[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10596-S10601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Levin):
S. 1779. A bill to amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter
Act of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal
Protection Act, legislation intended to protect people from the
unnecessary spread of disease. This bill would prohibit the use of
nonambulatory animals for human consumption.
Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock
such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines
that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals
are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway
for the spread of disease.
The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance.
With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known
as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSE), which are related animal diseases found not
only in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important
that we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe.
Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) diverts
downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with
BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other
diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem
inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar
to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate
for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed
animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal
showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an
ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human
consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally
safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of
downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled
to contaminate otherwise safe meat.
There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that
affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and
classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present
in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases are
limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in
this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is
needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by
diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already
created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other
ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is
known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all
mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feeds given to
cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in
protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go
far enough. Because they still allow the processing of downer cattle.
According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public
Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European
countries, downer cattle are among the highest risk population for BSE.
According to the Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle
from the population intended for slaughter would reduce the probability
of spreading BSE by 82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged
that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE.
While both have entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of
downed cattle, they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that
we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food
chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the
prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply.
The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and
FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of
nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The
euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk
population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption.
Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other
species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of
livestock will be included in this bill.
The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the
industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering
by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed
animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better
quality. The reduction in the likelihood of the spread of diseases
would result in safer working conditions for persons handling
livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of
livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce,
making commerce in livestock more easily attainable.
Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive
financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my
colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in
2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated
that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more
than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of
BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its
economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in
preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.
Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten
percent of downed cattle per year for BSE.
[[Page S10597]]
However, it is my understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit
this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our
defenses. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from
diseases such as BSE. This bill reduces the threat of passing diseases
from downed livestock to our food supply. It ensures downed animals
will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher
standards for food safety and protects the human population from
diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress.
American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government
to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human
consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1779
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 ``Downed Animal Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the humane euthanization
of nonambulatory livestock in interstate and foreign
commerce--
(1) prevents needless suffering;
(2) results in safer and better working conditions for
persons handling livestock;
(3) brings about improvement of products and reduces the
likelihood of the spread of diseases that have a great and
deleterious impact on interstate and foreign commerce in
livestock; and
(4) produces other benefits for producers, processors, and
consumers that tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock
and livestock products in interstate foreign commerce.
(b) Declaration of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States that all nonambulatory livestock in interstate and
foreign commerce shall be immediately and humanely euthanized
when such livestock become nonambulatory.
SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY
LIVESTOCK.
(a) In General.--Public Law 85-765 (commonly known as the
``Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'') (7 U.S.C. 1901
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 2 (7 U.S.C.
1902) the following:
``SEC. 3. NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(A) a stockyard;
``(B) a market agency;
``(C) a dealer;
``(D) a packer;
``(E) a slaughter facility; or
``(F) an establishment.
``(2) Establishment.--The term `establishment' means an
establishment that is covered by the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
``(3) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize'
means to immediately render an animal unconscious by
mechanical, chemical, or other means, with this state
remaining until the death of the animal.
``(4) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory
livestock' means any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses,
mules, or other equines, that will not stand and walk
unassisted.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(b) Humane Treatment, Handling, and Disposition.--The
Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the
humane treatment, handling, and disposition of all
nonambulatory livestock by covered entities, including a
requirement that nonambulatory livestock be humanely
euthanized.
``(c) Humane Euthanasia.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), when an animal
becomes nonambulatory, a covered entity shall immediately
humanely euthanize the nonambulatory livestock.
``(2) Disease testing.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the
ability of the Secretary to test nonambulatory livestock for
a disease, such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.
``(d) Movement.--
``(1) In general.--A covered entity shall not move
nonambulatory livestock while the nonambulatory livestock are
conscious.
``(2) Unconsciousness.--In the case of any nonambulatory
livestock that are moved, the covered entity shall ensure
that the nonambulatory livestock remain unconscious until
death.
``(e) Inspections.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for an inspector at
an establishment to pass through inspection any nonambulatory
livestock or carcass (including parts of a carcass) of
nonambulatory livestock.
``(2) Labeling.--An inspector or other employee of an
establishment shall label, mark, stamp, or tag as `inspected
and condemned' any material described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate final regulations to implement the amendment made
by subsection (a).
______
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Frist, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Coleman, and Mr.
Bunning):
S. 1780. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses,
to improve the public disclosure of activities of exempt organizations,
and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial
security by building assets, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the CARE Act of 2005
along with Senator Lieberman, a bill we have been trying to push
through Congress since 2000. However, at no point in the past five
years has the passage of this bill been so timely.
At a time where America appears divided on a War on Terror, Supreme
Court nominations, and the relief effort in the gulf region, Americans
are unified in their support of charitable organizations. In a recent
Zogby poll, 86 percent of those polled rated private charities'
response to Hurricane Katrina as excellent or good. By contrast, 32
percent described the government's response as excellent or good, and
67 percent said fair or poor.
The work of charitable organizations and their volunteers have been
inspirational at a time when many feel hopeless. I recently held a
hearing in the Finance Subcommittee of Social Security and Family
Policy to hear from charitable organizations about their efforts around
the gulf coast. Though the hearing was scheduled before the events of
Hurricane Katrina, the amazing work being done by these organizations
highlighted the need for charitable incentives to continue and expand
the generosity we are seeing.
In response to Hurricane Katrina, we have seen organizations such as
America's Second Harvest and the Florida Boulevard Baptist Church feed
the hungry. We have seen that within 48 hours of Katrina, the Nation's
fraternal benefit societies were feeding, housing, and providing
supplies, clothes, toiletries, cash and beds to those in need in
shelters both in Houston and in New Orleans. During the first week of
this effort, fraternals had already expended upwards of $14 million on
hurricane relief, a sum which is expected to increase as these efforts
broaden. We see community foundations, such as the Baton Rouge Area
Foundation, literally saving people's lives by helping Louisiana State
University open a field hospital for 1,000 people in an old Kmart. And
we see national organizations such as the YMCA of the USA providing
program services such as emergency child care, recreation, and grief
counseling. The YMCA has provided showers and other physical comforts
and opened up their facilities as staging areas for relief, recovery
and clean-up efforts. And the list goes on and on and on--not even
considering the response of these same organizations and many others to
Hurricane Rita.
The CARE Act is a bipartisan bill that received strong bipartisan
support as it passed the Senate in the 108th Congress by a vote of 95-
5. The House of Representatives passed companion legislation, the
Charitable Giving Act, by a vote of 408-13. Sadly, this bill was
blocked this bill from going to conference despite overwhelming support
from both Houses and the general public.
The CARE Act of 2005 provides commonsense provisions to induce
charitable giving. Among these include the above-the-line deduction for
non-itemizers. More than two-thirds of Americans do not itemize on
their tax returns, yet this group is estimated to contribute $36
billion to charities. Research indicates that lower and moderate-income
individuals are more likely not to itemize on their tax returns, and
that they give a greater percentage of their incomes to charity than
higher income individuals. It is only fair that they benefit for their
generosity. As Major Hood from the Salvation Army
[[Page S10598]]
so eloquently wrote in his testimony at my hearing, ``[t]he provision
allowing non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions can only
encourage those Americans with smaller incomes--including young
professionals who might otherwise be inclined to begin a lifetime of
annual giving--to contribute to worthy causes. We do not discriminate
among those in need, and we ask Congress not to discriminate in
providing tax incentives for charitable giving.''
Additionally, the CARE Act calls for tax-free IRA charitable
distributions for individuals aged 70\1/2\ and over. My home State of
Pennsylvania has the second highest percentage of seniors in the
country. Many of these older Americans want to experience the joy of
making a difference by giving, and this provision provides them that
opportunity. Certainly, these individuals should not be penalized for
contributing portions of their life's savings to a worthy cause.
Organizations have been generous during this crisis by donating food
to those who need it. The CARE Act provides expanded incentives that
will yield an estimated $2 billion worth of food donations from
farmers, restaurants, and corporations to help those in need. America's
Second Harvest estimates that this is the equivalent of 878 million
meals for hungry Americans over 10 years. Last year, the North American
Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention helped provide 3
million meals to hungry people. At the time of my hearing they were
feeding hurricane victims 250,000 meals each day. By allowing
businesses to recoup production costs this provision will incentivize
food donations and help our action fight hunger. For the first time,
farmers, ranchers, small business and restaurant owners will benefit
from the same tax incentives afforded major corporate donors for the
donation of food to the needy.
The CARE Act also provides asset building initiatives for low-income
individuals. Low-income Americans face a huge hurdle when trying to
save. Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, provide them with a way to
work toward building assets while instilling the practice of saving
into their everyday lives. IDAs are one of the most promising tools
that enable low-income and low-wealth American families to save, build
assets, and enter the financial mainstream. Based on the idea that all
Americans should have access, through the tax code or through direct
expenditures, to the structures that subsidize homeownership and
retirement savings of wealthier families, IDAs encourage savings
efforts among the poor by offering them a one-to-one match for their
own deposits. IDAs reward the monthly savings of working-poor families
who are trying to buy their first home, pay for post-secondary
education, or start a small business. These matched savings accounts
are similar to 401(k) plans and other matched savings accounts, but can
serve a broad range of purposes.
We have also seen the philanthropy of corporations such as Home Depot
and Coca-Cola Company. The Home Depot Foundation has donated nearly $4
million to assist in the relief efforts. Coca-Cola Company donated $5
million and water and other beverages to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency for its relief efforts. This is an appropriate time
to gradually raise the caps on corporate contributions from 10 to 20
percent to encourage corporations to continue their social
responsibility. We must also level the playing field for all corporate
donations by expanding charitable incentives for S corporations to
increase charitable giving.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, I have worked closely with the
Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations. I have heard from
many of the nonprofits in my State about the pressing need for the
charitable incentives we have in the CARE Act.
The time is now to expand charitable giving, both in my home State
and throughout the Nation. One certainty we have seen is in every
disaster that occurs in the United States and around the world is the
desire of fellow Americans to help those that are in need. We should
commend that generosity by passing this legislation.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1781. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
full expensing for the cost of qualified refinery property in the year
in which the property is placed in service, and to classify petroleum
refining property as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, just this past May, I stood at a gas
station in Salt Lake City and announced the introduction of S. 1039,
the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act of
2005.
By standing near a gas pump charging $2.25 per gallon, I thought I
was making a strong statement about the high price of gas and the need
for greater refining capacity in our country.
That was only a few months ago, but hurricanes Katrina and Rita have
since exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's refining
infrastructure, and the gas prices in May now seem like the good old
days.
I am pleased that the energy bill signed by President Bush this
summer included the principal concept of S. 1039--that of providing a
strong tax incentive to expand refinery capacity by allowing the cost
to be written off immediately. Unfortunately, because of budget
restrictions, my legislation had to be cut.
I have long been concerned that our shrinking number of refineries
and their proximity to our Nation's coasts pose an unacceptable risk to
our economic and strategic security. I thought cutting S. 1039 was a
mistake at the time, and now I am hoping Congress will remedy that
mistake.
Today, I rise to reintroduce those portions of my refining capacity
legislation that were left out of the energy bill and call upon my
colleagues to help me finish what was begun with my original bill.
My new legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, would
enhance the incentives made in the energy bill by increasing the short-
term incentive to add new and expanded refining facilities and by
removing the obstacle of long tax depreciation schedules that
refineries face.
For those refiners able to commit to installing new refining
equipment before 2008 and to have that added capacity built by 2012, my
original bill would have allowed a complete write-off for investments
in new refining equipment in the first year. As passed by Congress,
though, this provision was cut for budgetary reasons to allow for
expensing of only 50 percent of the costs in the first year. The
legislation I am introducing today would enhance that to allow for the
full 100 percent expensing in the first year. Now, more than ever, we
need to use every possible means to increase the security of our fuel
supply.
This bill would also restore another very important provision of S.
1039 that was dropped out of the energy bill as a cost savings. This
provision would help to remove some of the disparity the refining
industry faces in our current tax system. Most manufacturers in our
country are able to depreciate the cost of their new equipment over
five years. Refineries, on the other hand, are strapped with a full 10-
year depreciation period. This unfair treatment of our refining
industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased
capacity. The current 10-year depreciation schedule for refiners is
unwarranted, and it is past time that we level the playing field on
depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy
industry.
On September 6, in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association testified before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said that an
important solution to our energy crisis would be to ``[e]xpand the
refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act. Reduce the
depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to seven or five
years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining
investment. Allow expensing under the current language to take place as
the investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually
placed in service. Or the percentage expensed could be increased as per
the original legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.''
I think it is important to recognize that, over time, this
legislation will not cost the U.S. Treasury one dime. It would allow
refineries to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment,
but not the amount. And, we should keep in mind that when this
[[Page S10599]]
bill leads to more refineries and increased capacity, we will have also
increased the tax base.
I want to throw my full support behind the proposals recently
announced by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and House
Resource Committee Chairman Pombo, which would take other approaches to
increase the number of refineries in our Nation. From both a national
security and an energy security perspective, I especially endorse a
proposal by Chairman Pombo to locate more refineries on public lands
near oil resource deposits. Such a move will make our Nation more
secure from attacks from terrorists and from Mother Nature. I
understand that Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Chairman
Pete Domenici is promoting similar proposals on the Senate side. And I
applaud these men for their leadership.
We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security,
refining is where we are the most vulnerable. It is not the time for
half measures, but bold immediate action to establish a secure and
independent refining program in this country. I hope my colleagues will
join me in my efforts to achieve this goal. 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. 1781
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 ``Refinery Investment Tax
Assistance Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FULL EXPENSING FOR QUALIFIED REFINERY PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 179C of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1323 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is amended by striking ``50
percent of''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in section 1323 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
SEC. 3. PETROLEUM REFINING PROPERTY TREATED AS 5-YEAR
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 5-year
property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause
(v), by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(vii) any petroleum refining property.''.
(b) Petroleum Refining Property.--Section 168(i) of such
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(18) Petroleum refining property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `petroleum refining property'
means any asset for petroleum refining, including assets used
for the distillation, fractionation, and catalytic cracking
of crude petroleum into gasoline and its other components.
``(B) Asset must meet environmental laws.--Such term shall
not include any property which does not meet all applicable
environmental laws in effect on the date such property was
placed in service. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a
waiver under the Clean Air Act shall not be taken into
account in determining whether the applicable environmental
laws have been met.
``(C) Special rule for mergers and acquisitions.--Such term
shall not include any property with respect to which a
deduction was taken under subsection (e)(3)(B) by any other
taxpayer in any preceding year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to property placed in service after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to any property with respect to which the taxpayer
has entered into a binding contract for the construction
thereof on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Obama):
S. 1784. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to promote a
culture of safety within the health care system through the
establishment of a National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation
Program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
legislation that will improve patient safety while helping to provide
some relief to health care providers dealing with escalating medical
liability costs.
We are dealing with a medical malpractice problem in this country
that is jeopardizing patient safety and hurting our health care system.
As I visit with doctors and hospitals in New York and around the
Nation, I hear about the pressures and problems of escalating medical
malpractice insurance premiums.
These high premiums are forcing many physicians to alter their
practice of medicine and leaving some patients without access to
necessary medical care. In my State of New York, an unacceptable 40
percent of our counties have less than 5 practicing obstetricians.
At the same time, we have all heard the terrifying statistic from the
landmark 1999 IOM report stating that as many as 98,000 deaths every
year are the result of medical errors. But, far fewer people know that
the IOM suggests that 90 percent of medical errors are the result of
failed systems and procedures, not the negligence of physicians.
We must do better. If properly designed, these systems and procedures
could go a long way towards seriously reducing medical errors.
But, understanding the root causes of errors requires their
disclosure and analysis. And that's the fundamental tension between the
medical liability system and our common goal of providing high quality
care and improving patient safety in the health care system.
Studies have consistently shown that health care providers are
reticent to engage in patient safety activities and be open about
errors because they believe they are being asked to do so without
appropriate assurances of legal protection.
That's where this legislation comes in. We build on the patient
safety bill that was signed into law earlier this summer by creating a
voluntary program to encourage disclosure of errors, an opportunity to
enter negotiations and early settlement, while, at the same time,
protecting patients' rights and providing liability protection for
health care providers who participate in the program.
Our bill is designed to bridge the gap between the medical liability
and patient safety systems for the benefit of patients and providers.
The truly unfortunate result of the current congressional stalemate
over caps is that patients and physicians are left waiting for someone
to break the logjam and work to find bipartisan solutions that have an
opportunity to mitigate this problem. I believe it's critical that we
find a way around this stalemate and that Congress work in good faith
to find solutions that can garner enough support to find their way to
the President's desk.
I believe that this is an exciting and innovative program that will
improve patient-physician communication, reduce the rates of
preventable patient injury, reduce the liability insurance premiums
that physicians are facing, and insure that patients have access to
fair compensation for medical injury: Four fundamental goals that I
believe are necessary components of any solution we consider.
There are a number of successful programs across the country that are
consistent with the provisions of our legislation, including one at the
University of Michigan, and even one initiated by a medical malpractice
insurance provider in Colorado. I am excited about the results these
programs are producing--fewer numbers of suits being filed, more
patients being compensated for injuries, greater patient trust and
satisfaction, and significantly reduced administrative and legal
defense costs for providers, insurers, and hospitals where these
programs are in place.
I am hopeful that our legislation will provide an opportunity for
more hospitals and physicians to use this program and see for
themselves the benefits they--and their patients--will reap.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Clinton
to introduce legislation that will help us all find common ground on
the debate over patient safety and medical malpractice claims.
Today, medical error is the eighth leading cause of death in the
United States. Every year, these tragic mistakes cost the lives of up
to 98,000 Americans. This is unacceptable in America, and we must do
more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right
time, in the right way.
The debate in Washington over this issue has been centered on caps
and lawsuits. But across America, hospitals and medical providers are
proving that
[[Page S10600]]
there's a better way to protect patients and doctors, all while raising
the quality of our care and lowering its cost.
From the Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to the VA
hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, doctors and administrators aren't
trying to cover up medical errors--They're trying to admit them.
Instead of closing ranks and keeping the patient in the dark, they're
investigating potential errors, apologizing if mistakes have been made,
and offering a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court.
This program is often known as ``Sorry Works,'' and it's led to some
amazing results. When patients are treated with respect and told the
truth, they sue less. More are actually compensated for their injuries,
but medical providers pay less because the reward is the result of a
settlement, not an expensive lawsuit. Malpractice costs for doctors go
down, and health care professionals actually learn from their mistakes
so they're not repeated and lives are saved.
At the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, this program has reduced
the average settlement to $16,000, compared with $98,000 nationwide.
This ranked in the lowest quartile of all VA facilities for malpractice
payouts. At the University of Michigan's hospital system, this program
helped them cut their lawsuits in half and save up to $2 million in
defense litigation.
The bill we're introducing today builds on these hopeful results and
incorporates them into a national program. The National Medical Error
Disclosure and Compensation Act, or MEDiC Act, will help reduce medical
error rates and medical malpractice costs by opening the lines of
communication between doctors and patients--encouraging honesty and
accountability in the process.
The bill will also set up a National Patient Safety Database, which
will be used to determine best practices in preventing medical errors,
improving patient safety, and increasing accountability in the
healthcare system.
We expect participants to see a cost savings, and we will require
them to reinvest a portion of these savings into patient quality
measures that will reduce medical errors. This bill also requires that
some of these savings are passed along to providers in the form of
lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Certainly, these are lofty goals. But what Senator Clinton and I hope
to do with this legislation is promote the type of creative thinking
that will be required if this country is going to overcome some of the
gridlock in the healthcare debate. The MEDiC Act of 2005 brings
together some of the best ideas currently out there, and I hope my
colleagues in the Senate will work with Senator Clinton and me to put
these ideas in action.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1785. A bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code
(relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the
distinction between a hull and a deck, to provide factors for the
determination of the protectability of a revised design, to provide
guidance for assessments of substantial similarity, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today along with the Senior Senator
from Vermont in introducing the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
Amendments of 2005. This is the third recent piece of legislation on
which I have teamed with Senator Leahy--first working together on
important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act and then joining to
introduce significant counterfeiting prevention legislation. I am glad
to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though
seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications
about the scope of protections available to boat designs.
Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the
result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual
property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design
Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not
present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The Act has been
instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat
designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles.
A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of
protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this
interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat
manufacturing industry to conclude that the Act's provisions are not
effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property
protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order
to encourage innovative design and clarification is needed.
The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded
to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull
and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The
proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat
designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug
or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will
continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify
that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be
analyzed separately.
This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat
manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a
vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very
important clarifications about the scope of protections available to
boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation
and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the
lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for
recreational and commercial boating throughout the State. This
legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the
design and manufacture of boats for many years to come.
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. 1785
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 ``Vessel Hull Design
Protection Amendments of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DESIGNS PROTECTED.
Section 1301(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Vessel features.--The design of a vessel hull or
deck, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection
under this chapter, notwithstanding section 1302(4).''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 1301(b) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``vessel hull, including
a plug or mold,'' and inserting ``vessel hull or deck,
including a plug or mold,'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) A `hull' is the exterior frame or body of a vessel,
exclusive of the deck, superstructure, masts, sails, yards,
rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) A `deck' is the horizontal surface of a vessel that
covers the hull, including exterior cabin and cockpit
surfaces, and exclusive of masts, sails, yards, rigging,
hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have already worked
together on significant Freedom of Information Act legislation and on
counterfeiting legislation during the first session of this Congress.
Today, we are introducing another bill and taking our partnership to
the high seas, or at least to our Nation's boat manufacturing industry,
with the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005.
Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of
time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual
property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that
Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other
works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued
innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process,
and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it
clear that the protections Congress. passed seven years ago need some
statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned.
The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law,
making an important clarification about the scope of
[[Page S10601]]
the protections available to boat designs.
We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on,
bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than fifty
percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We
seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake
Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. And
as anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce
involves sea travel. I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Hatch for
cosponsoring this legislation. Protecting boat designs and encouraging
innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move
quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation.
____________________