[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22734-22752]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 22735]]

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 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

[[Page 22736]]

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 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

[[Page 22737]]

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 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''.

[[Page 22738]]



     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.--
       (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.--

[[Page 22739]]

       (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.
       (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

[[Page 22740]]

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 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

[[Page 22741]]

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.

     ``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

[[Page 22742]]

     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 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

[[Page 22743]]

     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 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

[[Page 22744]]

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 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

[[Page 22745]]

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,'' 
builds on the foundation laid by the Public Health Threats Act, a 
foundation built on prevention, preparedness, and response.

[[Page 22746]]

  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

[[Page 22747]]

     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.


      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''

[[Page 22748]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22749]]

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. 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.

[[Page 22750]]

  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 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.

[[Page 22751]]

  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 
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

[[Page 22752]]

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 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.

                          ____________________