[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5259-S5263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 3416. A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal
securities laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address a
matter that I explored as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on
Securities, Insurance, and Investment. During a series of hearings, it
became increasingly clear to me that in order to protect taxpayers and
investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and better oversight of Wall
Street. Some of these institutions that are ``too big to fail'' have
also become ``too big to care.'' We need to end the cycle of misconduct
where such institutions can look at the bottom line and see they can
break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit.
At a Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversight hearing I
held in November 2011, I asked Robert Khuzami, director of the Division
of Enforcement at the SEC, why a recently proposed settlement with
Citigroup had been thrown out by a Federal judge in the Southern
District of New York, who believed it to be egregiously low. Mr.
Khuzami replied that the SEC's ability to assess penalties was actually
limited by the statute. In follow-up questions, I directly asked if
Congress should consider raising these limits, especially in cases
involving repeated offenders. I subsequently received a letter from SEC
Chairman Schapiro, and written answers from Mr. Khuzami, supporting the
need to raise the limits and make other improvements to the SEC civil
enforcement statute.
As a result, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Chuck
Grassley, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012 or
the SEC Penalties Act. This bill will strengthen the ability of the SEC
to crack down on violations of securities laws by updating its civil
penalties statute. This legislation will ensure that the punishment
better fits the crime by increasing the statutory limits on civil
monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the
scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising
the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities
laws.
Our bill will increase the per violation cap for the most egregious
securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals
and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that
the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter
people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have
such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under
existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law
violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000
per offense.
Our bill will also toughen penalties by allowing penalties equal to
three times the economic gain of the violator. It also provides a new
calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor
losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC
to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is
relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm
caused to investors.
In the recent case involving Citigroup, existing law did not even
entitle the SEC to recover the amount actually lost by investors.
Estimated investors losses were about $700 million, but the SEC
proposed to settle the case with Citigroup for only $285 million. This
amount was what was estimated to be close to the total monetary
recovery that the SEC itself could have obtained if it had gone to
trial. Under our bill, this amount could have been much larger, and
would have taken into account the economic gain to Citigroup, in
addition to investor losses.
Recent reports have highlighted the level of repeat offenses that
have occurred on Wall Street and gone unchecked. The SEC Penalties Act
includes two statutory changes that would substantially improve the
ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties as
recidivism occurs.
One would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for
recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally
convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or
order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any
action alleging SEC fraud.
The other would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an
individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction
or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more
efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt
remedy.
Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in
administrative proceedings will be the same as it is in district court.
In essence, the SEC will be able to assess these types of penalties in-
house, and not just obtain them in federal court.
Given the JP Morgan trading scandal, issues arising from the Facebook
IPO, and the manipulation of LIBOR, it
[[Page S5260]]
is clear much still needs to be done to improve transparency and
restore confidence in our financial system. The nearly one-half of all
U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat
that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult
cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. Our
economy's success depends in no small part on restoring confidence in
our capital markets.
The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to
demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street. It will enhance the
SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud and I urge
my colleagues to cosponsor and join us in supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3416
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 ``Stronger Enforcement of
Civil Penalties Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. UPDATED CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR SECURITIES LAWS
VIOLATIONS.
(a) Securities Act of 1933.--
(1) Money penalties in administrative actions.--Section
8A(g)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77h-
1(g)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$7,500'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$375,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) Third tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the amount of penalty for each such act or omission
shall not exceed the greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to the
person who committed the act or omission; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the act or omission, if--
``(I) the act or omission described in paragraph (1)
involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or
reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and
``(II) such act or omission directly or indirectly resulted
in--
``(aa) substantial losses or created a significant risk of
substantial losses to other persons; or
``(bb) substantial pecuniary gain to the person who
committed the act or omission.''.
(2) Money penalties in civil actions.--Section 20(d)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77t(d)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``greater of (i)
$100,000 for a natural person or $500,000 for any other
person, or (ii) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation'' and inserting the
following: ``greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the violation''.
(b) Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--
(1) Money penalties in civil actions.--Section 21(d)(3)(B)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78u(d)(3)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) in clause (iii), by striking ``greater of (I) $100,000
for a natural person or $500,000 for any other person, or
(II) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as
a result of the violation'' and inserting the following:
``greater of--
``(I) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(II) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation; or
``(III) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the violation''.
(2) Money penalties in administrative actions.--Section
21B(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-
2(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Third tier.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
the amount of penalty for each such act or omission shall not
exceed the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(B) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to the
person who committed the act or omission; or
``(C) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a result
of the act or omission, if--
``(i) the act or omission described in subsection (a)
involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or
reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and
``(ii) such act or omission directly or indirectly resulted
in substantial losses or created a significant risk of
substantial losses to other persons or resulted in
substantial pecuniary gain to the person who committed the
act or omission.''.
(c) Investment Company Act of 1940.--
(1) Money penalties in administrative actions.--Section
9(d)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
9(d)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) Third tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the amount of penalty for each such act or omission
shall not exceed the greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to the
person who committed the act or omission; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the act or omission, if--
``(I) the act or omission described in paragraph (1)
involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or
reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and
``(II) such act or omission directly or indirectly resulted
in substantial losses or created a significant risk of
substantial losses to other persons or resulted in
substantial pecuniary gain to the person who committed the
act or omission.''.
(2) Money penalties in civil actions.--Section 42(e)(2) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-41(e)(2))
is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``greater of (i)
$100,000 for a natural person or $500,000 for any other
person, or (ii) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation'' and inserting the
following: ``greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the violation''.
(d) Investment Advisers Act of 1940.--
(1) Money penalties in administrative actions.--Section
203(i)(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80b-3(i)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) Third tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the amount of penalty for each such act or omission
shall not exceed the greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to the
person who committed the act or omission; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the act or omission, if--
[[Page S5261]]
``(I) the act or omission described in paragraph (1)
involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or
reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and
``(II) such act or omission directly or indirectly resulted
in substantial losses or created a significant risk of
substantial losses to other persons or resulted in
substantial pecuniary gain to the person who committed the
act or omission.''.
(2) Money penalties in civil actions.--Section 209(e)(2) of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-9(e)(2))
is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$500,000'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``greater of (i)
$100,000 for a natural person or $500,000 for any other
person, or (ii) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation'' and inserting the
following: ``greater of--
``(i) $1,000,000 for a natural person or $10,000,000 for
any other person;
``(ii) 3 times the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such
defendant as a result of the violation; or
``(iii) the amount of losses incurred by victims as a
result of the violation''.
SEC. 3. PENALTIES FOR RECIDIVISTS.
(a) Securities Act of 1933.--
(1) Cease-and-desist proceedings.--Section 8A(g)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77h-1(g)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such act or
omission shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such act or omission, the person who committed the act or
omission was criminally convicted for securities fraud or
became subject to a judgment or order imposing monetary,
equitable, or administrative relief in any Commission action
alleging fraud by that person.''.
(2) Injunctions and prosecution of offenses.--Section
20(d)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77t(d)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such
violation shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such violation, the defendant was criminally convicted for
securities fraud or became subject to a judgment or order
imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any
Commission action alleging fraud by that defendant.''.
(b) Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--
(1) Civil actions.--Section 21(d)(3)(B) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(3)(B)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding clauses (i), (ii), and
(iii), the maximum amount of penalty for each such violation
shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in such
clauses if, within the 5-year period preceding such
violation, the defendant was criminally convicted for
securities fraud or became subject to a judgment or order
imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any
Commission action alleging fraud by that defendant.''.
(2) Administrative proceedings.--Section 21B(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), the maximum amount of penalty for each such act or
omission shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such paragraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding such
act or omission, the person who committed the act or omission
was criminally convicted for securities fraud or became
subject to a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable,
or administrative relief in any Commission action alleging
fraud by that person.''.
(c) Investment Company Act of 1940.--
(1) Ineligibility of certain underwriters and affiliates.--
Section 9(d)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15
U.S.C. 80a-9(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such act or
omission shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such act or omission, the person who committed the act or
omission was criminally convicted for securities fraud or
became subject to a judgment or order imposing monetary,
equitable, or administrative relief in any Commission action
alleging fraud by that person.''.
(2) Enforcement.--Section 42(e)(2) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-41(e)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such
violation shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such violation, the defendant was criminally convicted for
securities fraud or became subject to a judgment or order
imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any
Commission action alleging fraud by that defendant.''.
(d) Investment Advisers Act of 1940.--The Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 203(i)(2) (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(i)(2)), by adding
at the end the following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such act or
omission shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such act or omission, the person who committed the act or
omission was criminally convicted for securities fraud or
became subject to a judgment or order imposing monetary,
equitable, or administrative relief in any Commission action
alleging fraud by that person.''; and
(2) in section 209(e)(2) (15 U.S.C. 80b-9(e)(2)) by adding
at the end the following:
``(D) Fourth tier.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), the maximum amount of penalty for each such
violation shall be 3 times the otherwise applicable amount in
such subparagraphs if, within the 5-year period preceding
such violation, the defendant was criminally convicted for
securities fraud or became subject to a judgment or order
imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any
Commission action alleging fraud by that defendant.''.
SEC. 4. VIOLATIONS OF INJUNCTIONS AND BARS.
(a) Securities Act of 1933.--Section 20(d) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77t(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``the rules or
regulations thereunder,'' the following: ``a Federal court
injunction or a bar obtained or entered by the Commission
under this title,''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Special provisions relating to a violation of an
injunction or certain orders.--
``(A) In general.--Each separate violation of an injunction
or order described in subparagraph (B) shall be a separate
offense, except that in the case of a violation through a
continuing failure to comply with such injunction or order,
each day of the failure to comply with the injunction or
order shall be deemed a separate offense.
``(B) Injunctions and orders.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
with respect to any action to enforce--
``(i) a Federal court injunction obtained pursuant to this
title;
``(ii) an order entered or obtained by the Commission
pursuant to this title that bars, suspends, places
limitations on the activities or functions of, or prohibits
the activities of, a person; or
``(iii) a cease-and-desist order entered by the Commission
pursuant to section 8A.''.
(b) Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--Section 21(d)(3) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``the rules or
regulations thereunder,'' the following: ``a Federal court
injunction or a bar obtained or entered by the Commission
under this title,''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) Special provisions relating to a violation of an
injunction or certain orders.--
``(i) In general.--Each separate violation of an injunction
or order described in clause (ii) shall be a separate
offense, except that in the case of a violation through a
continuing failure to comply with such injunction or order,
each day of the failure to comply with the injunction or
order shall be deemed a separate offense.
``(ii) Injunctions and orders.--Clause (i) shall apply with
respect to an action to enforce--
``(I) a Federal court injunction obtained pursuant to this
title;
``(II) an order entered or obtained by the Commission
pursuant to this title that bars, suspends, places
limitations on the activities or functions of, or prohibits
the activities of, a person; or
``(III) a cease-and-desist order entered by the Commission
pursuant to section 21C.''.
(c) Investment Company Act of 1940.--Section 42(e) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-41(e)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``the rules or
regulations thereunder,'' the following: ``a Federal court
injunction or a bar obtained or entered by the Commission
under this title,''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Special provisions relating to a violation of an
injunction or certain orders.--
``(A) In general.--Each separate violation of an injunction
or order described in subparagraph (B) shall be a separate
offense, except that in the case of a violation through a
continuing failure to comply with such injunction or order,
each day of the failure to comply with the injunction or
order shall be deemed a separate offense.
``(B) Injunctions and orders.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
with respect to any action to enforce--
``(i) a Federal court injunction obtained pursuant to this
title;
``(ii) an order entered or obtained by the Commission
pursuant to this title that bars, suspends, places
limitations on the activities or functions of, or prohibits
the activities of, a person; or
[[Page S5262]]
``(iii) a cease-and-desist order entered by the Commission
pursuant to section 9(f).''.
(d) Investment Advisers Act of 1940.--Section 209(e) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-9(e)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``the rules or
regulations thereunder,'' the following: ``a federal court
injunction or a bar obtained or entered by the Commission
under this title,''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Special provisions relating to a violation of an
injunction or certain orders.--
``(A) In general.--Each separate violation of an injunction
or order described in subparagraph (B) shall be a separate
offense, except that in the case of a violation through a
continuing failure to comply with such injunction or order,
each day of the failure to comply with the injunction or
order shall be deemed a separate offense.
``(B) Injunctions and orders.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
with respect to any action to enforce--
``(i) a Federal court injunction obtained pursuant to this
title;
``(ii) an order entered or obtained by the Commission
pursuant to this title that bars, suspends, places
limitations on the activities or functions of, or prohibits
the activities of, a person; or
``(iii) a cease-and-desist order entered by the Commission
pursuant to section 203(k).''.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 3418. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to use only human-based methods for training
members of the Armed Forces in the treatment of severe combat injuries;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss military medical
training, and specifically, the use of live animals in trauma training.
Many Americans may be unaware that the Military still uses live pigs
and goats in combat trauma training courses to train military personnel
to treat battlefield injuries. This is an outdated and inefficient
training method that does not fully prepare doctors and medics to treat
wounded service members.
For many years, medical simulation has not been able to provide a
training experience superior to animal-based live tissue training, but
the newest generation of simulators can do just that. These simulators
are based on human anatomy and recreate the feeling, the sights, and
the sounds of treating a wounded service member.
In current military training, live pigs and goats are anesthetized
while trainees perform critical procedures on them. In some cases, the
animals are shot in the face or have limbs amputated while the trainees
are instructed to keep them alive as long as possible. This is
inhumane, but more importantly, it is like comparing apples and
oranges--this does not teach service members how to treat a human
soldier, only how to operate on a goat or pig. And while live tissue
training has some value in getting trainees accustomed to the sight of
blood, medical simulation can now do the same, and has become the new
gold standard.
In civilian medical training courses, which teach many of the same
procedures as the military, simulators have almost universally replaced
the use of live animals. The reason for this is simple; to learn how to
treat human injuries, you must learn on human anatomy. Medical
simulation can now replicate that anatomy while providing the emotional
and psychological pressure of working on a living, wounded soldier.
Let me say that I applaud the investments that the Department of
Defense has made in the area of simulation. No one has invested more in
simulation technology than the Military. But the problem that I see is
that despite millions of dollars in investments, simulator technology
is not being fully utilized.
Speaking of costs, in addition to providing superior training and
reducing animal suffering, a move away from live tissue training would
save taxpayer dollars. Due to the many hidden costs of animal use, such
as housing and feeding the animals, purchasing drugs for euthanasia and
anesthesia, and keeping a veterinarian on staff, simulation can offer a
better training experience at a lower cost.
But at the end of the day this is about providing the best possible
training for our troops, because in military medicine the difference
between the best training and the next best can literally mean the
difference between life and death.
For these reasons I introduced today the Battlefield Excellence
through Superior Training Practices, or BEST Practices Act. This
legislation lays out a timeline for the Department of Defense to
develop and fully implement innovative simulator technology in medical
training, and to phase out live tissue training on animals in the
process.
I want to note that I designed this legislation with a specific
waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense, so that if there is a
specific procedure that can only be best taught with live tissue use,
that option is not removed. But the BEST Practices Act is primarily
designed to engage the Pentagon to embrace this technology, continue
further development, and incorporate this technology in military
training in all cases where simulators provide the best result.
Just as we have seen with other technologies, the advancements in
medical simulation are increasing at an exponential rate. The
capabilities currently in place and under development are truly
amazing. The BEST Practices Act capitalizes on these present and future
capabilities, and uses them to save the lives of our service members.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3423. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
a segment of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in
the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island for study for potential
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my
colleagues from Rhode Island and Connecticut, Senators Whitehouse and
Lieberman, legislation to authorize the National Park Service to study
specific sections of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck
Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to bring
greater attention to and resources for efforts to protect and restore
the health of these rivers through the evaluation of their
recreational, natural, and historical qualities and whether they are
suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
The recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is
a natural treasure. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails
Conservation Assistance program conducted a planning and conservation
study in the 1980s which concluded, in part, that the waters of the
Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor in Rhode Island ``are the cleanest
and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any
other river system in the state.''
These rivers also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and
tourism that contribute to the local economy. Not only do its rivers
provide easy access to the wilderness for family outings and school
field trips, but they also offer ways to explore our heritage
throughout the watershed, from Native American fishing grounds to
Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers also provide
opportunities for trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking.
I have long supported the protection and restoration of Southern New
England's watersheds and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay, and
this study is an important first step in determining future
opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers
in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. Our states have been excellent
stewards of these rivers, and this study would enhance existing local
and State efforts to preserve and manage this open space and its
wildlife habitat.
Indeed, partnerships are key to broad restoration and management of
our resources, and it is expected that this study would be conducted in
close cooperation with the affected communities, state agencies, local
governments, and other interested organizations. The partnership-based
approach also allows for development of a proposed river management
plan as part of the study, which could address issues ranging from fish
passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation,
as well as balance the
[[Page S5263]]
recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies with
preservation of the natural resources.
This is a two State initiative that will encompass both Rhode Island
and Connecticut, and will help protect these resources for future
generations to enjoy.
I commend Representatives Langevin and Courtney for spearheading this
effort in the other body, and I look forward to working with all of my
colleagues to initiate the process to study the rivers of the Wood-
Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
____________________