[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.
____________________