Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8759-S8768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 3066. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to require criminal background checks for nursing facility workers;
to the Committee on Finance.

the senior care safety act of 2000

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior
Care Safety Act of 2000. This bill prohibits nursing homes and other
long-term care facilities operating under the Social Security and
Medicaid systems from employing individuals with a demonstrated history
of violent, criminal behavior or drug dealing. To that end, it requires
these nursing facilities to conduct criminal background checks on all
of their prospective employees as part of the hiring process. Nursing
facilities that fail to conduct a background check prior to hiring an
employee are subject to a civil fine of up to $5,000. The reason for
these requirements is simple: we must ensure that our most defenseless
senior Americans--those in need of long-term nursing care--are attended
not by people with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal
behavior, but by the most qualified and trustworthy individuals
available.
The Senior Care Safety Act provides nursing facilities with the tools
necessary to accomplish this objective. It requires the Department of
Justice to open federal databases of criminal background information to
nursing homes so that they can promptly determine if prospective
employees have a criminal record. The act provides that the Department
of Justice provide this information without charge to the facility or
the applicant. Furthermore, it ensures that those who comply with the
background check requirement are insulated from liability for refusing
to hire someone prohibited from working in a nursing facility by this
provision. Finally, it guarantees the privacy of those individuals who
are denied such employment due to a criminal record by prohibiting the
use by a nursing facility of an individual's background information for
any purpose other than complying with this act.
It is tragic that a bill like this is necessary. But, while the
overwhelming majority of those who care for the more than 40,000 senior
citizens receiving 24-hour care in my home state of Missouri, and the
more than 1.5 million of such seniors nationwide are dedicated and
caring individuals, there are unfortunately too many examples of those
who take advantage of this position of trust. There are far too many
stories of convicted violent felons who have slipped through the cracks
in the hiring process and have physically or mentally abused our
frailest citizens in the very institutions that their families have
entrusted them for care. This bill will play an important role in
ensuring that when a family entrusts

[[Page S8760]]

their loved ones to a nursing facility, they can rest assured that
those who are looking after them are not violent felons. I look forward
to working with my fellow Senators to pass this important legislation
in the time remaining this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3066

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Care Safety Act of
2000''.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR NURSING FACILITY
WORKERS.

(a) Medicare.--
(1) Requirement to conduct criminal background checks.--
Section 1819(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i-3(d)(4)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Screening of workers.--
``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility shall not
knowingly employ an individual unless the individual has
passed a criminal background check conducted in accordance
with the requirements of clause (ii).
``(ii) Requirements.--

``(I) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall notify skilled
nursing facilities of the requirements of this subparagraph.
``(II) Skilled nursing facility requirements.--

``(aa) Provision of statements to applicants.--Not later
than 180 days after a skilled nursing facility receives a
notice in accordance with subclause (I), the skilled nursing
facility shall adopt and enforce the requirement that each
applicant for employment at the skilled nursing facility
shall complete the written statement described in subclause
(III).
``(bb) Transmittal of completed statements.--Not later than
5 business days after a skilled nursing facility receives
such completed written statement, the skilled nursing
facility shall transmit such statement to the Attorney
General.

``(III) Statement described.--The written statement
described in this subclause shall contain the following:

``(aa) The name, address, and date of birth appearing on a
valid identification document (as defined section 1028(d)(2)
of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, a
description of the identification document used, and the
applicant's social security account number.
``(bb) A statement that the applicant has never been
convicted of a crime of violence or of a Federal or State
offense consisting of the distribution of controlled
substances (as that term is defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
``(cc) The date the statement is made.

``(IV) Attorney general requirements.--

``(aa) In general.--Upon receipt of a completed written
statement from a skilled nursing facility, the Attorney
General, using information available to the Department of
Justice, shall notify the facility of the receipt of such
statement and promptly determine whether the applicant
completing the statement has ever been convicted of a crime
described in subclause (III)(bb).
``(bb) Notification of failure to pass.--Not later than 5
business days after the receipt of such statement, the
Attorney General shall inform the skilled nursing facility
transmitting the statement if the applicant completing the
statement did not pass the background check. A skilled
nursing facility not so informed within such period shall
consider the applicant completing the statement to have
passed the background check.
``(cc) No fee.--In no case shall a skilled nursing facility
or an applicant be charged a fee in connection with the
background check process conducted under this clause.
``(iii) Limitation on use of information.--A skilled
nursing facility that obtains criminal background information
about an applicant pursuant to this subparagraph may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(iv) No action based on failure to hire.--In any action
against a skilled nursing facility based on a failure or
refusal to hire an applicant, the fact that the applicant did
not pass a background check conducted in accordance with this
subparagraph shall be a complete defense to such action.''.
(2) Penalties.--Section 1819(h)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(h)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking the heading and inserting ``State
authority'';
(B) in the first sentence--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii) and indenting such clauses appropriately; and
(ii) by striking ``If a State'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--If a State'';
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``If a State'' and
inserting the following:
``(C) Penalties for prior failures.--If a State''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as added by
subparagraph (B)(ii) of this paragraph) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Required penalties.--A civil money penalty of not
more than $5000 shall be assessed and collected, with
interest, against any facility which is or was out of
compliance with the requirements of clause (i), (ii)(II), or
(iii) of subsection (d)(4)(B).''.
(b) Medicaid.--
(1) Requirement to conduct criminal background checks.--
Section 1919(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r(d)(4)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Screening of workers.--
``(i) In general.--A nursing facility shall not knowingly
employ an individual unless the individual has passed a
criminal background check conducted in accordance with the
requirements of clause (ii).
``(ii) Requirements.--

``(I) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall notify nursing
facilities of the requirements of this subparagraph.
``(II) Nursing facility requirements.--

``(aa) Provision of statements to applicants.--Not later
than 180 days after a nursing facility receives a notice in
accordance with subclause (I), the nursing facility shall
adopt and enforce the requirement that each applicant for
employment at the nursing facility shall complete the written
statement described in subclause (III).
``(bb) Transmittal of completed statements.--Not later than
5 business days after a nursing facility receives such
completed written statement, the nursing facility shall
transmit such statement to the Attorney General.

``(III) Statement described.--The written statement
described in this subclause shall contain the following:

``(IV) Attorney general requirements.--

``(aa) In general.--Upon receipt of a completed written
statement from a nursing facility, the Attorney General,
using information available to the Department of Justice,
shall notify the facility of the receipt of such statement
and promptly determine whether the applicant completing the
statement has ever been convicted of a crime described in
subclause (III)(bb).
``(bb) Notification of failure to pass.--Not later than 5
business days after the receipt of such statement, the
Attorney General shall inform the nursing facility
transmitting the statement if the applicant completing the
statement did not pass the background check. A nursing
facility not so informed within such period shall consider
the applicant completing the statement to have passed the
background check.
``(cc) No fee.--In no case shall a nursing facility or an
applicant be charged a fee in connection with the background
check process conducted under this clause.
``(iii) Limitation on use of information.--A nursing
facility that obtains criminal background information about
an applicant pursuant to this subparagraph may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(iv) No action based on failure to hire.--In any action
against a nursing facility based on a failure or refusal to
hire an applicant, the fact that the applicant did not pass a
background check conducted in accordance with this
subparagraph shall be a complete defense to such action.''.
(2) Penalties.--Section 1919(h)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(h)(2)(A)) is amended by
inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause:
``(v) A civil money penalty of not more than $5000 shall be
assessed and collected, with interest, against any facility
which is or was out of compliance with the requirements of
clause (i), (ii)(II), or (iii) of subsection (d)(4)(B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall conduct a
study of the effects of background checks in nursing
facilities and submit a report to Congress that includes the
following:
(1) The success of conducting background checks on nursing
facility employees.
(2) The impact of background checks on patient care in such
facilities.

[[Page S8761]]

(3) The need to conduct background checks in other patient
care settings outside of nursing facilities.
(4) Suggested methods for further improving the background
check system and the estimated costs of such improvements.
(b) Definition of nursing facility.--In subsection (a), the
term ``nursing facility'' has the meaning given that term in
section 1919(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r(a)) and includes a skilled nursing facility (as defined
in section 1819(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a))).
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Reid):
S. 3067. A bill to require changes in the bloodborne pathogens
standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

THE NEEDLESTICK SAFETY and PREVENTION ACT

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce
today, along with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Reid, the Needlestick
Safety and Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that our
nation's health care workers, who tend to our citizens when care is
urgently needed, will no longer be risking their own health, and,
perhaps, their own lives, when providing this life giving work.
Statistics paint a stark picture of the risks from accidental sharps
injuries that health care workers face daily on the job, injuries that
can be prevented, and, when Congress passes this legislation, will be
prevented. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated
that as many as 800,000 injuries from contaminated sharps occur
annually among health care workers. Due to these injuries, numerous
health care workers have contracted fatal or other serious viruses and
diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis
B, and hepatitis C.
``Needlesticks'' refer to the broad category of injuries suffered by
workers in health care settings who are exposed to sharps, including
items such as disposable syringes with needles, IV catheters, lancets,
and glass capillary tubes/pipettes. The true shame in these alarming
statistics is that accidental needlestick injuries can be prevented.
Technological advancements have led to the development of safer medical
devices, such as syringes with needle guards or sheaths.
The heart of the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act'' is its
requirement that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of
effective safer medical devices. And the legislation emphasizes
training, education, and the participation of those workers exposed to
sharps injuries in the evaluation and selection of safer devices. The
Act also creates new record keeping requirements, a ``sharps injury
log,'' to aid employers in identifying high risk areas, and in
determining the types of engineering controls and devices most
effective in reducing or eliminating the risk of exposure. Importantly,
the legislation we introduce today will not impede, but will encourage
technological development, as it does not favor the use of a specific
device, but requires an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of
available devices.
I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting the ``Needlestick
Safety and Prevention Act.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3067

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Needlestick Safety and
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Numerous workers who are occupationally exposed to
bloodborne pathogens have contracted fatal and other serious
viruses and diseases, including the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C from exposure to
blood and other potentially infectious materials in their
workplace.
(2) In 1991 the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration issued a standard regulating occupational
exposure to bloodborne pathogens, including the human
immunodeficiency virus, (HIV), the hepatitis B virus (HBV),
and the hepatitis C virus (HCV).
(3) Compliance with the bloodborne pathogens standard has
significantly reduced the risk that workers will contract a
bloodborne disease in the course of their work.
(4) Nevertheless, occupational exposure to bloodborne
pathogens from accidental sharps injuries in health care
settings continues to be a serious problem. In March 2000,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that
more than 380,000 percutaneous injuries from contaminated
sharps occur annually among health care workers in United
States hospital settings. Estimates for all health care
settings are that 600,000 to 800,000 needlestick and other
percutaneous injuries occur among health care workers
annually. Such injuries can involve needles or other sharps
contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, HBV, or
HCV.
(5) Since publication of the bloodborne pathogens standard
in 1991 there has been a substantial increase in the number
and assortment of effective engineering controls available to
employers. There is now a large body of research and data
concerning the effectiveness of newer engineering controls,
including safer medical devices.
(6) 396 interested parties responded to a Request for
Information (in this section referred to as the ``RFI'')
conducted by the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration in 1998 on engineering and work practice
controls used to eliminate or minimize the risk of
occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens due to
percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. Comments were
provided by health care facilities, groups representing
health care workers, researchers, educational institutions,
professional and industry associations, and manufacturers of
medical devices.
(7) Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of
safer medical devices, such as needleless systems and sharps
with engineered sharps injury protections, when they are part
of an overall bloodborne pathogens risk-reduction program,
can be extremely effective in reducing accidental sharps
injuries.
(8) In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimated that, depending on the type of device
used and the procedure involved, 62 to 88 percent of sharps
injuries can potentially be prevented by the use of safer
medical devices.
(9) The OSHA 200 Log, as it is currently maintained, does
not sufficiently reflect injuries that may involve exposure
to bloodborne pathogens in health care facilities. More than
98 percent of health care facilities responding to the RFI
have adopted surveillance systems in addition to the OSHA 200
Log. Information gathered through these surveillance systems
is commonly used for hazard identification and evaluation of
program and device effectiveness.
(10) Training and education in the use of safer medical
devices and safer work practices are significant elements in
the prevention of percutaneous exposure incidents. Staff
involvement in the device selection and evaluation process is
also an important element to achieving a reduction in sharps
injuries, particularly as new safer devices are introduced
into the work setting.
(11) Modification of the bloodborne pathogens standard is
appropriate to set forth in greater detail its requirement
that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of effective
safer medical devices.

SEC. 3. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS STANDARD.

The bloodborne pathogens standard published at 29 C.F.R.
1910.1030 shall be revised as follows:
(1) The definition of ``Engineering Controls'' (at 29
C.F.R. 1930.1030(b)) shall include as additional examples of
controls the following: ``safer medical devices, such as
sharps with engineered sharps injury protections and
needleless systems''.
(2) The term ``Sharps with Engineered Sharps Injury
Protections'' shall be added to the definitions (at 29 C.F.R.
1910.1030(b)) and defined as ``a nonneedle sharp or a needle
device used for withdrawing body fluids, accessing a vein or
artery, or administering medications or other fluids, with a
built-in safety feature or mechanism that effectively reduces
the risk of an exposure incident''.
(3) The term ``Needleless Systems'' shall be added to the
definitions (at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(b)) and defined as ``a
device that does not use needles for (A) the collection of
bodily fluids or withdrawal of body fluids after initial
venous or arterial access is established, (B) the
administration of medication or fluids, or (C) any other
procedure involving the potential for occupational exposure
to bloodborne pathogens due to percutaneous injuries from
contaminated sharps''.
(4) In addition to the existing requirements concerning
exposure control plans (29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv)), the
review and update of such plans shall be required to also--
(A) ``reflect changes in technology that eliminate or
reduce exposure to bloodborne pathogens''; and
(B) ``document consideration and implementation of
appropriate commercially available and effective safer
medical devices designed to eliminate or minimize
occupational exposure''.
(5) The following additional recordkeeping requirement
shall be added to the bloodborne pathogens standard at 29
C.F.R. 1910.1030(h): ``The employer shall establish and
maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of
percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. The
information in the sharps injury log shall be recorded and
maintained in such manner as to protect the confidentiality
of the injured employee. The sharps injury log shall contain,
at a minimum--

[[Page S8762]]

``(A) the type and brand of device involved in the
incident,
``(B) the department or work area where the exposure
incident occurred, and
``(C) an explanation of how the incident occurred.''.

The requirement for such sharps injury log shall not apply to
any employer who is not required to maintain a log of
occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 C.F.R. 1904 and
the sharps injury log shall be maintained for the period
required by 29 C.F.R. 1904.6.
(6) The following new section shall be added to the
bloodborne pathogens standard: ``An employer, who is required
to establish an Exposure Control Plan shall solicit input
from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient
care who are potentially exposed to injuries from
contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation, and
selection of effective engineering and work practice controls
and shall document the solicitation in the Exposure Control
Plan.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECT OF MODIFICATIONS.

The modifications under section 3 shall be in force until
superseded in whole or in part by regulations promulgated by
the Secretary of Labor under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) and shall be
enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as any
rule or regulation promulgated under section 6(b).

SEC. 5. PROCEDURE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Procedure.--The modifications of the bloodborne
pathogens standard prescribed by section 3 shall take effect
without regard to the procedural requirements applicable to
regulations promulgated under section 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b))
or the procedural requirements of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) Effective Date.--The modifications to the bloodborne
pathogens standard required by section 3 shall--
(1) within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act,
be made and published in the Federal Register by the
Secretary of Labor acting through the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration; and
(2) take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date
of such publication.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction
today of S. 3067, a bipartisan bill to provide protection for our
nations health care workers against accidental needlesticks and sharps
injuries. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators
Jeffords, Kennedy and Reed in the Senate and the Honorable Mr.
Ballenger and Honorable Major Owens in the House for their work on this
important safety issue.
Since the mid-1980's, injuries to health care workers from needles or
other ``sharps,'' such as IV catheters or lancets, have presented an
increasingly troubling issue. As the spread of bloodborne pathogens
such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C has escalated over the last 15 years,
so has the danger to health care workers of contracting one of these
diseases through sharps contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as
HIV and Hepatitis B and C. Even where the injured worker does not
ultimately contract a bloodborne disease, the uncertainty and fear of
infection created by such injuries can be excruciating and destructive
to the lives of the injured health care workers.
In response to this problem, in 1991 the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, or ``OSHA,'' issued a standard requiring
workplace safety measures to be used to protect against occupational
exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This was a laudable step in the fight
against worker infection, and its implementation brought a reduction in
the risk of contracting a bloodborne disease in the workplace. The
success of this measure, however, was limited by the effectiveness of
the safety technology available at the time, and occupational exposure
to bloodborne pathogens from accidental sharps injuries has continued
to be a problem. In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control
estimated that between 600,000 and 800,000 needlesticks still occur
among health care workers annually.
Fortunately, since the publication of the bloodborne pathogens
standard there has been a substantial increase in the number and
assortment of new medical devices, such as needless systems and
retractable needles, that protect against needlesticks. Numerous
studies have shown that the use of these safer devices, as part of an
overall bloodborne pathogen risk reduction program, can be extremely
effective in reducing accidental sharps injuries.
The legislation we introduce today will ensure that these safer
devices are used, and lives will be saved as a result. The bill
provides narrowly tailored instruction to OSHA to amend its bloodborne
pathogen standard to make certain that employers understand they must
identify, evaluate, and, where appropriate, make use of these safer
medical devices to eliminate or reduce occupational exposure to
bloodborne pathogens. OSHA issued similar instructions in a compliance
directive published December 1998. Because OSHA's directive is merely
agency guidance and does not have the force of law, however, I felt it
was important that both employers and employees be given formal
regulatory instruction on this vitally important safety issue. This
legislation provides this security and improves protection for
employees while still allowing employers the necessary flexibility to
determine the best technology to use in the particular circumstances
presented. This legislation even goes a step further to ensure that
employers will have valuable input from the front line employees when
it makes these determinations.
This bill is an important step for safety in the workplace, and I
hope it will bring some peace of mind to the more than 8 million
workers who perform the vitally important service of providing health
care in this country. I am extremely proud to be a part of legislation
which will save lives and help stop the spread of bloodborne diseases.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
in introducing the Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act. I commend
Senators Jeffords, Enzi and Reid for their effective work on this bill
that is vitally important to health care professionals and all
Americans who come in contact with them.
The need for needle stick protection is compelling. Last year alone,
there were almost 800,000 needle stick injuries to health care
professionals. Over 1,000 health care workers were infected with
serious diseases, including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. Sadly,
all of these injuries were preventable. The good news is that through
the provisions of this bill, many future needle stick injuries will be
prevented. In fact, the Center for Disease Prevention estimates that
needle stick injuries will be reduced by as much as 88 percent.
But as is so often the case, numbers alone cannot convey the full
story of human tragedy resulting from these injuries. One of my
constituents, Karen Daley of Boston, is the President of the
Massachusetts Nurses Association and was a registered nurse, a job she
loved and found very fulfilling. In January 1999, while working in an
emergency room in Boston, Karen was accidentally stuck by a
contaminated needle. Six months later, she tested positive for HIV and
Hepatitis C. Fortunately, Karen is in relative good health, although
she will never again be able to practice her chosen profession of
nursing.
The Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act is intended to prevent
tragic accidents like this. This bill requires employers to implement
the use of safety-designed needles and sharps to reduce the potential
transmission of disease to health care workers and patients. This bill
also provides that employers establish an injury log to record the kind
of devices, and the location, of all needle stick accidents.
Equally important, this bill allows non-managerial employees--those
on the front lines of service delivery--to be involved in determining
the appropriate devices used in health care settings.
This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. It also
is supported by the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses
Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American
Federation of Federal, State County and Municipal Employees.
I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join us
in supporting this important bill, and I am hopeful that it can be
enacted into law before this session of Congress ends.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3070. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish
criminal penalties for distribution of defective products, to amend
chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective
orders, sealing of cases, and

[[Page S8763]]

discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

DEFECTIVE PRODUCT PENALTY ACT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to introduce legislation to better protect
American consumers from irresponsible companies who knowingly allow
defective vehicles or vehicle parts to remain on the market.
Our bill, the ``Defective Product Penalty Act,'' would significantly
increase the responsibility of companies to test products for defects,
to recall those products when necessary, and to report to authorities
when defects are found.
Recent news stories about Firestone tires have grabbed the headlines,
but this bill really addresses some long-standing and serious
deficiencies within our current laws. The Firestone case has
highlighted the need for these overdue proposals, and it is our hope
that this legislation receives swift and serious consideration. The
time has come to close some loopholes and impose some real
responsibility on company executives who ignore public safety.
Let me describe specifically what this bill does:
First, this legislation will increase civil penalties for failure to
recall a defective vehicle or part or withholding information from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Current
penalties are $1,000 per violation with a maximum penalty in these
cases of $925,000. The Defective Product Penalty Act would increase the
penalty to $10,000 per violation, and would eliminate the maximum
penalty altogether. A penalty of $925,000 for a multi-billion dollar,
multinational business is not even enough to cause the company to think
twice about releasing or recalling a defective vehicle. We need to give
the NHTSA some real teeth.
Second, this legislation will establish criminal penalties for
knowingly distributing a defective vehicle or part, or for failing to
recall or tell authorities about a defective product, if that defect
results in death or injuries. If death results, the legislation calls
for a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. If serious injury results,
the legislation calls for penalties of up to 5 years.
Third, this legislation would extend the statute of limitations for
NHTSA to mandate recalls, from 8 to 10 years for vehicles, and from 3
to 5 years for tires.

Fourth, the bill would require companies to actually test vehicle
products before self-certifying that the product is in compliance with
NHTSA standards.
Next, the legislation clarifies federal law to make it clear that in
cases involving vehicle products sold in the U.S., a company must send
the NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and owners, even if the
notices are sent only to owners and dealers in foreign countries.
Finally, this legislation includes provisions from Senator Kohl's
``Sunshine in Litigation Act'' (S. 957), to:
Prohibit federal courts from issuing protective orders that prohibit
individuals from disclosing potential defects or dangers to regulatory
agencies; and
Prohibit federal courts from enforcing secrecy agreements without
first balancing the need for privacy against the public's need to know
about potential health and safety hazards. In other words, no longer
can a company put other consumers at risk by forcing a plaintiff to
keep quiet about a potential threat to public safety.
Mr. President, this legislation will send a clear signal to
irresponsible companies and individuals who intentionally put the
public at risk from defective products--you will now be held
responsible for your actions. I urge my colleagues to join us in this
effort.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator
Feinstein in introducing the Defective Product Penalty Act of 2000.
As the Firestone/Bridgestone tire controversy sadly demonstrates,
current consumer protection laws do not provide sufficient incentive
for some manufacturers to put the health and safety of consumers at the
forefront of their business decisions. Although most of us would find
it very difficult to believe that a company knowingly introduced a
defective product into the marketplace, or failed to recall one once a
defect was discovered, the families of the Firestone/Bridgestone
casualties do not need to be reminded that it does happen. Most
companies are responsible corporate citizens, of course--and for them
this legislation will not affect their behavior--but for the others who
need to be ``incentivized'' to make consumer health and safety a
foremost priority, the Defective Product Penalty Act (``DPPA'') should
serve as sufficient notice.
Specifically, the DPPA creates tough criminal penalties for those who
knowingly introduce defective products into the stream of commerce with
the realization that the product may cause death or bodily harm to an
unsuspecting consumer. Risking the lives of millions of Americans
because a cost-benefit analysis suggests that profits earned from a
product outweigh the potential costs of liability is not only wrong,
but also criminal. And it should be treated as such. Indeed, Mr.
President, whenever a company adheres to the bottom line instead of
respecting the health and safety of their consumers, they deserve
severe, immediate, and strict punishment.
This bill also incorporates S. 957, the Sunshine in Litigation Act.
This part of the bill ensures that consumers are better informed about
product defects that may affect consumer health and safety. All too
often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in
litigation--and which bears directly upon public health and safety--to
be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose
lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have
asked to protect our public health and safety.
All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective
orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep
information discovered in the course of litigation secret and
undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request
to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants
threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document
requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot
afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations
actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy,
typically they do not--because both sides have agreed.
The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public
health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary
Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994.
In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of the Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that
this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the
length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of
civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.''
The Defective Product Penalty Act will go a long way to ensuring that
the health and safety of consumers will receive the consideration it
deserves in the boardrooms and courtrooms across our country. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Robb, and Mr. Schumer) (by request):
S. 3071. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

federal judgeship act of 200

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, at the request of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, Senator Leahy and I are introducing
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2000. This legislation was drafted by the
Judicial Conference and is based upon the recently completed biennial
survey of judgeship needs conducted by the Judicial Conference, which
analyzed caseload statistics for each federal district court and
circuit court of appeals. The legislation sets forth the Judicial
Conference's recommendation that the Congress create 63 new federal
judgeships throughout the country--10 new circuit court judgeships and
53 new district court judgeships.

[[Page S8764]]

Perhaps the federalism decisions that have marked the tenure of the
Rehnquist Court ultimately will serve to check the expansion of federal
jurisdiction and the caseload burdens and need for new judges that
necessarily follow such expansion. Presently, however, many of our
judges--especially those in the border states of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California--are overburdened by heavy caseloads. Caseload
statistics compiled by the Judicial Conference have convinced me of the
need for a debate about new judgeships. In this debate, we must ask
ourselves: How large do we really want our federal judiciary to be?
It should be noted that over the past 22 years, the judiciary has
grown substantially. Currently, there are 848 judgeships created
pursuant to article III of the Constitution. By contrast, just 23 years
ago, there were only 509 Article III judgeships. this growth in the
size of the federal judiciary--a 67 percent increase--has outpaced
growth in the size of the United States. During the same period, the
population of the United States has grown by just 24 percent, from 220
million to 275 million.
Given that there are only a few weeks remaining in this Congress, it
is going to be difficult to achieve consensus on a comprehensive
judgeship bill. Nevertheless, it is important that the views of the
Judicial Conference on the issue of judgeship be brought to the
attention of the Congress and given the appropriate level of
consideration. Still, it is possible that consensus may be reached on
legislation authorizing new judgeships. I know that many of my
colleagues share my concerns about the expansion of the federal
judiciary. It is my judgment, however, that the Judicial Conference's
recommendation that additional judgeships be created be brought to the
attention of the Congress. I look forward to a dialogue with my
colleagues on this issue.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today Senator Hatch and I are introducing
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2000. I am pleased that Senators
Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Graham, Reid, Robb, Inouye, Edwards, Murray,
Bingaman, Bayh, Kerrey, and Domenici are joining us as original
cosponsors of this measure.
Our bill creates 70 judgeships across the country to address the
workload needs of the federal judiciary. This bill incorporates the
recommendations for additional judgeships most recently forwarded to us
by the Judiciary Conference of the United States. Specifically, our
legislation would create 6 additional permanent judgeships and 4
temporary judgeships for the U.S. Courts of Appeal; 30 additional
permanent judgeships and 23 temporary judgeships for the U.S. District
Courts; and convert 7 existing temporary district judgeships into
permanent positions.
The Judicial Conference of the United States is the nonpartisan
policy-making arm of the judicial branch. Federal judges across the
nation believe that the increasingly heavy caseloads of our courts
necessitate these additional judges. The Chief Justice of the United
States in his annual year-end reports over the last several years has
commented on the serious problems facing our federal courts having too
much work and too few judges and other resources.
The Judicial Conference and Chief Justice Rehnquist are right.
According to his 1999 year-end report, the filings in our federal
courts have reached record heights. In fact, the numbers of criminal
cases and defendants have reached their highest levels since the
Prohibition Amendment was repealed in 1933. In 1999, overall growth in
appellate court caseload included a 349 percent upsurge in original
proceedings. This sudden expansion resulted from newly implemented
reporting procedures, which more accurately measure the increased
judicial workload generated by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act and
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both passed in 1996.
District court activity was characterized by an increase in criminal
filings and a smaller increase in civil filings. Criminal case filings
rose 4 percent from 57,691 in 1998 to 59,923 in 1999, and the number of
defendants grew 2 percent from 79,008 to 80,822. Criminal case filings
per authorized judgeship went up almost 5 percent. Since the last
significant expansion of the federal judiciary in 1990, felony criminal
case filings have increased almost 50 percent, from 31,727 in 1990 to
46,789 in 1999.
Despite these dramatic increases in case filings, Congress has failed
to authorize new judgeships since 1990, thus endangering the
administration of justice in our nation's federal courts. Without the
extraordinary contributes of our senior judges, the administration of
justice could well have broken down entirely.
Over the last several decades, a 6-year cycle for reviewing the needs
of the judiciary and authorizing additional judgeships had been
followed by Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in 1978,
Congress passed legislation to address the need for additional
judgeships. Six years later, in 1984, Congress passed legislation
creating additional judgeships. Then, again six years later, in 1990,
Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress fulfilled their
constitutional responsibilities and enacted the Federal Judgeship Act
of 1990 because of a sharply increasing caseload, particularly for
drug-related crimes. At that time President Bush was in the middle of
his first term in office.
That type of bipartisan effort broke down in 1996. It has now been 10
years since Congress made a systematic evaluation of the needs of the
federal judiciary and acted to meet those needs. For each of the last
two Congresses, the Republican majority has resisted any such action.
Three years ago, the Judicial Conference requested an additional 55
judgeships to address the growing backlog. I introduced the Federal
Judgeship Act of 1997, S. 678, legislation based on the Judicial
Conference's 1997 recommendations. That legislation languished in the
Judicial Committee without action during both sessions of the last
Congress. Again last year, the Judicial Conference updated its request
and recommended an additional 72 judgeships. I, again, introduced those
recommendations in the Federal Judgeship Act of 1999, S. 1145. There
was no action on it by the Judiciary Committee.
This year, the Judiciary Conference took the unusual step of updating
last year's recommendations yet again. Those updated recommendations
affect 70 judgeships. Today may signal a turning point in our efforts.
Today Republicans are joining with us. I welcome them to this effort
and look forward to working with them to pass the Federal Judgeship Act
of 2000.
Included within our bill are the additional judgeships that would be
authorized by S. 2730, the Southwest Border Judgeship Act of 2000.
Senator Feinstein has been tenacious in seeking the resources needed
the federal courts of our southwest border States, including southern
California. She is right. Those 13 judgeships for California, Arizona,
New Mexico and Texas are included in our bill.
Implicit in our legislation is acknowledgment that the federal
judiciary does not just have 64 current vacancies with 9 of the
horizon, but that even if all those vacancies were filled, the federal
judiciary would remain 70 judges short of those it needed to manage its
workload, try the cases and provide the individual attention to matters
that have set a high standard for the administration of justice in our
federal system. In other words, considering vacancies and taking into
account the judgeships authorized by our bill, the federal judiciary is
today in need of more than 130 more judges.
We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible
to the gusts of the political winds.
Let us act to ensure that justice in our federal courts is not
delayed or denied for anyone. I urge the Senate to do in this last
month of this Congress what the Republican majority has so strenuously
resisted for the last four years: Enact the Federal Judgeship Act
without further delay.
______

Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Hagel):

[[Page S8765]]

S. 3072. A bill to assist in the enhancement of the development of
expansion of international economic assistance programs that utilize
cooperatives and credit unions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.

support for overseas cooperative development act

Mr. GRAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3072

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the ``Support for Overseas
Cooperative Development Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the mutual economic interest of the United
States and peoples in developing and transitional countries
to promote cooperatives and credit unions.
(2) Self-help institutions, including cooperatives and
credit unions, provide enhanced opportunities for people to
participate directly in democratic decision-making for their
economic and social benefit through ownership and control of
business enterprises and through the mobilization of local
capital and savings and such organizations should be fully
utilized in fostering free market principles and the adoption
of self-help approaches to development.
(3) The United States seeks to encourage broad-based
economic and social development by creating and supporting--
(A) agricultural cooperatives that provide a means to lift
low income farmers and rural people out of poverty and to
better integrate them into national economies;
(B) credit union networks that serve people of limited
means through safe savings and by extending credit to
families and microenterprises;
(C) electric and telephone cooperatives that provide rural
customers with power and telecommunications services
essential to economic development;
(D) housing and community-based cooperatives that provide
low income shelter and work opportunities for the urban poor;
and
(E) mutual and cooperative insurance companies that provide
risk protection for life and property to under-served
populations often through group policies.

SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress supports the
development and expansion of economic assistance programs
that fully utilize cooperatives and credit unions,
particularly those programs committed to--
(1) international cooperative principles, democratic
governance and involvement of women and ethnic minorities for
economic and social development;
(2) self-help mobilization of member savings and equity,
retention of profits in the community, except those programs
that are dependent on donor financing;
(3) market-oriented and value-added activities with the
potential to reach large numbers of low income people and
help them enter into the mainstream economy;
(4) strengthening the participation of rural and urban poor
to contribute to their country's economic development; and
(5) utilization of technical assistance and training to
better serve the member-owners.
(b) Development Priorities.--Section 111 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``In meeting the requirement of the
preceding sentence, specific priority shall be given to the
following:
``(1) Agriculture.--Technical assistance to low income
farmers who form and develop member-owned cooperatives for
farm supplies, marketing and value-added processing.
``(2) Financial systems.--The promotion of national credit
union systems through credit union-to-credit union technical
assistance that strengthens the ability of low income people
and micro-entrepreneurs to save and to have access to credit
for their own economic advancement.
``(3) Infrastructure.--The support of rural electric and
telecommunication cooperatives for access for rural people
and villages that lack reliable electric and
telecommunications services.
``(4) Housing and community services.--The promotion of
community-based cooperatives which provide employment
opportunities and important services such as health clinics,
self-help shelter, environmental improvements, group-owned
businesses, and other activities.''.

SEC. 4. REPORT.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, in consultation with the heads of
other appropriate agencies, shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of section 111 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i), as amended
by section 3 of this Act.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 3073. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the Social
Security Act to promote smoking cessation under the Medicare Program,
the Medicaid Program, and the Maternal and Child Health Program; to the
Committee on Finance.

THE MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND MCH SMOKING CESSATION SERVICES ACT OF 2000

Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
expands treatment to millions of Americans suffering from a deadly
addiction: tobacco. I am pleased to have Senator Brownback join me in
this effort. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion
Act of 2000 will help make smoking cessation therapy accessible to
recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health
Program.
We have long known that cigarette smoking is the largest preventable
cause of death, accounting for 20 percent of all deaths in this
country. It is well documented that smoking causes virtually all cases
of lung cancer and a substantial portion of coronary heart disease,
peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and
cancers of other sites. And the harmful effects of smoking do not end
with the smoker. Women who use tobacco during pregnancy are more likely
to have adverse birth outcomes, including babies with low birth weight,
which is linked with an increased risk of infant death and a variety of
infant health disorders.
Still, despite enormous health risks, 48 million adults in the United
States smoke cigarettes--approximately 22.7 percent of American adults.
The rates are higher for our youth--36.4 percent report daily smoking.
In Illinois, the adult smoking rate is about 24.2 percent. And perhaps
most distressing and surprising, data indicate that about 13 percent of
mothers in the United States smoke during pregnancy.
We have also learned the hard way that in addition to the heavy
health toll of tobacco, the economic costs of smoking are also high.
The total cost of smoking in 1993 in the U.S. was about $102 billion,
with over $50 billion in health care expenditures directly linked to
smoking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports
that approximately 43 percent of these costs were paid by government
funds, primarily Medicaid and Medicare. Smoking costs Medicaid alone
more than $12.9 billion per year. According to the Chicago chapter of
the American Lung Association, my state of Illinois spends $2.9 billion
each year in public and private funds to combat smoking-related
diseases.
Today, however, we also know how to help smokers quit. Advancements
in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction have helped millions
kick the habit. While more than 40 million adults continue to smoke,
nearly as many persons are former smokers living longer, healthier
lives. In large part, this is because new tools are available.
Effective pharmacotherapy and counseling regimens have been tested and
proven effective. The just-released Surgeon General's Report, Reducing
Tobacco Use, concluded that ``pharmacologic treatment of nicotine
addiction, combined with behavioral support, will enable 10 to 25
percent of users to remain abstinent at one year of posttreatment.''
Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use
treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health
improvements and cost savings. Creating a new nonsmoker reduces
anticipated medical costs associated with acute myocardial infarction
and stroke by $47 in the first year and by $853 during the next seven
years in 1995 dollars. And within four to five years after tobacco
cessation, quitters use fewer health care services than continued
smokers. In fact, in one study the cost savings from reduced use paid
for a moderately priced effective smoking cessation intervention in a
matter of three to four years.
The health benefits tobacco quitters enjoy are undisputed. They are
living longer. After 15 years, the risk of premature death for ex-
smokers returns to nearly the level of persons who have never smoked.
Male smokers who quit between age 35 and 39 add an average of five
years to their lives; women can add three years. Even older Americans
over age 65 can extend their life expectancy by giving up cigarettes.
Former smokers are also healthier. They are less likely to die of
chronic lung diseases. After ten smoke-free

[[Page S8766]]

years, their risk of lung cancer drops to as much as one-half that of
those who continue to smoke. After five to fifteen years the risk of
stroke and heart disease for ex-smokers returns to the level of those
who have never smoked. They have fewer days of illness, reduced rates
of bronchitis and pneumonia, and fewer health complaints.
New Public Health Service Guidelines released this summer conclude
that tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and
cost-effective relative to other medical and disease prevention
interventions. The guideline urges health care insurers and purchasers
to include the counseling and FDA-approved pharmacotherapeutic
treatments as a covered benefit.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government, a major purchaser of health
care through Medicare and Medicaid, does not currently adhere to its
own published guidelines. It is high-time that government-sponsored
health programs catch up with science. As a result, I am introducing,
along with my colleague Senator Brownback, legislation to improve
smoking cessation benefits in government-sponsored health programs.
The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of
2000 improves access to and coverage of smoking cessation treatment
therapies in four primary ways.
Our bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit to Medicare. By
2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or
older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat
tobacco-related diseases over the next twenty years. In a study of
adults 65 years of age or older who received advice to quit, behavioral
counseling and pharmocotherapy, 24.8 percent reported having stopped
smoking six months following the intervention. The total economic
benefits of quitting after age 65 are notable. Due to a reduction in
the risk of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and emphysema, studies
have found that heavy smokers over age 65 who quit can avoid up to
$4,592 in lifelong illness-related costs.
Our measure provides coverage for both prescription and non-
prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill
eliminates the provision in current Federal law that allows states to
exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under
Medicaid. Ironically, State Medicaid programs are required to cover
Viagra, but not to treat tobacco addiction. Despite the fact that the
States are now receiving the full benefit of their federal lawsuit
against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide
coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. On average,
states spend approximately 14.4 percent of their Medicaid budgets on
medical care related to smoking.

Our legislation clarifies that the maternity benefit for pregnant
women in Medicaid covers smoking cessation counseling and services.
Smoking during pregnancy causes about 5-6 percent of perinatal deaths,
17-26 percent of low-birth-weight births, and 7-10 percent of preterm
deliveries, and increases the risk of miscarriage and fetal growth
retardation. It may also increase the risk of sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS). The Surgeon General recommends that pregnant women and
parents with children living at home be counseled on the potentially
harmful effects of smoking on fetal and child health. A new study shows
that, over seven years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one
percentage point would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save
$572 million in direct medical costs.
Our bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Program
recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the
inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered
part of quality maternal and child health services. In addition to the
well-documented benefits of smoking cessation for maternity care, the
Surgeon General's report adds, ``Tobacco use is a pediatric concern. In
the United States, more than 6,000 children and adolescents try their
first cigarette each day. More than 3,000 children and adolescents
become daily smokers each day, resulting in approximately 1.23 million
new smokers under the age of 18 each year.'' The goal of the MCH
program is to improve the health of all mothers and children. This goal
cannot be reached without addressing the tobacco epidemic.
I hope my colleagues will join me not only in cosponsoring this
legislation but also in working with me to see that its provisions are
adopted before the year is out. As the Surgeon General states in his
report: ``Although our knowledge about tobacco control remains
imperfect, we know more than enough to act now.''
______

Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
S.J. Res. 52. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to
the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of
Understanding; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 52

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

Congress consents to the International Emergency Management
Assistance Memorandum of Understanding entered into between
the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the Provinces of Quebec,
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. The compact is substantially as follows:

``Article I--International Emergency Management Assistance
Memorandum of Understanding Purpose and Authorities

``The International Emergency Management Assistance
Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the
`compact,' is made and entered into by and among such of the
jurisdictions as shall enact or adopt this compact,
hereinafter referred to as `party jurisdictions.' For the
purposes of this agreement, the term `jurisdictions' may
include any or all of the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the
Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and such other states and
provinces as may hereafter become a party to this compact.
``The purpose of this compact is to provide for the
possibility of mutual assistance among the jurisdictions
entering into this compact in managing any emergency or
disaster when the affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions ask
for assistance, whether arising from natural disaster,
technological hazard, manmade disaster or civil emergency
aspects of resources shortages.
``This compact also provides for the process of planning
mechanisms among the agencies responsible and for mutual
cooperation, including, if need be, emergency-related
exercises, testing, or other training activities using
equipment and personnel simulating performance of any aspect
of the giving and receiving of aid by party jurisdictions or
subdivisions of party jurisdictions during emergencies, with
such actions occurring outside actual declared emergency
periods. Mutual assistance in this compact may include the
use of emergency forces by mutual agreement among party
jurisdictions.

``Article II--General Implementation

``Each party jurisdiction entering into this compact
recognizes that many emergencies may exceed the capabilities
of a party jurisdiction and that intergovernmental
cooperation is essential in such circumstances. Each
jurisdiction further recognizes that there will be
emergencies that may require immediate access and present
procedures to apply outside resources to make a prompt and
effective response to such an emergency because few, if any,
individual jurisdictions have all the resources they need in
all types of emergencies or the capability of delivering
resources to areas where emergencies exist.
``The prompt, full, and effective utilization of resources
of the participating jurisdictions, including any resources
on hand or available from any other source that are essential
to the safety, care, and welfare of the people in the event
of any emergency or disaster, shall be the underlying
principle on which all articles of this compact are
understood.
``On behalf of the party jurisdictions participating in the
compact, the legally designated official who is assigned
responsibility for emergency management is responsible for
formulation of the appropriate inter-jurisdictional mutual
aid plans and procedures necessary to implement this compact,
and for recommendations to the jurisdiction concerned with
respect to the amendment of any statutes, regulations, or
ordinances required for that purpose.

``Article III--Party Jurisdiction Responsibilities

``(a) Formulate Plans and Programs.--It is the
responsibility of each party jurisdiction to formulate
procedural plans and programs for inter-jurisdictional
cooperation in

[[Page S8767]]

the performance of the responsibilities listed in this
section. In formulating and implementing such plans and
programs the party jurisdictions, to the extent practical,
shall--
``(1) review individual jurisdiction hazards analyses that
are available and, to the extent reasonably possible,
determine all those potential emergencies the party
jurisdictions might jointly suffer, whether due to natural
disaster, technological hazard, man-made disaster or
emergency aspects of resource shortages;
``(2) initiate a process to review party jurisdictions'
individual emergency plans and develop a plan that will
determine the mechanism for the inter-jurisdictional
cooperation;
``(3) develop inter-jurisdictional procedures to fill any
identified gaps and to resolve any identified inconsistencies
or overlaps in existing or developed plans;
``(4) assist in warning communities adjacent to or crossing
jurisdictional boundaries;
``(5) protect and ensure delivery of services, medicines,
water, food, energy and fuel, search and rescue, and critical
lifeline equipment, services and resources, both human and
material to the extent authorized by law;
``(6) inventory and agree upon procedures for the inter-
jurisdictional loan and delivery of human and material
resources, together with procedures for reimbursement or
forgiveness; and
``(7) provide, to the extent authorized by law, for
temporary suspension of any statutes or ordinances, over
which the province or state has jurisdiction, that impede the
implementation of the responsibilities described in this
subsection.
``(b) Request Assistance.--The authorized representative of
a party jurisdiction may request assistance of another party
jurisdiction by contacting the authorized representative of
that jurisdiction. These provisions only apply to requests
for assistance made by and to authorized representatives.
Requests may be verbal or in writing. If verbal, the request
must be confirmed in writing within 15 days of the verbal
request. Requests must provide the following information:
``(1) A description of the emergency service function for
which assistance is needed and of the mission or missions,
including but not limited to fire services, emergency
medical, transportation, communications, public works and
engineering, building inspection, planning and information
assistance, mass care, resource support, health and medical
services, and search and rescue.
``(2) The amount and type of personnel, equipment,
materials, and supplies needed and a reasonable estimate of
the length of time they will be needed.
``(3) The specific place and time for staging of the
assisting party's response and a point of contact at the
location.
``(c) Consultation Among Party Jurisdiction Officials.--
There shall be frequent consultation among the party
jurisdiction officials who have assigned emergency management
responsibilities, such officials collectively known
hereinafter as the International Emergency Management Group,
and other appropriate representatives of the party
jurisdictions with free exchange of information, plans, and
resource records relating to emergency capabilities to the
extent authorized by law.

``Article IV--Limitation

``Any party jurisdiction requested to render mutual aid or
conduct exercises and training for mutual aid shall undertake
to respond as soon as possible, except that it is understood
that the jurisdiction rendering aid may withhold or recall
resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable
protection for that jurisdiction. Each party jurisdiction
shall afford to the personnel of the emergency forces of any
party jurisdiction, while operating within its jurisdictional
limits under the terms and conditions of this compact and
under the operational control of an officer of the requesting
party, the same powers, duties, rights, privileges, and
immunities as are afforded similar or like forces of the
jurisdiction in which they are performing emergency services.
Emergency forces continue under the command and control of
their regular leaders, but the organizational units come
under the operational control of the emergency services
authorities of the jurisdiction receiving assistance. These
conditions may be activated, as needed, by the jurisdiction
that is to receive assistance or upon commencement of
exercises or training for mutual aid and continue as long as
the exercises or training for mutual aid are in progress, the
emergency or disaster remains in effect or loaned resources
remain in the receiving jurisdiction or jurisdictions,
whichever is longer. The receiving jurisdiction is
responsible for informing the assisting jurisdictions of the
specific moment when services will no longer be required.

``Article V--Licenses and Permits

``Whenever a person holds a license, certificate, or other
permit issued by any jurisdiction party to the compact
evidencing the meeting of qualifications for professional,
mechanical, or other skills, and when such assistance is
requested by the receiving party jurisdiction, such person is
deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted by the
jurisdiction requesting assistance to render aid involving
such skill to meet an emergency or disaster, subject to such
limitations and conditions as the requesting jurisdiction
prescribes by Executive order or otherwise.

``Article VI--Liability

``Any person or entity of a party jurisdiction rendering
aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this compact are
considered agents of the requesting jurisdiction for tort
liability and immunity purposes. Any person or entity
rendering aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this
compact are not liable on account of any act or omission in
good faith on the part of such forces while so engaged or on
account of the maintenance or use of any equipment or
supplies in connection therewith. Good faith in this article
does not include willful misconduct, gross negligence, or
recklessness.

``Article VII--Supplementary Agreements

``Because it is probable that the pattern and detail of the
machinery for mutual aid among 2 or more jurisdictions may
differ from that among the jurisdictions that are party to
this compact, this compact contains elements of a broad base
common to all jurisdictions, and nothing in this compact
precludes any jurisdiction from entering into supplementary
agreements with another jurisdiction or affects any other
agreements already in force among jurisdictions.
Supplementary agreements may include, but are not limited to,
provisions for evacuation and reception of injured and other
persons and the exchange of medical, fire, public utility,
reconnaissance, welfare, transportation and communications
personnel, equipment, and supplies.

``Article VIII--Workers' Compensation and Death Benefits

``Each party jurisdiction shall provide, in accordance with
its own laws, for the payment of workers' compensation and
death benefits to injured members of the emergency forces of
that jurisdiction and to representatives of deceased members
of those forces if the members sustain injuries or are killed
while rendering aid pursuant to this compact, in the same
manner and on the same terms as if the injury or death were
sustained within their own jurisdiction.

``Article IX--Reimbursement

``Any party jurisdiction rendering aid in another
jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall, if requested, be
reimbursed by the party jurisdiction receiving such aid for
any loss or damage to, or expense incurred in, the operation
of any equipment and the provision of any service in
answering a request for aid and for the costs incurred in
connection with those requests. An aiding party jurisdiction
may assume in whole or in part any such loss, damage,
expense, or other cost or may loan such equipment or donate
such services to the receiving party jurisdiction without
charge or cost. Any 2 or more party jurisdictions may enter
into supplementary agreements establishing a different
allocation of costs among those jurisdictions. Expenses under
article VIII are not reimbursable under this section.

``Article X--Evacuation

``Each party jurisdiction shall initiate a process to
prepare and maintain plans to facilitate the movement of and
reception of evacuees into its territory or across its
territory, according to its capabilities and powers. The
party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came shall assume
the ultimate responsibility for the support of the evacuees,
and after the termination of the emergency or disaster, for
the repatriation of such evacuees.

``Article XI--Implementation

``(a) This compact is effective upon its execution or
adoption by any 2 jurisdictions, and is effective as to any
other jurisdiction upon its execution or adoption thereby:
subject to approval or authorization by the United States
Congress, if required, and subject to enactment of provincial
or State legislation that may be required for the
effectiveness of the Memorandum of Understanding.
``(b) Any party jurisdiction may withdraw from this
compact, but the withdrawal does not take effect until 30
days after the governor or premier of the withdrawing
jurisdiction has given notice in writing of such withdrawal
to the governors or premiers of all other party
jurisdictions. The action does not relieve the withdrawing
jurisdiction from obligations assumed under this compact
prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
``(c) Duly authenticated copies of this compact in the
French and English languages and of such supplementary
agreements as may be entered into shall, at the time of their
approval, be deposited with each of the party jurisdictions.

``Article XII--Severability

``This compact is construed to effectuate the purposes
stated in Article I. If any provision of this compact is
declared unconstitutional or the applicability of the compact
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity
of the remainder of this compact and the applicability of the
compact to other persons and circumstances are not affected.

``Article XIII--Consistency of Language

``The validity of the arrangements and agreements consented
to in this compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial
difference in form or language as may be adopted by the
various states and provinces.

``Article XIV--Amendment

``This compact may be amended by agreement of the party
jurisdictions.''.

SEC. 2. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.

The validity of the arrangements consented to by this Act
shall not be affected by

[[Page S8768]]

any insubstantial difference in their form or language as
adopted by the States and provinces.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby
expressly reserved.

____________________