[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11941-S11958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BOND:
S. 1705. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of a homeland security academic centers for public
health preparedness network; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I call the
``The Homefront Medical Preparedness Act.''
In the past century we have witnessed unprecedented advances in
science, technology and medicine and have seen limitless potential to
improve the human condition, cure disease, and advance human health in
ways that were once unimaginable. Yet, at the same time we have seen
some of these very advances have spawned new threats, threats that were
simply inconceivable 100 years ago. The recent outbreaks of anthrax in
Florida, New York City, and Washington, DC, coupled with the terrorist
attack of September 11 have brought to light the compelling need to
properly prepare our communities for the threat of bioterrorists
attacks.
A strong public-health infrastructure is the best defense against any
bioterrorism attack. As a Nation we remain highly vulnerable, not
because we are unprepared, but because we are under-prepared. The
Department of Health and Human Services has made tremendous advances
over the past few years. However, while significant progress has been
made, there are still large gaps in our current approach. Our goal must
be to eliminate these gaps and reduce the risk to our Nation and our
communities. As a nation, we must prepare our communities, and improve
our capacity to respond. Central to an effective response to a
bioterrorist attack are detection, treatment and containment of a
disease epidemic and our Nation's public-health system is on the front
line in this effort.
The Nation's public health system is a complex network of people,
systems, and organizations working at the local, State and national
levels. The Nation is served by more then 3,000 county and city health
departments, more than 3,000 local boards of health, 59 State and
territorial-health departments, tribal-health departments more than
160,000 public and private laboratories. Current estimates suggest that
the public-health workforce includes 500,000 professionals employed at
the local, State and national levels. According to the Health Resource
and Services Administration in 1989 only 44 percent of these 500,000
workers had formal, academic training in public health and those with
graduate public health degrees were an even smaller fraction. As of
1997, 78 percent of local health departments executives did not have
graduate degrees in public health. Changes on the public health system
have brought new demands on the workforce and identified a need for
additional training and education. Many public-health workers do not
have the necessary skills and knowledge base to meet the needs of the
emerging public-health system and public-health threats. These
statistics highlight the critical need to provide these professionals
with the most up-to-date training, technology, and tools necessary to
meet the increasing demands and emerging needs.
An important first step has already been taken. The Centers for
Disease Control has created Centers for Public Health Preparedness
across the country. There are currently 14 centers total: 7 Academic
Centers, 4 Speciality Centers, and 3 Local Exemplar Centers. The
Academic Centers link schools of public health, State and local-health
agencies and other academic and community health partners to foster
individual preparedness on the front line. The Speciality Centers focus
on a topic, professional discipline, core public-health competency,
practice setting or application of learning technology. And finally,
the Local Exemplar Centers develop advanced applications at the
community level in three areas of key importance to preparedness for
bioterrorism and other urgent health threats: integrated communications
and information systems across multiple sectors; advanced operational
readiness assessment; and comprehensive training and evaluation.
In Missouri we are fortunate to have not one, but two centers in St.
Louis at St. Louis University School of Public Health: an Academic
Center the Heartland Center for Public Health Preparedness as well as a
Speciality Center The Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging
Threats. The School of Public Health at St. Louis University has
clearly been on the forefront of this issue. I was honored to have
secured Federal appropriations dollars necessary for startup costs for
the Center for the Study of Bioterrorism, the only specialty center
with a primary focus on bioterrorism in the country. The center
provides public-healthcare providers and healthcare facilities with the
tools needed for preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation of
intentional or naturally occurring outbreaks. Under the leadership of
Dr. Evans, the center has developed training curriculum that is being
used nationwide to train healthcare providers and public-health
departments. In fact, the center's training materials were used by the
CDC to train emergency health personal, healthcare providers and other
public-health workers in New York to respond to the September 11
attack.
But more can and must be done. Today I introduced legislation which
will expand the national network of Centers of Public Health
Preparedness by adding new centers across the country as well as
funneling more valuable resources to existing centers to meet urgent,
public-health training needs. This bill will authorize $50 million and
would instruct the Director of the Centers for Disease Control to
establish a
[[Page S11942]]
national network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness utilizing
the existing Centers for Public Health Preparedness Program to train
and to prepare the national public-health workforce, healthcare
providers and the general public to respond to bioterrorist threats.
Each center, housed at an accredited school of public health will 1.
provide training and education to local and state health department
staff, emergency first responders, and primary and acute care providers
on the best practices necessary to protect against, and respond to the
array of potential threats facing the American public, including
bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; 2.
provide information to healthcare [providers and other components of
the healthcare industry to protect against and respond to the threat of
bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; and
3. provide information and education on relevant bioterrorist threats
to the public.
Under my legislation each center, both new and existing, will receive
at least $1 million per year, but may receive additional sums per year
if the CDC deems additional resources are necessary to carry out
regional or national training activities at a particular center.
I believe that our schools of pubic health across the country,
working in conjunction with the CDC can provide training and education
to local and State health department staff, emergency first responders,
and primary and acute-care providers on the best practices necessary to
protect against, identify and respond to the wide array of potential
threats facing the American public, including bioterrorism, infectious
disease and weapons of mass destruction. The capacity and competency of
our healthcare workforce is a critical component of the basic public-
health infrastructure necessary to protect our communities. As with our
military, our public-health system must be prepared at all times to
ward off threats and respond to crises. Our national public-health
infrastructure is the first and in some cases the only line of defense.
Like our military, our public-health system must be at a constant state
of readiness nationwide and this legislation will enable our public
health system to better achieve this goal. If the public-health system
is fully prepared then communities across the country will be better
protected.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1706. A bill to provide for the enhanced control of biological
agents and toxins; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in May 1995, Larry Wayne Harris of Ohio
ordered three vials of the bacterium that causes bubonic plague to be
FedEx'ed from a company in Rockville, MD. At the time, all he needed
was a credit card and letterhead. He invented both the letterhead and
the lab he claimed to be from. In fact he was a member of a white
supremacist group who would later tell of plans to kill hundreds of
thousands of Americans with the plague. But when he was arrested with
the vials, he was only charged with mail fraud for misrepresenting
himself. No Federal license, registration, or even notification was
required to obtain, own, or work with the plague.
Partly as a result of this incident, Congress in 1996 passed
provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to
close the specific loophole. This bill required the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to regulate transfer of a select list of biological
agents. But it did not regulate possession or use of the agents. The
subsequent regulations incorporated safety standards for labs receiving
these agents, but set virtually no security standards to make sure
these agents don't end in the wrong hands. They carved out broad
exemptions, including all certified clinical laboratories. And they
included little means of enforcement.
I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that we still have
no idea who has anthrax, plague, or other biological agents in their
freezer. Labs have had to register only if they have sent or received
one of the agents since 1996. We know the recent attacks with anthrax
used the so-called ``Ames'' strain of anthrax, which was identified at
Iowa State University some decades ago, but we don't know how many labs
in the United States have samples of this strain today. If we had that
information before the next attack, especially if a less common agent
or strain were used, it could be the starting point for the next
investigation.
We can and we must do better. We have long had relatively tight
controls on materials that can be used in nuclear weapons. You must
have a license from the NRC or an agreement state to possess these
nuclear materials. There are strict safety and security requirements on
the licensees, and a small army of inspectors to make sure they comply.
Licensees must report all shipments and receipts, and report any losses
from their inventory of a gram or more of the most dangerous materials.
Bioweapons have been called ``the poor man's nuclear bomb'' because
they could cause similar devastation, but are easier and cheaper to
obtain. It's time we place reasonable controls on biological agents
too.
That is why I am introducing the Bioweapons Control and Tracking Act
of 2001. This bill would for the first time impose five important
controls on dangerous biological agents and toxins to reduce the risk
of an accident or terrorist attack. First, the bill would direct the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate the possession and
use of select biological agents as well as their transfer.
Second, the regulations would require registration with the
Department for possession, use, and transfer of select agents and
toxins. The registration would include known characterization of the
agents, such as the strains, in order to facilitate their traceability.
The Department would be required to maintain a database of locations
and characterizations of the agents using the registration information.
Third, the regulations would also have to include safeguards and
security standards, as well as safety standards. Labs would be required
to restrict access to the agents to people who need to handle them. And
a process would be set up to screen people who do have access to the
agents.
Fourth, the bill requires that any exemptions from these regulations
be consistent with public health and safety. Any exemptions from
registration requirements would have to still allow a complete database
of agents of concern, but exemptions could be allowed either for a lab
that only temporarily possesses the agent or for samples that could not
be useful for making a weapon. These exemptions are intended to avoid
an unnecessary burden on thousands of clinical labs that receive
diagnostic samples for testing and, if the test is positive for a
select agent, quickly pass the sample on to a government lab or destroy
it.
Fifth, the bill includes strong enforcement measures. The bill
specifically authorizes inspections to ensure compliance. To give teeth
to the enforcement, it enacts a civil penalty for violating the
regulations of up to $250,000 for an individual of $500,000 for a
group. And it enacts a criminal penalty up to 5 years in prison for
possession or transfer of select agents by someone who is not
registered, and also for transfer to a person who is not registered.
In addition, the bill exempts information about specific labs from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to prevent one-stop-
shopping for information by would-be bioterrorists. It requires
biennial review of the list of biological agents and toxins of concern.
And it codifies the law in Public Health Service Act, maintains current
regulations until the Secretary issues new ones, and sets a deadline
for the registration and associated penalties.
I have been working with several of my colleagues on a $4 billion
package to strengthen our response to a possible bioterrorism attack,
so that we can stop a terrible attack from becoming a national or world
calamity. We need these funds to strengthen the public health
infrastructure, monitor food safety, and build our capacity for
vaccinations. But for just a few millions dollars we may be able to
prevent an attack, to stop bioterrorists before they even get hold of
the necessary agents. We must no delay.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1708. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to ensure the
[[Page S11943]]
continuity of medical care following a major disaster by making private
for-profit medical facilities eligible for Federal disaster assistance;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parity in
Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2001. The horrific attacks
of September 11 and subsequent anthrax exposures have focused our
attention on the need to prepare and respond to emergencies, whether
they result from acts of nature or the misdeeds of man. The legislation
I introduce today will correct a provision in current law that prevents
many hospitals from working with the Federal Government to prevent and
respond to disasters. When tragedy strikes, the most important
consideration shouldn't be a hospital's tax status, but rather its
ability to care for the injured.
In 1974, Congress enacted the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, commonly referred to as the Stafford Act.
This important legislation helps States and communities plan for
emergencies and take steps to minimize the damage inflicted by a
potential disaster. Once a disaster strikes, the Stafford Act
authorizes the President to provide communities the resources they need
to respond quickly and recover completely.
While the Stafford Act has helped countless communities respond to
disasters, it has one glaring shortcoming, it prohibits the President
and Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, from offering assistance
to hospitals that are owned or managed by private companies. As a
result, there are 36 hospitals in my home State of Kentucky which are
ineligible to receive Federal disaster mitigation and recovery funds.
I find it incomprehensible that the Federal Government would deny
needed disaster assistance to a county hospital, simply because of its
ownership, management structure, or tax status. Is a tornado any less
devastating in one community than another, simply because of a local
hospital's tax status? Are they any less deserving of the Federal
Government's support? I think not.
What I find most troubling about this disparity is that it
disproportionately affects rural communities, whose hospitals are
frequently owned by the community but operated by private companies.
Many small towns and rural counties prefer this sort of relationship
because it allows them to ensure their citizens have access to needed
health care services, while relieving themselves of the burdens of
operating a modern hospital. In the rural Kentucky communities of
Caldwell, Cumberland, Crittenden, Fleming, Marshall, Monroe, Ohio and
Bell Counties, the community owns the hospital but contracts with a
private management firm to direct the hospital's day to day operations.
As a result of this relationship, these publicly owned hospitals are
not eligible for Federal disaster mitigation or recovery assistance.
Hospitals are critical community resources which must be able to
provide services in an emergency, regardless of their ownership or
management structure. That is why I am proud to introduce the Parity in
Emergency Preparedness and Response Act with my colleague from
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. This legislation would eliminate the disparity
which exists between nonprofit and investor-owned hospitals and allow
all eligible hospitals to apply for disaster mitigation and recovery
funds. Our bill does not create an entitlement for hospitals that are
owned or operated by private companies. The Stafford Act is clear in
stating the President ``may make contributions'' to help damaged
hospitals respond to and recover from an emergency, and this
legislation does nothing to diminish the President's discretion in this
regard.
Since September 11, 2001, the need to ensure that our Nation's public
health infrastructure is capable of responding to unanticipated
emergencies has received renewed attention in Congress. In fact, the
Senate will soon consider comprehensive legislation to address the
growing threat of bioterrorism and protect the safety of our food
supply. While I strongly support the intent of this legislation, it
will be woefully incomplete if it does not allow all hospitals,
including investor-owned hospitals, to apply for disaster assistance.
Hospitals play a vital role in responding to emergencies, regardless
of their management structure. I look forward to working with Ms.
Landrieu and our colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation and
ensure that all of America's hospitals are prepared to respond to
disasters.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of hospitals which would become
eligible for disaster assistance under my legislation be printed in the
Record, and I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1708
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 ``Parity in Emergency
Preparedness and Response Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT MEDICAL FACILITIES
FOR FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Eligibility of Private For-Profit Medical Facilities
for Assistance Available to Private Nonprofit Facilities.--
Section 102(9) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(9)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and facilities'' and inserting
``facilities''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and private for-profit medical facilities
(including hospitals and long-term care facilities)''.
(b) Clarification of Eligibility of Medical Facilities for
Emergency Preparedness Assistance.--
(1) Definition of emergency preparedness.--Section
602(a)(3)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195a(a)(3)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``the preparation of private nonprofit
and for-profit medical facilities (including hospitals and
long-term care facilities) to withstand major disasters,''
after ``control centers,''.
(2) Functions of fema.--Section 611(j)(1) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5196(j)(1)) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following:
``(including the preparation of private nonprofit and for-
profit medical facilities (including hospitals and long-term
care facilities) to withstand major disasters)''.
(c) Definition of Long-Term Care Facility.--Section 102 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(10) Long-term care facility.--`Long-term care facility'
means--
``(A) any skilled nursing facility (as defined in section
1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a));
``(B) any nursing facility (as defined in section 1919(a)
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(a)); and
``(C) any other long-term care facility, such as an
intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.''.
____
Eligible Hospitals Bluegrass Community Hospital, Versailles, KY;
Bourbon Community Hospital, Paris, KY; FHC Cumberland
Hall, Hopkinsville, KY; Frankfort Regional Medical Center,
Frankfort, KY; Gateway Rehabilitation Hospital, Florence,
KY; Gateway Rehabilitation Hospital at Norton Healthcare
Pavilion, Louisville, KY; Georgetown Community Hospital,
Georgetown, KY; Greenview Regional Hospital, Bowling
Green, KY; HEALTHSOUTH Rehabilitation Hospital of Central
Kentucky, Elizabethtown, KY; HEALTHSOUTH Rehabilitation
Hospital of Northern Kentucky, Edgewood, KY; Jackson
Purchase Medical Center, Mayfield, KY; Jenkins Community
Hospital, Jenkins, KY; Kentucky River Medical Center,
Jackson, KY; Kindred Hospital-Louisville, Louisville, KY;
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, Somerset, KY; Lincoln
Trail Behavioral Health System, Radcliff, KY; Logan
Memorial Hospital, Russellville, KY; Meadowview Regional
Medical Center, Maysville, KY; Mediplex Rehab-Bowling
Green, Bowling Green, KY; Paul B. Hall Regional Medical
Center, Paintsville, KY; Ridge Behavioral Health System,
Lexington, KY; Rivendell Behavioral Health Services,
Bowling Green, KY; Samaritan Hospital, Lexington, KY; Ten
Broeck Hospital, Louisville, KY; Ten Broeck Hospital
DuPont, Louisville, KY; Three Rivers Medical Center,
Louisa, KY; Caldwell County Hospitals, Princeton, KY;
Crittenden Health System, West Marion, KY; Cumberland
County Hospital, Burkesville, KY; Fleming County Hospital,
Flemingsburg, KY; Jennie Stuart Medical Center,
Hopkinsville, KY; Marshall County Hospital, Benton, KY;
Monroe County Medical Center, Tompkinsville, KY;
Muhlenberg Community Hospital, Greenville, KY; Ohio County
Hospital, Hartford, KY; and Pineville Community Hospital,
Pineville, KY.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 1711. A bill to designate the James Peak Wilderness and the James
Peak Protection Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes;
to the
[[Page S11944]]
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``James Peak
Wilderness and Protection Area Act.'' This language is the product of
years of detailed negotiations regarding an area of great majesty in my
home State of Colorado.
When discussing public lands issues, the potential uses for land are
as varied and numerous as the diverse groups of users. Oftentimes, one
camp is pitted against another, each convinced that its view is right
to the point that it necessarily excludes the other interested party.
And the result is that nothing viable happens. No land is protected and
no uses of land are preserved. Instead, we read of angry exchanges,
that if it were not for one side being so stubborn in its view, then we
would have had a bill, while ignoring their own immobile position.
This bill, I am very proud to say, is different from the all-too-
common discourse that I described.
This bill stands as a testament to what can be achieved when
interested parties stop for a moment and listen to each other. I would
like to take this moment to commend the work of my friends in the
House, Representatives Udall and McInnis for their efforts on this
issue.
The ``James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act'' respects the
diverse uses of Colorado's lands and recognizes those differences
accordingly. This bill designates about 14,000 acres in Boulder, Clear
Creek, and Gilpin Counties as Wilderness, and enlarges the existing
Indian Peaks Wilderness by an additional 3,195 acres. Further, this
carefully balanced approach designates 16,000 acres of national forest
land as the ``James Peak Protection Area.'' The Protection Area in
Grand County would disallow development of the land, but would permit
recreational use for the public's continued enjoyment.
I am pleased with the careful compromises that were necessary in
crafting this bill and proudly introduce it today. I only wish this
kind of cooperation was more evident in the other discussions about
public lands in America.
I hope for quick passage of this important bill.
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. 1711
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 ``James Peak Wilderness,
Wilderness Study, and James Peak Protection Area Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Colorado State
Land Board.
(2) Forest supervisor.--The term ``Forest Supervisor''
means the Forest Supervisor of the Arapaho National Forest
and Roosevelt National Forest.
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan
for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and the Pawnee
National Grasslands.
(4) Protection area.--The term ``Protection Area'' means
the James Peak Protection Area designated by section 4(b).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(6) Special interest area.--The term ``special interest
area'' means the land in the Protection Area that is
bounded--
(A) on the north by Rollins Pass Road;
(B) on the east by the Continental Divide; and
(C) on the west by the 11,300-foot elevation contour, as
depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed James Peak Protection
Area'', dated September 2001.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.
SEC. 3. WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) James Peak Wilderness.--Section 2(a) of the Colorado
Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-77; 107 Stat. 756) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) James peak wilderness.--Certain land in the Arapaho
National Forest and Roosevelt National Forest comprising
approximately 14,000 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled `Proposed James Peak Wilderness', dated September
2001, and which shall be known as the `James Peak
Wilderness'.''.
(b) Addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area.--Section
3 of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho National
Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act
(Public Law 95-450; 92 Stat. 1095) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(c) Additional Land.--In addition to the land described
in subsection (a), the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area shall
include--
``(1) the approximately 2,232 acres of Federal land in the
Arapaho National Forest and Roosevelt National Forest, as
generally depicted on the map entitled `Ranch Creek Addition
to Indian Peaks Wilderness', dated September 2001; and
``(2) the approximately 963 acres of Federal land in the
Arapaho National Forest and Roosevelt National Forest, as
generally depicted on the map entitled `Fourth of July
Addition to Indian Peaks Wilderness', dated September
2001.''.
(c) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate--
(A) a map and legal description of the area designated as
wilderness by the amendments made by subsection (a); and
(B) a map and legal description of the area added to the
Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by the amendments made by
subsection (b).
(2) Effect.--The maps and legal descriptions shall have the
same force and effect as if included in--
(A) the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-77;
107 Stat. 756); and
(B) the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho National
Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act
(Public Law 95-450; 92 Stat. 1095).
(3) Corrections.--The Secretary may correct technical
errors in the maps and legal descriptions.
(4) Availability.--Copies of the maps and legal
descriptions shall be on file and available for public
inspection in--
(A) the office of the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(B) the office of the Forest Supervisor.
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF JAMES PEAK PROTECTION AREA.
(a) Findings and Purpose.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the Protection Area includes important resources and
values, including wildlife habitat, clean water, open space,
and opportunities for solitude;
(B) the Protection Area includes areas that are suitable
for recreational uses, including the use of snowmobiles and
other motorized and nonmotorized vehicles; and
(C) the Protection Area should be managed in a way that
protects the resources and values of the Protection Area
while permitting continued recreational uses, subject to
appropriate regulations.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for
management of certain land in the Arapaho National Forest and
Roosevelt National Forest in a manner that--
(A) is consistent with the management plan; and
(B) protects the natural qualities of the land.
(b) Designation.--The approximately 16,000 acres of land in
the Arapaho National Forest and Roosevelt National Forest
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed James Peak
Protection Area'', dated September 2001, is designated as the
``James Peak Protection Area''.
(c) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
map and legal description of the Protection Area.
(2) Effect.--The map and legal description shall have the
same force and effect as if included in this Act.
(3) Corrections.--The Secretary may correct clerical and
typographical errors in the map and legal description.
(4) Availability.--The map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in--
(A) the office of the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(B) the office of the Forest Supervisor.
(d) Management.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the Secretary shall manage and administer the
Protection Area in accordance with the management plan.
(2) Grazing.--Nothing in this Act, including the
establishment of the Protection Area, affects grazing on land
in or outside of the Protection Area.
(3) Withdrawals.--
(A) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
Federal land in the Protection Area (including land and
interests in land acquired for the Protection Area by the
United States after the date of enactment of this Act) is
withdrawn from--
(i) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
(ii) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(iii) the operation of the mineral leasing, mineral
materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
(B) Effect.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) affects the
discretionary authority of the Secretary under other Federal
law to grant, issue, or renew any right-of-way or other land
use authorization consistent with this Act.
(4) Motorized and mechanized travel.--
[[Page S11945]]
(A) Review and inventory.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
any interested parties, shall complete a review and inventory
of all roads and trails in the Protection Area (excluding the
special interest area) on which use was allowed on September
10, 2001.
(ii) Connection.--In conducting the review and inventory
under clause (i), the Secretary may connect any existing road
or trail in the inventory area to another existing road or
trail in the inventory area for the purpose of mechanized and
nonmotorized use, if the connection results in no net gain in
the total mileage of roads or trails open for public use in
the Protection Area.
(iii) Closure.--In conducting the review and inventory
under clause (i), the Secretary may close or remove any road
or trail in the Protection Area that the Secretary determines
to be undesirable, except those roads or trails managed under
paragraph (7).
(iv) Designated areas.--As soon as practicable after
completion of the review and inventory under clause (i), the
Secretary shall prohibit motorized and mechanized travel in
the Protection Area, except on roads and trails--
(I) identified as being open to use in the inventory; or
(II) established under paragraph (5).
(B) Rogers pass trail.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, a motorized vehicle shall not be permitted on
any part of the Rogers Pass Trail.
(5) New roads and trails.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no
road or trail shall be established in the Protection Area
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish--
(i) a new road or trail to replace a road or trail of the
same character and scope that has become nonserviceable
because of a reason other than neglect;
(ii) as necessary, nonpermanent roads for--
(I) hazardous fuel reduction;
(II) fire, insect, or disease control projects; or
(III) other management purposes;
(iii) any road determined to be appropriate for reasonable
access under section 5(b)(3);
(iv) a loop trail established under section 7; or
(v) a trail for nonmotorized use along the corridor
designated as the Continental Divide Trail.
(6) Timber Harvesting.--No timber harvesting shall be
allowed within the Protection Area, except to the extent
necessary for--
(A) hazardous fuel reduction;
(B) a fire, insect, or disease control project; or
(C) protection of public health or safety.
(7) Special interest area.--The management prescription
applicable to the land referred to in the management plan as
the James Peak Special Interest Area shall apply to the
special interest area.
(e) Natural Gas Pipeline.--
(1) Maintenance.--The Secretary shall allow for maintenance
of rights-of-way and access roads located in the Protection
Area--
(A) to the extent necessary to operate the natural gas
pipeline permitted under the Arapaho/Roosevelt National
Forest master permit numbered 4138.01; and
(B) in a manner that--
(i) does not have a negative effect on public safety; and
(ii) allows for compliance with Federal pipeline safety
requirements.
(2) Inclusions.--Maintenance under paragraph (1) may
include--
(A) vegetation management;
(B) road maintenance;
(C) ground stabilization; and
(D) motorized vehicle access.
(f) Permanent Federal Ownership.--All right, title, and
interest of the United States, held on or acquired after the
date of enactment of this Act, in and to land within the
boundaries of the Protection Area shall be retained by the
United States.
(g) Water Rights.--
(1) Effect of this act.--Nothing in this Act--
(A) constitutes an express or implied reservation of any
water or water right with respect to land within the
Protection Area;
(B) affects any conditional or absolute water right in the
State in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(C) establishes a precedent with regard to any future
Protection Area designation; or
(D) limits, alters, modifies, or amends any interstate
compact or equitable apportionment decree that apportions
water among and between the State and other States.
(2) Colorado water law.--The Secretary shall be subject to
all procedural and substantive laws of the State in order to
obtain and hold any new water rights with respect to the
Protection Area.
(3) Water infrastructure.--Nothing in this Act affects,
impedes, interferes with, or diminishes the operation,
existence, access, maintenance, improvement, or construction
of a water facility or infrastructure, right-of-way, or other
water-related property, interest, or use (including the use
of motorized vehicles and equipment on land within the
Protection Area) on any land except the land in the special
interest area.
SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF LAND.
(a) Board Land.--The Secretary may acquire by purchase or
exchange land in the Protection Area owned by the Board.
(b) Jim Creek Drainage.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire by purchase or
exchange land in the Jim Creek drainage in the Protection
Area.
(2) Consent of landowner.--The Secretary may acquire land
under this subsection only with the consent of the landowner.
(3) Effect.--Nothing in this Act affects the rights of any
owner of land located within the Jim Creek drainage in the
Protection Area, including any right to reasonable access to
the land by motorized or other means, as determined by the
Chief of the Forest Service and the landowner, in accordance
with applicable law (including regulations).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report concerning any agreement or the status of negotiations
for the acquisition of land under--
(A) subsection (a), on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which an agreement for acquisition by the
United States of land referred to in subsection (a) is
entered into; or
(ii) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) subsection (b), on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which an agreement for acquisition by the
United States of land referred to in subsection (b) is
entered into; or
(ii) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Requirements.--A report under paragraph (1) shall
include information on funding, including--
(A) to what extent funds are available to the Secretary for
the acquisition of the land, as of the date of the report;
and
(B) whether additional funds need to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Secretary for the acquisition
of the land.
(d) Management of Acquisitions.--Any land within the James
Peak Wilderness or the Protection Area acquired by the United
States after the date of enactment of this Act shall be added
to the James Peak Wilderness or the Protection Area,
respectively.
SEC. 6. JAMES PEAK FALL RIVER TRAILHEAD.
(a) Services and Facilities.--
(1) In general.--Following the consultation required by
subsection (c), the Forest Supervisor shall establish a
trailhead, facilities, and services for National Forest
System land that is located--
(A) in the vicinity of the Fall River basin; and
(B) south of the communities of Alice Township and St.
Mary's Glacier in the State.
(2) Inclusions.--The facilities and services under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) parking for the trailhead;
(B) public restroom accommodations; and
(C) maintenance of the trailhead and trail.
(b) Personnel.--The Forest Supervisor shall assign Forest
Service personnel to provide appropriate management and
oversight of the area specified in subsection (a)(1).
(c) Consultation.--The Forest Supervisor shall consult with
the commissioners of Clear Creek County and with residents of
Alice Township and St. Mary's Glacier in the State
regarding--
(1) the appropriate location of facilities and services in
the area specified in subsection (a)(1); and
(2) appropriate measures that may be needed in this area--
(A) to provide access by emergency or law enforcement
vehicles;
(B) for public health; and
(C) to address concerns regarding impeded access by local
residents.
(d) Report.--As soon as practicable after the consultation
required by subsection (c), the Forest Supervisor shall
submit to the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate a report regarding the amount
of any additional funding required to implement this section.
SEC. 7. LOOP TRAIL STUDY.
(a) Study.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are first made available to carry out this section, the
Secretary, in consultation with interested parties, shall
complete a study of the suitability and feasibility of
establishing, consistent with the purpose described in
section 4(a)(2), a loop trail for mechanized and other
nonmotorized recreation that connects the trail designated as
``Rogers Pass'' and the trail designated as ``Rollins Pass
Road''.
(b) Establishment.--If the results of the study required by
subsection (a) indicate that establishment of a loop trail
would be suitable and feasible, the Secretary shall establish
the loop trail.
SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) No Buffer Zones.--
(1) In general.--The designation by this Act or by
amendments made by this Act of wilderness areas under section
3 and the Protection Area in the State shall not establish
any express or implied protective perimeter or buffer zone
around a wilderness area or the Protection Area.
(2) Surrounding land.--The fact that the use of, or conduct
of an activity on, land that shares a boundary with a
wilderness area or the Protection Area may be seen or heard
from a wilderness area or the Protection Area shall not, in
and of itself, preclude the conduct of the use or activity.
[[Page S11946]]
(b) Rollins Pass Road.--
(1) In general.--If requested by 1 or more of Grand,
Gilpin, or Boulder Counties in the State, the Secretary, with
respect to the repair of the Rollins Pass road in those
counties, shall provide technical assistance and otherwise
cooperate with the counties to permit 2-wheel-drive vehicles
to travel between Colorado State Highway 119 and U.S. Highway
40.
(2) Closure of motorized roads and trails.--If Rollins Pass
road is repaired in accordance with paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall close the motorized roads and trails on
Forest Service land indicated on the map entitled ``Rollins
Pass Road Reopening: Attendant Road and Trail Closures,''
dated September 2001.
SEC. 9. WILDERNESS POTENTIAL.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act precludes or restricts
the authority of the Secretary--
(1) to evaluate the suitability of land in the Protection
Area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System; or
(2) to make recommendations to Congress on the inclusion of
land evaluated under paragraph (1) in the National Wilderness
Preservation System .
(b) Evaluation of Certain Lands.--As part of the first
revision of the management plan carried out after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate the suitability of the special interest area
for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System;
and
(2) make recommendations to Congress on the inclusion of
land evaluated under paragraph (1) for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Carper,
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Specter):
S. 1712. A bill to amend the procedures that apply to consideration
of interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members
and defendants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Class
Action Fairness Act of 2001.'' I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Kohl, Hatch, Carper, Thurmond, Chafee and Specter. The Class Action
Fairness Act of 2001 will help curb class action lawsuit abuses and
protect consumers who find themselves as potential members of class
action lawsuits. At the same time, the bill will preserve class action
lawsuits as an important tool that brings representation to the
unrepresented.
In the last Congress, Senator Kohl and I introduced S. 353, the
``Class Action Fairness Act of 1999.'' We worked diligently and in good
faith to address concerns expressed by members of the Judiciary
Committee, as well as others interested in this issue. The Judiciary
Committee marked up and favorably voted out a Hatch/Grassley/Kohl
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Unfortunately, S. 353 was not
considered by the full Senate in the 106th Congress because of the
press of other legislative business.
Today, we are introducing the bill that the Senate Judiciary
Committee agreed to in the last Congress, with minor modifications. We
have also included a few more provisions that will better protect class
members. I am hopeful that in this Congress, the Senate will consider
this bill promptly and enact the much needed changes to the current
system.
Presently, the class action system is awash with problems. More and
more class action lawsuits are being filed to the benefit of attorneys,
where attorneys agree to settlements that give them huge fees while
their clients get little of value or nothing. A 1999 Rand Report on
class actions found that state courts often give most of the money in a
settlement to the lawyers, not the class members they supposedly
represent. The Judiciary Committee held hearings where we heard about
settlement after settlement where class members got coupons or nothing,
but the lawyers got millions of dollars in attorneys' fees. We heard
about class members being awarded restrictive coupons for airline
tickets, as well as class members who received a lawyers' bill that was
higher than the compensation for their injury. But the lawyers got all
the money in fees.
Is this fair? I thought the lawyers were supposed to represent their
clients, not themselves. I am not saying that attorneys should not be
paid for their work, but it seems to me that lawyers have found class
actions to be an easy way for them to make money.
The Judiciary Committee also heard that lawyers game the class action
rules to keep class actions in certain State courts, particularly
courts that are quick to certify a class without adequately considering
the interests of all class members or courts that aren't careful in
evaluating whether the proposed class meets the required class
criteria. Those State courts are also more likely to rubber-stamp
settlement proposals without scrutinizing them for fairness. For
example, we learned that in some cases members of a class that lived
closer to the courthouse in which the settlement was filed got a larger
recovery than others. We also learned about settlements where a bounty
was paid to class representatives which was disproportionately larger
than that provided to absent class members.
It's easy for lawyers to forum-shop and keep these cases in State
court, for example, attorneys name irrelevant parties to their class
action suits in an effort to destroy diversity. Attorneys make
inaccurate statements about the jurisdictional amount to keep the
defendant from transferring the case to Federal court, but then retract
them one year later when removal is barred. In addition, similar class
actions are filed in many State courts and cannot be consolidated,
increasing the chances for collusive settlements or situations where
there is a ``race to settlement'' by the attorneys. This also creates
significant inefficiencies and waste of court resources.
A much more troublesome effect of this problem is the fact that State
courts are making decisions for the entire country. The 1999 Rand Study
and a more recent study by the Manhattan Institute found that most of
the increase in class action lawsuits is occurring in State courts.
With this happening, basically State courts are dictating national
policy. Class actions are usually the cases that involve the most
people, the most money, and the most interstate commerce issues. But it
is clear that these cases really belong in Federal court. And there is
a constitutional basis for this. Article 3, section 2 of the
Constitution states that controversies between citizens of different
States should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.
However, the present Federal jurisdiction statutes were originally
enacted over a century ago, so they do not take the modern day class
action into account and basically exclude them from the Federal court
system.
Consequently, the current system produces aberrant results as to what
can or cannot proceed in Federal court. For example, right now, a slip
and fall case worth $75,001 involving two residents from different
States can be heard in Federal court. But a nationwide class action
that involves millions of citizens residing in all 50 States, that
seeks billions of dollars in damages, implicates the laws of every
State, and involves interstate commerce issues, is mainly confined to
the State courts. Why should a State county court with an elected judge
decide these cases, but not a Federal judge?
By only allowing State courts to hear nationwide class actions, State
courts can dictate national policy or improperly impose their State's
laws on the citizens of other States. Let me illustrate this serious
problem with the State Farm case. In a large class action case brought
against State Farm on the issue of auto insurers' use of
``aftermarket'' auto parts in automobile repairs, an Illinois court
applied Illinois auto insurance law to the other 49 States. Several
State attorneys general intervened in the case and expressed their
opposition to the court's application of Illinois law to their
citizens. The National Association of State Insurance Commissioners and
Public Citizen also expressed concern over the outcome of this case.
The reason for this opposition was because State laws and policy on the
use of aftermarket parts varies widely State by State, yet the Illinois
State court imposed its auto insurance laws on the other States. The
ability of a State court to have such a monumental impact on the laws
of other States, by basically overturning national policy and the laws
or regulations of the other 50 States is more than troubling.
So, there are compelling reasons for us to take remedial steps
regarding the class action system. The Class Action Fairness Act of
2001 takes a good first step at addressing some of the problems we have
identified. To address the problem of class members not knowing
[[Page S11947]]
what is going on in a class action or settlement, or not being clear as
to what their rights are, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001 has a
provision that notice to class members needs to contain an explanation
of their rights and other matters concerning settlement terms,
including attorneys' fees, in a plain and easy to understand language.
To address the problem where class members get nothing and attorneys
get millions, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001 provides that
notification of any proposed settlements must be given to the State
attorneys general or the primary regulatory or licensing agency of any
State whose citizens are involved. This is so that the State attorney
general or responsible agency can intervene in the case to ensure that
settlements are fair. To address the problem of special bounties that
unfairly impact the absent members of a class, the bill contains a new
provision that would prohibit the payment of bounties to class
representatives that are disproportionately larger than that provided
to absent class members. To address the problem of discrimination
between class members based on geographic location, the bill contains a
new provision that prohibits courts from approving settlements that
award some class members a larger recovery than others based on
geography.
To start responding to the issue of outrageous attorneys fees, the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2001 asks the Judicial Conference to
report back to Congress in a year after studying attorneys' fees in
class actions and how judges can do a better job in making sure that
class action settlements are fair. The bill also includes new
provisions that protect class members against net losses and require
the courts to make specific findings as to the fairness of coupon and
other non-cash class action settlements.
To respond to the problem where plaintiff lawyers game the system to
improperly keep class action cases in State court, or where similar
class action suits are being filed in different State courts, or where
State courts are imposing their laws on citizens of other States and
formulating national policy, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001
loosens diversity and removal requirements so that class action cases
with national ramifications can be heard in Federal courts and similar
class actions can be consolidated. The bill is crafted so that it will
not harm federalism or deprive State courts of their ability to
adjudicate cases for their own citizens. That is because there is a
constitutional basis for class actions to proceed in Federal court.
Clearly, the Federal courts are a better forum for these kinds of cases
that are of nationwide importance.
In conclusion, there is substantial evidence that class action abuse
is going on and we should do something about it. I think that the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2001 is a good, balanced bill that addresses
some of the problems that we've identified. Moreover, there has been a
lot of compromise to address concerns about the bill. We have also
improved the bill by adding additional consumer protections. So, the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2001 will preserve the class action
process, but put a stop to the more egregious abuses in the system.
In addition, I'd like to thank my friend Senator Kohl, who has worked
so closely with me over the years in bringing the issue of class action
abuse to the forefront. We both share a deep concern over protecting
the rights of consumers, while making sure that the due process rights
of all litigants are preserved. I'd also like to thank Senator Hatch,
who worked with us to move this bill forward in the Judiciary Committee
last year, and worked on improvements to the bill.
I urge all my colleagues to join Senators Kohl, Hatch, Carper,
Thurmond, Chafee and Specter in supporting this important piece of
legislation.
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. 1712
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class
Action Fairness Act of 2001''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act reference is made to
an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 28, United States Code.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Consumer class action bill of rights and improved procedures
for interstate class actions.
Sec. 4. Federal district court jurisdiction for interstate class
actions.
Sec. 5. Removal of interstate class actions to Federal district court.
Sec. 6. Report on class action settlements.
Sec. 7. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Class action lawsuits are an important and valuable
part of the legal system when they permit the fair and
efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties
by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action
against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.
(2) Over the past decade, there have been abuses of the
class action device that have--
(A) harmed class members with legitimate claims and
defendants that have acted responsibly; and
(B) undermined public respect for our judicial system.
(3) Class members often receive little or no benefit from
class actions, and are sometimes harmed, such as where--
(A) counsel are awarded large fees, while leaving class
members with coupons or other awards of little or no value;
(B) unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at
the expense of other class members; and
(C) confusing notices are published that prevent class
members from being able to fully understand and effectively
exercise their rights.
(4) Abuses in class actions undermine the national judicial
system and the concept of diversity jurisdiction as intended
by the framers of the United States Constitution, in that
State and local courts are--
(A) keeping cases of national importance out of Federal
court;
(B) sometimes acting in ways that demonstrate bias against
out-of-State defendants; and
(C) making judgments that impose their view of the law on
other States and bind the rights of the residents of those
States.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members
with legitimate claims;
(2) restore the intent of the framers of the United States
Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of
interstate cases of national importance under diversity
jurisdiction; and
(3) benefit society by encouraging innovation and lowering
consumer prices.
SEC. 3. CONSUMER CLASS ACTION BILL OF RIGHTS AND IMPROVED
PROCEDURES FOR INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Part V is amended by inserting after
chapter 113 the following:
``CHAPTER 114--CLASS ACTIONS
``Sec.
``1711. Definitions.
``1712. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash settlements.
``1713. Protection against loss by class members.
``1714. Protection against discrimination based on geographic location.
``1715. Prohibition on the payment of bounties.
``1716. Clearer and simpler settlement information.
``1717. Notifications to appropriate Federal and State officials.
``Sec. 1711. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) Class.--The term `class' means all of the class
members in a class action.
``(2) Class action.--The term `class action' means any
civil action filed in a district court of the United States
under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any
civil action that is removed to a district court of the
United States that was originally filed under a State statute
or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be
brought by 1 or more representatives as a class action.
``(3) Class counsel.--The term `class counsel' means the
persons who serve as the attorneys for the class members in a
proposed or certified class action.
``(4) Class members.--The term `class members' means the
persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the definition of
the proposed or certified class in a class action.
``(5) Plaintiff class action.--The term `plaintiff class
action' means a class action in which class members are
plaintiffs.
``(6) Proposed settlement.--The term `proposed settlement'
means an agreement regarding a class action that is subject
to court approval and that, if approved, would be binding on
some or all class members.
[[Page S11948]]
``Sec. 1712. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash
settlements
``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which
the class members would receive noncash benefits or would
otherwise be required to expend funds in order to obtain part
or all of the proposed benefits only after a hearing to
determine whether, and making a written finding that, the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class
members.
``Sec. 1713. Protection against loss by class members
``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which
any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel
that would result in a net loss to the class member only if
the court makes a written finding that nonmonetary benefits
to the class member substantially outweigh the monetary loss.
``Sec. 1714. Protection against discrimination based on
geographic location
``The court may not approve a proposed settlement that
provides for the payment of greater sums to some class
members than to others solely on the basis that the class
members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located
in closer geographic proximity to the court.
``Sec. 1715. Prohibition on the payment of bounties
``(a) In General.--The court may not approve a proposed
settlement that provides for the payment of a greater share
of the award to a class representative serving on behalf of a
class, on the basis of the formula for distribution to all
other class members, than that awarded to the other class
members.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--The limitation in subsection
(a) shall not be construed to prohibit a payment approved by
the court for reasonable time or costs that a person was
required to expend in fulfilling the obligations of that
person as a class representative.
``Sec. 1716. Clearer and simpler settlement information
``(a) Plain English Requirements.--Any court with
jurisdiction over a plaintiff class action shall require that
any written notice concerning a proposed settlement of the
class action provided to the class through the mail or
publication in printed media contain--
``(1) at the beginning of such notice, a statement in 18-
point or greater bold type, stating `LEGAL NOTICE: YOU ARE A
PLAINTIFF IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.';
``(2) a short summary written in plain, easily understood
language, describing--
``(A) the subject matter of the class action;
``(B) the members of the class;
``(C) the legal consequences of being a member of the class
action;
``(D) if the notice is informing class members of a
proposed settlement agreement--
``(i) the benefits that will accrue to the class due to the
settlement;
``(ii) the rights that class members will lose or waive
through the settlement;
``(iii) obligations that will be imposed on the defendants
by the settlement;
``(iv) the dollar amount of any attorney's fee class
counsel will be seeking, or if not possible, a good faith
estimate of the dollar amount of any attorney's fee class
counsel will be seeking; and
``(v) an explanation of how any attorney's fee will be
calculated and funded; and
``(E) any other material matter.
``(b) Tabular Format.--Any court with jurisdiction over a
plaintiff class action shall require that the information
described in subsection (a)--
``(1) be placed in a conspicuous and prominent location on
the notice;
``(2) contain clear and concise headings for each item of
information; and
``(3) provide a clear and concise form for stating each
item of information required to be disclosed under each
heading.
``(c) Television or Radio Notice.--Any notice provided
through television or radio (including transmissions by cable
or satellite) to inform the class members in a class action
of the right of each member to be excluded from a class
action or a proposed settlement, if such right exists, shall,
in plain, easily understood language--
``(1) describe the persons who may potentially become class
members in the class action; and
``(2) explain that the failure of a class member to
exercise his or her right to be excluded from a class action
will result in the person's inclusion in the class action.
``Sec. 1717. Notifications to appropriate Federal and State
officials
``(a) Definitions.--
``(1) Appropriate federal official.--In this section, the
term `appropriate Federal official' means--
``(A) the Attorney General of the United States; or
``(B) in any case in which the defendant is a Federal
depository institution, a State depository institution, a
depository institution holding company, a foreign bank, or a
nondepository institution subsidiary of the foregoing (as
such terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), the person who has the
primary Federal regulatory or supervisory responsibility with
respect to the defendant, if some or all of the matters
alleged in the class action are subject to regulation or
supervision by that person.
``(2) Appropriate state official.--In this section, the
term `appropriate State official' means the person in the
State who has the primary regulatory or supervisory
responsibility with respect to the defendant, or who licenses
or otherwise authorizes the defendant to conduct business in
the State, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class
action are subject to regulation by that person. If there is
no primary regulator, supervisor, or licensing authority, or
the matters alleged in the class action are not subject to
regulation or supervision by that person, then the
appropriate State official shall be the State attorney
general.
``(b) In General.--Not later than 10 days after a proposed
settlement of a class action is filed in court, each
defendant that is participating in the proposed settlement
shall serve upon the appropriate State official of each State
in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal
official, a notice of the proposed settlement consisting of--
``(1) a copy of the complaint and any materials filed with
the complaint and any amended complaints (except such
materials shall not be required to be served if such
materials are made electronically available through the
Internet and such service includes notice of how to
electronically access such material);
``(2) notice of any scheduled judicial hearing in the class
action;
``(3) any proposed or final notification to class members
of--
``(A)(i) the members' rights to request exclusion from the
class action; or
``(ii) if no right to request exclusion exists, a statement
that no such right exists; and
``(B) a proposed settlement of a class action;
``(4) any proposed or final class action settlement;
``(5) any settlement or other agreement contemporaneously
made between class counsel and counsel for the defendants;
``(6) any final judgment or notice of dismissal;
``(7)(A) if feasible, the names of class members who reside
in each State and the estimated proportionate share of the
claims of such members to the entire settlement to that
State's appropriate State official; or
``(B) if the provision of information under subparagraph
(A) is not feasible, a reasonable estimate of the number of
class members residing in each State and the estimated
proportionate share of the claims of such members to the
entire settlement; and
``(8) any written judicial opinion relating to the
materials described under subparagraphs (3) through (6).
``(c) Depository Institutions Notification.--
``(1) Federal and other depository institutions.--In any
case in which the defendant is a Federal depository
institution, a depository institution holding company, a
foreign bank, or a non-depository institution subsidiary of
the foregoing, the notice requirements of this section are
satisfied by serving the notice required under subsection (b)
upon the person who has the primary Federal regulatory or
supervisory responsibility with respect to the defendant, if
some or all of the matters alleged in the class action are
subject to regulation or supervision by that person.
``(2) State Depository Institutions.--In any case in which
the defendant is a State depository institution (as that term
is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1813)), the notice requirements of this section
are satisfied by serving the notice required under subsection
(b) upon the State bank supervisor (as that term is defined
in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813)) of the State in which the defendant is incorporated or
chartered, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class
action are subject to regulation or supervision by that
person, and upon the appropriate Federal official.
``(d) Final Approval.--An order giving final approval of a
proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days
after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal
official and the appropriate State official are served with
the notice required under subsection (b).
``(e) Noncompliance if Notice Not Provided.--
``(1) In general.--A class member may refuse to comply with
and may choose not to be bound by a settlement agreement or
consent decree in a class action if the class member
demonstrates that the notice required under subsection (b)
has not been provided.
``(2) Limitation.--A class member may not refuse to comply
with or to be bound by a settlement agreement or consent
decree under paragraph (1) if the notice required under
subsection (b) was directed to the appropriate Federal
official and to either the State attorney general or the
person that has primary regulatory, supervisory, or licensing
authority over the defendant.
``(3) Application of rights.--The rights created by this
subsection shall apply only to class members or any person
acting on a class member's behalf, and shall not be construed
to limit any other rights affecting a class member's
participation in the settlement.
``(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to expand the
[[Page S11949]]
authority of, or impose any obligations, duties, or
responsibilities upon, Federal or State officials.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for part V is amended by inserting after the item
relating to chapter 113 the following:
``114. Class Actions........................................1711''.....
SEC. 4. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION FOR INTERSTATE
CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) Application of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction.--Section
1332 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d)(1) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `class' means all of the class members in a
class action;
``(B) the term `class action' means any civil action filed
under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure
authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more
representative persons as a class action;
``(C) the term `class certification order' means an order
issued by a court approving the treatment of some or all
aspects of a civil action as a class action; and
``(D) the term `class members' means the persons (named or
unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or
certified class in a class action.
``(2) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of any civil action in which the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is a class action in which--
``(A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State different from any defendant;
``(B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign
state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any
defendant is a citizen of a State; or
``(C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or
subject of a foreign state.
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any civil action in
which--
``(A)(i) the substantial majority of the members of the
proposed plaintiff class and the primary defendants are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed; and
``(ii) the claims asserted therein will be governed
primarily by the laws of the State in which the action was
originally filed;
``(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials,
or other governmental entities against whom the district
court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or
``(C) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate is less than 100.
``(4) In any class action, the claims of the individual
class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.
``(5) This subsection shall apply to any class action
before or after the entry of a class certification order by
the court with respect to that action.
``(6)(A) A district court shall dismiss any civil action
that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court solely under
this subsection if the court determines the action may not
proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy the
prerequisites of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall prohibit plaintiffs
from filing an amended class action in Federal court or
filing an action in State court, except that any such action
filed in State court may be removed to the appropriate
district court if it is an action of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.
``(C) In any action that is dismissed under this paragraph
and is filed by any of the original named plaintiffs therein
in the same State court venue in which the dismissed action
was originally filed, the limitations periods on all
reasserted claims shall be deemed tolled for the period
during which the dismissed class action was pending. The
limitations periods on any claims that were asserted in a
class action dismissed under this paragraph that are
subsequently asserted in an individual action shall be deemed
tolled for the period during which the dismissed action was
pending.
``(7) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any class action
that solely involves a claim--
``(A) concerning a covered security as defined under
16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and section
28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
``(B) that relates to the internal affairs or governance of
a corporation or other form of business enterprise and that
arises under or by virtue of the laws of the State in which
such corporation or business enterprise is incorporated or
organized; or
``(C) that relates to the rights, duties (including
fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by
or pursuant to any security (as defined under section 2(a)(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations issued
thereunder).
``(8) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453 of
this title, an unincorporated association shall be deemed to
be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of
business and the State under whose laws it is organized.
``(9)(A) For purposes of this section and section 1453 of
this title, a civil action that is not otherwise a class
action as defined in paragraph (1)(B) shall nevertheless be
deemed a class action if--
``(i) the named plaintiff purports to act for the interests
of its members (who are not named parties to the action) or
for the interests of the general public, seeks a remedy of
damages, restitution, disgorgement, or any other form of
monetary relief, and is not a State attorney general; or
``(ii) monetary relief claims in the action are proposed to
be tried jointly in any respect with the claims of 100 or
more other persons on the ground that the claims involve
common questions of law or fact.
``(B)(i) In any civil action described under subparagraph
(A)(ii), the persons who allegedly were injured shall be
treated as members of a proposed plaintiff class and the
monetary relief that is sought shall be treated as the claims
of individual class members.
``(ii) Paragraphs (3) and (6) of this subsection and
subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 1453 shall not apply to
any civil action described under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(iii) Paragraph (6) of this subsection, and subsections
(b)(2) and (d) of section 1453 shall not apply to any civil
action described under subparagraph (A)(ii).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1335 (a)(1) is amended by inserting ``(a) or
(d)'' after ``1332''.
(2) Section 1603 (b)(3) is amended by striking ``(d)'' and
inserting ``(e)''.
SEC. 5. REMOVAL OF INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 89 is amended by adding after
section 1452 the following:
``Sec. 1453. Removal of class actions
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `class',
`class action', `class certification order', and `class
member' shall have the meanings given such terms under
section 1332(d)(1).
``(b) In General.--A class action may be removed to a
district court of the United States in accordance with this
chapter, without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen
of the State in which the action is brought, except that such
action may be removed--
``(1) by any defendant without the consent of all
defendants; or
``(2) by any plaintiff class member who is not a named or
representative class member without the consent of all
members of such class.
``(c) When Removable.--This section shall apply to any
class action before or after the entry of a class
certification order in the action.
``(d) Procedure for Removal.--Section 1446 relating to a
defendant removing a case shall apply to a plaintiff removing
a case under this section, except that in the application of
subsection (b) of such section the requirement relating to
the 30-day filing period shall be met if a plaintiff class
member files notice of removal within 30 days after receipt
by such class member, through service or otherwise, of the
initial written notice of the class action.
``(e) Review of Orders Remanding Class Actions to State
Courts.--Section 1447 shall apply to any removal of a case
under this section, except that notwithstanding section
1447(d), an order remanding a class action to the State court
from which it was removed shall be reviewable by appeal or
otherwise.
``(f) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any class
action that solely involves--
``(1) a claim concerning a covered security as defined
under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
``(2) a claim that relates to the internal affairs or
governance of a corporation or other form of business
enterprise and arises under or by virtue of the laws of the
State in which such corporation or business enterprise is
incorporated or organized; or
``(3) a claim that relates to the rights, duties (including
fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by
or pursuant to any security (as defined under section 2(a)(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations issued
thereunder).''.
(b) Removal Limitation.--Section 1446(b) is amended in the
second sentence by inserting ``(a)'' after ``section 1332''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 89 is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 1452 the following:
``1453. Removal of class actions.''.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the United
States, with the assistance of the Director of the Federal
Judicial Center and the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, shall prepare and transmit to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on class action settlements.
(b) Content.--The report under subsection (a) shall
contain--
(1) recommendations on the best practices that courts can
use to ensure that proposed class action settlements are fair
to the class members that the settlements are supposed to
benefit;
(2) recommendations on the best practices that courts can
use to ensure that--
(A) the fees and expenses awarded to counsel in connection
with a class action settlement appropriately reflect the
extent to
[[Page S11950]]
which counsel succeeded in obtaining full redress for the
injuries alleged and the time, expense, and risk that counsel
devoted to the litigation; and
(B) the class members on whose behalf the settlement is
proposed are the primary beneficiaries of the settlement; and
(3) the actions that the Judicial Conference of the United
States has taken and intends to take toward having the
Federal judiciary implement any or all of the recommendations
contained in the report.
(c) Authority of Federal Courts.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to alter the authority of the Federal
courts to supervise attorneys' fees.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil
action commenced on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley,
Hatch, Carper, and Thurmond in introducing the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the growing problems in class
action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that
shortchange plaintiff class members.
We have worked together on this legislation in past Congresses. In
fact, last year a similar version of class action reform passed the
House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Unfortunately, the session ended before we could bring it to
a vote of the full Senate.
The problem that this bill addresses is simple. Too often, the class
action procedure is being hijacked by unscrupulous parties who are more
interested in making a dollar for themselves than helping the plaintiff
class members remedy a legitimate harm. Let me give you just one well
known example of the unfairness this bill attempts to correct.
A few years ago, a class action lawsuit was begun against the Bank of
Boston. Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI was an unnamed class member of
that suit against her mortgage company. The case involved allegations
that the bank had overcharged its mortgage customers and had kept
excess money in their escrow accounts. It was ultimately settled. Ms.
Preston was represented by a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who she had
never met. The settlement they negotiated for her was a bad joke. She
received four dollars and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys
pocketed $8 million in fees.
Soon after receiving her four dollars, Ms. Preston discovered that
her lawyers helped pay for their fees by taking $80 from her escrow
account. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the
lawyers who in turn sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited,
for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action
experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million
suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place.
In response to this case and many more like it, we developed a
measured, reasoned response to protect class action plaintiffs against
a system which is subject to abuse. As in past years, the bill can be
divided into three main sections, all of which provide enhanced
protections for individual plaintiffs.
First, the bill provides that every class action notice be written in
plain, easily understandable English. Too many of the class action
notices are written in legalese, designed to make it impossible for the
average American to comprehend his rights and responsibilities as a
member of the plaintiff class. The bill requires that a statement be
included at the beginning of the notice written in large, bold type
alerting the plaintiff that he is involved in a class action lawsuit
and that his legal rights are affected by the contents of the notice.
This means that every class member will understand the subject matter
of the case and his rights and responsibilities as a participant in the
lawsuit.
Further, if the case were settled, the notice to the class members
would clearly describe the terms of the settlement, the benefits to
each plaintiff and a summary of the attorneys fees in the case and how
they were calculated. Currently, none of this information is clearly
communicated to the class members.
Second, the bill requires that notice be given to State Attorneys
General or the appropriate State regulatory authorities about proposed
class settlements in Federal court which affect their constituents.
This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a
settlement is fair and to alert the court if they do not believe that
it is. The Attorney General review is an extra layer of security for
the plaintiffs and is designed to ensure that abusive settlements are
not approved without a critical review by one or more experts.
Third, the bill makes it easier to move State class action cases to
Federal court by changing the diversity rules governing these actions.
Class action cases often have national implications and are joined by
plaintiffs from many, if not most, States. Currently, class actions are
frequently heard by a State court judge in a venue chosen by the
plaintiffs' attorneys to maximize the chance that the class action will
be certified.
For class actions, the certification process is usually more than
half the battle. Once a set of plaintiffs succeeds in getting a judge
to certify them as a class, the defendants are often faced with
extraordinary costs associated with preparing for trial and dealing
with a multitude of plaintiffs. So, the defendants settle the case at
terms beneficial to the plaintiffs' attorneys, often at the expense of
the plaintiffs themselves.
A recent study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute
demonstrates that class action cases are being brought
disproportionately in a few counties where plaintiffs expect to be able
to take advantage of lax certification rules.
The study focused on three county courts, Madison County, IL;
Jefferson County, TX; and Palm Beach County, FL, that have seen a steep
rise in class action filings over the last several years that seems
disproportional to their populations. They found that rural Madison
County, IL ranked third nationwide, after Los Angeles County,
California and Cook County, Illinois, in the estimated number of class
actions filed each year, whereas rural Jefferson County and Palm Beach
County ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. As plaintiff attorneys
found that Madison County was a welcoming host, the number of class
action suits filed there rose 1850 percent between 1998 and 2000.
Another trend evident in the research was the use of ``cut-and-
paste'' complaints in which plaintiffs' attorneys file a number of
suits against different defendants in the same industry challenging
standard industry practices. For example, within a one-week period
early this year, six law firms filed nine nearly identical class
actions in Madison County alleging that the automobile insurance
industry is defrauding Americans in the way that they calculate claims
rates for totaled vehicles.
The system is not working as intended and needs to be fixed. The way
to fix it is to move more of these cases currently being brought in
small state courts like Madison County, IL to Federal court.
The Federal courts are better venues for class actions for a variety
of reasons articulated clearly in a RAND study. RAND proposed three
primary explanations why these cases should be in federal court.
``First, Federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more
strictly than State judges, and deny certification in situations where
a State judge might grant it improperly. Second, State judges may not
have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a
national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with
deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more
appropriate that this take place in federal court than in State
court.''
We all know that class actions can result in significant and
important benefits for class members and society, and that most class
lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions
have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain
redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate
individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class
actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable
people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too
expensive to litigate.
The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is
weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we
propose attempts to do this.
Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not
close the
[[Page S11951]]
courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State
attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not
deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that
every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply
promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class
settlements.
Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits
unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our
bill does is give back to regular people their rights and
representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us
forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha
Preston don't get ripped off.
We believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses,
while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer
and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is little doubt that serious problems
exist within our Nation's judicial system, especially in the way that
interstate class action lawsuits are handled and administered in local
courtrooms across this country. Increasingly, parties to class actions
have taken to forum shopping to pick sympathetic local courts where,
more and more often, plaintiffs are offered coupon settlements and
lawyers are awarded enormous fees.
According to recent studies, while Federal class action filings over
the past 10 years have increased over 300 percent, class action filings
in State courts have increased over 1,000 percent. However, interstate
class actions involve more citizens in more States, more money, and
more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of civil
litigation. They are the paradigm of what our Framers envisioned when
they invented Federal diversity jurisdiction, as reflected in Article
III of the Constitution. These State court statistics are even more
troubling in light of the fact that many State courts have crushing
caseloads and far fewer resources available to them than their Federal
counterparts to manage these important and complex cases.
The primary reason that interstate class actions have remained in
State court despite their complex nature is because it is relatively
easy for plaintiffs' class attorneys to defeat both the statutory
``complete diversity'' requirement by adding non-diverse parties and
the $75,000 ``amount in controversy'' requirement by aggregating
individual claims to be less than this amount. Interestingly, the
``complete diversity'' requirement was adopted by Congress in the late
1700s, well before the development of modern class action lawsuits.
Simply put, the Class Action Fairness Act would allow Federal courts
to adjudicate class actions where the collective amount in controversy
is more than $2 million, and where any member of the class of
plaintiffs is from a different State than any defendant. This means
that many State class actions may be removed to Federal court.
Nonetheless, the bill does not extend Federal jurisdiction to encompass
intrastate class actions, where the claims are governed primarily by
the laws of the State in which the case is filed and the majority of
the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are citizens of that State.
So there is no federalism issue here. All the bill does is to protect
constitutionally mandated diversity jurisdiction--``suits between
Citizens of different States.''
I am aware that there are those that say that the bill would
``flood'' Federal courts. But, again, according to Article III of the
Constitution and our Founding fathers, these cases belong in Federal
court. Critics making the judicial overload argument also ignore the
fact that this bill does not require that interstate class actions be
heard in Federal courts. It simply provides the option for either side.
In jurisdictions where the State courts provide a relatively level
playing field, there is no reason to believe that all class actions
will be removed to Federal court.
I should also point out that this bill would not prohibit any class
action from being filed. It is merely a process or procedural bill. It
simply determines the court in which interstate class actions with
significant national implications should be adjudicated--that is, in
Federal court.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this common-sense legislation.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 1714. A bill to provide for the installation of a plaque to honor
Dr. James Harvey Early in the Williamsburg, Kentucky Post Office
Building: to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 1714
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INSTALLATION OF PLAQUE TO HONOR DR. JAMES HARVEY
EARLY.
(a) In General.--The United States Postmaster General shall
install a plaque to honor Dr. James Harvey Early in the
Williamsburg, Kentucky Post Office Building located at 1000
North Highway 23 West, Williamsburg, Kentucky 40769.
(b) Contents of Plaque.--The plaque installed under
subsection (a) shall contain the following text:
``Dr. James Harvey Early was born on June 14, 1808 in Knox
County, Kentucky. He was appointed postmaster of the first
United States Post Office that was opened in the town of
Whitley Courthouse, now Williamsburg, Kentucky in 1829. In
1844 he served in the Kentucky Legislature. Dr. Early married
twice, first to Frances Ann Hammond, died 1860; and then to
Rebecca Cummins Sammons, died 1914. Dr. Early died at home in
Rockhold, Kentucky on May 24, 1885 at the age of 77.''.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Allen, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Breaux, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 1715. A bill to improve the ability of the United States to
prepare for and respond to a biological threat or attack; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of
myself, Senator Kennedy, and a number of our colleagues to introduce
vitally important legislation, the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of
2001.'' This bipartisan bill, which represents the very best effort of
a number of our colleagues in the Senate, responds to the threat of
bioterrorism by focusing our Nation's efforts to prevent, prepare for
and respond to any future bioterrorist attacks.
Events of recent weeks have made clear the danger we currently face.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center
and Pentagon, terrorists have used the mail to deliver anthrax to
communities across America. In doing so, they have also spread fear
across our great nation and have underscored the threats that
bioterrorism poses. If they had employed a more sophisticated delivery
mechanism, or weaponized smallpox or another communicable virus, our
health care system may have been overwhelmed.
Last year, Congress enacted bipartisan legislation to revitalize our
public health defenses at the local, State and national levels. The
Frist-Kennedy ``Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000''
authorized a series of important initiatives to strengthen the Nation's
public health system, improve hospital response capabilities, upgrade
the rapid identification and early warning systems at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, improve the training of health
professionals to diagnose and care for victims of bioterrorism, enhance
our research and development capabilities, and take additional steps
necessary to prevent, prepare for and respond to biological attacks.
Today's legislation, the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001,''
[[Page S11952]]
builds on the foundation laid by the Public Health Threats Act, a
foundation built on prevention, preparedness, and response.
The ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act'' takes a number of steps to
prepare our Nation for these threats. It includes important measures to
improve our health system's capacity to respond to bioterrorism,
protect the Nation's food supply, speed the development and production
of vaccines and other countermeasures, enhance coordination of
government agencies responsible for preparing for and responding to
bioterrorism and increase our investment in fighting bioterrorism at
the local, State, and national levels.
The bill authorizes roughly $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2002
emergency funding toward these critical activities. I believe it is
important that this funding be considered in the context of the
existing agreement limiting overall appropriations this year to $686
billion in addition to the $40 billion emergency supplemental
appropriations bill. I will work very hard to ensure that
the priorities outlined in this authorization legislation are included
within this framework.
The ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001'' is a comprehensive bill
that takes a major step toward better preparing our nation to respond
to the special challenges posed by biological weapons. We have worked
diligently with many of our colleagues and the administration over the
several weeks, and I believe that the product of those efforts
represents a strong bill that includes some of the best ideas of both
Republicans and Democrats.
I know the bill is stronger due to the input of so many of our
colleagues and the leadership and guidance of the administration, and I
would like to thank several of my colleagues for their efforts.
Specifically, I would like to thank Senator Collins for her
contributions regarding food safety and the appropriate emphasis on
children, Senator Hutchinson for his assistance with the provisions
related to vaccine development and production, Senator Roberts and
Majority Leader Daschle for their contributions to this bill in the
area of agricultural safety, and many of our other colleagues who
contributed in a bipartisan way--Senators Gregg, Hagel, DeWine, Hatch,
Mikulski, Dodd, and Clinton.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this
important legislation becomes law this year.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Records.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary--The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001
The ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001'' is designed
to address gaps in our nation's biodefense and surveillance
system and our public health infrastructure. This new
legislation builds on the foundation laid by the ``Public
Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000'' by authorizing
additional measures to improve our health system's capacity
to respond to bioterrorism, protect the nation's food supply,
speed the development and production of vaccines and other
countermeasures, enhance coordination of federal activities
on bioterrorism, and increase our investment in fighting
bioterrorism at the local, state, and national levels. The
legislation would authorize approximately $3.2 billion in
funding for Fiscal Year 2002 (and such sums in years
thereafter) toward these activities.
Title I--National Goals for Bioterrorism Preparedness
Title I of the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act'' states
that ``the United States should further develop and implement
a coordinated strategy to prevent and, if necessary, to
respond to biological threats or attacks.'' It further states
that it is the goal of Congress that this strategy should:
(1) provide federal assistance to state and local governments
in the event of a biological attack; (2) improve public
health, hospital, laboratory, communications, and emergency
response preparedness and responsiveness at the state and
local levels; (3) rapidly develop and manufacture needed
therapies, vaccines, and medical supplies; and (4) enhance
the safety of the nation's food supply and protect its
agriculture from biological threats and attacks.
Title II--Improving the Federal Response to Bioterrorism
Title II requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to report to Congress within one year of
enactment, and biennially thereafter, on progress made toward
meeting the objectives of the Act. It provides statutory
authorization for the strategic national pharmaceutical
stockpile, provides additional resources to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to carry out education
and training initiatives and to improve the nation's federal
laboratory capacity, and establishes a National Disaster
Medical Response System of volunteers to respond, at the
Secretary's direction, respond to national public health
emergencies (with full liability protection, re-employment
rights, and other worker protections for such volunteers
similar to those currently provided to those who join the
National Guard).
The bill further amends and clarifies the procedures for
declaring a national public health emergency and expands the
authority of the Secretary during the emergency period. In
declaring such an emergency, the Secretary must notify
Congress within 48 hours. Such emergency period may not be
longer than 180 days, unless the Secretary determines
otherwise and notifies Congress of such determination. During
that emergency period, the Secretary may waive certain data
submittal and reporting deadlines.
A recent report by the General Accounting Office raised
concerns about the lack of coordination of federal anti-
bioterrorism efforts. Therefore, the bill contains a number
of measures to enhance coordination and cooperation among
various federal agencies. Title II establishes an Assistant
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness at HHS to coordinate all
functions within the Department relating to emergency
preparedness, including preparing for and responding to
biological threats and attacks.
Title II also creates an interdepartmental Working Group on
Bioterrorism that includes the Secretaries of HHS, Defense,
Veteran's Affairs, Labor, and Agriculture, the Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Attorney General
of the United States, and other appropriate federal
officials. The Working Group consolidates and streamlines the
functions of two existing working groups first established
under the ``Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of
2000.'' It is responsible for coordinating the development of
bioterrorism countermeasures, research on pathogens likely to
be used in a biological attack, shared standards for
equipment to detect and protect against from biological
pathogens, national preparedness and response for biological
threats or attacks, and other matters.
Title II also establishes two advisory committees to the
Secretary. The National Task Force on Children and Terrorism
will report on measures necessary to ensure that the health
needs of children are met in preparing for and responding to
any potential biological attack or event. The Emergency
Public Information and Communications Task Force will report
on appropriate ways to communicate to the public information
regarding bioterrorism. Both of these committees sunset after
one year.
The title also contains a Congressional recommendation that
there be established an official federal internet website on
bioterrorism to provide information to the public, health
professionals, and others on matters relevant to
bioterrorism. The title further requires that states have a
coordinated plan for providing information relevant to
bioterrorism to the public.
Additionally, Title II helps the federal government better
track and control biological agents and toxins. The Secretary
of HHS is required to review and update a list of biological
agents and toxins that could pose a severe threat to public
health and safety and to enhance regulations regarding the
possession, use, and transfer of such agents or toxins.
Violations of these regulations could trigger civil penalties
of up to $500,000, and criminal sanctions may be imposed.
Existing law already regulates the transfer of these
pathogens.
title iii--improving state and local preparedness capabilities
Numerous reports in recent years have found the nation's
public health infrastructure lacking in its ability to
respond to biological threats or other emergencies. For
example, nearly 20 percent of local public health departments
have no e-mail capability, and fewer than half have high-
speed Internet or broadcast facsimile transmission
capabilities. Before September 11, only one in five U.S.
hospitals had bioterrorism preparedness plans in place.
Title III addresses this situation by including several
enhanced grant programs to improve state and local public
health preparedness. In addition to converting the current
public health core capacity grants established under the
``Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000'' to non-
competitive grants, the bill replaces the current 319F
competitive bioterrorism grant with a new state bioterrorism
emergency program that provides resources to states based on
population and that would guarantee each state a minimum
level of funding for preparedness activities. States must
develop bioterrorism preparedness plans to be eligible for
such funding. Activities funded under this grant include
conducting an assessment of core public health capacities,
achieving the core public health capacities, and fulfilling
the bioterrorism preparedness plan. This program would only
be authorized for two years.
The bill also establishes a new grant program for hospitals
that are part of consortia with public health agencies, and
counties or cities. To be eligible for the grant, the
hospital's grant proposal must be consistent with their
state's bioterrorism preparedness plan. Using these grants,
hospitals with acquire the capacity to serve as regional
resources during a bioterrorist attack. This program is
authorized for five years.
[[Page S11953]]
title iv--developing new countermeasure against bioterrorism
To better respond to bioterrorism, Title IV expands our
nation's stockpile of smallpox vaccine and critical
pharmaceuticals and devices. The bill also expands research
on biological agents and toxins, as well as new treatments
and vaccines for such agents and toxins.
Since the effectiveness of vaccines, drugs, and
therapeutics for many biological agents and toxins often may
not ethically be tested in humans, Title IV ensures that the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will finalize by a date
certain its rule regarding the approval of new
countermeasures on the basis of animal data. Priority
countermeasures will also be given enhanced consideration for
expedited review by the FDA.
Because of the lack of or limitations on a market for
vaccines for these agents and toxins, Title IV gives the
Secretary of HHS authority to enter into long-term contracts
with sponsors to ``guarantee'' that the government will
purchase a certain quantity of a vaccine at a certain price.
The government has the authority, through an existing
Executive Order, to ensure that sponsors through these
contracts will be indemnified by the government for the
development, manufacture and use of the product as prescribed
in the contract.
Title IV also provides a limited antitrust exemption to
allow potential sponsors to discuss and agree upon how to
develop, manufacture, and produce new countermeasures,
including vaccines, and drugs. Federal Trade Commission and
the Department of Justice approval of such agreements is
required to ensure such agreements are not anti-competitive.
Title V--PROTECTING OUR NATION'S FOOD SUPPLY
With 57,000 establishments under its jurisdiction and only
700-800 food inspectors, including 175 import inspectors for
more than 300 ports of entry, FDA needs increased resources
for inspections of imported food. The President's emergency
relief budget included a request for $61 million to enable
FDA to hire 410 new inspectors, lab specialists and other
experts, as well as invest in new technology and equipment to
monitor food imports.
Title V grants FDA needed authorities to ensure the safety
of domestic and imported food. It allows FDA to use qualified
employees from other agencies and departments to help conduct
food inspections. Any domestic or foreign facility that
manufacturers or processes food for use in the U.S. must
register with FDA. Importers must provide at least four hours
notice of the food, the country of origin, and the amount of
food to be imported. FDA also receives authority to prevent
``port-shopping'' by making food shipments denied entry at
one U.S. port to ensure such shipments to do reappear at
another U.S. port.
The bill gives additional tools to FDA to ensure proper
records are maintained by those who manufacture, process,
pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold or import food.
The FDA's ability to inspect such records will strengthen
their ability to trace the source and chain of distribution
of food and to determine the scope and cause of the
adulteration or misbranding that presents a threat of serious
adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Importantly, the bill also enables FDA to detain food after
an inspection for a limited period of time if such food is
believed to present a threat of serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals. The FDA may also
debar imports from a person who engages in a pattern of
seeking to import such food.
Title V also includes several measures to help safeguard
the nation's agriculture industry from the threats of
bioterrorism. Toward this end, it contains a series of grants
and incentives to help encourage the development of vaccines
and antidotes to protect the nation's food supply, livestock,
or crops, as well as preventing crop and livestock diseases
from finding their way to our fields and feedlots.
It also authorizes emergency funding to update and
modernize USDA research facilities at the Plum Island Animal
Disease Laboratory in New York, the National Animal Disease
Center in Iowa, the Southwest Poultry Research Laboratory in
Georgia, and the Animal Disease Research Laboratory in
Wyoming. Also, it funds training and implements a rapid
response strategy through a consortium of universities, the
USDA, and agricultural industry groups.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my
distinguished colleague, Senator Frist, to introduce this bipartisan
legislation to respond to one of the most severe dangers of terrorism,
the grave threat of bioterrorist attacks. I commend Senator Frist for
his impressive continuing leadership on this vital issue.
We are all well aware of the emergency we face. In recent weeks, 15
anthrax cases stretched our health care system to the breaking point. A
larger attack could be a disaster for whole communities of Americans.
The anthrax attack of the past weeks has sounded the alarm. The clock
is ticking on America's preparedness for a future attack. We've had the
clearest possible warning, and we can't afford to ignore it. We know
that hundreds, even millions, of lives may be at stake--and we're not
ready yet.
The needs are great. A summit meeting of experts in bioterrorism and
public health concluded that $835 million was needed just to address
the most pressing needs for public health at the State and local
levels.
The National Governor's Association has said that states need $2
billion to improve readiness for bioterrorism. John Hopkins is spending
$7.5 million to improve its ability to serve as a regional bioterrorism
resource for Baltimore. Equipping just one hospital to this level in
each of 100 cities across America would cost $750 million.
Clearly, our legislation is an important downpayment on preparedness.
But we must make sure that our commitment to achieving full readiness
is sustained in the weeks and months to come.
Since September 11, the American people have supported our commitment
of billions of dollars and thousands of troops to battle terrorism
abroad. But Americans also want to be safe at home. We have an
obligation to every American that we will do no less to protect them
against terrorism at home than we do to fight terrorism abroad.
The need for help at the State and local level is especially urgent.
In the first 3 weeks of October alone, State health departments spent a
quarter billion dollars responding to the anthrax attack. Many
departments were forced to put aside other major public health
responsibilities.
Hospitals across the country have immediate needs. According to the
American Public Health Association, hospitals are hard-pressed even
during a heavy flu season, and could not cope with a lethal contagious
disease like smallpox.
The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act we are proposing will address these
deficiencies. It provides new resources for bioterrorism preparedness
to the States under a formula that guarantees help to each State. These
resources will be available to improve hospital readiness, equip
emergency personnel, enhance State planning, and strengthen the ability
of public health agencies to detect and contain dangerous disease
outbreaks.
Federal stockpiles of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medical
supplies are an essential part of the national response. We have a
strategic petroleum reserve to safeguard our energy supply in times of
crisis. We need a strategic pharmaceutical reserve as well, to ensure
that we have the medicines and vaccines stockpiled to respond to
bioterrorist attacks. Our legislation establishes this reserve, and
authorizes the development of sufficient smallpox and other vaccines to
meet the needs of the entire U.S. population.
The legislation will also help protect the safety of the food supply,
through increased research and survelliance of dangerous agricultural
pathogens.
Every day we delay means that States can't buy the equipment to
improve their labs and hire the personnel they need. It means another
day in which hospitals can't purchase stocks of antibiotics or add
emergency room capacity. It means further delay in building up
pharmaceutical stockpiles and producing essential vaccines. We face an
extraordinary threat, and we must take immediate action to combat it.
Our legislation draws on the work and suggestions of numerous
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. One of the important areas
addressed in the legislation is the threat of agricultural
bioterrorism. Deliberate introduction of animal diseases could pose
grave dangers to the safety of the food supply. Such acts of
agricultural bioterrorism would also be economically devastating. The
outbreaks of ``mad cow'' disease in Europe cost over $10 billion, and
the foot and mouth outbreak cost billions more. We must guard against
this danger.
Protecting the safety of the food supply is a central concern in
addressing the problem of bioterrorism. Senator Clinton, Senator
Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Collins and Senator Durbin have all
contributed thoughtful proposals about food safety. Our bill will
enable FDA and USDA to protect the Nation's food supply more
effectively.
[[Page S11954]]
We're grateful for the leadership of other Senators who have made
significant contributions to this legislation. Senator Bayh and Senator
Edwards contributed important proposals on providing block grants to
states, so that each State will be able to increase its preparedness.
Their proposal ensures that each state will receive at least a minimum
level of funding.
We're also grateful for the contributions that many of our
distinguished colleagues have made to address the special needs of
children. Senator Dodd, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator
DeWine and Senator Murray have emphasized the crucial needs of children
relating to bioterrorism. The legislation includes important
initiatives to provide for the special needs of children and other
vulnerable populations.
The events of recent weeks have shown the importance of effective
communication with the public. Our legislation incorporates proposals
on improving communication offered by several of our colleagues.
Senator Carnahan has recognized the importance of the internet in
providing information to the public. The legislation includes the
provisions of her legislation to establish the official Federal
internet site on bioterrorism, to help inform the public.
Senator Mikulski also contributed provisions on improving
communication with the public. The high level, blue ribbon task force
can provide vitally needed insights on how best to provide information
to the public. Senator Mikulski also recommended ways to ensure that
states have coordinated plans for communicating information about
bioterrorism and other emergencies to the public.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a leading role in
responding to bioterrorism. Senator Cleland has been an effective and
skillful advocate for the needs of the CDC. Our legislation today
incorporates many of the proposals introduced by Senator Cleland in his
legislation on public health authorities.
Hospitals are also one of the keys to an effective response to
bioterrorism. We must do more to strengthen the ability of the nation's
hospitals to cope with bioterrorism. Senator Corzine has proposed to
strengthen designated hospitals to serve as regional resources for
bioterrorism preparedness, I commend him for his thoughtful proposal,
which we have incorporated into the legislation.
We must also ensure that we monitor dangerous biological agents that
might be used for bioterrorism. There is a serious loophole in current
regulations, and we are grateful for the proposals offered by Senator
Durbin and Senator Feinstein to achieve more effective control of these
pathogens.
In a biological threat or attack, mental health care will be
extremely important. We are indebted to Senator Wellstone for his
skillful and compassionate advocacy for the needs of those with mental
illnesses. In the event of a terrorist attack, thousands of persons
would have mental health needs, and our legislation includes key
proposals by Senator Wellstone to address these needs.
Mobilizing the nation's pharmaceutical and biotech companies so that
they can fully contribute to this effort is critical. Senators Leahy,
Hatch, DeWine, and Kohl made thoughtful contributions to the antitrust
provisions of the bill, which will help encourage a helpful public-
private partnership to combat bioterrorism.
This legislation is urgent because the need to prepare for a
bioterrorist attack is urgent. I look forward to its prompt passage so
that the American people can have the protection they need.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, a comprehensive package of measures
to improve our Nation's capability to respond to a future biological
weapons attack against the United States. This bill, introduced by
Senators Kennedy and Frist, would authorize $3.25 billion in funding
for fiscal year 2002, a substantial boost in resources for the measures
outlined in the bill. I applaud Senators Kennedy and Frist for coming
together in a bipartisan spirit and putting forth a bill that takes the
first important step towards truly protecting our Nation against future
acts of bioterrorism. When Sam Nunn testified in early September before
the Foreign Relations Committee on the threat posed by biological
weapons, he was very clear, bioterrorism is a direct threat to the
national security of the United States and we need to invest the
necessary resources to counter this threat accordingly.
As troubling as the recent spate of anthrax by mail attacks was, we
were very fortunate that this was a comparatively small-scale attack.
Seventeen Americans contracted inhalation or cutaneous anthrax;
unfortunately, four individuals died. The next time a biological
weapons attack occurs, we may not be so fortunate in dealing with a
small number of victims who emerge over a period of weeks. Instead, we
may face thousands of victims flooding local emergency rooms and
overwhelming our hospitals in a matter of hours. Let's be real here,
the anthrax attacks, as small-scale as they have been, have greatly
stressed our national public health infrastructure. One out of every
eight Centers for Disease Control employees at their headquarters in
Atlanta is working on the current anthrax outbreak, forcing the CDC to
sideline other essential core activities for the time being. Folks,
what we have just been through is small potatoes compared to what we
potentially will face. Plain and simple, we can't afford to be so
underprepared in the future.
Among Sam Nunn's recommendations for countering biological terrorism,
he declared, ``We need to recognize the central role of public health
and medicine in this effort and engage these professionals fully as
partners on the national security team.'' There are many good things in
this bill, ranging from the expansion of the National Pharmaceutical
Stockpile to efforts to enhance food safety, but I am especially please
that the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act provides direct grants to
improve the public health infrastructure at the State and local level.
Our doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other public
health personnel are our eyes and ears on the ground for detecting a
biological weapons attack. We can't afford not to do everything we can
to make sure they have the necessary tools and resources in containing
any BW attack. This bill goes a long way towards fulfilling that core
commitment.
So I strongly support the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act and I look
forward to its early passage and entry into law before the Congress
adjourns for the year. But I am deeply concerned that the bill ignores
the international aspects to any effective response to potential
bioterrorism. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know
that we cannot address the threat of bioterrorism within the borders of
the United States alone.
Let me be clear, a biological weapons attack need not originate in
the United States to pose a threat to our Nation. A dangerous pathogen
deliberately released anywhere in the world can quickly spread to the
United States in a matter of days, if not hours. The scope and
frequency of international trade, travel, and migration patterns offer
unlimited opportunities for pathogens to spread across national borders
and even to move from one continent to another. Therefore, we need to
view all infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur, as a
potential threat to all nations.
It is for this reason that Senator Helms, the distinguished ranking
member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked together in
seeking to insert provisions in this bill to enhance global disease
monitoring and surveillance. With Senator Kennedy's strong backing, we
wanted to ensure the full availability of information, i.e. disease
characteristics, pathogen strains, transmission patterns, on infectious
epidemics overseas that may provide clues indicating possible illegal
biological weapons use or research. Even if an infectious disease
outbreak occurs naturally, improved monitoring and surveillance can
help contain the epidemic and tip off scientists and public health
professionals to new diseases that may be used as biological weapons in
the future.
The World Health Organization, WHO, established a formal worldwide
network last year, called the Global Alert and Response Network, to
monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks in every region of the
world.
[[Page S11955]]
The WHO has done an impressive job so far working on a shoestring
budget. But this global network is only as good as its components,
individual nations. Many developing nations simply do not possess the
personnel, laboratory equipment or public health infrastructure to
track disease patterns and detect traditional and emerging pathogens.
In fact, these nations often just seek to keep up in treating those who
have already fallen ill.
Doctors and nurses in many developing countries only treat a small
fraction of the patients who may be ill with a specific infectious
disease--in effect, they are only witnessing the tip of a potentially
much larger iceberg. According to the National Intelligence Council,
governments in developing countries in Africa and Asia have established
rudimentary or no systems at all for disease surveillance, response or
prevention. For example, in 1994, an outbreak of plague occurred in
India, resulting in 56 deaths and billions of dollars of economic
damage as trade and travel with India ground to a halt. The plague
outbreak was so severe because Indian authorities did not catch the
epidemic in its early stages. Authorities had ignored or failed to
respond to routine complaints of flea infestation, a sure warning
signal for plague.
Owing to the lack of resources, developing nations are the weak spots
in global disease monitoring and surveillance. Without shoring up these
nations' capabilities to detect and contain disease outbreaks, we are
leaving the entire world vulnerable to either a deliberate biological
weapons attack or an especially virulent naturally occurring epidemic.
Therefore, Senator Helms and I worked together in proposing language
for this bill to authorize $150 million in fiscal year 02 and fiscal
year 03 to strengthen the capabilities of individual nations in the
developing world to detect, diagnose, and contain infectious disease
epidemics. The proposed title would have helped train entry-level
public health professionals from developing countries and provide
grants for the acquisition of modern laboratory and communications
equipment essential to any effective disease surveillance network. Upon
first glance, $150 million is chump change in a bill that authorizes
more than $3 billion. But I have been assured by public health experts
that $150 million alone can go a long ways in making sure that
developing countries acquire the basic disease surveillance and
monitoring capabilities to effectively contribute to the WHO's global
network. The bottom line is that these provisions would have offered an
inexpensive, commonsense solution to a problem of global proportions.
I was greatly disappointed, therefore, when the White House weighed
in late in the negotiations and expressed its strong insistence that
the language Senator Helms and I worked out should be dropped from this
bill. While administration officials assured me that they liked our
ideas, they asserted any bioterrorism bill passed this year should only
include those provisions that carry a domestic focus and meet the test
of urgency.
Let me respond to those arguments. It is extremely short-sighted to
draw artificial boundaries between ``domestic'' and ``international''
responses to bioterrorism. I have already pointed out that pathogens
deliberately released in an attack anywhere in the world can quickly
spread to the United States if we are unable to contain the epidemic at
its source. The National Intelligence Council has concluded that
infectious diseases are a real threat to U.S. national security. To
ignore the international arena in favor of domestic solutions alone is
profoundly misguided. As for urgency, I can think of few things more
urgent than taking the necessary steps to respond to bioterrorism in a
global context. Americans have been repeatedly warned by their
government leaders to expect other terrorist attacks in the near
future; we cannot limit ourselves to thinking these attacks will occur
in a conventional form or location. Just this fall, the WHO has had to
respond to natural outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever in Pakistan and
yellow fever in the Ivory Coast. An effective global disease
surveillance network cannot come into existence soon enough.
I therefore intend to offer an amendment, when this bill comes to the
floor later this year, to re-insert the provisions to enhance the
capabilities of developing nations to track, diagnose, and contain
disease outbreaks resulting from both BW attacks and naturally
occurring epidemics. It is not my intention to slow down this overall
bill or raise any obstacles; on the contrary, I want to see
comprehensive bioterrorism legislation reach the President's desk this
year. But we cannot address the full scope of the threat posed by
biological weapons without including the international component of the
solution.
Let me close with an excerpt of testimony from the Foreign Relations
Committee hearing on bioterrorism in September from Dr. D.A. Henderson,
the man who spearheaded the international campaign to eradicate
smallpox in the 1970s. Today, he is the director of the newly-formed
Office of Emergency Preparedness in the Department of Health and Human
Services, which has the mandate to help organize the Federal
Government's response to future bioterrorist attacks. Dr. Henderson was
very clear on the value of global disease surveillance: ``In
cooperation with the WHO and other countries, we need to strengthen
greatly our intelligence gathering capability. A focus on international
surveillance and on scientist-to-scientist communication will be
necessary if we are to have an early warning about the possible
development and production of biological weapons by rogue nations or
groups.'' I am hopeful that a majority of my colleagues will recognize
we cannot leave the rest of the world to fend for itself in combating
biological weapons and infectious diseases in general if we are to
ensure America's security as well.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy,
Senator Frist, and Senator Gregg as an original cosponsor of this
timely bipartisan legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist have
been leaders on this issue even before the events of September 11. In
June of 2000, they introduced the Public Health Threats and Emergencies
Act, which was enacted into law last year.
The recent anthrax attacks have shown that Congress must do much more
to prepare our country for possible future bioterrorist attacks. We
need to e4nsure that all of our communities across the country, both
rural and urban, are equipped to respond to a bioterrorism attack in
the event that such an unfortunate act should occur.
The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act would put in place a comprehensive
national strategy to combat bioterrorism. This legislation would
improve preparedness at the Federal, State, and local levels. It would
increase investments in public health surveillance systems and public
health laboratories to improve our ability to detect an attack.
Moreover, the Act would strengthen our ability to contain the spread of
a bioterrorism attack by increasing the Nation's stockpile of vaccines
and treatments.
One critical component of a national strategy on bioterrorism is
communication between the government and the public. Americans have
many questions about what bioterrorism is and how they can protect
their families. They need a reliable source of information where they
can go to get accurate answers to their questions, thereby alleviating
some of their anxiety and fears. Several weeks ago, I introduced the
Bioterrorism Awareness Act, S. 1548, to address this need. S. 1548
calls for the creation of a single website containing information on
bioterrorism that would serve as the official federal government source
of information for the public. This website will provide ``one-stop
shopping'' for people who need to find answers to questions about
bioterrorism. For so many of us, the fear of bioterrorism is a fear of
the unknown. Knowledge is power, and the more knowledge we have about
terrorism, the more power we have to overcome our fears.
I am pleased that my proposal has been included as a key part of the
national communications strategy in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act.
This legislation calls for the creation of a new official Federal
website to serve as the definitive source of bioterrorism for the
public and other targeted populations. For example, farmers and others
individuals involved in the Nation's
[[Page S11956]]
food supply need accurate information on bioterrorism. This website
would include information geared specifically towards the needs of
agricultural workers and the unique challenges they might encounter in
the event of a bioterrorism attack on our food supply. I encourage the
development of this website as soon as possible.
The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act also contains other provisions
aimed at protecting our food supply. It recognizes that our Nation's
food supply cannot be left vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The bill
would authorize funds to increase the Food and Drug Administration's
authority to perform food inspections. It would also authorize funds to
improve security at facilities belonging to the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, and
universities across the country, where potential animal and plant
pathogens are housed or researched.
I know that farmers in Missouri, as well as across the country, are
concerned about protecting their crops and livestock. A terrorist
attack on these targets has the potential to not only disrupt the food
supply in the U.S., but throughout the world. The potential economic
impact on farmers' livelihood would be devastating to them and their
families. The food safety provisions in this bill go far in protecting
this essential national resource.
Another key component in dealing with bioterrorism is providing
states with the resources to be equipped to respond. The bill would
award block grants to states for improving preparedness and
coordination in the event of an attack. These grants would allow States
to improve their surveillance and detection capabilities. Further, they
would allow states to bolster their public health infrastructure to
best protect the public from an attack.
These block grants are especially important because when it comes to
protecting our nation from terrorism, the Federal Government cannot do
it alone. We need the cooperation and support of State and local
governments to protect the citizens at all levels. These funds will
help ensure that State governments have the resources they need to
prevent and respond to a bioterrorism attack.
This bipartisan legislation would allow our Nation to improve its
ability to prevent, detect, contain, and respond to a possible
bioterrorist attack. In this time of uncertainty, preparation is our
best defense. This bill provides the necessary resources to strengthen
that defense throughout all levels of government--Federal, State, and
local. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness
Act'' and to act on it expeditiously.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, along with Senators Frist, Roberts,
Collins, Bond, Hagel, Snowe, DeWine, and other colleagues, I rise today
in support of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001.
As the fight against terrorism heats up, it is critical that we
dedicate sufficient resources to the growing threat of bioterrorism.
This legislation will enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and
local governments to coordinate emergency preparedness efforts,
stockpile vaccines and medical supplies, link channels of
communication, modernize biosecurity facilities, and ensure the safety
of America's health and food supply. In other words, it will help the
U.S. protect its citizens.
I am proud to have worked with my colleague, Senator Roberts, to
address the concerns about our food supply and vital agricultural
economies. The agricultural bioterrorism provisions in this legislation
will authorize the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to strengthen
its capacities to identify, prepare for, and respond to such
bioterrorism threats to our farms, ranches, livestock, poultry, crops,
and food processing, packaging, and distribution facilities and
systems.
We have a clear priority to ensure the safety of our food, and to
maintain the public's confidence regarding this. To do so, we must
identify and quickly control the threats to our food supply, currently
the world's safest and most abundant and affordable.
Bioterrorism has always been a question of when it would strike, not
could it occur, especially since the cold war. During the cold war, it
was known that the former Soviet Union had a bio-weapons program that
included bio-agents aimed at agriculture, while during the gulf war our
own soldiers have shown evidence of possible use of biological weapons.
From the terrorist attacks on Japan's subway system to the foot-and-
mouth and ``mad-cow'' disease outbreaks in Europe to the recent anthrax
attacks here, even the public is now acutely aware of this threat.
For this reason, this bill is critical, both for the results it will
achieve and the reassurance it will provide. USDA will be expanded to
enhance inspection capability, implement new information technology,
and develop methods for rapid detection and identification of plant and
animal disease. USDA's Veterinary Services will be authorized to
establish cooperative agreements with state animal health commissions
and regulatory agencies for livestock and poultry health, and private
veterinary practitioners to enhance its ability to respond to outbreaks
of animal disease.
We must emphasize and promote collaboration to strengthen America's
research and development capacity. Therefore, USDA is instructed to
establish a Consortium for Countermeasures Against Agricultural
Bioterrorism to form long-term programs of research and development to
enhance the biosecurity of U.S. Agriculture. America's institutes of
higher education that have a demonstrated expertise in animal and plant
disease research, strong linkages with diagnostic laboratories, and
strong coordination with state cooperative extension programs will
provide the resources and expertise that will prove invaluable in the
war on agricultural bioterrorism.
This is the first modern war where the front lines lie on our own
shores, farms and fields, but I know we are up to the challenge,
especially as Texas will proudly serve as one of the States on the
first lines of defense for our entire country. States where agriculture
is critical are vulnerable to a bioterrorism attack, but they will also
prove invaluable in the war on bioterrorism when they provide the first
evidence of an attack.
To protect our citizens, our economy and our food supply, I urge my
colleagues to support the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye,
and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1716. A bill to speed national action to address global climate
change, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise before you today to introduce the
Global Climate Change Act of 2001. I am pleased to have Senators
Stevens, Hollings, Inouye, and Akaka join me as original cosponsors.
We face a fundamental environmental challenge. Scientists have warned
that pollution and deforestation are raising atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases, raising global temperatures and altering the
world's climate system with adverse and potentially catastrophic
implications for the global environment. And, while sea levels rise,
species extinction, drought, disease migration and other potential
impacts cannot be known with certainty, we know enough to understand
that the threat of harm is real and that worst-case scenarios under
current ``business-as-usual'' practices are disastrous.
The best indicator that other nations believe action is desperately
overdue is the conclusion of an agreement to implement the Kyoto
Protocol last week in Marrakesh, Morocco. Incredibly, the Marrakesh
Accords, under which rules for compliance and international greenhouse
gas emissions trading were reached, were concluded without U.S.
support.
Although the Administration abandoned the Kyoto process in March, to
our national detriment, it is critical that the United States map out a
clear path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. In
the Commerce Committee we have held several hearings to examine the
science and the solutions to global warming. We have heard testimony
about the potential for wind and other renewable energy to provide our
nation the power it needs emissions free. We have heard from companies
leading the push for hydrogen fuel cells to provide distributed
generation and transportation energy with low emissions. And we've
[[Page S11957]]
heard from automakers designing the technology for more fuel efficient
cars. The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over of the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, program and will continue a series of
hearings on the issue that was delayed by the attacks of September 11.
The United States must assert itself as a leader in research,
development and deployment of these and other technologies.
The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 would help us move down a path
of scientific understanding, research, policy innovation and
technological innovation. The bill will complement other legislation
under consideration in other Senate committees for reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions, as well as legislation to improve CAFE in the
Commerce Committee. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 will also
provide a solid technical basis upon which to build any future
greenhouse emissions tracking, reduction, or trading programs.
The bill contains provisions aimed at bringing the world-class
science, technology, and planning expertise of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NIST, and other Department of Commerce programs to bear
on this problem, whether it is in climate observation, measurement and
verification, information management, modeling and monitoring,
technology development and transfer, or hazards planning and
prevention.
First, the bill would endorse the elevation of climate change issues
in the Administration, identifying the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, OSTP, as the coordinating entity in the White House. An
interagency task force on global climate change action chaired by the
Secretary of Commerce would be responsible for developing a multi-
faceted climate change action strategy, including development of
mitigation approaches.
Second, it would create an emissions reporting system to ensure
accurate measurement, reporting, and verifica-tion of greenhouse gas
emissions, which is essential to any efforts to reduce our emissions.
The bill utilizes the technical capabilities of the NIST and NOAA to
establish uniform and credible new measurement methods and
technologies. It establishes a mandatory reporting system for
greenhouse gas emissions for entities operating in the U.S. with
significant emissions. The system will maximize completeness, accuracy
and transparency and minimize costs for covered entities. It will be
designed to ensure interoperability of any U.S., state or international
system of reporting and trading greenhouse gas emissions. It would also
require Commerce to issue annual reports showing greenhouse gas
emissions and trends, including areas where reductions have occurred.
Third, the bill would ensure that we in Congress get the best
independent scientific and technical expertise in our climate change
oversight role. The bill would create a Science and Technology
Assessment Service that would provide ongoing science and technology
advice to Congress. Since the Office of Technology Assessment, OTA, was
eliminated in 1995, experts agree that Congress has suffered from lack
of ongoing, credible advice. While some objected to the OTA structure,
all agree that expert technical advice for Congress is essential to
ensuring we hold up our end in efforts to make progress on this
important issue. Congressional requests for advice are overburdening
the National Academy of Sciences and threatening to compromise its
independent stature. The bill would economize on resources and
personnel by utilizing the administrative services of the Library of
Congress and the expertise of the National Research Council, and
provide an ongoing separate service to Congress that will not threaten
compromise NAS's independent role.
Fourth, the bill revises the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and
the National Climate Program Act, so that interagency and Commerce
Department programs focus on improving detection, modeling and regional
impact assessments and are better managed to provide useful information
to government decisionmakers and managers. In addition, the legislative
changes would direct improvements in atmospheric monitoring and
establish a new integrated coastal and ocean observing system to ensure
we understand and predict the role of oceans in climate. Finally, it
would create an integrated program office for the USGCRP within the
Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure budget coordination,
using models established under the multiagency National Oceanographic
Partnership Program and the NPOESS, polar satellite, convergence
process.
Fifth, the bill addresses a critical component of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions: technology innovation. The bill is aimed at increasing
the Department of Commerce's technology innovation role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, it would utilize the Advanced
Technology Program, ATP, to promote and commercialize energy efficient
technologies and the Manufacturing Extension Program for small
manufacturers. This section would also direct NIST to develop methods
and technologies, including process improvements, that can be used in a
variety of sectors to reduce production of greenhouse gases.
Finally, we must admit that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas
emissions tomorrow, the effects of climate change and variability will
not end. It is in our interest to undertake assessments and actions now
that will help us address safety and infrastructure issues that will
likely accompany climate variability and change in the future. There is
currently no way for State governments or coastal communities to plan
for change on a 20-50 year time horizon. The bill would require NOAA to
evaluate vulnerability of regions of the United States, particularly
coastal regions, to effects of climate change, including drought and
sea level rise, and develop a strategy for helping states deal with the
issues. The bill also directs NOAA to work with NASS to develop remote
sensing technologies that will help coastal managers identify hazards
and make intelligent planning decisions.
This legislation neatly rolls into one package key components of any
national plan to address climate change: coordinated research,
monitoring, reporting and verification, mitigation technology, impact
assessment, and adaptation planning. This package is but one of many I
hope to see my colleagues in Congress develop to help the United States
reduce the threat of global climate change now. The Climate Change
meetings in Marrakesh last week show that other nations are ready to
act. We can, and must, do the same, even without leadership from this
Administration.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kerry as a
cosponsor of the Global Climate Change Act of 2001. The Senate Commerce
Committee has worked hard to ensure that the Federal Government has the
best research and information possible about global warming, as well as
other types of climate changes. Our investments are bearing fruit and
we are identifying ways to focus our research to help us make decisions
now and in the decades ahead.
During the 1980s, a number of us on the Committee became increasingly
concerned about the potential threat of global warming and loss of the
ozone layer. In 1989, I sponsored the National Global Change Research
Act, which attracted support from many members still serving on the
Commerce Committee. In 1990, after numerous hearings and roundtable
discussions, Congress enacted the legislation, thereby creating the
U.S. Global Climate Research Program.
When we passed the Global Change Research Act, we knew it was the
first step in investigating a very complex problem. We placed a lot of
responsibility in NOAA, the scientific agency best suited to monitor
and predict ocean and atmospheric processes. We need to renew this
ocean research commitment to ensure we better understand the oceans,
the engines of climate. The so-called ``wild card'' of the climate
system, the oceans are capable of dramatic climate surprises we should
strive to comprehend.
I am glad to report that the research accomplished under the National
Global Change Research Act has led to increased understanding of global
climate change, as well as regional climate phenomena like El Nino/
Southern Oscillation, ENSO. We now have a better understanding of how
the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and land surface
[[Page S11958]]
function together as a dynamic system, but we cannot stop there. Only
recently, NOAA measured an important increase in temperature in all the
world's oceans over a 40 year period. We need to understand the causes
and how that will affect us. All this research ensures that federal and
state decision-makers get better information and tools to cope with
such climate related problems as food supply, energy allocation, and
water resources.
While we have learned an astonishing amount about climate and other
earth/ocean interactions in only a decade, we have other critical
questions that require further research to answer. Many of these
questions are relevant not only to improving our scientific
understanding, but also to contributing to our future social and
economic well-being. For example, climate anomalies during the past two
years, most directly related to the 1997-1998 El Nino event, have
accounted for over $30 billion in impacts worldwide. When impacts from
the recent floods in China are included, these direct losses could rise
to $60 billion. This most recent El Nino claimed 21,000 lives,
displaced 4.5 million people, and affected 82 million acres of land
through severe flood, drought, and fire. When we better understand the
global climate system, and its relationship to regional climate events
like El Nino, we may be able to find ways, such as improved forecasting
and early warning--to avoid some of the severe impacts.
Understanding these and other impacts of climate change at the
regional level is a critical step in preparing for these changes. We
must maintain our commitment to research and further refine our
existing modeling capabilities. The second critical need is planning
for sea level rise and other inevitable results of climate change. It
is costly in human lives and real dollars to manage our response in a
crisis mode. Just as we needed to modernize our National Weather
Service, we need to strengthen and modernize our National Climate
Service, which can help the U.S. predict and plan for climate events.
This includes establishing a national ocean and coastal observing
system using the expertise and resources of a variety of federal
agencies. In addition, this bill will help our coastal communities at
risk from future climate-related hazards create plans that will help us
adapt to such changes without catastrophic disruptions experienced in
Alaska by my friend Senator Stevens.
Not only do we need continued support for technological research and
development, we must also consider the method in which this information
is delivered to Congress. Before it was abolished in 1995, the Office
of Technology Assessment, OTA, was responsible for providing Congress
with balanced, independent scientific and technological advice. Since
1995, the function of the National Academy complex, particularly the
National Research Council, NRC, has been forced to expand its role in
providing research and information to Congress. However, the NRC
studies have their limitations. The reports, often slow and expensive,
provide limited opportunity for formal input and review by affected
parties. Furthermore, unlike OTA, they often make specific
recommendations rather than laying out a range of alternative policy
options.
The problems addressed by Congress are becoming increasingly complex.
Science and technology play a crucial role in addressing problems in
energy, defense, aviation and the environment. Without a permanent,
non-partisan source of independent scientific and technical policy
analysis, Congress become lost in the wealth of information provided by
scientists, think tanks, and interest groups. The Global Climate Change
Act of 2001 addresses this problem by creating a service that would
provide ongoing science and technology advice to Congress, but avoid
the criticisms leveled at OTA. It would economize on resources and
personnel by utilizing the administrative services of the Library of
Congress and the expertise of the National Research Ccouncil.
Congressional requests for advice are overburdening NRC and threatening
to compromise its independent stature as it is increasingly asked to
fill the role of OTA. This provision would defer to NRC as the source
of outside, unbiased advice and experts, but also provide an ongoing
separate service to Congress. This service would also be asked to
review the report of the Climate Change Action Task Force.
The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 demonstrates that the Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation is serious about climate
change, and I commend this Act to you.
____________________