[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21450-21455]
[From the U.S. 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 
encephalop-
athies (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

[[Page 21451]]

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. 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

[[Page 21452]]

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 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

[[Page 21453]]

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 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

[[Page 21454]]

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 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:

[[Page 21455]]

       ``(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 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.

                          ____________________