[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4905-4910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 4905]]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2369. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to waive 
federal preemption State law providing for the awarding of punitive 
damages against motor carriers for engaging in unfair or deceptive 
trade practices in the processing of claims relating to loss, damage, 
injury, or delay in connection with transportation of property in 
interstate commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   MOVING COMPANY RESPONSIBILITY ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving 
Company Responsibility Act of 1999 to improve the protections afforded 
to consumers who hire moving companies to carry their possessions from 
one state to another. Under current law, consumers whose goods are lost 
or stolen during transit have no redress against moving companies that 
deceive or mistreat them during the claims process.
  This problem was first brought to my attention by my constituents, 
Jane Rini and John Pucci. In 1990, Ms. Rini hired a moving company to 
transport her household goods from South Carolina to Massachusetts to 
attend Smith College's Ada Comstock Program. Among Ms. Rini's 
possessions were valuable original paintings and art objects that had 
been passed down through her family. When her belongings were delivered 
by the driver employed by the moving company, Ms. Rini noticed that the 
boxes containing the works of art were missing. Although the company's 
driver was not able to locate the boxes, he demanded that Ms. Rini sign 
inventory sheets indicating that her goods had been properly delivered 
and refused to leave her house until she signed for the delivery. Under 
pressure, Ms. Rini signed the inventory sheets, noting on them that 
boxes containing the works of art were missing. She was not informed by 
the company that she should note missing boxes on the bill of lading, 
nor was she given the pamphlet containing this information, as required 
by federal law. The next day, Ms. Rini and her family unpacked the 
boxes that had been delivered and determined conclusively that eleven 
works of art were missing. They have never been recovered.
  From that point on, Ms. Rini did everything to obtain redress that 
reasonably could be expected of a consumer. She filed her claim with 
the moving company in a timely manner, and she went to great lengths to 
supply the moving company's claims adjusters with all the information 
they needed to process her claim. However, her efforts to recover 
damages for the lost artwork were met with abusive and deceptive 
tactics seemingly designed to discourage her claim.
  At the beginning of the claims process, the company demanded that Ms. 
Rini provide it with documentation such as canceled checks, recent 
appraisal information, insurance riders, or cash receipts. Ms. Rini had 
no recent information on the works because they had been handed down 
through her family for generations, but she was able to supply the 
company with photographs of most of the missing pieces, and she even 
paid for professional appraisals of the works based on the photos. She 
also provided the company with a letter from 1929 which reflected the 
authenticity of some of the pieces.
  Mr. President, this should have been more than enough to satisfy the 
company as to the validity of Ms. Rini's claim, but the company refused 
to accept appraisals unless they were based upon actual examination of 
the objects. Meanwhile, Ms. Rini was told by a company representative 
that a thorough investigation of her claim would be conducted, but the 
representative negligently failed to interview or take written 
statements in a timely manner from any of the employees involved in the 
move who might have been able to substantiate the claim.
  Almost nine months later, the company denied Ms. Rini's claim on the 
grounds that all items were delivered and signed for on the bill of 
lading without a notation indicating missing items; that the company 
had not received adequate documentation to substantiate Rini's claims; 
and that the company had not uncovered any evidence that the works had 
not been delivered to Northampton.
  Ms. Rini finally took her case to a District Court in Massachusetts. 
During the trial, the moving company's own expert witnesses testified 
that reliable and fair estimates of the value of works of art are 
commonly obtained through examination of photographs, but the company 
maintained that Ms. Rini's documentary proof was insubstantial and 
denied that it had a duty to settle the claim. Upon hearing the 
testimony, the court found Ms. Rini's documentation provided sufficient 
evidence upon which the moving company should have settled her claim. 
It further characterized the company's tactics as ``unfair,'' 
``unethical,'' and ``deceptive,'' and found that Ms. Rini was entitled 
to recover damages for injury she suffered as a result of the company's 
negligence and misrepresentation throughout the claims process. 
However, the District Court's decision, which was based on 
Massachusetts law, was overturned by the First Circuit Court of 
Appeals, which found that state law providing relief to Ms. Rini is 
preempted by the federal law establishing uniform liability for motor 
carriers.
  Mr. President, Ms. Rini's story is just an illustration of the larger 
problem. Under current law, irresponsible, unethical moving companies 
are allowed to mistreat those who depend on them for service, and there 
is no recourse for consumers who are the victims of negligence or 
deception. Consumers who place their trust in moving companies should 
have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated with 
consideration and respect at all times; and when a company fails to 
deliver on its promise to transport household goods in good condition, 
consumers' efforts to recover damages should not be met with the kind 
of abuse and deception that Ms. Rini experienced. No consumer should 
have to suffer that sort of treatment.
  Unfortunately, current law provides little or no incentive for moving 
companies to make sure that customer claims are handled fairly. In 
fact, under current law, moving companies can act irresponsibly and 
unfairly with impunity. According to the Department of Transportation, 
well over 2,500 complaints were filed against moving companies in 1998, 
the most recent year for which this information is available. That's 
more than 2,500 consumers who believe they were treated unfairly--and 
those are just the consumers who actually took the time to file 
complaints. The time for Congress to act to protect consumers is now, 
and passage of the Moving Company Responsibility Act is the first step.
  The Moving Company Responsibility Act would provide customers with a 
means of redress against unethical companies by allowing them to pursue 
claims under state law. The penalties and fines available under state 
laws would serve as an incentive to companies to treat customers fairly 
throughout the business relationship. This is a simple bill, but it is 
needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected when they 
contract with moving companies.
  I would like to thank my constituents, Ms. Rini and Mr. Pucci, for 
bringing this important consumer protection matter to my attention.
  This bill will provide important protections to consumers, and I hope 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it 
so that we can pass it quickly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2369

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

[[Page 4906]]



     SECTION 1. STATE COURT AWARDS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR UNFAIR 
                   OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH CLAIMS FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, 
                   INJURY, OR DELAY OF TRANSPORTED PROPERTY.

       (a) Punitive Damages Authorized.--Section 14706 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Punitive Damages for Unfair or Deceptive Practices.--
     Nothing in this section limits the liability of a carrier for 
     punitive damages authorized under applicable State law for 
     any act or omission of the carrier in connection with the 
     investigation, settlement, adjudication, or other aspect of 
     the processing of a claim under this section that constitutes 
     an unfair or deceptive trade practice under such State 
     law.''.
       (e) Retroactive Effective Date and Applicability.--
     Subsection (h) of section 14706 of title 49, United States 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect as of 
     January 1, 1990, and shall apply with respect to receipts and 
     bills of lading referred to in subsection (a)(1) of such 
     section that are issued on or after that date.
                                 ______
                                 

By Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Baucus, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
 Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, 
  Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
 Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Wyden, 
 Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, 
 Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
                Fitzgerald, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Grams):

  S. 2370. A bill to designate the Federal Building located at 500 
Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


legislation s. 2370 to name the federal courthouse at 500 pearl street 
          in new york city for senator daniel patrick moynihan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today with 61 of my colleagues to 
introduce a bill to name the beautiful Federal Courthouse located at 
500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, after my esteemed colleague and champion 
of this project, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
  When I think about the many accomplishments of the distinguished 
Senator or the numerous accolades that he has received, I am left with 
very big shoes to fill and very few words that have yet to be used to 
describe the man and his legacy. His roles throughout his 47-year 
career in public service include legislator, scholar, reformer, teacher 
and last, but definitely not least, builder. In New York, Pat Moynihan 
has taught us the value of beautiful public works.
  It is especially for his role as builder that we honor Pat Moynihan 
today. The Federal Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street embodies the same 
spirit as his previous architectural endeavors--an extraordinary work 
of art, inside and out. Completed in 1994, the Courthouse was designed 
by the distinguished architectural firm of Kohn Pederson Fox with a 
dignity worthy of the weighty judicial matters considered within its 
walls. It is a magnificent structure of solid granite, marble, and 
sturdy oak, built to last 200 years, adorned with public art from 
notable contemporary artists Ray Kaskey and Maya Lin.
  Not coincidentally, the Courthouse's presence and elegance befit the 
man who was most responsible for its creation--Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, who has been an enduring champion of excellence in public 
architecture, both here in Washington and at home in New York. Senator 
Moynihan toiled for nearly a decade prodding the Congress, General 
Services Administration, three New York City mayors, and anyone else he 
needed, to see this spectacular Courthouse built.
  Senator Moynihan has always been an important force for architecture 
in New York. He was responsible for the restoration of the spectacular 
Beaux-Arts Custom House at Bowling Green in Lower Manhattan and beloved 
in Buffalo for reawakening that city's appreciation for its 
architectural heritage, which includes Frank Lloyd Wright houses and 
the Prudential Building, one of the best-known early American 
skyscrapers by the architect Louis H. Sullivan--a building which 
Moynihan helped restore and then chose as his Buffalo office. Moynihan 
has also spurred a powerful popular movement in Buffalo to build a new 
signature Peace Bridge over the Niagara River.
  But the project for which he is best known is his beloved 
Pennsylvania Station. In 1963, Pat Moynihan was one of a group of 
prescient New Yorkers who protested the tragic razing of our City's 
spectacular Penn Station--a glorious public building designed by McKim, 
Mead & White, the Nation's premier architectural firm of the time.
  It was Pat Moynihan who recognized years ago that across the street 
from what is now a sad basement terminal that functions--barely--as New 
York City's train station, sits the James A. Farley Post Office 
Building, built by the same architects, in much the same grand design, 
as the old Penn Station. Pat Moynihan recognized that we could use the 
Farley Building to once again create a train station worthy of our 
great City. I, along with many of my colleagues, offered a bill last 
year to name that new train station after him, but Senator Moynihan, 
with characteristic modesty, asked that the station keep the Farley 
name.
  Fortunately, the Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street will serve as an 
equally fitting tribute and provide an enduring monument in the heart 
of the City that Pat Moynihan and I both love so dearly, a monument for 
the millions of New Yorkers and their fellow Americans who love and 
admire Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2370

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED 
                   STATES COURTHOUSE.

       The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New 
     York City, New York, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend Senator Schumer for 
submitting this resolution. I, too, have had the privilege of working 
with Senator Pat Moynihan on the Environment and Public Works Committee 
for almost 18 years. There are few people who have a better knowledge 
of history, design, and concept than does our friend, Pat Moynihan.
  I join Senator Schumer in his comments about Senator Pat Moynihan. I 
am very familiar with the railroad station. Many people from New 
Jersey, and people from all over the country, will get to see this 
station and the contributions Senator Moynihan has made to our national 
well-being.
  I urge passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as has the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey, I have had the privilege of serving with our friend, Senator 
Moynihan, for many years on the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
If I may say with some little immodesty, I have been sort of a silent 
partner with Senator Moynihan, not so much on this project--this was 
entirely his, I say to the junior Senator--but the Ronald Reagan 
Airport, for example, and the completion of the Federal Triangle are 
major, significant landmarks which will go forward for future 
generations.

[[Page 4907]]

But for this quiet, modest, knowledgeable man--I doubt if he would ever 
be a cosponsor of this resolution--it is most befitting that this be 
done to recognize a man who stands for the rule of law.
  I thank the Senator.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S. 2378. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve the safety of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


  stop all frequent errors (safe) in medicare and medicaid act of 2000

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this 
important legislation today with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, 
Senator Kerrey, and Senator Bryan. This bill represents an important 
step toward ensuring patients receive safe, quality health care in our 
nation's hospitals and healthcare facilities.
  The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report released last fall indicates 
that nearly 44,000 to 98,000 people die or are seriously hurt in 
hospitals every year. That is equivalent to having three jumbo jets 
filled with passengers crash every two days. Should we be safer flying 
in an airplane than going to a hospital for routine surgery?
  Take the case of Gary Masiello, who lost his daughter when her 
breathing tube was accidentally disconnected. Nine months later he lost 
his wife in another hospital when she choked on her medication. He no 
longer has the confidence that he or his family are safe when entering 
the hospital.
  The case of Betsy Lehman, a Boston Globe health reporter, is yet 
another example of how medical mistakes can lead to death. She received 
a drug overdose in 1994 during her chemotherapy treatment.
  Ironically, even one of the contributors to the IOM report was 
touched by a medical error. Mary Wakefield, while she was preparing the 
report, discovered that her 83 year old mother was operated on the 
wrong hand.
  Today, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan, and I are 
introducing a bipartisan bill to make patient safety a national 
healthcare priority. We recognize that mistakes happen, and that in our 
complex healthcare system, problems will occur. But in a country that 
is the leader in healthcare research, technology, and advancement, we 
should be able to do much, much better when it comes to patient safety.
  We are not here today to point the finger or to blame. We are here to 
provide a solution to this disturbing problem--a problem we think is 
preventable.
  Our legislation establishes a reporting and patient safety program 
for hospitals and other healthcare providers that participate in the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs, which would include virtually every 
healthcare facility in the United States. Billions of federal tax 
dollars go to these programs. The taxpayers deserve to know that the 
healthcare system they invest in provides safe, high-quality care.
  This bill extends confidentiality protections to ensure that 
providers will report without risk of retaliation by trial lawyers. By 
creating a safe environment, this bill will foster reporting and 
corrective action plans in hospitals and healthcare facilities across 
the country.
  Our legislation will improve patient safety and give providers the 
tools they need to address medical mistakes before patients are harmed. 
These errors are not intentional by any means, but they are 
preventable. So, I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
support this bill to ensure that medical errors become a thing of the 
past.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Section-By-Section of the Stop All Frequent Errors (SAFE) in Medicare 
                        and Medicaid Act of 2000

       Section I. Title and Table of Contents.
       Section II. Purpose--This section describes the intent of 
     the legislation which is to create a non-punitive medical 
     error reduction program under the Medicare and Medicaid 
     programs through identification of medical errors, extension 
     of confidentiality with limited disclosure, and 
     implementation of systems and processes to reduce the number 
     of adverse events that occur.
       Section III. Improvement of Patient Safety under the 
     Medicare Program--This section establishes the guidelines for 
     the medical error reduction program in the Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs as a condition of participation.
       Facilities that choose to participate in the Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs including hospitals, critical access 
     hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, comprehensive 
     outpatient rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, 
     hospice, renal dialysis facilities, and ambulatory surgery 
     centers would have to meet the requirements of this Act.
       Hospitals would be required to participate one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act. The other institutions 
     would be phased-in on a timetable to be determined by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       Providers would have to implement a patient safety program 
     to reduce medical errors. The program will target both 
     sentinel events and additional events associated with injury 
     as targeted by the Secretary, or local providers. The program 
     shall utilize active investigation to discover health care 
     errors and achieve measurable improvement in the rates of 
     health care errors.
       In addition, providers would be required to report sentinel 
     events and additional designated errors to the following: (1) 
     their state health department; (2) a national accrediting 
     organization when applicable, i.e. the Joint Commission on 
     the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO); and 
     (3) the Medicare peer review organizations. The facility 
     would be responsible for performing a root-cause analysis and 
     implementing a corrective action plan that reduces the risk 
     of such event happening in the future. Providers can 
     designate which agency or entity described above to approve 
     their compliance with the reporting and correction program. 
     Aggregated reports without identifiers would be submitted to 
     the Secretary by the agency or entity.
       Confidentiality and privacy protections based on current 
     peer review protections would be extended to ensure that 
     institutions would be encouraged to report and to implement 
     effective patient safety programs. Information would also be 
     protected for the purposes of conducting peer review 
     activities and root cause analysis.
       A definition of poor performance is complying with the 
     reporting and correction program will be specified by the 
     Secretary, JCAHO, the Agency for Healthcare Research and 
     Quality (AHRQ), the peer review organizations, providers and 
     consumer organizations. When a facility has a pattern of poor 
     performance, this information is reported to the Secretary 
     and the Secretary shall then release this information to the 
     public. This would occur if the pattern of poor performance 
     continues for more than two years, and a provider fails to 
     report sentinel events and implement corrective actions to 
     address safety problems.
       Section IV. Improvement of Patient Safety Under the 
     Medicaid Program--This section extends the Medicare 
     provisions above to congregate care providers in the Medicaid 
     program. Congregate care provider is defined as facilities in 
     the Medicaid program that provide hospital services, nursing 
     facility services, services of intermediate care facilities 
     for the mentally retarded, hospice care, residential 
     treatment centers for children, services in an institution 
     for mental diseases, and inpatient psychiatric hospital 
     services for individuals under age of 21.
       Section V. Establishment of the Center for Patient Safety--
     This section establishes a Center for Patient Safety (Center) 
     within HHS. The mission of the Center is to improve patient 
     safety and reduce the incidence of medical errors. The Center 
     would establish national goals for patient safety and 
     mechanisms to track such goals. In addition, the Center would 
     prepare and submit an annual report to the President and 
     Congress with recommendations concerning patient safety. 
     Among some of its duties, the Center would develop a national 
     health care patient safety research agenda, disseminate 
     information and evaluate mechanisms to improve patient 
     safety, and conduct pilot projects to conduct new or 
     innovative patient safety reporting systems.
       Section VI. Grants to Establish Patient Safety Programs--
     This section authorizes the Center to award grants to 
     providers and health professionals affiliated with such 
     providers for the establishment and operation of patient 
     safety programs.
       Section VII. Authorization of Appropriations--This section 
     authorizes the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2001, $30,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 2002, $35,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2003, $40,000,000.
       (4) For each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as may be 
     necessary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2379. A bill to provide for the protection of children from 
tobacco; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page 4908]]




             kids deserve freedom from tobacco act of 2000

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by 
Senators Chafee and Graham to introduce the ``KIDS Deserve Freedom from 
Tobacco Act of 2000.''
  Just over 2 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, Chafee and 
Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan 
legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce 
that Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the 
same goal. This bill is the first bipartisan Senate effort to restore 
the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from 
tobacco.
  We feel it is absolutely critical to show bipartisan support for 
picking up the ball the Supreme Court dropped in our lap just two weeks 
ago. We hope that our announcement today will be the beginning of a 
bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed.
  The need is clear. As the Supreme Court recognized, tobacco use among 
children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat 
to public health in the United States. A new study released just 
yesterday shows how the tobacco industry continues to successfully 
target our children. Seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing 
tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33% of 
adults. And 77% of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes.
  That is why 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of 
them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3 
jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. And that is why 
cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There 
is no question we face a public health crisis of unmatched proportions 
and we have the opportunity this year to stop it.
  Passing comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce the 
number of American children hooked on this deadly habit is a once and a 
lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate in 
Washington has so far been largely partisan. That's why we've joined 
arms across party lines behind the KIDS Deserve Freedom From Tobacco 
Act, the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our 
bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the 
odds that reforms will be made this year.
  Let me be clear. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes 
kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big 
Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the 
nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted.
  The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court two weeks ago, 
were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an 
investment in the future of our kids.
  Our legislation will re-affirm the FDA's authority over tobacco 
products. It will classify nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as 
drug delivery devices. It will allow FDA to implement a ``public 
health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. By 
codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation will also allow for 
continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It will 
provide needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco 
products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It 
will also include sensible advertising limits as well as other 
important provisions of the original FDA rule designed to reduce teen 
access to tobacco.
  For the sake of our kids and the public health, we have a 
responsibility to act quickly on this. Today, we begin that important 
effort.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to examine our legislation and 
give us their comments. We should not leave this year without taking 
this type of common sense step to protect our kids.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin 
and Bob Graham in introducing the Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act 
of 2000, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the 
authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco. This 
legislation is a common-sense and bipartisan approach to ensure that 
tobacco products do not get into the hands of minors, especially in 
light of the Supreme Court's recent decision that the FDA does not have 
the authority to regulate tobacco products.
  The Supreme Court's recent decision is disappointing. This judgment, 
while following the letter of the law, will cause unnecessary harm to 
millions of people unless Congress acts quickly to stem its affects. We 
must ensure that the FDA regulations are enacted into law.
  Not only does tobacco pose a significant risk to the individual 
smoker, but it reaps a high cost from the American public. The 
widespread use of tobacco is eating away at our society's physical and 
financial health. Tobacco's physical toll in deaths and diseases is 
well-documented. However, the financial weight that tobacco places on 
America's overburdened health care system is often overlooked. As the 
single most preventable cause of premature death, disease and 
disability facing our nation, tobacco use is also the single biggest 
preventable expense to our nation's health care system.
  America's publicly financed health care system has also suffered. 
Nearly half the costs of treating tobacco related illnesses--
approximately $25 billion in 1993, according to the Centers for Disease 
Control--fall to state and federal governments through such programs as 
Medicare and Medicaid. This unnecessary fiscal burden has hit the 
health care industry hard, increasing the cost of health care, while 
driving millions into the ranks of the uninsured. As Congress struggles 
to pull the Medicare program back from the brink of insolvency, it is 
clear that the huge costs of the preventable illnesses caused by 
tobacco need to be addressed. We have a clear choice: attack the 
problem of preventable disease, or place a greater burden on our 
already financially strapped health care system.
  The Supreme Court did not argue the scientific evidence: nicotine is 
a drug and cigarettes are drug delivery devices. Nicotine is addictive, 
it lures children, kills adults, and drives up our nation's health care 
costs. In fact, the Court's majority opinion admitted that tobacco use 
was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in 
the United States.''
  The only thing the FDA lacks, they said, was explicit authority to 
regulate tobacco products. Fine! Today, we propose to give them that 
authority. This bipartisan measure will abide by the intent of the 
Court's ruling by granting the FDA explicit authority to regulate these 
deadly and addictive products as it does for all other drugs.
  Congress cannot afford to wait. The three thousand children who get 
hooked on tobacco each day cannot afford to wait. Our overburdened 
health care system cannot afford to wait. I hope my colleagues in both 
Houses of Congress will come together in a bipartisan spirit to grant 
the FDA authority to stop the spread of the tobacco contagion.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for far too long, the health and welfare 
of America's children have been jeopardized by a relatively unregulated 
tobacco industry.
  ``The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has amply demonstrated that 
tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps 
the single most serious threat to public health in the United States.''
  These words aren't mine. They are Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's, the 
author of the majority opinion in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown 
and Williamson--the recent case which prevents the FDA from effectively 
regulating tobacco.
  We have worked hard to protect our children from the perils of 
tobacco, but we clearly have not done enough.
  A study recently released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that over 18 percent of youth 
between the ages of 12 and 17 are smokers.
  That translates into 4.1 million kids. And, every day, another 3,000 
children join the ranks of their smoking peers.
  Not only are these children exposing themselves to the long-term 
health

[[Page 4909]]

risks that we know tobacco to pose, they are increasing the likeliness 
that they will develop other harmful addictions.
  SAMHSA's study has revealed that children who smoke are over 11 times 
more likely to use illicit drugs and 16 times more likely to drink 
heavily than are their nonsmoking peers. Specifically, children who 
smoke are 100 times more likely to also smoke marijuana and 32 times 
more likely to use cocaine than nonsmoking children.
  Today, of the 4.1 million children who currently smoke, 
approximately: 35% smoke marijuana; 8% take hallucinogenic drugs; 5% 
use cocaine; and 4% sniff inhalants.
  The Supreme Court has placed the burden of protecting not only these 
children, but all children from tobacco squarely on the shoulders of 
the Congress. This is indeed a heavy weight to bear, but it is one from 
which we cannot afford to shy away.
  We are here today to announce that we have accepted this charge, and 
are introducing legislation that will provide America's children with 
real protections from tobacco.
  Currently, the FDA has the authority to regulate virtually all 
products which we consume or apply to our skin--food, drugs, cosmetics 
and medical devices--protecting Americans by ensuring that these 
products meet certain health standards.
  Yet, today, FDA authority--and thus, FDA protection--does not apply 
to tobacco.
  Congress can extend these protections by giving the FDA the authority 
to truly regulate tobacco products.
  Our legislation would do just that. It would give the FDA authority 
to: (1) reduce harmful components--such as nicotine--in tobacco 
products; (2) impose appropriate advertising and marketing restrictions 
to reduce teenage tobacco use; (3) require manufacturers to submit 
information about the health effects of their product to the FDA; (4) 
require strong warning labels; and (5) regulate health claims and 
``Reduced Risk'' products.
  Mr. President, we are all in agreement that it is our responsibility 
to promote a healthier America. This legislation will help us achieve 
that collective goal, by giving the FDA the authority to regulate the 
tobacco industry. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 2380. A bill to provide for international family planning funding 
for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


 saving women's lives through international family planning act of 2000

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Saving Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of 2000. 
I would like to thank Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, and Senator Murray 
for joining me as cosponsors and I invite others to join us. 
Congresswoman Maloney introduced this legislation in the House in 
February, and it has gained the support of 94 cosponsors on both sides 
of the aisle in that body.
  Mr. President, while global population growth has slowed, the world's 
population reached 6 billion in 1999 and is expected to rise to 8.9 
billion by 2050. Nearly all of this growth is occurring in developing 
nations. High population density puts tremendous strain on water and 
other resources and takes an increasing toll on the quality and length 
of human life.
  Each year, more than 585,000 women die from complications related to 
pregnancy and childbirth. And millions of women suffer serious health 
problems following childbirth.
  International family planning programs are our best hope to slow 
population growth and decrease mortality rates, and that's why the 
legislation I'm introducing today is so important.
  Tomorrow is World Health Day, an appropriate occasion to remember 
that international family planning programs save the lives of millions 
of women all over the world. Providing reproductive health care and 
health education results in safer pregnancies and safer motherhood.
  Yet this country is paying hundreds of millions of dollars less on 
international family planning programs today than it did five years 
ago. We need to restore this country's commitment to helping those in 
developing countries raise their standards of living, and family 
planning must be an important part of that assistance. Without this 
renewed commitment, high fertility rates and rapid population growth 
will prevent people in the poorest countries from rising out of 
poverty.
  The Saving Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of 
2000 authorizes $541.6 million--the funding level requested by 
President Clinton--for bilateral family planning programs and related 
assistance abroad. It also provides $35 million for the United Nations 
Population Fund, known as UNFPA. This would return our level of 
international family planning assistance to where it was in fiscal 
1995. This is a sound investment that will bring returns for decades to 
come.
  This bill would also reverse the so-called ``gag rule'' that 
restricts USAID grants to non-governmental organizations abroad that 
use their own funds to advocate a woman's right to choose or to perform 
legal medical procedures. Under this bill, the requirements we apply to 
NGOs would not be more restrictive that the requirements on foreign 
governments that receive similar assistance.
  I have fought for years, as a member of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations subcommittee, for adequate funding for international 
family planning programs without restrictions which would limit the 
reach or effectiveness of our aid.
  Last year, we were forced to accept the gag rule in exchange for 
congressional agreement to pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations. It 
was a bitter pill to swallow and we must eliminate this provision now. 
It's unfair and undemocratic. By restricting the freedom of 
organizations to engage in public policy debates, the gag rule 
undermines a central goal of U.S. foreign policy, the promotion of 
democracy--which has at its core the principles of free and open debate 
and citizen involvement in government decisions. And this restriction 
is a serious impediment to our efforts to bring global population 
levels under control and to protect the lives of millions of women by 
letting them choose to have only as many children as they can care for 
responsibly.
  Mr. President, family planning is even more critical to the health of 
people in developing countries than it is here in America. Many 
developing countries lack the hospitals and clinics and doctors and 
other health-care professionals to provide women with the advice and 
care they need to have a safe pregnancy. Many lack the facilities and 
expertise to provide obstetrical and prenatal care women need to 
deliver healthy babies.
  Sometimes, a pregnancy can be dangerous, especially if the woman is 
too young or too old to bear a child. In many poor societies, families 
have many children because so many die before they reach adulthood and 
children provide the only support in their parents' later years. As a 
result, families too often have more children than they can 
realistically support and face malnutrition or even starvation. 
Finally, there are those who do not properly consider the potential 
transmission of deadly diseases such as AIDS or who do not have access 
to contraceptive devices.
  For many poor women abroad, family planning clinics offer the only 
general health care available. Without the critical funding provided in 
this bill, many of these women will unnecessarily suffer and even die. 
With this assistance, women and children will have a better chance of 
living longer, healthier lives.
  We need this legislation to reduce mortality rates, to combat the 
spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and to give the poorest nations 
an opportunity to meet their social, environmental, and economic needs 
by making family planning available worldwide.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Saving 
Women's Lives through International Family Planning Act of 2000. We all 
have a

[[Page 4910]]

stake in helping people in the worlds poorer nations plan their 
families and helping control the impact of population growth on the 
planet we share.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Akaka, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Ashcroft, Mr. Biden, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Graham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Sessions, 
        and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S.J. Res. 44. A joint resolution supporting the Day of Honor 2000 to 
honor and recognize the service of minority veterans in the United 
States Armed Forces during World War II; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                     May 25--``DAY OF HONOR 2000''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator 
Daniel Inouye, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, along with 24 other 
Senators, are introducing a Senate Joint Resolution to designate May 
25, 2000, as a national Day of Honor for minority veterans of World War 
II. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas is introducing an 
identical resolution in the House of Representatives.
  Forty-five years ago, the bloodiest war in our history came to an end 
and millions of American service men and women returned to the United 
States to rebuild their lives after fighting so courageously and 
successfully to defend our country.
  These brave veterans included large numbers of minorities. More than 
1.2 million African Americans, more than 300,000 Hispanic Americans, 
more than 50,000 Asian Americans, more than 20,000 Native Americans, 
more than 6,000 Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and more than 3,000 
Native Alaskans risked their lives to preserve our democracy.
  On land, sea and air, far from their homes, they fought brilliantly 
to defeat fascism and protect our freedom. And large numbers of them 
did so in spite of the racism and injustice they had suffered in our 
society, and even in their military service.
  Too often, when they returned to America and raised the question of 
freedom and equal justice here at home, the answer came back, ``no.'' 
Too often, when fundamental issues of equality and respect of their 
service in the war arose, Jim Crow and racial discrimination replied 
with a resounding ``no.''
  Even during the war itself, these brave men and women in uniform had 
faced racial discrimination and violent and cruel treatment from their 
fellow citizens--and often from their fellow American service men and 
women. Even here on American soil during the war, German prisoners of 
war were allowed to go to places in the United States where black 
Americans were not allowed to go.
  Last December, President Clinton dealt at long last with one example 
of these injustices when he pardoned Freddie Meeks, one of 50 African-
American sailors who were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to prison 
and hard labor in 1944 for refusing to continue loading ammunition 
after a deadly explosion at the Port Chicago naval facility new San 
Francisco. That explosion of 10,000 tons of ammunition at the loading 
dock resulted in the deaths of 320 persons, two-thirds of whom were 
black.
  As President Clinton noted, Meeks had participated in the 
``extraordinarily difficult job of picking up human remains'' following 
the blast. White sailors were given 30-day leaves after the blast, but 
black sailors were ordered back to work. Meeks and 257 others were 
court-martialed after they refused to continue loading the ammunitions, 
because the order was so blatantly racist and the danger was so great. 
The pardon, granted by the President, was eminently justified. The Navy 
had agreed in a 1994 review of the case that the sailors had been 
victims of racial discrimination, but it had not overturned their 
convictions.
  Historians feel that the Port Chicago case was a major factor in 
convincing President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive order 
in 1948, banning segregation in the armed forces.
  Japanese Americans were also subjected to shameful discrimination 
during the war. The Supreme Court upheld the internment of tens of 
thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during the war, because 
the government was fearful that their allegiance might to be to Japan. 
In recent years, reparations have been paid as amends for these 
shameful deeds against Japanese Americans, but no reparations can ever 
fully compensate for such gross violations of human liberties.
  As a nation, we have long since recognized the unfair treatment of 
minorities as a travesty of justice. The landmark decisions of the 
Supreme Court and the enactment of fundamental civil rights laws by 
Congress over the past half century have remedied the worst of these 
injustices and made our nation a freer and fairer land. But we have yet 
to give adequate recognition to the service, struggles and sacrifices 
of these brave Americans who fought so valiantly in World War II for 
our future.
  Veterans of that war are now dying at a rate of more than 1,000 a 
day. It is especially important, therefore, for Congress and the 
Administration to do their part now to pay tribute to these men and 
women who served so valiantly in that conflict. This Day of Honor 
Resolution is part of The Day of Honor Celebration being planned for 
communities across the country, which is being organized by the 
Massachusetts-based Day of Honor 2000 Project. Our goal is that the 
nation will have an opportunity to pause on that day to express our 
gratitude to the veterans of all minority groups who served the nation 
so well.
  Included in that group of honored veterans are two of our outstanding 
colleagues in the Senate, Senator Akaka of Hawaii and Senator Inouye of 
Hawaii, and my former colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Edward W. 
Brooke. Senator Inouye and Senator Brooke both speak eloquently and 
passionately of their World War II experiences in the film, ``The 
Invisible Soldiers: Unheard Voices,'' which is a part of the Day of 
Honor events in local communities.
  By recognizing May 25th as a national Day of Honor in tribute to 
these extraordinary men and women, we can help to remedy the many 
wrongs inflicted on them in years gone by, and we can take another step 
toward true justice in this country. These men and women are part of 
what has been called America's greatest generation. In a very real 
sense, we owe them our liberty today and we shall never ever forget 
them.
  I urge all members of the Senate to join in sponsoring this 
resolution.

                          ____________________