[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25329-25331]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 3023. A bill to improve funeral home, cemetery, and crematory 
inspection systems, to establish consumer protections relating to 
funeral service contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death 
Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004, a bill which I believe will 
go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the 
funeral and death care industries.
  None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and 
uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not 
to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death 
actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our 
friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to 
do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or 
shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead, 
we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service 
providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for 
and treated with respect and dignity after their passing.
  We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A 
funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many 
consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a 
car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral 
services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very 
little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer 
information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a 
result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to 
represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of 
us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability.
  For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that 
the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good 
men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity 
it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have 
shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and 
upstanding. We all remember hearing recently of the discovery of over 
200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There 
is also evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in 
Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These 
incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole, 
compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in 
place for this industry.
  Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of 
state and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years 
ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since 
many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly 
large and diverse. The death care industry generates annual revenues of 
over $15 billion and employs over 104,000 Americans. The 1990's saw the 
rise of multi-state ``consol-
idators'' who purchased local funeral homes across the country. Even 
for small local firms, the business has become increasingly complex. As 
more and more Americans travel and live in places far from where they 
were born, the industry has become one that frequently does business 
across state and county lines.
  There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of 
funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen 
from 5 percent in the 1970's to 25 percent today. However, only 12 
States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the 
case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was 
statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue 
undiscovered.
  The only significant federal regulation of the industry exists in the 
Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years 
ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry. 
Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of 
the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It 
also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which 
have become an increasingly popular option in recent years.
  In 2002, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and 
Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they 
have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with 
both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect 
Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The 
Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004 would provide 
Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give 
consumers the right to legal action against those who violate 
regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would 
have to adhere to standards which are outlined in

[[Page 25330]]

the legislation. The act would also codify and strengthen the existing 
FTC regulations governing licensing and registration, recordkeeping, 
inspection, resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of state 
laws in the industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive 
trade practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make 
informed decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC 
rules would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care 
industry.
  I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, we 
will not have the opportunity to pass this legislation this year. 
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with 
my colleagues today, and I hope that we will be able to move on this 
issue when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. It is my firm belief 
that this bill will help both consumers and industry. Consumers will 
have the peace of mind knowing that they are being treated fairly 
during their time of grief and distress, while the industry will 
benefit from regaining the high level of consumer confidence and trust 
that it has traditionally enjoyed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 3024. A bill to establish the National Center for Transportation 
Solutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Center for 
Transportation Solutions Act of 2004.
  I am deeply troubled that the Federal Government is not doing enough 
to address important national and regional transportation issues from a 
systemic perspective. There is too little research being devoted to 
profound questions that have a long-term impact on the future viability 
of our nation's transportation network. Such questions may include: How 
well is our transportation system responding to the global economy? How 
can transportation meet the needs of greater environmental 
sustainability? How can people become more involved in transportation 
planning in their communities? What transportation technologies will be 
important in the future? Are there more effective ways to finance 
improvements to our transportation infrastructure? What will be the 
demand for various modes of transportation in the future? How well do 
the various modes of transportation interact? Is there a better way to 
reduce transportation accidents and enhance safety?
  In fact, the Federal Government does not adequately invest in finding 
answers to these and other important questions. The United States 
Department of Transportation spends approximately 1.5 percent of its 
budget on research. This amount is insufficient when compared to the 
2.8 percent spent by the Department of Agriculture, 4.8 percent by the 
Department of Health and Human Services, 8.1 percent by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and 14.9 percent spent by the 
Department of Defense.
  Much of that 1.5 percent spent by the Department of Transportation is 
focused on short-term, highly applied research activities, such as the 
performance of varieties of asphalt in different climates. Too few 
resources, however, are devoted to research in finding solutions to our 
most intractable long-term transportation problems.
  The consequences of this lack of foresight are significant. As Dennis 
Christiansen, Deputy Director of the Texas Transportation Institute, 
testified before the House Subcommittee on Highway, Transit, and 
Pipelines last year: ``In the private sector, failure to innovate may 
mean one goes out of business. In the public sector, failure to 
innovate may simply mean that we do things less efficiently and at a 
higher cost.'' In addition, the American Public Transportation 
Association commented at the same hearing that ``without research and 
training, innovation withers and American jobs are lost offshore.''
  The lack of adequate investments in long-term transportation 
research, however, is not the only concern. The Nation's transportation 
research and technology programs are highly decentralized as well. 
There are state and federal transportation agencies, universities, 
contractors, and material suppliers all participating in transportation 
research activities. While this decentralization has its benefits in 
that the same broad array of institutions that are conducting the 
research are involved in its implementation, it also has its drawbacks. 
It poses challenges to effective priority-setting, and can lead to 
unnecessary duplication, results that are not transferable, and 
significant research gaps.
  The legislation that I am introducing will address these important 
issues by establishing a Center for Transportation Solutions as an 
independent agency in the executive branch of the government. Its 
purpose will be to develop and encourage the execution of a long-term 
national policy for the promotion of research and development related 
to multimodal transportation.
  The Center is modeled after the National Science Foundation. It will 
be under the leadership of a Director appointed by the President and a 
Board composed of sixteen individuals with expertise in transportation 
research and policy. Like the National Science Foundation, the Center 
will be organized into a series of research divisions on such issues as 
safety, the environment, infrastructure, intermodal connections, and 
transportation economics and financial policy. Regional Centers for 
Transportation Solutions will also be established to investigate these 
important issues from a regional perspective.
  The new Center will not supplant existing transportation research 
activities but supplement them. It will award competitive, merit-based 
grants to academic, public, and private research institutions to 
support long-term strategic transportation objectives. According to the 
Transportation Research Board, ``competition for funds and merit review 
of proposals are the best ways of ensuring the maximum return on 
investment of research funding and addressing strategic national 
transportation system goals.'' Sadly, much of the funding that is 
designated for transportation research today is earmarked for specific 
proj-
ects or research institutions without open competition.
  Finally, the Center will facilitate the interchange of transportation 
research data among interested parties, work closely with the United 
States Department of Transportation in setting research priorities, and 
coordinate its scientific research programs with public and private 
research groups.
  This legislation is a work in progress. In the coming months, I 
intend to further refine it for reintroduction in the 109th Congress. 
Nevertheless, the bill embodies an important goal namely, the need for 
increased resources and strategic planning devoted to tackling the 
nation's long-term transportation needs.
  I realize that the 108th Congress is nearing completion. I am also 
aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives will likely 
revisit the reauthorization of surface transportation programs soon 
after the 109th Congress convenes in 2005. That legislation would be 
the perfect opportunity for Congress to look farther into the future--
even beyond the traditional six-year scope of the surface 
transportation bill--and begin to make the investments necessary for 
solving our nation's most difficult transportation problems. After all, 
if we can devote resources to finding a cure for cancer and other life-
threatening illnesses, shouldn't we do the same and find a cure for 
traffic congestion?
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Ensign)
  S. 3026. A bill to support the boy Scouts of America and the Girl 
Scouts of the United States of America; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3026

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

[[Page 25331]]



     SECTION 1. SUPPORT OUR SCOUTS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section the term ``Federal 
     agency'' means each department, agency, instrumentality, or 
     other entity of the United States Government.
       (b) In General.--No Federal law (including any rule, 
     regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be 
     construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form 
     of support to the Boy Scouts of America or the Girls Scouts 
     of the United States of America (or any organization 
     chartered by the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of 
     the United States of America), including--
       (1) holding meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other 
     scouting activities on Federal property if such organization 
     has received permission from the appropriate Federal official 
     responsible for such property; or
       (2) hosting or sponsoring any official event of such 
     organization.

                          ____________________