Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am saddened by this objection. The American people ought to be deeply saddened by what they have heard on this issue in the last hour and half. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I asked for that and objection was noted by the Republican majority.

Ms. DODD

Ms. DODD. Mr. President. These last several weeks have been filled with profound questions about the strength of the American family and the priority we place on our children and on meeting the responsibilities of parenthood. In my view, we must start at the very beginning. We know that some of the key moments of parenthood are in the first days and weeks of a child's life. These are the moments when parents fall in love with their children--when they learn the feel of their soft hair, the joy of their touch and the immense peacefulness of their sleeping faces. These emotional bonds carry parents and children through all the challenging years that intervene between infancy and adulthood--from the terrible twos to adolescence. Research tells us this bonding with parents is critical to a child's emotional, cognitive, and physical development. Scientists have produced vivid pictures of children's functioning brains--so not only do we know, we can also see that there is a difference between the way the brain of a neglected child and the brain of a nurtured child works. Parents bonding with their children is not something one can mandate by law--but we must make sure that our policies support parents in these early days. And frankly, today as we sit on the cusp of the next millennium, we offer parents very limited support at this most critical time. Today's working parents have less time to spend with their infants than past generations. Compared to 30 years ago, there has been an average decrease of 22 hours per week in time that parents spend with their children. That is nearly one day out of every week--or 52 days a year. More parents work today than every before--fully 46 percent of workers are parents. Nearly one in five employed parents. Nearly one in five employed parents are single, and among these 27 percent are single fathers. The number of parents who were employed increased from 18.3 million in 1985 to 24.1 million in 1997. One could argue whether these trends are going in the right direction. But no one can argue that they are the facts--the reality in which American families live everyday. And, my view, that reality is where public policy must operate. Since 1986, I've worked, with many of my colleagues, to help working Americans meet these demands and care for new children and their close family members. In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was finally signed into law, establishing a key safety net for America's families. I couldn't have done it without the support of my colleagues here in the Senate and the House, and without the support of the President. But let's face it--the FMLA is like 911 for working Americans. It provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to qualifying employees for the birth or adoption of a child, their own illness or the serious illness of a parent, child or spouse without fear of losing their jobs or health insurance. But the fact remains this leave is unpaid--and that is a high bar for most American families. While millions of Americans--many estimate over twenty million families--have benefitted from the law and have taken the time they needed, for many it has been at major financial cost. In fact, taking an unpaid leave often drives employees earning low wages into poverty. Twenty-one percent of low-wage earners who take a leave without full wage replacement wind up on public assistance; 40 percent cut their leaves short because of financial concerns; 39 percent put off paying bills; and, 25 percent borrow money. And there are many more families who do not take a needed leave because they can't afford it. Nearly two-thirds of employees who need to take a family or medical leave, but do not do so, report that the reason they did not take the leave was that they could not afford it. These are families with brand new children or where a spouse, parent or child is seriously ill. Many employers do provide workers with some pay during these difficult times--but the benefit of these policies is not distributed equally. Employees with less education, lower income, female employees, employees from racial minority groups and younger employees are less likely to receive any income during leaves. Our nation is a leader in so many areas. And yet not when it comes to helping families balance the responsibilities of work and home. Nearly every industrialized nation other than the United States, as well as most developing nations, provide parents with paid leave for infant care. I believe that we should learn from these nations, our own experiences, and the calls of American families and provide parents with the means to access desperately needed leave to care for new babies. This effort cannot be out of reach for a nation as rich and prosperous as our own. The bi-partisan Commission on Leave, established as a part of the Family and Medical Leave Act and which I chaired, recommended further consideration and exploration of paid leave policies. Specifically, and I quote from the unanimous recommendations of the Commission, ``the Commission recommends that the development of a uniform system of wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave be given serious consideration by employers, employee representatives and others.'' The Commission went on to recommend that we should look to expanding employer-provided systems of paid leave, and expanding state systems like unemployment insurance or temporary disability insurance, in states with those systems. Mr. President, this is not a pie in the sky idea. Many states have already recognized the need for such support for new parents. California, New Jersey, three other states and Puerto Rico have in place temporary disability insurance programs, that at a minimal cost to employees and employers, provide support to mothers who are temporarily disabled after pregnancy and childbirth as well as other workers temporarily disabled. Other states are moving to provide income to families through different mechanisms. Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington and several other states are all considering legislation to expand their state unemployment compensation systems to provide partial wage replacement to workers taking family or medical leave. Just a few weeks ago, President Clinton announced his support of these bold initiatives and directed the Department of Labor to work with the states to allow for this expansion of these state unemployment insurance systems. But I believe there is more for the federal government to do. We should be a partner in these state efforts and help spur the development of the unemployment insurance model as well as other financial mechanism that will, I hope, make paid leave a reality for all new parents in America. I am proposing today legislation that would establish a federal demonstration program--which I am calling FIRST (Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions) Insurance. FIRST Insurance would support state demonstration projects that provide partial or full wage replacement to new parents who take time off from work for the birth or adoption of a child. States could also choose to expand these benefits to support other care giving needs, such as taking time to care for an ill parent, spouse or child, or to support parents who choose to stay home with an infant. These would be state or community-based projects, entirely voluntary--in no way mandated by federal law. Clearly, there is already much going on in this area. Thousands of employers offer their employees and their families paid leave. There are private insurance systems that cover wages in various circumstances including the birth of a new child. There are state and local dollars that supplement the incomes of new families as well as protect families at other times of economic crisis. These federal dollars would leverage these state, private and other dollars to expand access to paid leave to more parents. The demonstrations funded will form the basis of a large-scale investigation of the most effective way to provide support to families at these critical times in a family's life. Key questions to be answered include the costs of these projects, the reach and the impact on families and children. The demonstrations will also allow comparisons of different mechanisms to provide leave--including expansion of state unemployment insurance systems, temporary disability programs, and other viable mechanisms. Mr. President, when a person is injured on the job, or when someone loses their job because of a plant closing or some other factor beyond their control, our nation rightly protects their families from the risk of catastrophic financial loss. That's the purpose of workman's compensation and unemployment insurance. If we can protect families at times like this, shouldn't we protect them at another time of crucial family need as they struggle to meet the joyful challenge of raising a newborn? Mr. President, this initiative is just one part of a better deal we owe to America's families. Just as the horrible tragedy in Littleton, Colorado was a wake up call to parents across the country, it must be a wake up call to us to re-examine our policies around children, families and parenthood. There is much to be done--child care, education, expanding the basic protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act to more workers, intelligent gun control policies, and better alternatives for our youth out of school. But I believe a key piece is supporting parents in the very first days, weeks and months of a child's life--and hope that we can work together to make sure these all important days are possible for all parents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be printed in the Record.

Ms. DODD

Ms. DODD. Mr. President. These last several weeks have been filled with profound questions about the strength of the American family and the priority we place on our children and on meeting the responsibilities of parenthood. In my view, we must start at the very beginning. We know that some of the key moments of parenthood are in the first days and weeks of a child's life. These are the moments when parents fall in love with their children--when they learn the feel of their soft hair, the joy of their touch and the immense peacefulness of their sleeping faces. These emotional bonds carry parents and children through all the challenging years that intervene between infancy and adulthood--from the terrible twos to adolescence. Research tells us this bonding with parents is critical to a child's emotional, cognitive, and physical development. Scientists have produced vivid pictures of children's functioning brains--so not only do we know, we can also see that there is a difference between the way the brain of a neglected child and the brain of a nurtured child works. Parents bonding with their children is not something one can mandate by law--but we must make sure that our policies support parents in these early days. And frankly, today as we sit on the cusp of the next millennium, we offer parents very limited support at this most critical time. Today's working parents have less time to spend with their infants than past generations. Compared to 30 years ago, there has been an average decrease of 22 hours per week in time that parents spend with their children. That is nearly one day out of every week--or 52 days a year. More parents work today than every before--fully 46 percent of workers are parents. Nearly one in five employed parents. Nearly one in five employed parents are single, and among these 27 percent are single fathers. The number of parents who were employed increased from 18.3 million in 1985 to 24.1 million in 1997. One could argue whether these trends are going in the right direction. But no one can argue that they are the facts--the reality in which American families live everyday. And, my view, that reality is where public policy must operate. Since 1986, I've worked, with many of my colleagues, to help working Americans meet these demands and care for new children and their close family members. In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was finally signed into law, establishing a key safety net for America's families. I couldn't have done it without the support of my colleagues here in the Senate and the House, and without the support of the President. But let's face it--the FMLA is like 911 for working Americans. It provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to qualifying employees for the birth or adoption of a child, their own illness or the serious illness of a parent, child or spouse without fear of losing their jobs or health insurance. But the fact remains this leave is unpaid--and that is a high bar for most American families. While millions of Americans--many estimate over twenty million families--have benefitted from the law and have taken the time they needed, for many it has been at major financial cost. In fact, taking an unpaid leave often drives employees earning low wages into poverty. Twenty-one percent of low-wage earners who take a leave without full wage replacement wind up on public assistance; 40 percent cut their leaves short because of financial concerns; 39 percent put off paying bills; and, 25 percent borrow money. And there are many more families who do not take a needed leave because they can't afford it. Nearly two-thirds of employees who need to take a family or medical leave, but do not do so, report that the reason they did not take the leave was that they could not afford it. These are families with brand new children or where a spouse, parent or child is seriously ill. Many employers do provide workers with some pay during these difficult times--but the benefit of these policies is not distributed equally. Employees with less education, lower income, female employees, employees from racial minority groups and younger employees are less likely to receive any income during leaves. Our nation is a leader in so many areas. And yet not when it comes to helping families balance the responsibilities of work and home. Nearly every industrialized nation other than the United States, as well as most developing nations, provide parents with paid leave for infant care. I believe that we should learn from these nations, our own experiences, and the calls of American families and provide parents with the means to access desperately needed leave to care for new babies. This effort cannot be out of reach for a nation as rich and prosperous as our own. The bi-partisan Commission on Leave, established as a part of the Family and Medical Leave Act and which I chaired, recommended further consideration and exploration of paid leave policies. Specifically, and I quote from the unanimous recommendations of the Commission, ``the Commission recommends that the development of a uniform system of wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave be given serious consideration by employers, employee representatives and others.'' The Commission went on to recommend that we should look to expanding employer-provided systems of paid leave, and expanding state systems like unemployment insurance or temporary disability insurance, in states with those systems. Mr. President, this is not a pie in the sky idea. Many states have already recognized the need for such support for new parents. California, New Jersey, three other states and Puerto Rico have in place temporary disability insurance programs, that at a minimal cost to employees and employers, provide support to mothers who are temporarily disabled after pregnancy and childbirth as well as other workers temporarily disabled. Other states are moving to provide income to families through different mechanisms. Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington and several other states are all considering legislation to expand their state unemployment compensation systems to provide partial wage replacement to workers taking family or medical leave. Just a few weeks ago, President Clinton announced his support of these bold initiatives and directed the Department of Labor to work with the states to allow for this expansion of these state unemployment insurance systems. But I believe there is more for the federal government to do. We should be a partner in these state efforts and help spur the development of the unemployment insurance model as well as other financial mechanism that will, I hope, make paid leave a reality for all new parents in America. I am proposing today legislation that would establish a federal demonstration program--which I am calling FIRST (Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions) Insurance. FIRST Insurance would support state demonstration projects that provide partial or full wage replacement to new parents who take time off from work for the birth or adoption of a child. States could also choose to expand these benefits to support other care giving needs, such as taking time to care for an ill parent, spouse or child, or to support parents who choose to stay home with an infant. These would be state or community-based projects, entirely voluntary--in no way mandated by federal law. Clearly, there is already much going on in this area. Thousands of employers offer their employees and their families paid leave. There are private insurance systems that cover wages in various circumstances including the birth of a new child. There are state and local dollars that supplement the incomes of new families as well as protect families at other times of economic crisis. These federal dollars would leverage these state, private and other dollars to expand access to paid leave to more parents. The demonstrations funded will form the basis of a large-scale investigation of the most effective way to provide support to families at these critical times in a family's life. Key questions to be answered include the costs of these projects, the reach and the impact on families and children. The demonstrations will also allow comparisons of different mechanisms to provide leave--including expansion of state unemployment insurance systems, temporary disability programs, and other viable mechanisms. Mr. President, when a person is injured on the job, or when someone loses their job because of a plant closing or some other factor beyond their control, our nation rightly protects their families from the risk of catastrophic financial loss. That's the purpose of workman's compensation and unemployment insurance. If we can protect families at times like this, shouldn't we protect them at another time of crucial family need as they struggle to meet the joyful challenge of raising a newborn? Mr. President, this initiative is just one part of a better deal we owe to America's families. Just as the horrible tragedy in Littleton, Colorado was a wake up call to parents across the country, it must be a wake up call to us to re-examine our policies around children, families and parenthood. There is much to be done--child care, education, expanding the basic protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act to more workers, intelligent gun control policies, and better alternatives for our youth out of school. But I believe a key piece is supporting parents in the very first days, weeks and months of a child's life--and hope that we can work together to make sure these all important days are possible for all parents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the question of my colleague. He is absolutely correct. I will make a dollars-and-cents case. The cost is 12 cents per patient per month, a negligible cost. As I mentioned in earlier remarks, when Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute and the MD Anderson Cancer Center examined the issue of cost--two world-class cancer research centers--their conclusion was that clinical trials are actually less costly than the standard care that will be used in the absence of clinical trials. ``Less costly'' is their conclusion. If your argument is we cannot do this because it costs too much, one estimate suggests 12 cents per patient per month, and two of the world- class cancer centers in the world think it is actually a lower cost using the clinical trials.

Mr. DODD. To answer my colleague from Nevada, the Senator is absolutely correct. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. There are those, I suppose, who are only concerned about that issue. I appreciate the Senator raising the point because it is indeed a waste of money. It is also a waste of human lives. I think that people watching this debate here on the floor of the Senate will ask the question: What did the Senate do when it had a chance to protect my family, my child, my wife or my husband, to give them access to the cutting edge technologies when my insurer says no. I think they will be outraged if we don't provide them this protection. In addition to the monetary cost issue, which our distinguished friend from Nevada has raised, to cause a human life to be lost because we denied access to clinical trials, I argue, is an even greater loss.

Mr. DODD. That is correct. The process of finding cures starts with an unknown product first being tested in the laboratory. The second place it is tested is with animals. Third is the clinical trial before it is on the market for general use. If insurers impede enrollment in clinical trials that phase of research development will be adversely affected and valuable, life- saving products will be delayed from getting on the market for general use by the public. It is an excellent question.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Harkin, Boxer, Feingold, Feinstein, Johnson, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Murray, and Reid of Nevada. As I understand it, we will debate it briefly this evening, and then it will be one of the first orders of business tomorrow morning. This amendment has two parts to it. It would ensure that patients have access to the best possible care in two areas--cutting edge clinical trials and medically necessary prescription drugs. Until recently, health plans routinely paid for the doctor and hospital costs associated with clinical trials, and many still do. But a growing number of insurance plans are now refusing to pay, disrupting an arrangement that immediately benefited individual patients and advanced our ability to treat future patients. As my colleague from Vermont will recall from our debate in the Health and Education Committee, which he chairs, this amendment is a moderate one. It would require insurance plans to cover the costs of a patient's participation in clinical trials in only those circumstances that meet the following criteria: One, the clinical trial must be sponsored or funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, or the Veterans' Administration; two, the patient must fit the trial protocol; three, there is no other effective standard treatment available for the patient; four, the patient has a serious or life-threatening illness. It seems to me that if a patient's situation meets those criteria, insurance plans ought not to deny access to clinical trials. This ought not to be a controversial proposal. Let me lastly add that the plan's obligation is to pay only for the routine patient costs, not for the costs of running the trial that ought to be paid for by the sponsor of the trial--such as the experimental drug or medical device. The cost of providing coverage for clinical trials is negligible. After all, similar routine patient costs for blood tests, physicians' visits, and hospital stays are covered for standard treatment anyway. The Congressional Budget Office found that this patient protection would increase premiums a mere four-tenths of a percent over the next 10 years. That is less than 12 cents per person per month. Many researchers believe even this minuscule amount is a dramatic overstatement of the cost. In fact, when the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the MD Anderson Cancer Center compared the cost of clinical trials to standard cancer therapies, both of these world- renowned cancer centers found that the average cost per patient actually was lower for those patients enrolled in clinical trials. So it actually can save money to give patients access to clinical trials, if you believe Sloan-Kettering and the Anderson Cancer Center. The American Association of Health Plans--the trade association for the managed care plans--has urged its members to allow patients to participate in clinical trials and to pay the associated doctor and hospital costs. Let me quote from a news release of the American Association of Health Plans. They said: AAHP supports patients having access to NIH-approved clinical studies, and supports individual health plan linkages with NIH-sponsored clinical trials. AAHP also believes that it is appropriate for health plans choosing to participate in NIH research studies to pay the routine patient-care costs associated with these trials. This is the very trade association of the insurance plans urging its members to allow access to clinical trials and suggesting they ought to pick up the cost The release goes on to cite the benefits of participating in clinical trials for patients and for the advancement of medicine. We are asking that health plans do nothing more than what they already said they want and they intend to do. The Republican proposal? What do they say about the clinical trials? They say the managed care bill should study this issue further. With all due respect, further studies will only cause unnecessary delays. We already have answers to many of the questions they want to study. We know what hinders a patient's participation in clinical trials. It is the plans' refusal to pay for them. We know what the costs are. They are minuscule. And plans presumably have figured out how to differentiate between costs of running the trials and costs of patient care since many of them already are doing it. All we would get from another year of delay is more patients with life-threatening conditions being denied access to research that can save their lives. I know this does not have to be a partisan issue. Republicans have not only supported related legislation but some--including Senator Mack, and my colleague, Senator Snowe who is on the floor, and Senator Frist--have been leaders on this issue. Our good friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, has authored excellent legislation widely supported, I might add, by patient groups which would broadly provide access to almost all clinical trials for all privately ensured patients. I commend her for that bill. Thirteen of our Republican colleagues have cosponsored the Mack-Rockefeller bill that would require Medicare to cover the cost of cancer clinical trials. The Representative from my State, Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, has introduced a companion bill with several Republican cosponsors. What I am offering has broad bipartisan support in a variety of legislative proposals. All we are saying is this Patients' Bill of Rights ought to include it. Clearly, there is bipartisan interest in making sure patients all over this country with breast cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer, congestive heart failure, lupus, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, AIDS, along with a host of other deadly illnesses, have access to cutting-edge treatments. To allow a plan to deny a patient access to clinical trials is an outrage. I hope this body will find it in its good judgment to adopt this amendment tomorrow when it comes up for a vote and to allow people to have access to these critical clinical trials. The second part of this amendment deals with prescription drugs. Nearly all HMOs and other insurance plans use a preferred list called a formulary to extract discounts from drug companies and to save on drug costs. Many of the best plans already take steps to ensure these formularies aren't unreasonably rigid by putting processes in place that allows patients access to nonformulary medicines when their own doctors say those drugs are absolutely needed. In fact, the HMO trade association supports this practice as part of its Code of Conduct for member plans. Why would a patient need a drug that is not in the plan's formulary? Patients have allergies in some cases to drugs on the formulary. They may be taking medications that would have bad interactions with the plan's preferred drugs, or simply have a medical need for access to some product that is not listed in the formulary--rather commonsensical reasons. Without access to a reasonable process for making exceptions to the formulary, patients may be forced to try two or three different types of older, less effective medications and demonstrate that those drugs don't work or have negative side effects before the plan would allow access to offer formulary prescription drugs. No patient, in my view, should be exposed to dangerous side effects, or ineffective treatment, just because the cheaper drug in their plan that was chosen does not work as well as the one their doctor would recommend. I was pleased that during our committee markup our chairman, who is on the floor, and our Republican colleagues agreed to support a portion of the protection in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights plan that relates to access to prescription drugs. I will point out that, as with the majority of provisions in the Republican bill, even its limited protection would be denied to more than 100 million Americans whose employers don't self-insure their own health care coverage. In addition, their provision contains a significant loophole that needs to be corrected. The Republican proposal requires plans to provide access to drugs off the formulary. However, it also says that the insurers can charge patients whatever they want to get those off- formulary products, even if they are medically necessary, and even if the drug is the only drug that can save that patient's life. This subverts the purported intent of the very provision the Republican bill proposes; and that is to ensure that patients have access to medically necessary care. If a determination has been made by a doctor and the plan that a patient needs that specific drug and no other, why should that patient be subjected to higher costs-- conceivably even a 99-percent copay? The issue is not about patients simply preferring one brand over another. Our concern is for patients for whom a certain product is medically necessary. It is inconceivable they should be charged more for the care they need just because it doesn't make the plans formulary. This amendment would remedy that situation. Lastly, our amendment would also address another roadblock that patients encounter trying to get life-saving prescription drugs. That is the practice of a plan issuing blanket denials on the ground that a drug is experimental even when it is an FDA-approved product. If there is any question in your mind why the plans would resort to such a practice, I think it's useful to listen to their own explanation. In a letter to the majority leader in July of last year, the American Association of Health Plans, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and the Health Insurance Association of America wrote: If health plans are not allowed to deny coverage on the basis that the device is investigational, the health plans would have to perform a much more costly case-by-case review on the basis of ``medical necessity''. They state the case for me. In other words, according to the health plans themselves, their fear is that if they are prevented from issuing blanket, unfounded denials they might actually have to look at an individual patient's medical needs. These two provisions of this amendment are critically important. Patients need access to clinical trials and they need access to prescription drugs. It doesn't get more basic than that. Denying access to clinical trials doesn't just deny good care to the patient today who is desperately in need of a cure, but it denies state of the art health care to future patients as well, by impeding the development of knowledge about new therapies. Senator Mack, Senator Snowe, and many others have strongly supported legislation in this area. Some of their bills go further than my amendment does. I hope tomorrow when the vote occurs we will have the support of a broad bipartisan coalition.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD. The cost in savings would be astronomical. When we delay a product going from the research phase to general use because patients are shut out of clinical trials, not only do patients today suffer, but future patients suffer, and the costs to the health care system as a whole go up. AIDS is a wonderful example of this--the AIDS clinical trials have saved literally thousands of lives. People are working today who would not have been able to do so had it not been for clinical trials that helped to develop powerful new drugs. Imagine if the treatments that exist today existed a few years ago, what a different world it would be and how many lives would not have been lost--productive citizens today who would make a contribution to our society. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade the science of identifying genetic markers for diseases has evolved at an astonishing pace. For an increasing number of Americans science fiction has become reality--their doctors can now scan their unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of their developing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Armed with this knowledge, individuals and families can make informed decisions about their health care including, in some cases, even taking steps to prevent the disease or to detect and treat it early. Unfortunately, phenomenal advances in our knowledge about genetics have outpaced the protections currently provided in law. Thus, the potential also exists for this remarkable new information--which is making such a difference in people's lives in terms of their health-- this information could always be used by health insurers, employers, or others to deny health coverage or job opportunities to people. We know the Federal and State laws currently offer only a patchwork of protections against the misuse of genetic information. While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took important first steps toward prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance, it left large gaps. For example, it does not prohibit insurers from requiring genetic testing or from disclosing genetic information and offers no protection at all for people who must buy their insurance in the individual market. While several States--including my own--have enacted legislation prohibiting health insurance discrimination, these laws cannot protect more than 51 million American individuals in employer-sponsored, ``self-funded'' health plans. Additionally, few States have chosen to address the issue of employment discrimination or the separate issue of the privacy of genetic records. I have personal experience that this issue is not a partisan issue. Two years ago, my distinguished friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and I introduced one of the first bills on this critical topic addressing both insurance and employment discrimination. Last year, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, I joined Senator Snowe of Maine in supporting strong legislation protecting patients from genetic discrimination in insurance. Today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, in introducing comprehensive legislation to safeguard the privacy of genetic information and to prohibit health insurance or employment discrimination based on genetic information. Specifically, this legislation, which we call the Genetic Nondiscrimination Health Insurance and Employment Act, would prohibit health insurers from discriminating based on genetic predisposition to an illness or condition and would prevent insurers from requiring applicants for health insurance to submit to genetic testing. This bill would also address the concerns about employment discrimination by preventing employers from firing or refusing to hire individuals who may be susceptible to a genetic condition. Finally, this legislation would hold employers and insurers accountable by imposing strong penalties on those who violate these previous just stated provisions. In a few short years researchers will have the ability to translate the entire genetic code, revealing each individual's unique genetic blueprint. It is an astonishing prospect. Last year, in a visit I made to Yale University's Genetic Testing Center, I had the opportunity to see into the future and glimpse cutting-edge uses of this technology. I also had the opportunity to hear of the fears expressed by patients at this center. As an aside, we are talking about predisposition. We are now reaching a point on breast cancer in women, through tests being done over the years on twins, where we are able to determine almost at birth the likelihood or the probability of a woman contracting breast cancer at the time of that child's birth--looking into the future based on the genetic markers. That is profound information. It could make a huge difference to be able to know early on about a predisposition based upon your genetic makeup, knowing you have a probability or a likelihood later in life of contracting certain diseases. That allows that individual and that family early on to take the steps through diet and/or mediation, prescriptions, and so forth, to avoid the possibility of contracting these dreaded diseases. That is the great news. It is phenomenal. It is happening at such a pace, it is hard to believe. As we gather this information that a person may be, based upon their genetic makeup, susceptible to breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, or other forms of cancer, that information ought to be protected. I believe it should. It is one thing if you have a condition and you keep that from an employer and they hire you and they want to know whether or not you have a condition. I don't think anyone ought to be allowed to deny revealing information that an employer ought to have. But a predisposition--that information ought not to deprive you of a job or health insurance just because that genetic information indicates that may be the case. This is what happens. While I visited this wonderful Genetic Testing Center at Yale University, I met with some patients and the researchers who do this work. They asked me to pay attention and listen to a couple of patients with whom they work. Keith Hall has been a patient at Yale for several years, since he was first diagnosed with something called tuberous sclerosis. Let me explain what that is. It is a genetic disease that causes tumors of the brain, kidney, and other organs, and sometimes mental retardation. Keith, obviously, worries about what will happen to his insurance if he ever has to switch jobs with that condition. I also met with Ashley Przybylski, an 11-year-old girl from Oxford, CT. Ashley suffers from a genetic nutritional disorder that can cause seizures and brain damage. Currently, the family insurance covers the exorbitant cost of medication that keeps her healty--about $33,000 a year. Ashley faces the prospect of being denied coverage when she gets older. While we as a nation welcome these scientific achievements--we will be able to determine in the case of both Keith and Ashley that they have a predisposition for tuberous sclerosis or genetic nutritional disorders--if both this child and this individual were to be denied employment or insurance because of a genetic predisposition because that information becomes available, that is wrong and should be corrected. This legislation is designed to try to provide this kind of protection to people as we move forward with the wonderful information gathering of genetic information. The issue is too important to ignore for another year. Each day that passes, more individuals suffer discrimination. Each day we fail to act, more families are forced to make decisions about genetic testing based not on health care but on fear. I pledge my commitment to ensuring that progress on the Human Genome Project is matched against the potential discrimination in establishing some fundamental rights of privacy. I welcome comments from my colleagues and others who may be interested in being a part of this effort to try to get ahead of the curve as we deal with the wonderful news of genetic marking that can make such a difference in people's lives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely correct. We need to have that judicial branch if we are going to really make the laws work ultimately. I appreciate that point. It is one well taken. I agree with his point as well that if you are going to have antidumping laws on the books, enforcing them is the only way to live up to our obligations. I appreciate his comments. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, who just addressed the issue of Treasury and the issue of steel, that I supported the proposal last week of Senator Rockefeller and felt as though that was a strong message that we needed to be sending. We didn't prevail in that particular issue. It is an important issue for the Senator from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's economy depends on many sectors. But steel is a very important one. And the trade issue is extremely important.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. Everyone faces these dumping issues. We are a very open society. That is one of our strengths. But there are limits. The only thing I would say--again, I don't want to tie us up because we have other matters to attend to--is that I happen to be a strong supporter of Larry Summers as a candidate for the Secretary of the Treasury position. He is a very fine individual who I think will do a tremendous job. First of all, he will be listening to people such as our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, and I hope the colleague of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Connecticut, on these matters. I am sure he will do that. I know that he will do that. But, obviously more importantly, we need not just good listening but also a willingness to make the fight as only can be done at the executive branch level. We in Congress can pass amendments and bills to try to do it. But in the area of trade --I know that my colleague from Pennsylvania will agree--the executive branch is really where the influence is most felt through the Office of the President, the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of State, where they raise these issues at that level. That is where we have the most success, I think, at least historically, in dealing with the kind of issues that he has addressed this morning. I am confident that Larry Summers is going to be a very strong advocate on behalf of our country and its needs and its sectors that the Senator from Pennsylvania has talked about. I just didn't want the moment to pass without expressing my support for this very fine individual, whom I have come to know and respect immensely over the last number of years. He has worked with Rubin in Treasury.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Ellen Gadbois, a Fellow in Senator Kennedy's office, be allowed floor privileges for 1 day.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from New Jersey for taking a leadership role on this. We should point out to our neighbors in New York how much we appreciate and support our great neighbor. The city of New York is a source of great economic vitality for our region. Our citizens are proud to live in our respective States of New Jersey and Connecticut, happy to work in the State of New York, but we want to be treated equally. My colleague from New Jersey has rightfully raised this issue and pointed out that almost 100,000 constituents of mine who commute every day to the city of New York, and the almost 300,000 from the State of New Jersey, have raised a very important issue. We are confident our colleagues from New York are going to be tremendously sympathetic to this injustice that could be heaped on their neighboring States of New Jersey and Connecticut. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for raising this issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't think I know where the Senator from South Carolina stands on this issue, having listened to his eloquence. I disagree with him about this bill, but he is a wonderful Member of the Senate and a good friend. I always enjoy being a witness to his eloquence here on the floor of the Senate, even when I may be the object of some of that eloquence, along with my capital city of Hartford, CT. Let me begin by saying I support this conference report. I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, for his fine work. There was a tremendous amount of pressure on him last week. There were some who wanted to get this done about a week ago, with the hope there would be a veto. I guess they may have seen some political mileage if the bill had been vetoed. That would have been a victory in the minds of some. He willingly allowed us to have the weekend and the following few days to try to work out differences. None of us knew whether we would succeed. Frankly, we weren't very optimistic we could work out the differences, given a lot of the rhetoric associated with this bill. The fact that we were able to spend some time at it and see if we couldn't find common ground, I appreciate very much. I know most of the Members of this body and others do, as well. I also want to commend my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who did a very fine job. We worked very closely on this to try to find some language and some provisions which would build broader support for this legislation. Also, I want to recognize the efforts of a number of our colleagues whose support was also instrumental in the successful completion of this conference report: Senator Gorton, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, my colleague, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bennett, with whom I serve on the special committee on the Y2K issue, which was established by the majority leader and the minority leader, Senators Lott and Daschle, about a year and a half ago, to look at the issue of the Y2K problem. We have had some 22 hearings in that committee, examining all aspects of our society--government, the private sector, nonprofits, hospitals, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, financial markets--to determine to what extent this computer bug may affect people in this country and elsewhere. I think I can say with some degree of certainty that we think, at this juncture, things should not be too bad. A lot of work has been done at all levels in our society, from local communities to the States and the national government, to try to fix this problem so it doesn't cause the kind of disruptions that many thought could occur. But I can't stand here today and tell you we can say with absolute certainty there won't be disruptions and problems. There will be some. We just hope they aren't going to be as significant as some have predicted. One of the areas we were asked to look at is the potential for widespread litigation, the rush to the courthouse. It is no great secret in this country that we have become tremendously litigious; we like suing each other. It has become a problem that has grown over the years. Anybody who has been around certainly knows the statistics and the numbers that tell of the rush to solve every problem by a lawsuit. Certainly, I will be the first to recognize, as a member of the legal profession, that without an active and vibrant legal profession, a lot of consumer rights would be lost in this country. You need that. It can't all be done by the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or other agencies at the federal, State and local level. You need a vibrant private bar. That is essential. But it also has to be one that is tempered. You have to recognize certain fact situations as they occur and determine whether or not there may be a better way of trying to resolve some of these difficulties. That is what this bill is really all about. I will start out by saying it is a 36-month bill. This bill sunsets; every provision of this bill dies after 36 months. We are not writing something in concrete or marble here that is going to last in perpetuity. For 36 short months, this bill will exist. During that period of time, of course, we will learn whether or not we are going to have as widespread a problem with this Y2K computer issue as some have anticipated. If we don't, then this bill really isn't that important. I hope that will be the case. Nothing would make me, as one of the coauthors of this bill, happier than to find next January, February, and March, that all of the fears that have been raised by the Y2K issue turn out to be nothing more than that--fears-- and that there would be no reason to litigate or to take 90 days to try to resolve the problems. If that is the case, then the bill will last for 36 months, but it won't have any significance. If, however, there are problems that go beyond what I think will be the case, we could end up with people racing to the courthouse to litigate the issues rather than trying to solve the problem. If businesses are spending money on legal fees rather than trying to spend money on technicians and others to solve the problem so that the users of their equipment will be made whole, then we could end up having the Y2K problem be a lot more serious than I think it is apt to be. This agreement, this conference report--even if you had no idea what was in it, I think you would be safe to conclude that it is probably a good one, for one basic reason: no one is fully satisfied. Everyone had to make concessions in this proposal. It is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. But that should not obscure the fact that it is an outstanding achievement, in my view, arrived at in a manner that is bipartisan, bicameral, and in cooperation with the executive branch. It is narrowly crafted to address the repercussions of an event that will only happen once in history: the changing of the calendar, 183 days from today, to the new millennium. We don't know, as I said, with precision what the repercussions will be. We hope and trust that, for our citizens, they will be minimal. But we know there will be repercussions, affecting virtually every facet of our lives, from energy to health care, from food to telecommunications. We will encounter problems associated with the Y2K glitch. And in America, where there are problems, lawsuits are never far behind. The Y2K committee, as I mentioned earlier, which I cochair with Senator Bennett, heard hard evidence that some members of the trial bar have been gearing up for quite some time to usher in the new millennium not with a celebration, but with a subpoena. By some estimates, they will file claims totalling $1 trillion or more. While some of these suits will have merit, many, I am fearful, will not. They will become vehicles for profit by select members of the trial bar, not to rectify wrongs done to consumers or to businesses. Ultimately, an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits seeking to reap a bonanza from this Y2K problem could have a crippling effect on our economy, especially on the technology-based businesses that are creating the lion's share of new jobs in our Nation today. This bill would slow the knee-jerk rush to the courthouse. It says to those who would seek litigation as a first resort: Look before you leap. It focuses businesses and consumers on fixing the problems, not fighting over them, and getting on-line, rather than getting in line at the courthouse. It encourages them to resolve differences in a conference room, not a courtroom. This conference report is narrowly crafted to address frivolous Y2K- related litigation, and only frivolous Y2K-related litigation. Its carefully circumscribed scope was acknowledged --albeit reluctantly-- the night before last by Mr. Mark Mandell, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. He had this to say about the conference report: It is positive that this unique response to a unique situation will be law for only three years and that the legal rights of anyone who suffers a physical injury are preserved. I commend him for the responsibility of that statement. He is the head of the trial lawyers in this country. I quickly add that he is not endorsing this bill; he disagrees with it, but he has framed it right. It is a unique answer to a unique problem that, for 36 months, we want on the books to avoid the potential problems that can affect our society. These are two important points that deserve to be restated: First, as I said, this is only a 3-year bill. It works no permanent changes in our legal system. Second, it completely and totally exempts consumers who allege they have suffered physical injury as a result of a Y2K failure. In addition, the conference report contains several other responsible and modest provisions that weed out frivolous lawsuits, do no injury to tort law and, most important, allows America's businesses to continue to create jobs. This bill establishes a 90-day period before a suit can be filed to at least create an opportunity for the parties to remedy the defects and avoid expensive, time-consuming litigation. We are not going to guarantee the problem will get fixed in that 90 days, but it will sort of call a timeout for 90 days, 3 months, to try to solve the problem. That is not a radical idea. It is not a radical idea at all to try to get people to work out their differences. That may be a radical idea if your motivation is to get to the courthouse as fast as you can. To that crowd, it is a radical idea. But to the businesses and consumers who would like to be made whole and have the problem fixed, having a cooling-off period for 90 days as we try to solve this problem is not asking too much in a 3-year bill. The bill also requires plaintiffs to plead with particularity about the nature of the harm allegedly done to them, and the monetary amount of damages they are seeking as a result of that harm. That is another ``radical'' idea--that you have to allege with some specificity what caused the problem. I know that is a bad idea if you would like to sort of use boilerplate language and race to the courthouse. If you are a defendant, you ought to know what you are charged with, what the plaintiff thinks you have done wrong. That ought not to be a great radical deviation from the norm. For 36 months, we are going to require that. That ought to be permanent law, in my view, but in this bill it lasts only 36 months. The bill also prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages that they could have reasonably and foreseeably avoided. Another radical idea. To discourage plaintiffs from suing the so-called ``deep-pocket'' defendants, the bill establishes a rule of proportionate liability. As a general matter, it holds the defendant responsible only for the harm it causes, and not for the harm caused by other defendants. Again, what a radical idea that is. If you are fractionally responsible, they would like you to have to pay the whole tab. Again, I appreciate their desire to do so. So you shop all around, and, if you can find anybody with deep pockets who may have handled the box for 5 minutes, then you can get them in a court, and, boom, you can hit them for the total amount. That is what has caused as many problems as anything else--the lack of proportionality and balance. At the same time, we don't allow that provision of proportionality to apply across the board without exception. We make several reasonable exceptions in the interest of fairness. Plaintiffs who sue as individuals, rather than as members of a larger class, may recover jointly and severally from any defendant, even if they are marginally involved, thus helping to ensure that individual consumers will fully recover damages. The bill contains other provisions to ensure that irresponsible, reckless, or intentionally wrongful defendants are in no way shielded and are fully responsible for their actions. Defendants that commit intentional torts will be held jointly and severally liable, even if only fractionally, including for economic losses. In addition, defendants who knowingly make false statements about the Y2K readiness of their goods or services may not seek mitigation of damages when plaintiffs rely in good faith on such statements. That is yet another consumer protection contained within this conference report. There are still other improvements that have been made here, largely at the behest of the Administration--improvements, which, in my view, strengthen the legislation. For instance, the class action provisions. Members of a class of under 100 people, and with claims under $10 million, can stay in State court. We made change after change to accommodate the concerns that were raised--many of them reasonable concerns, I might add--to make this a stronger and a better bill. We are trying to avoid frivolous lawsuits for 36 months. We are trying to solve the problem. I again want to thank the committee chairman and other colleagues who have played such an important role. Lastly, I thank this President of the United States. When I saw the President--not at 1:30 in the morning, but he was in my State last Monday--I mentioned this bill to him in a conversation that may have lasted 1 minute. I said: We will have the Y2K issue up in the next day or so. The President said: I would like to sign a bill. I think it is important to have one. But there have to be changes in this legislation before I can sign it. If you can get those changes and work with our staff, I will take a look at it. That is not an unreasonable statement for an American President to make on an issue like this that confronts our country in 183 days. We went to work that night and worked on these changes. It was late in the evening. When I, along with my colleague from Oregon, submitted the final proposal to the President of the United States, he said, to his credit: If you can make one more change in this particular area, then I think I could support this bill. That is how this happened. He is being ridiculed today because he tried to get a bill done to do something about a problem that affects, or will affect, or could affect, millions of people in this country. He ought not be ridiculed. He ought to be commended for it. Yes, he could have caved in and gone along. I know a lot of his staff and others didn't want him to sign this bill. But this President went to work, and he listened to the proposal. He made some suggestions, and he said: If you can accommodate or meet me part way here on some of these ideas, then I would be willing to sign this bill into law. As a result of those efforts, he could have said to me on Monday afternoon: I am sorry, there isn't anything you can do with this bill; I am just flat out against it. That would have been the end of it, frankly. I wouldn't have stayed up half the night trying to work out differences. But he said try. We did. And we reached that level of support, or a level of achievement which he thought he could support, and that brought us to the point of getting this legislation done. Again, there is nothing perfect about it. I am fully aware that there may be some problems with it down the road. I think this is a good effort to try to minimize those difficulties, to avoid lawsuits and solve the problems, and make this country stronger when it comes to the interest of the 21st century. Let me again thank my colleagues who persisted in their efforts to reach this point. I also want to recognize the staff who were so instrumental in bringing us to this point, particularly: Marti Albright and Mark Buse of the Commerce Committee; Manus Cooney and Larry Block of the Judiciary Committee; Jeanne Bumpus with Senator Gorton; Robert Cresanti, Tania Calhoun, and Wilke Green of the Year 2000 Committee; Carol Grunberg with Senator Wyden; David Hantman with Senator Feinstein; Laurie Rubenstein with Senator Lieberman; and Steven Wall with Senator Lott. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr DODD

Mr DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we will pass S. 376, which concerns the important topic of International Satellite Reform. I have followed the issue with interest for years, in part because in my Foreign Relations Committee work, we have addressed the market access concerns that are a critical part of opening up this industry. Although it is significant to finally have the Senate on record supporting the need for a competitive restructuring of the international satellite market, this bill will need some work before it can achieve that goal. It does not make sense to address this issue for the first time in over 35 years, and to leave some issues unresolved. I believe that there is room for improvement with respect to balancing incentives and leverage in making the international marketplace more competitive. I also believe we need to move quickly to normalize our relations with Intelsat, and its U.S. component, Comsat. I urge the Senate conferees from the Commerce Committee to continue their good work by tightening up this bill and removing unnecessary loopholes. Amendment No. 1221

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade the science of identifying genetic markers for diseases has evolved at an astonishing pace. For an increasing number of Americans science fiction has become reality--their doctors can now scan their unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of their developing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Armed with this knowledge, individuals and families can make informed decisions about their health care including, in some cases, even taking steps to prevent the disease or to detect and treat it early. Unfortunately, phenomenal advances in our knowledge about genetics have outpaced the protections currently provided in law. Thus, the potential also exists for this remarkable new information--which is making such a difference in people's lives in terms of their health-- this information could always be used by health insurers, employers, or others to deny health coverage or job opportunities to people. We know the Federal and State laws currently offer only a patchwork of protections against the misuse of genetic information. While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took important first steps toward prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance, it left large gaps. For example, it does not prohibit insurers from requiring genetic testing or from disclosing genetic information and offers no protection at all for people who must buy their insurance in the individual market. While several States--including my own--have enacted legislation prohibiting health insurance discrimination, these laws cannot protect more than 51 million American individuals in employer-sponsored, ``self-funded'' health plans. Additionally, few States have chosen to address the issue of employment discrimination or the separate issue of the privacy of genetic records. I have personal experience that this issue is not a partisan issue. Two years ago, my distinguished friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and I introduced one of the first bills on this critical topic addressing both insurance and employment discrimination. Last year, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, I joined Senator Snowe of Maine in supporting strong legislation protecting patients from genetic discrimination in insurance. Today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, in introducing comprehensive legislation to safeguard the privacy of genetic information and to prohibit health insurance or employment discrimination based on genetic information. Specifically, this legislation, which we call the Genetic Nondiscrimination Health Insurance and Employment Act, would prohibit health insurers from discriminating based on genetic predisposition to an illness or condition and would prevent insurers from requiring applicants for health insurance to submit to genetic testing. This bill would also address the concerns about employment discrimination by preventing employers from firing or refusing to hire individuals who may be susceptible to a genetic condition. Finally, this legislation would hold employers and insurers accountable by imposing strong penalties on those who violate these previous just stated provisions. In a few short years researchers will have the ability to translate the entire genetic code, revealing each individual's unique genetic blueprint. It is an astonishing prospect. Last year, in a visit I made to Yale University's Genetic Testing Center, I had the opportunity to see into the future and glimpse cutting-edge uses of this technology. I also had the opportunity to hear of the fears expressed by patients at this center. As an aside, we are talking about predisposition. We are now reaching a point on breast cancer in women, through tests being done over the years on twins, where we are able to determine almost at birth the likelihood or the probability of a woman contracting breast cancer at the time of that child's birth--looking into the future based on the genetic markers. That is profound information. It could make a huge difference to be able to know early on about a predisposition based upon your genetic makeup, knowing you have a probability or a likelihood later in life of contracting certain diseases. That allows that individual and that family early on to take the steps through diet and/or mediation, prescriptions, and so forth, to avoid the possibility of contracting these dreaded diseases. That is the great news. It is phenomenal. It is happening at such a pace, it is hard to believe. As we gather this information that a person may be, based upon their genetic makeup, susceptible to breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, or other forms of cancer, that information ought to be protected. I believe it should. It is one thing if you have a condition and you keep that from an employer and they hire you and they want to know whether or not you have a condition. I don't think anyone ought to be allowed to deny revealing information that an employer ought to have. But a predisposition--that information ought not to deprive you of a job or health insurance just because that genetic information indicates that may be the case. This is what happens. While I visited this wonderful Genetic Testing Center at Yale University, I met with some patients and the researchers who do this work. They asked me to pay attention and listen to a couple of patients with whom they work. Keith Hall has been a patient at Yale for several years, since he was first diagnosed with something called tuberous sclerosis. Let me explain what that is. It is a genetic disease that causes tumors of the brain, kidney, and other organs, and sometimes mental retardation. Keith, obviously, worries about what will happen to his insurance if he ever has to switch jobs with that condition. I also met with Ashley Przybylski, an 11-year-old girl from Oxford, CT. Ashley suffers from a genetic nutritional disorder that can cause seizures and brain damage. Currently, the family insurance covers the exorbitant cost of medication that keeps her healty--about $33,000 a year. Ashley faces the prospect of being denied coverage when she gets older. While we as a nation welcome these scientific achievements--we will be able to determine in the case of both Keith and Ashley that they have a predisposition for tuberous sclerosis or genetic nutritional disorders--if both this child and this individual were to be denied employment or insurance because of a genetic predisposition because that information becomes available, that is wrong and should be corrected. This legislation is designed to try to provide this kind of protection to people as we move forward with the wonderful information gathering of genetic information. The issue is too important to ignore for another year. Each day that passes, more individuals suffer discrimination. Each day we fail to act, more families are forced to make decisions about genetic testing based not on health care but on fear. I pledge my commitment to ensuring that progress on the Human Genome Project is matched against the potential discrimination in establishing some fundamental rights of privacy. I welcome comments from my colleagues and others who may be interested in being a part of this effort to try to get ahead of the curve as we deal with the wonderful news of genetic marking that can make such a difference in people's lives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield? Just very quickly, I want to raise the point--I do not know if my colleagues from New Jersey and Florida have been to Cuba at all recently. Has my colleague traveled to Cuba in the last several years?

Mr. DODD. As someone who has been there and spent the time and wandered without restraint and had conversations with people--I had a long conversation, as someone who speaks the language, speaks Spanish; I was able to have lengthy conversations with people. I wasn't being followed around. I had long discussions with people in marketplaces where they were highly critical of the Cuban Government. I had a lengthy discussion with a family down there about their objections and opposition to Fidel Castro with a group of people around. In my personal experience and that of others, just on the point of 100,000 U.S. citizens going, most of them are going illegally. It is not as if they have licenses to go. We all know what they do. They go to Montreal or Quebec or Cancun, and then they go in, because they don't stamp their visas. You can meet them all in the airports down there. We are making them illegal, illegal activities of U.S. citizens. That is not something we ought to be condoning. But this isn't licenses they receive; this is because they are using other means to go down and spend time there. But this is not permissible, visa-stamped approved travel by these people.