[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4259-S4263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. 
        Smith):
  S. 900. A bill to reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's 
rules for the description of video programming; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television 
Information-Enhancement for the Visually Impaired (TIVI) Act of 2005. 
This bill would require television broadcasters, during at least 50 
hours of their prime time or children's programming every quarter, to 
insert verbal descriptions of actions or settings not contained in the 
normal audio track of a program. This can be accomplished through 
technology commonly referred to as ``video description services,'' 
which allows television programming to be more accessible and enjoyable 
for the visually impaired.
  This bill is necessary due to a 2002 decision by District of Columbia 
Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, the Federal Communications 
Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission''), recognizing the need to make 
television programming accessible to the visually impaired, promulgated 
rules that mandated television broadcast stations and their affiliates, 
which met certain market requirements, provide 50 hours of video 
descriptions during prime time or children's programming every calendar 
quarter. Television programmers challenged the Commission's authority 
to promulgate such rules. The Circuit Court held that the Commission 
did not have authority to issue the regulations.
  This bill would provide the Commission the authority to promulgate 
such regulations and reinstate the FCC's video description rules issued 
in 2000. Additionally, the bill would require the FCC to consider 
whether it is economically and technically feasible and consistent with 
the public interest to include ``accessible information'' in its video 
description rules, which may include written information displayed on a 
screen, hazardous warnings and other emergency information, and local 
and national news bulletins.
  Since the spectrum that television broadcasters utilize is a public 
asset, one would expect that programming over the public airwaves is 
accessible to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not the case today 
and that is why we must pass the TIVI Act. I sincerely hope that 
television broadcasters will work with us to provide video descriptions 
for individuals with visual disabilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 904. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, 
as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building''; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and 
remember Lance Cpl Brian P. Parrello, a resident of West Milford, NJ, 
who died January 1, 2005, while serving with the U.S. Marines in Iraq. 
I was privileged to attend this brave young man's funeral in West 
Milford on January 8, 2005, and I was moved by the outpouring of grief 
for LCpl Parrello.
  In honor of this young Marine's life, I have introduced a bill to 
rename the facility at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, NJ as 
the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building.'' Senator Corzine is a 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  I would like to note that the renaming of this postal facility as the 
``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building'' was initiated by the West 
Milford Township Council, who wished to honor LCpl Parrello in this 
way. This is especially fitting since LCpl Parrello's father, Nino 
Parrello, is a letter carrier in West Milford. I am proud to be able to 
assist in the commemoration of his life by helping with the renaming 
process.
  LCpl Parrello served in the Small Craft Company of the 2nd Marine 
Division's II Marine Expeditionary Force, which was based at Camp 
Lejeune, NC. During his service in Iraq, he was attached to a Marine 
Swift Boat unit that patrolled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He was 
killed New Year's Day as a result of hostile action in Hadithah, 
northwest of Baghdad.
  During his too-short life, LCpl Parrello made a lasting impression on 
those around him. A graduate of West Milford High School in 2003, he 
was an athlete who played hockey and football, and he was voted to have 
``Most School Spirit'' by his classmates. As those who knew him have 
attested, LCpl Parrello was a history buff who dreamed of becoming a 
history teacher.
  LCpl Parrello's route to military service is the result of an 
admirable choice. He felt such a sense of duty after the September 11 
attacks that he delayed going to college, and instead he enlisted in 
the Marines before his graduation from West Milford High School.
  Tragically, LCpl Parrello died just a few days before his 19th 
birthday. We can commemorate the life of this extraordinary young man 
by quickly passing this bill to rename the postal facility in his 
hometown after him.
  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. 904

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

     SECTION 1. BRIAN P. PARRELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, 
     New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ``Brian P. 
     Parrello Post Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office 
     Building''.

[[Page S4260]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 905. A bill for the relief of Heilit Martinez; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a private relief 
bill for Miss Heilit Martinez. As my colleagues know, private relief is 
available in rare instances. I believe that the circumstances 
surrounding Miss Martinez's case are extraordinary and merit the 
introduction of private legislation. Therefore, I am pleased to 
introduce this legislation today.
  Miss Martinez was brought into the U.S. with her parents when she was 
about two years of age and has lived in Utah since that time. It is 
important to note that Miss Martinez did not make the decision to enter 
this country as a young child nor did she decide to overstay a visa, 
and she was led to believe that she had legal status. Miss Martinez was 
raised and educated in the United States and is currently a straight A 
student at Utah State University.
  Last year, Miss Martinez and a group of her college friends traveled 
into Mexico for a short day of sightseeing. When questioned at the port 
of entry, Miss Martinez declared that she had not been born in the 
United States but had legal immigration status. However, when she could 
not produce legal documentation, it was discovered that Miss Martinez 
was undocumented. She was detained for some days prior to her release.
  For all intents and purposes, Miss Martinez does not have a country 
to which to return. The United States is her home. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of this legislation to help Miss 
Martinez on the path of becoming a lawful, permanent resident.
                                 ______
                                 
      Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 906. A bill to promote wildland firefighter safety; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Governor Gregoire has already declared a 
drought in Washington State and I know my colleagues and I remain very 
concerned about what appears to be yet another year of devastating 
drought throughout the West, and the hazards this could pose in terms 
of increased fire risk and threats to public safety.
  But today, I want to focus the majority of my comments on a topic 
that I have focused on and hope my colleagues will pay close attention 
to as the 2005 fire season approaches. That's the issue of wildland 
firefighter safety.
  Many of my colleagues are probably aware of the fact that every 
summer, we send thousands of our constituents--many of them brave young 
men and women, college students on summer break--into harm's way to 
protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands. These men and 
women serve our Nation bravely.
  Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives 
in the line of duty. These firefighters represented a mix of Federal 
and State employees, volunteers and independent contractors. And they 
lost their lives for an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting 
fires on our Nation's public lands is an inherently dangerous business. 
But what we cannot and must not abide are the preventable deaths--
losing firefighters because rules were broken, policies ignored and no 
one was held accountable.
  A number of my colleagues will recall that, in 2001, this issue was 
pushed to the fore in the State of Washington, because of a horrible 
tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the 
midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the 
Thirtymile fire burned out of control.
  Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom 
Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and 
Devin Weaver, 21.
  Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and 
women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own 
report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been 
prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and 
management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to 
ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened 
again.
  I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the 
distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as 
Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands 
and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile fire, they agreed to convene 
hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from 
the grief-stricken families.
  In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of 
one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake 
when we send these men and women into harm's way.
  I can think of no worse tragedy than a parent confronting the loss of 
a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better 
practices on the part of federal agencies.
  At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with 
experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve 
the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after 
those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an 
independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to 
unnecessary fatalities.
  Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the 
agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I have 
visited with firefighters over the past 2 years, I do believe the 
courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change has 
had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who are 
preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters.
  Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't done 
nearly enough. In July 2003--2 years after Thirtymile--two more 
firefighters perished, this time at the Cramer fire within Idaho's 
Salmon-Challis National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed 
when the fire burned over an area where they were attempting to 
construct a landing spot for firefighting helicopters.
  After the Thirtymile fire, however, I told the Weavers and the 
Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I 
believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn 
from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland 
firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings 
associated with the Cramer fire simply boggle my mind.
  We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing Fire 
Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic safety 
rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at Cramer, 
where Heath and Allen lost their lives 2 years later.
  After the Thirtymile Fire, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) conducted an investigation and levied against the 
Forest Service five citations for Serious and Willful violations of 
safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just in March 2004 OSHA 
concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA 
citations, for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations.
  Reading through the list of causal and contributing factors for 
Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the Thirtymile 
fire, my colleagues would be struck by the many disturbing 
similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels between these lists 
and the factors cited in the investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire 
on Storm King Mountain in Colorado.
  It's been more than a decade since those 14 firefighters lost their 
lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are being made 
over and over again.
  These facts have also been documented by an audit and memorandum 
issued last September by the Department of Agriculture's Inspector 
General. The IG found that ``accidents on the South Canyon, Thirtymile, 
and Cramer Fires, all of which involved fatalities, could have been 
avoided if certain individuals had followed standard safety practices 
and procedures in place at the time.''
  The IG also noted that the Forest Service ``has not timely 
implemented actions to improve its safety programs.'' Some 27 of 81 
action items identified as a result of the Storm King and Thirtymile 
Fires--or roughly a third--had not been fully implemented years later. 
While I know that the IG is monitoring implementation of some of these 
items, the stark similarities between Storm King, Thirtymile, and

[[Page S4261]]

Cramer make it seem positively astounding that the Forest Service still 
finds my bill ``not necessary.''
  I don't believe that's acceptable. The firefighters we send into 
harm's way this year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better.
  Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all 
of the incidents I've discussed. Frankly, I have believed since the 
Thirtymile tragedy that the Forest Service has on its hands a cultural 
problem. What can we do, from the legislative branch, to provide this 
agency with enough motivation to change? I believe the first step we 
can take is to equip ourselves with improved oversight tools, so these 
agencies know that Congress is paying attention. Today I'm re-
introducing legislation--the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005--
that would do just that.
  I believe this is a modest yet important proposal. It was already 
passed once by the Senate, as an amendment to the 2003 Healthy Forests 
legislation. However, I was disappointed that it was not included in 
the conference version of the bill. But it is absolutely clear to me--
particularly in light of OSHA's review of the Cramer Fire--that these 
provisions are needed now more than ever.
  First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005 will require the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies 
expend for firefighter safety and training.
  Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire 
preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials 
in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role--
ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, 
and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time--
without a separate break-down of these funds.
  Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress 
annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and 
training programs.
  Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are 
implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike 
would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also 
hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy 
dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.
  Third, my bill would stipulate that federal contracts with private 
firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of 
federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to 
monitor compliance with this requirement.
  This is important not just for the private contractor employees' 
themselves--but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand 
shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line.
  The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005 is a modest beginning in 
addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and federal 
contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's 
safety on the fire line.
  I hope my colleagues will support this simple legislation. 
Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical 
component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat 
of catastrophic wildfire.
  Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send 
into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training 
programs.
  We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and 
their State partners--and to future wildland firefighters.
  My bill will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to 
do the job.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 908. A bill to allow Congress, State legislatures, and regulatory 
agencies to determine appropriate laws, rules, and regulations to 
address the problems of weight gain, obesity, and health conditions 
associated with weight gain or obesity; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 908

         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 ``Commonsense Consumption 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

         (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
         (1) the food and beverage industries are a significant 
     part of our national economy;
         (2) the activities of manufacturers and sellers of foods 
     and beverages substantially affect interstate and foreign 
     commerce;
         (3) a person's weight gain, obesity, or a health 
     condition associated with a person's weight gain or obesity 
     is based on a multitude of factors, including genetic factors 
     and the lifestyle and physical fitness decisions of 
     individuals, such that a person's weight gain, obesity, or a 
     health condition associated with a person's weight gain or 
     obesity cannot be attributed solely to the consumption of any 
     specific food or beverage; and
         (4) because fostering a culture of acceptance of personal 
     responsibility is one of the most important ways to promote a 
     healthier society, lawsuits seeking to blame individual food 
     and beverage providers for a person's weight gain, obesity, 
     or a health condition associated with a person's weight gain 
     or obesity are not only legally frivolous and economically 
     damaging, but also harmful to a healthy America.
         (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to allow 
     Congress, State legislatures, and regulatory agencies to 
     determine appropriate laws, rules, and regulations to address 
     the problems of weight gain, obesity, and health conditions 
     associated with weight gain or obesity.

     SEC. 3. PRESERVATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.

         (a) In General.--A qualified civil liability action may 
     not be brought in any Federal or State court.
         (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil 
     liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in 
     which the action was brought or is currently pending.
         (c) Discovery.--
         (1) Stay.--In any action that is allegedly of the type 
     described in section 4(5)(B) seeking to impose liability of 
     any kind based on accumulative acts of consumption of a 
     qualified product, the obligation of any party or non-party 
     to make disclosures of any kind under any applicable rule or 
     order, or to respond to discovery requests of any kind, as 
     well as all proceedings unrelated to a motion to dismiss, 
     shall be stayed prior to the time for filing a motion to 
     dismiss and during the pendency of any such motion, unless 
     the court finds upon motion of any party that a response to a 
     particularized discovery request is necessary to preserve 
     evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.
         (2) Responsibility of parties.--During the pendency of 
     any stay of discovery under paragraph (1), the 
     responsibilities of the parties with regard to the treatment 
     of all documents, data compilations (including electronically 
     recorded or stored data), and tangible objects shall be 
     governed by applicable Federal or State rules of civil 
     procedure. A party aggrieved by the failure of an opposing 
     party to comply with this paragraph shall have the applicable 
     remedies made available by such applicable rules, provided 
     that no remedy shall be afforded that conflicts with the 
     terms of paragraph (1).
         (d) Pleadings.--In any action that is allegedly of the 
     type described in section 4(5)(B) seeking to impose liability 
     of any kind based on accumulative acts of consumption of a 
     qualified product, the complaint initiating such action shall 
     state with particularity--
         (1) each element of the cause of action;
         (2) the Federal and State statutes or other laws that 
     were allegedly violated;
         (3) the specific facts alleged to constitute the claimed 
     violation of law; and
         (4) the specific facts alleged to have caused the claimed 
     injury.
         (e) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this Act shall 
     be construed to create a public or private cause of action or 
     remedy.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

         In this Act:
         (1) Engaged in the business.--The term ``engaged in the 
     business'' means a person who manufactures, markets, 
     distributes, advertises, or sells a qualified product in the 
     person's regular course of trade or business.
         (2) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with 
     respect to a qualified product, a person who is lawfully 
     engaged in the business of manufacturing the product.
         (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including 
     any governmental entity.
         (4) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product'' 
     means a food (as defined in section 201(f) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f))).
         (5) Qualified civil liability action.--
         (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``qualified civil liability action'' means a civil action 
     brought by any person against a manufacturer, marketer, 
     distributor, advertiser, or seller of a qualified product, or 
     a trade association, for damages, penalties, declaratory 
     judgment, injunctive or declaratory relief, restitution, or

[[Page S4262]]

     other relief arising out of, or related to a person's 
     accumulated acts of consumption of a qualified product and 
     weight gain, obesity, or a health condition that is 
     associated with a person's weight gain or obesity, including 
     an action brought by a person other than the person on whose 
     weight gain, obesity, or health condition the action is 
     based, and any derivative action brought by or on behalf of 
     any person or any representative, spouse, parent, child, or 
     other relative of that person.
         (B) Exception.--A qualified civil liability action shall 
     not include--
         (i) an action based on allegations of breach of express 
     contract or express warranty, provided that the grounds for 
     recovery being alleged in such action are unrelated to a 
     person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition 
     associated with a person's weight gain or obesity;
         (ii) an action based on allegations that--

         (I) a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product 
     knowingly violated a Federal or State statute applicable to 
     the marketing, advertisement, or labeling of the qualified 
     product with intent for a person to rely on that violation;
         (II) such person individually and justifiably relied on 
     that violation; and
         (III) such reliance was the proximate cause of injury 
     related to that person's weight gain, obesity, or a health 
     condition associated with that person's weight gain or 
     obesity; or

         (iii) an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission 
     under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) 
     or by the Federal Food and Drug Administration under the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
         (6) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a 
     qualified product, a person lawfully engaged in the business 
     of marketing, distributing, advertising, or selling a 
     qualified product.
         (7) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the 
     several States of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or 
     possession of the United States, and any political 
     subdivision of any such place.
         (8) Trade association.--The term ``trade association'' 
     means any association or business organization (whether or 
     not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not 
     operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are 
     manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, or 
     sellers of a qualified product.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 909. A bill to expand eligibility for governmental markers for 
marked graves of veterans at private cemeteries; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
restore the rights of all veterans and their families to receive an 
official grave marker of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This 
legislation addresses an unfortunate inequity that exists for veterans 
who passed away during the period between November 1, 1990 and 
September 11, 2001.
  It may come as a shock to my colleagues to learn that while all other 
veterans are entitled to the VA's official grave markers, current law 
forbids veterans who passed away during this eleven year period from 
being so honored.
  This situation is unacceptable and must be remedied.
  Nearly one year ago today, the National World War II Memorial was 
unveiled to the public. Countless Americans who have passed its 50 
stone pillars since that time have been reminded of the courage and 
sacrifice of the men and women who served our country. at its time of 
greatest need.
  But as Senator Bob Dole stated at its dedication ceremony, the World 
War II Memorial is not a tribute to war and conflict. Rather, he said, 
``it's a tribute to the physical and moral courage that makes heroes 
out of farm and city boys and that inspires Americans in every 
generation to lay down their lives for people they will never meet, for 
ideals that make life itself worth living.''
  Indeed, monuments like the World War II Memorial serve as a reminder 
of the service, sacrifice and dedication of our veterans. The 4,000 
stars resting on the Wall of Freedom remind us that too many paid the 
ultimate price.
  Many Americans have a similar experience when they visit the grave of 
a former veteran--often a friend or relative. Most of these grave sites 
have markers paying tribute to the veteran's service. We place flags by 
their side on Memorial Day. Until 1990, moreover, the family of a 
deceased Veteran could receive reimbursement for a VA headstone, a VA 
marker, or a private headstone. However, in the name of cost-cutting, 
measures were taken to prevent the VA from providing markers to those 
families that had purchased gravestones out of their own pockets.
  In my view, this measure was a serious injustice. Nearly all families 
today provide for some gravestone or other privately purchased marker 
following the death of a relative. Yet most were unaware of the new VA 
regulation. Many veterans were buried without any official recognition 
of their service to our country. As of 2001, the VA estimated that it 
was forced to deny nearly 20,000 requests for such markers every year.
  This body first endorsed a provision restoring the right of every 
veteran to receive a grave marker as early as June 7, 2000 as part of 
the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Bill. This body approved 
this language again on December 8, 2001. But it was not until December 
6, 2002 that legislation was signed into law as part of the Veterans 
Improvement Act allowing VA markers to be provided to deceased veterans 
retroactively. Unfortunately, however, when the bill went to a 
conference with the House of Representatives, this benefit was only 
applied retroactively to September 11, 2001 rather than to November 1, 
1990, the date at which the new VA regulation came into effect. 
Veterans who passed away between those two dates were cut out.

  That decision has never satisfied me or many veterans and their 
families. Why should one veteran receive recognition, while the family 
of another is told that there is nothing our government can do simply 
because of the date of their passing?
  My legislation will correct this inequity. This bill is simple. It 
ensures that all veterans who have passed away since 1990 are able to 
receive a VA grave marker.
  It is inexpensive. In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 
that providing such a benefit to all veterans would cost no more than 
$3 million per year for the first 5 years. Since most of the families 
of veterans who passed away between 1990 and 2001 have already 
completed their burial plans, it is safe to assume that a substantially 
smaller number of individuals would require this benefit.
  Today is the seventh anniversary of the passing of Agostino Guzzo, a 
Connecticut resident who bravely served in the United States Armed 
Forces in the Philippines during World War II. His family interred his 
body in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, 
Connecticut. The family was not aware of the VA's restrictions on grave 
markers, and was told by the VA that there was no way to receive an 
official recognition.
  Agostino's son, Thomas Guzzo, brought the matter to my attention, 
and, along with Representative Nancy Johnson, we were able pass to 
legislation granting Agostino the memorial he deserves. But too many 
families are still denied such markers. This legislation honors the 
memory of Agostino Guzzo and all of the veterans who have served their 
country in war and in peace. Thomas Guzzo's commitment to this issue 
has not ended. The commitment of this Congress to the issue should 
continue as well.
  I hope our colleagues will give this important legislation their 
favorable consideration.
  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. 909

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

     SECTION 1. PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT MARKERS FOR MARKED GRAVES 
                   OF VETERANS AT PRIVATE CEMETERIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 502(d) of the Veterans Education 
     and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 2306 note) is 
     amended by striking ``September 11, 2001'' and inserting 
     ``November 1, 1990''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     502 of the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Cochran):

[[Page S4263]]

  S. 910. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node 
dissection for the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for 
secondary consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Breast Cancer 
Patient Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senator Landrieu in introducing this legislation to assure women of a 
higher standard of breast cancer treatment. We are joined today by 
colleagues who have supported our efforts in the past--Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Murray, Senator Corzine, and Senator 
Durbin. Today in the House, Representatives Kelly and DeLauro are 
introducing identical legislation. Working together in this bipartisan, 
bicameral effort--supported by so many breast cancer advocates--we 
should at last achieve for American women the protections they so 
deserve.
  A woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing breast 
cancer in her lifetime. This year over 216,000 women will receive a 
life-altering diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. At some point in 
their lives, nearly every American will have a family member or friend 
who must battle breast cancer. Yet current standards of health care 
coverage have created a situation in which thousands of women each year 
undergo mastectomies needlessly, and women have even undergone breast 
cancer surgery as an outpatient--the ``drive through mastectomy'' as it 
has been called--being sent home without critical support for their 
recovery.
  Our legislation empowers women and their doctors to make treatment 
decisions based on what is medically prudent, not simply what will 
achieve short-term savings. The stress of a cancer diagnosis is 
debilitating. To compound that stress, to leave a woman with the 
knowledge that she must undergo a disfiguring procedure due only to her 
financial position, or to undergo surgery without proper 
hospitalization, is absolutely unconscionable.
  This bill achieves three important objectives. First, it assures a 
patient of a second opinion for any cancer diagnosis. A cancer 
diagnosis simply must be reliable.
  Second, this legislation assures a patient of a reasonable minimum 
length of hospital stay for invasive treatment of breast cancer. Many 
of us have heard of women receiving outpatient mastectomies, being sent 
home without the necessary support. Such treatment is unconscionable. 
This legislation establishes a 48 hour minimum stay assurance for 
mastectomy and lumpectomy. I must point out that this assurance does 
not require a woman remain hospitalized that long if she and her doctor 
concur that she goes home earlier--nor does it prevent a longer 
hospitalization if her medical condition warrants it.

  However, this provision will protect women from that small fraction 
of insurance plans which will not allow such reasonable treatment. This 
assurance is offered regardless of whether the patient's plan is 
regulated by ERISA or State regulations.
  Finally, this legislation does more than simply ensure a patient of 
reasonable hospitalization. It assures her of support in making the 
best choices about her treatment.
  It is not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' 
are some of the most frightening in the English language. For the woman 
who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No wonder, 
then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but also by 
uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do to me? 
What will I have to endure? What's the next step?
  For many women, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or 
lumpectomy. But despite the fact that studies are demonstrating that 
lumpectomy often is just as effective as mastectomy for treating breast 
cancer, an insurance coverage bias causes too many to unnecessarily 
undergo mastectomy. By ensuring a reasonable hospital stay, as well as 
coverage for radiation therapy, this legislation removes much of the 
financial incentive that has caused women to receive a mastectomy when 
a lumpectomy would have been just as effective.
  In fact, when the pain, trauma, and cost of breast reconstruction is 
considered, together with the frequent need for follow-up surgeries, 
and when we consider the additional health risks which implants may 
pose, it is clear that mastectomy can entail greater health and 
economic costs. Decisions about treatment simply must be based on sound 
science and a long term view, not what is most financially expedient at 
that very moment. A woman must have the ability to make a choice with 
their physician which considers what is in her best long term interest. 
This legislation ensures that choice is not influenced by a short term 
outlook.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work 
towards passing it this year.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, approximately 211,300 women will be 
diagnosed with breast cancer this year. No doubt, you know one of these 
women. In fact, they may be your sister, mother, aunt, cousin or dear 
friend. In most cases, the doctor will prescribe immediate and often 
times aggressive treatment in the hopes of stalling further progression 
of the disease. The quality of care that breast cancer patients receive 
is critically important to their survival. Despite the urgent need for 
Federal protections to ensure that breast cancer sufferers receive 
appropriate treatment, very few exist.
  It may shock you to learn that women who have undergone surgical 
treatments such as breast removal mastectomy--or lymph node dissections 
are being sent home within hours of having surgery because insurance 
companies are unwilling to reimburse recovery time in hospitals, a 
practice referred to as ``Drive-Through Mastectomies.'' These women 
have reported being sent home still drowsy from anesthesia, weakened 
from hours of surgery, and with drainage tubes attached to their 
bodies, while simultaneously experiencing the immense emotional trauma 
associated with the removal of a breast or lymph nodes.
  To this end, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe to 
introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. This 
legislation will prevent insurance companies from restricting hospital 
stays resulting from mastectomies to less than 48 hours and hospital 
stays resulting from lymph node dissections to less than 24 hours. This 
bill does not prevent a doctor from discharging a woman prior to these 
minimum requirements, if he/she determines, in consultation with the 
patient, that this is the best treatment option. The Breast Cancer 
Patient Protection Act simply ensures that these types of medical 
decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies. The legislation 
also prohibits insurance companies from circumventing the legislation 
through practices such as providing incentives to doctors or patients 
to reduce length of stays associated with mastectomies or lymph node 
dissections.
  To be fair, we must acknowledge that this legislation will not change 
the nature of mastectomies and lymph node dissections for the majority 
of women. Over 19 States have already put State laws in place that work 
to the same end as the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and the 
vast majority of insurance companies have already responded on their 
own to this problem. However, this is a case in which the injustice, 
while small in number of women it affects, is clear. And just as the 
injustice is apparent, the solution is simple. It is high time that the 
Federal Government took action. Yes, many states have already done so, 
and yes, many insurance companies have, too, but if even one woman is 
forced to go home too soon after such an invasive surgery, that is one 
woman too many. It is not the fact that this is happening to many 
women, it is the fact that it is happening to any women. For all of our 
sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends, and loved ones, it is time 
for us to provide the needed protections. I ask for your support of the 
Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005.




                          ____________________