Baranov Museum Study Act

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about abusive litigation in America. Unfortunately, a personal injury lawyer's desire for a big payday by any theory imaginable is never satisfied, and so I come yet again to speak about tort reform--an issue I have worked on nearly every year that I have been in the Senate.

America is blessed with an abundant food supply and an overwhelming number of food choices. With so many choices, some of us overdo it. That over indulgence, combined with an under indulgence of exercise can sometimes have negative health consequences. But most of us take responsibility for the amount--and the type--of food we put in our mouth, and we accept the consequences of those decisions.

Personal injury lawyers, however, are now trying to convince Americans with expanding waistlines that someone else is to blame for their weight problem. And so the latest targets of predatory lawyers are the people producing and selling food. That is right. This money- hungry gang is going after ``Big Food.'' If it were not so frightening, it would be funny.

This is a disturbing turn of events and a further indication of the erosion of personal responsibility in America. People claiming their weight gain is the fault of the food manufacturers or seller have already begun filing lawsuits. Think of the absurdity of that logic. How long will it be until those who get speeding tickets begin to sue car manufacturers for building a car that people may decide to drive too fast?

Many Americans need to take greater care in what--and how much--they eat. But it is also time to curb the voracious appetite of the personal injury lawyers and put an end to this ridiculous and costly litigation before it gets out of hand

That is why today I am introducing the Commonsense Consumption Act.

My bill would prohibit suits against food manufacturers and sellers for claims of injury resulting from a person's weight gain, obesity or health condition related to weight gain or obesity.

Any such suit pending on the date of enactment of this bill would be dismissed.

Let me be clear. This bill does not provide widespread legal immunity for the food industry. It only provides protection from abusive suits by people seeking to blame someone else for their poor eating habits.

This bill would not affect lawsuits against food manufacturers or sellers that knowingly and willfully violate a Federal or State statute applicable to the manufacture and sale of food.

This bill would not apply to lawsuits for breach of contract or express warranty. And this bill would not apply to claims related to ``adulterated'' food.

I should mention that Representative Ric Keller has introduced similar legislation in the House. His bill, entitled the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act has received a hearing and has attracted a significant number of cosponsors. My bill is worded a bit differently than Representative Keller's but I believe it is safe to say that both bills aim for the same result: an end to these absurd lawsuits.

Just a few years ago, the whole idea of blaming, and suing, someone else for your own eating habits was comical.

In fact, in August of 2000 the satirical publication ``The Onion'' carried a spoof news story entitled ``Hershey's Ordered To Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion.''

The story began: In one of the largest product-liability rulings in U.S. history, the Hershey Foods Corp. was ordered by a Pennsylvania jury to pay $135 billion in restitution to 900,000 obese Americans who for years consumed the company's fattening snack foods.

The article continued by saying: [The five-state class-action suit accused Hershey's of ``knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible nutritional value.'' The company was also charged with . . . artificially ``spiking'' Their products with such substances as peanuts, crisped rice, and caramel to increase consumer appeal.

That story was humorous in August of 2000. It is not funny any longer. Personal injury lawyers are now attempting to turn that satirical story into reality.

We have seen press reports that just a few weeks ago a group of more than a hundred money-hungry lawyers and activists met in Boston to plan strategy for suing food manufacturers and sellers.

As I mentioned, some of these personal injury lawyers have already started suing. We have seen suits against restaurants, suits against cookie makers, and there are more to come.

One lawyer has reportedly sent letters to restaurants telling them to meet his demands or he will sue. This same trial lawyer ring-leader has also threatened to sue local school districts and even individual members of the school board. Have these lawyers no shame?

But perhaps these lawyers have finally bitten off more than they can chew. When they sue come big corporation, most people probably do not pay much attention. But when you start dragging the local school board members into court and forcing them to spend thousands and thousand of tax dollars defending against frivolous claims, well as we say in Kentucky that is a horse of a different color.

When Americans hear what these lawyers are up to I do not think they are going to like it. I know the voters in Kentucky are not interested in seeing more abusive lawsuits about obesity, and they certainly are not interested in paying more at the cash register in order to finance some personal injury lawyers' extravagant lifestyle.

These lawsuits are expensive to defend and the lawyers know that. The lawyers are not really interested in consumers, they are looking for a settlement, a big settlement, that will make them rich and enable them to clog the courts with more frivolous cases.

Make no mistake about it. These lawsuits seek only to fatten personal injury lawyers' wallets. And that will result in higher food prices for consumers.

It is time to stop this abuse now and it is time to remind people that personal responsibility is the issue here. People must take responsibility for their actions.

As one weight loss guru said on CNN earlier this year when he was asked about obesity suits against restaurants:

There is always going to be greasy, fried, salty, sugary food. It is up to the individual to walk in and say, I don't want those fries today. I have 40 pounds to lose. It is not the fault of the fast food people, and anyone who's trying to sue the fast food places needs a therapist, not an attorney. You have to make your own decisions. That's what the freedom in America is all about.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be quoting Richard Simmons on the Senate floor, but he has perfectly summed it up pretty well, as I just described.

Making your own decisions is what freedom is all about. And with freedom comes responsibility. We have the freest society on the planet, but folks need to start exercising some responsibility with their freedom. Do not blame others for your bad habits. You are responsible for what you put in your mouth, and parents are responsible for what their children put in their mouth. It is that simple. The plaintiff's bar may not like that fact, but it is truly that simple.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2003. This legislation would provide States with a mechanism to improve the health of low-income women and families by allowing States to expand family planning services to additional women under the Medicaid program.

The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid, due to the importance of these for low-income women. This reimbursement rate is higher than for most other health care services.

Generally, women may qualify for Medicaid services, including family planning, in one of two ways: they have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15 to 86 percent of the Federal poverty level; or they are pregnant and have incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, federal law allows states to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for sixty days following delivery. After those sixty days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires.

If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a so-called ``1115'' waiver. These waivers allow States to establish demonstration projects in order to test new approaches to health care delivery in a manner that is budget-neutral to the Federal Government.

To date, these waivers have enabled eighteen States to expand access to family planning services. Most of these waivers allow states to extend family planning to women beyond the sixty-day post-partum period. This allows many women to increase the length of time between births, which has significant health benefits for women and their children. For this reason, an Institute of Medicine report recommended that Medicaid should cover family planning services for two years following a delivery.

Some of the waivers allow States to provide family planning to women based solely on income, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid due to pregnancy or children. In general, States have used the same income eligibility levels that apply to pregnant women, 133 percent or 185 percent of the poverty level, creating continuity for both family planning and prenatal care services. These expanded services also help states reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.

My State of Rhode Island was one of the first States to obtain one of these waivers, and has had great success with it in terms of preventing unintended

pregnancies and improving public health in general. Rhode Island's waiver has averted 1,443 pregnancies from August 1994 through 1997, resulting in a savings to the state of $14.3 million. In addition, Rhode Island's waiver has assisted low-income women with spacing-out their births. The number of low-income women in Rhode Island with short inter-birth intervals, becoming pregnant within 18 months of having given birth, dropped from 41 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1999. The gap between Medicaid recipients and privately insured women was 11 percent in 1993, compared with only 1 percent--almost negligible--in 1999. As these statistics show, these waivers are extremely valuable and serve as a huge asset to the women's health, not only to my constituents but to constituents in the thirteen other states who currently benefit from these waivers.

Unfortunately, the waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, taking up to three years for States to receive approval from the federal government. This may discourage States from applying for family planning waivers, or at the very least, delay them from providing important services to women.

Our bill would rectify this problem by allowing States to extend family planning services through Medicaid without going through the waiver process. Eliminating the waiver requirement will facilitate State innovation and provide assistance to more low-income women.

This bill will allow States to provide family planning services to women with incomes up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. For low-income, post-partum women, States will no longer be limited to providing them with only sixty days of family planning assistance. States may also provide family planning for up to one year to women who lose Medicaid-eligibility because of income.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Chafee to introduce a bill to give States the flexibility to provide family planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid.

Under current law, in order to qualify for family planning services provided by the Medicaid program, a women would either have to have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15-86 percent of the Federal poverty level, or be pregnant and have an income up to 133 percent of the poverty level; Federal law allows States to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire.

If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for 60 days following delivery. After those 60 days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires.

If a State wants to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a waiver. Currently, 18 States have waivers approved by the Federal Government. The waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, often taking up to three years to receive approval from the Federal Government.

This bill would once and for all allow States to provide crucial family planning to low-income women under the Medicaid program. It would eliminate the waiver process for these services and would give authority back to the States to determine what populations of low income women they want to provide family planning services to.

California currently receives $100 million annually, until 2004, as part of its five-year waiver to provide family planning services to low income women. with these funds, California provides services to more than 900,000 women each year.

The State estimates that because of these services, at least 50,000 unintended pregnancies are prevented each year.

In addition to contraceptives, the family planning funds are used for sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, HIV screening and counseling, basic infertility services and pregnancy testing and counseling.

Officials involved in the program estimate that for every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health-care related costs.

In California, it is estimated that providing low-income women with access to family planning will save the State more then $900 million over the course of the five-year waiver.

I believe this legislation is more important now than ever.

Each year, approximately 3 million pregnacies, or about half of all pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or terminating a pregnancy.

Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the births

of their children, which improves women's health and reduces rates of infant mortality.

Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care- related costs.

Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic inferility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and breast cancer.

Low income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive health services. And States should not have to ask the Federal Government for permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these essential services.

We can afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford family planning and reproductive health services.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator Lautenberg the Teacher Education for Autistic Children, TEACH, Act of 2003, legislation that will highlight the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work are functioning as intended.

Autism is a developmental disability characterized by atypical, often repetitive behaviors and deficits in social and communication skills. Though it is difficult to determine an exact number, some researchers believe that an astounding 1 out of 250 of our Nation's children are in some way affected by this disorder.

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the number of children diagnosed with some form of autism has increased significantly throughout the country over the past decade. Take my State for example--according to the New Jersey Department of Education in 1991, there were 241 children in our schools who had been diagnosed with autism. By 2001, that figure had risen to 3,984, a staggering increase of 1,548 percent.

While the cause of autism and its cure are unknown, we are aware that the best treatment for these children is early intervention from qualified teachers. The TEACH Act of 2003 would go a long way in improving services for these children by providing teachers with the necessary training and helping school districts in hiring qualified autism teachers.

Specifically, the TEACH Act authorizes $15 million a year for five years to provide education or professional development training for current teachers or students who want to be special education teachers, teachers' aides, or other professionals who work with autistic children.

The TEACH Act also establishes a loan forgiveness program for qualified teachers of autistic children to help them pay off college loans or loans associated with taking continuing education courses related to autism. This incentive of up to $20,000 to help pay off college loans will go a long way in attracting more qualified individuals into special education.

The bill also includes provisions that establish State Autism Ombudsman Offices that would act as clearinghouses for families who are seeking information on services, education, and other resources to help their children achieve the full and happy lives they deserve. It also creates a national Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations regarding best practices for the education of autistic children.

Finally, this legislation requires a joint Department of Labor/ Department of Education study to evaluate existing vocational programs available for people with autism in order to ensure that such individuals have access to quality jobs and their own independence.

The TEACH Act will go a long way to help autistic families by giving their children the opportunity to achieve the highest quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which has the power to improve thousands of lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Erskine House in Kodiak, AK, which houses the Baranov Museum, is one of a very few Russian period structures remaining in the Western Hemisphere. It is of great historical significance not only for this reason, but also because it is the only surviving structure known to have been associated with both the Russian America Company and the Alaska Commercial Company, the pillars of Russian and early American administration of Alaska.

The Erskine House/Baranov Museum is owned by the City of Kodiak and operated by the Kodiak Historical Society. It is a popular visitor attraction in Kodiak. Its collections include artifacts from the Russian American Company and the Alaska Commercial Company and also include Alaska Native, Russian and other cultural exhibits. I am told that the structure, although it has had many owners, maintains much of its original historic integrity.

The Erskine House was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 2, 1962. Shortly thereafter the National Park Service initiated consideration of including this important property in the National Park System. On February 11, 2000, the Department of the Interior formally sought funds from Congress to study the possible inclusion of the Erskine House in the system. The Congress responded by earmarking $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 appropriations for he Erskine House, some of which could be used to conduct the study and the remainder for preservation and maintenance of the facility.

I am sad to report that the National Park Service has not initiated this study. The National Park Service has indicated that it cannot initiate the study without the express direction of Congress and that congressional intent to do so cannot be inferred from the language of the appropriation. However, the good news is that a sufficient portion of the $250,000 appropriation remains unexpended and I understand that it is available to be expended on the study. The expenditure of funds on the study will not interfere with plans to spend other portions of the $250,000 appropriation to rehabilitate the structure. The City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society have expressed support for the study. What we need is for Congress to authorize the study.

The legislation that I am introducing today would do just that. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Erskine House/Baranov Museum for the purpose of determining the suitability and feasibility of designating the museum as a unit of the National Park Service. I would like to see this study proceed with all deliberate speed. Accordingly, the legislation also requires that the Secretary report to appropriate committees of the Congress on the findings of the study and the Secretary's conclusions and recommendations within one year of the date upon which this legislation is enacted.

I want to commend the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society for their loving care of this important structure. Perhaps this excerpt, from a July 7, 2003 letter that I received from Stacey Becklund, Director of the Kodiak Historical Society states it best, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.