of hazardous substances.
S. 1941
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Moynihan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1941, a bill to amend the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide
assistance to fire departments and fire prevention organizations for
the purpose of protecting the public and firefighting personnel against
fire and fire-related hazards.
S. 1961
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1961, a bill to amend the
Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the number of acres authorized for
inclusion in the conservation reserve.
S. 1988
At the request of Mr. Daschle, the names of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1988, a bill to reform the State inspection of meat
and poultry in the United States, and for other purposes.
S. 1993
At the request of Mr. Thompson, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1993, a bill to
reform Government information security by strengthening information
security practices throughout the Federal Government.
S. 2018
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2018, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the update
factor used in making payments to PPS hospitals under the medicare
program.
S. 2060
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2060, a bill to
authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress
to Charles M. Schulz in recognition of his lasting artistic
contributions to the Nation and the world, and for other purposes.
S. 2068
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2068, a bill to prohibit the
Federal Communications Commission from establishing rules authorizing
the operation of new, low power FM radio stations.
S. 2073
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Kerrey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2073, a bill to reduce the
risk that innocent persons may be executed, and for other purposes.
S. 2231
At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the names of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr.
[[Page S2354]]
Brownback), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2231, a bill to provide for the placement at the
Lincoln Memorial of a plaque commemorating the speech of Martin Luther
King, Jr., known as the ``I Have A Dream'' speech.
S. 2265
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. Campbell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2265, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to preserve marginal domestic
oil and natural gas well production, and for other purposes.
S. 2280
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Shelby) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2280, a bill to provide for
the effective punishment of online child molesters.
S. 2293
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as cosponsors of S.
2293, a bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Federal
Home Loan Bank Act to provide for the payment of Financing Corporation
interest obligations from balances in the deposit insurance funds in
excess of an established ratio and, after such obligations are
satisfied, to provide for rebates to insured depository institutions of
such excess reserves.
S. 2307
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2307, a bill to amend the Communications
Act of 1934 to encourage broadband deployment to rural America, and for
other purposes.
S. 2314
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire the names of the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2314, a bill for the relief of Elian
Gonzalez and other family members.
S. 2321
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2321, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a tax credit for
development costs of telecommunications facilities in rural areas.
S. 2323
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2323, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 to clarify the treatment of stock options under the Act.
S. 2336
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2336, a bill to authorize
funding for networking and information technology research and
development at the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2001 through
2005, and for other purposes.
S. 2344
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2344, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program as
rentals from real estate.
S. 2353
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2353, a bill to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve the program for American Indian
Tribal Colleges and Universities under part A of title III.
S. 2363
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith) were added as cosponsors of S. 2363, a bill to
subject the United States to imposition of fees and costs in
proceedings relating to State water rights adjudications.
S. 2366
At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Nickles), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2366, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
to revise and extend provisions relating to the Organ Procurement
Transplantation Network.
S. RES. 248
At the request of Mr. Robb, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and
the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) were added as cosponsors of S.Res.
248, A resolution to designate the week of May 7, 2000, as ``National
Correctional Officers and Employees Week.''
S. RES. 260
At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 260, A resolution to express the sense of the
Senate that the Federal investment in programs that provide health care
services to uninsured and low-income individuals in medically under
served areas be increased in order to double access to care over the
next 5 years.
S. RES. 268
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 268, A
resolution designating July 17 through July 23 as ``National Fragile X
Awareness Week.''
AMENDMENT NO. 2911
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2911
intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2924
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. DeWine), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2924 intended to be proposed to S.
Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years
2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year
2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2931
At the request of Mr. Domenici, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2931 proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Warner, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2931 proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Gramm, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2931 proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2933
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
2933 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original
concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2934
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. McCain) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2934 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal years 2001
[[Page S2355]]
through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2940
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2940 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels
for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2944
At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2944 intended to be proposed
to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution setting forth
the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal
years 2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Warner, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2944 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Stevens, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2944 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2947
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig), and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 2947 intended to be proposed to S. Con.
Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years
2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year
2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2951
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the names of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone), the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2951 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels
for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2954
At the request of Mr. Schumer, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, his name was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, her name was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Leahy, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
At the request of Mr. Reed, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2954 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and
revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2958
At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2958 intended
to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels
for fiscal year 2000.
AMENDMENT NO. 2961
At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the names of the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the
Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith), the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the
Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Mack), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 2961 intended to be proposed to S. Con.
Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years
2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year
2000.
____________________