[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11800-S11802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DODD:
S. 3023. A bill to improve funeral home, cemetery, and crematory
inspection systems, to establish consumer protections relating to
funeral service contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death
Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004, a bill which I believe will
go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the
funeral and death care industries.
None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and
uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not
to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death
actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our
friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to
do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or
shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead,
we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service
providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for
and treated with respect and dignity after their passing.
We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A
funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many
consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a
car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral
services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very
little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer
information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a
result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to
represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of
us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability.
For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that
the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good
men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity
it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have
shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and
upstanding. We all remember hearing recently of the discovery of over
200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There
is also evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in
Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These
incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole,
compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in
place for this industry.
Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of
state and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years
ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since
many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly
large and diverse. The death care industry generates annual revenues of
over $15 billion and employs over 104,000 Americans. The 1990's saw the
rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local funeral homes
across the country. Even for small local firms, the business has become
increasingly complex. As more and more Americans travel and live in
places far from where they were born, the industry has become one that
frequently does business across state and county lines.
There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of
funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen
from 5 percent in the 1970's to 25 percent today. However, only 12
States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the
case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was
statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue
undiscovered.
The only significant federal regulation of the industry exists in the
Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years
ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry.
Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of
the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It
also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which
have become an increasingly popular option in recent years.
In 2002, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and
Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they
have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with
both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect
Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The
Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004 would provide
Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give
consumers the right to legal action against those who violate
regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would
have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The
act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations
governing licensing and
[[Page S11801]]
registration, record-keeping, inspection, resolution of consumer
complaints, and enforcement of state laws in the industry. It would
clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade practices in the
industry and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions as they
make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules would be expanded to
cover all segments of the death care industry.
I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, we
will not have the opportunity to pass this legislation this year.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with
my colleagues today, and I hope that we will be able to move on this
issue when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. It is my firm belief
that this bill will help both consumers and industry. Consumers will
have the peace of mind knowing that they are being treated fairly
during their time of grief and distress, while the industry will
benefit from regaining the high level of consumer confidence and trust
that it has traditionally enjoyed.
I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 3024. A bill to establish the National Center for Transportation
Solutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Center for
Transportation Solutions Act of 2004.
I am deeply troubled that the Federal Government is not doing enough
to address important national and regional transportation issues from a
systemic perspective. There is too little research being devoted to
profound questions that have a long-term impact on the future viability
of our nation's transportation network. Such questions may include: How
well is our transportation system responding to the global economy? How
can transportation meet the needs of greater environmental
sustainability? How can people become more involved in transportation
planning in their communities? What transportation technologies will be
important in the future? Are there more effective ways to finance
improvements to our transportation infrastructure? What will be the
demand for various modes of transportation in the future? How well do
the various modes of transportation interact? Is there a better way to
reduce transportation accidents and enhance safety?
In fact, the Federal Government does not adequately invest in finding
answers to these and other important questions. The United States
Department of Transportation spends approximately 1.5 percent of its
budget on research. This amount is insufficient when compared to the
2.8 percent spent by the Department of Agriculture, 4.8 percent by the
Department of Health and Human Services, 8.1 percent by the
Environmental Protection Agency, and 14.9 percent spent by the
Department of Defense.
Much of that 1.5 percent spent by the Department of Transportation is
focused on short-term, highly applied research activities, such as the
performance of varieties of asphalt in different climates. Too few
resources, however, are devoted to research in finding solutions to our
most intractable long-term transportation problems.
The consequences of this lack of foresight are significant. As Dennis
Christiansen, Deputy Director of the Texas Transportation Institute,
testified before the House Subcommittee on Highway, Transit, and
Pipelines last year: ``In the private sector, failure to innovate may
mean one goes out of business. In the public sector, failure to
innovate may simply mean that we do things less efficiently and at a
higher cost.'' In addition, the American Public Transportation
Association commented at the same hearing that ``without research and
training, innovation withers and American jobs are lost offshore.''
The lack of adequate investments in long-term transportation
research, however, is not the only concern. The Nation's transportation
research and technology programs are highly decentralized as well.
There are state and federal transportation agencies, universities,
contractors, and material suppliers all participating in transportation
research activities. While this decentralization has its benefits in
that the same broad array of institutions that are conducting the
research are involved in its implementation, it also has its drawbacks.
It poses challenges to effective priority-setting, and can lead to
unnecessary duplication, results that are not transferable, and
significant research gaps.
The legislation that I am introducing will address these important
issues by establishing a Center for Transportation Solutions as an
independent agency in the executive branch of the government. Its
purpose will be to develop and encourage the execution of a long-term
national policy for the promotion of research and development related
to multimodal transportation.
The Center is modeled after the National Science Foundation. It will
be under the leadership of a Director appointed by the President and a
Board composed of sixteen individuals with expertise in transportation
research and policy. Like the National Science Foundation, the Center
will be organized into a series of research divisions on such issues as
safety, the environment, infrastructure, intermodal connections, and
transportation economics and financial policy. Regional Centers for
Transportation Solutions will also be established to investigate these
important issues from a regional perspective.
The new Center will not supplant existing transportation research
activities but supplement them. It will award competitive, merit-based
grants to academic, public, and private research institutions to
support long-term strategic transportation objectives. According to the
Transportation Research Board, ``competition for funds and merit review
of proposals are the best ways of ensuring the maximum return on
investment of research funding and addressing strategic national
transportation system goals.'' Sadly, much of the funding that is
designated for transportation research today is earmarked for specific
projects or research institutions without open competition.
Finally, the Center will facilitate the interchange of transportation
research data among interested parties, work closely with the United
States Department of Transportation in setting research priorities, and
coordinate its scientific research programs with public and private
research groups.
This legislation is a work in progress. In the coming months, I
intend to further refine it for reintroduction in the 109th Congress.
Nevertheless, the bill embodies an important goal namely, the need for
increased resources and strategic planning devoted to tackling the
nation's long-term transportation needs.
I realize that the 108th Congress is nearing completion. I am also
aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives will likely
revisit the reauthorization of surface transportation programs soon
after the 109th Congress convenes in 2005. That legislation would be
the perfect opportunity for Congress to look farther into the future--
even beyond the traditional six-year scope of the surface
transportation bill--and begin to make the investments necessary for
solving our nation's most difficult transportation problems. After all,
if we can devote resources to finding a cure for cancer and other life-
threatening illnesses, shouldn't we do the same and find a cure for
traffic congestion?
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Ensign)
S. 3026. A bill to support the boy Scouts of America and the Girl
Scouts of the United States of America; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FRIST. 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. 3026
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SUPPORT OUR SCOUTS.
(a) Definition.--In this section the term ``Federal
agency'' means each department, agency, instrumentality, or
other entity of the United States Government.
(b) In General.--No Federal law (including any rule,
regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be
construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form
of support to the Boy Scouts of America or the Girls Scouts
of the United States of America
[[Page S11802]]
(or any organization chartered by the Boy Scouts of America
or the Girl Scouts of the United States of America),
including--
(1) holding meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other
scouting activities on Federal property if such organization
has received permission from the appropriate Federal official
responsible for such property; or
(2) hosting or sponsoring any official event of such
organization.
____________________