[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1032-1036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 1933. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the 
Securities Act of 1933, to address liability standards in connection 
with violations of the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SHELBY 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. 1933

       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 ``Investor Protection Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. LIABILITY STANDARDS IN PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 21D(f) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-4(f)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(f) Civil Liability.--
       ``(1) Joint and several liability for damages.--Any covered 
     person against whom a final judgment is entered in a private 
     action arising under this title shall be liable for damages 
     jointly and severally.
       ``(2) Settlement discharge.--
       ``(A) In general.--A covered person who settles any private 
     action arising under this title at any time before final 
     verdict or judgment shall be discharged from all claims for 
     contribution brought by other persons.
       ``(B) Bar order.--Upon entry of a settlement described in 
     subparagraph (A) by the court, the court shall enter a bar 
     order constituting the final discharge of all obligations to 
     the plaintiff of the settling covered person arising out of 
     the action, which order shall bar all future claims for 
     contribution arising out of the action--
       ``(i) by any person against the settling covered person; 
     and
       ``(ii) by the settling covered person against any person, 
     other than a person whose liability has been extinguished by 
     the settlement of the settling covered person.
       ``(C) Reduction.--If a covered person enters into a 
     settlement with the plaintiff prior to final verdict or 
     judgment, the verdict or judgment shall be reduced by the 
     greater of--
       ``(i) an amount that corresponds to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that covered person; or
       ``(ii) the amount paid to the plaintiff by that covered 
     person.
       ``(3) Contribution.--
       ``(A) In general.--A covered person who is jointly and 
     severally liable for damages in any private action arising 
     under this title may recover contribution from any other 
     person who, if joined in the original action, would have been 
     liable for the same damages. A claim for contribution shall 
     be determined based on the percentage of responsibility of 
     the claimant and of each person against whom a claim for 
     contribution is made, as determined by the court.
       ``(B) Statute of limitations for contribution.--In any 
     private action arising out of this title determining 
     liability, an action for contribution shall be brought not 
     later

[[Page 1033]]

     than 6 months after the date of entry of a final, 
     nonappealable judgment in the action.
       ``(4) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to create, affect, or in any manner modify, the 
     standard for liability associated with any action arising 
     under the securities laws.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered person' means--
       ``(i) a defendant in any private action arising under this 
     title; or
       ``(ii) a defendant in any private action arising under 
     section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, who is an outside 
     director of the issuer of the securities that are the subject 
     of the action; and
       ``(B) the term `outside director' shall have the meaning 
     given such term by rule or regulation of the Commission.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to the Securities Act of 1933.--
     Section 11(f)(2)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 
     77k(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``in accordance'' and 
     all that follows through the period and inserting ``in 
     accordance with section 21D(f) of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934.''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not affect or apply to any private action arising under 
     the securities laws commenced before and pending on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PERSONS WHO AID AND ABET VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Commission Authority.--Section 20(e) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78t(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``knowingly'' and inserting ``recklessly''.
       (b) Private Litigation.--Section 21D of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-4) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(g) Persons That Aid or Abet Violations.--Any person that 
     recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person 
     in violation of a provision of this title, or of any rule or 
     regulation issued under this title, shall be deemed to be in 
     violation of such provision to the same extent as the person 
     to whom such assistance is provided.''.

     SEC. 4. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 37. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in this title, and notwithstanding section 9(e), an 
     implied private right of action arising under this title may 
     be brought not later than the earlier of--
       ``(1) 5 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     occurred; or
       ``(2) 3 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     was discovered.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--The limitations period provided by 
     this section shall apply to all proceedings commenced after 
     the date of enactment of the Investor Protection Act of 
     2002.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN CLASS ACTION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--Section 28 of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78bb) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (f).
       (b) Securities Act of 1933.--Section 16 of the Securities 
     Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77p) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 16. REMEDIES ADDITIONAL.

       ``The rights and remedies provided by this title shall be 
     in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may 
     exist at law or in equity.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1934. A bill to amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 
to permit certain annuitants of the retirement programs of the United 
States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 
to receive the adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants 
would otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of 
the United States Park Police and United States Secret Service 
Uniformed Division to a new salary schedule under the amendments made 
by such Act; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Law Enforcement Pay Adjustment Equity Act. I am proud to be joined on 
this bill by my colleague, Senator Clinton. This legislation amends the 
Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to allow retired police officers 
of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United 
States Park Police to receive the same Cost of Living Adjustment, COLA, 
as active officers.
  For almost 80 years, Secret Service and Park Police retirees were 
assured an increase in their pensions whenever their active 
counterparts received an increase by the ``equalization clause'' in the 
District of Columbia Police and Firearms Salary Act, DCRA, of 1958. 
When the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act passed in 2000, the automatic 
link that ensured retirees of getting the same COLA as active officers 
was severed. This bill would restore that link, guaranteeing that the 
pension for these retired federal police officers keeps up with the 
cost of living.
  The Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 created a sharp inequality 
in retirement benefits for a small number of retirees, 630 Secret 
Service retirees and 465 Park Police retirees, roughly eleven hundred 
in total. They gave years of loyal service, often in difficult and 
life-threatening situations. They are the only federal retirees who had 
existing retirement benefits scaled back.
  Providing for government retirees and their families has always been 
an important function of the Federal Government. There is no reason why 
the government should go back on its word to provide this small group 
of valuable employees with secure retirement benefits. Restoring the 
Cost of Living Adjustment to the pensions of 1100 Federal retirees will 
have a minimal impact on the Federal budget, but a major impact on the 
quality of life of the people involved.
  When it comes to Federal employees, I believe that promises made 
should be promises kept. These former Secret Service and Park Police 
officers planned for their retirement with the understanding that their 
pension would be enough to live on, even as the cost of living 
increased. They deserve the retirement benefits they were promised when 
they signed up for service.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill 
to restore promised retirement benefits to retired officers of the 
United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States 
Park Police.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 1935. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to include inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, inspectors and canine enforcement officers of the United 
States Customs Service, and revenue officers of the Internal Revenue 
Service as law enforcement officers; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law 
Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity Act of 2002. I am proud to be 
joined on this bill by my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Clinton, and 
Bingaman. This legislation will ensure that revenue officers of the 
Internal Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the U.S. Customs 
Service, and immigration inspectors of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service have the same retirement options as most Federal 
law enforcement officers and conforms with the Federal law enforcement 
retirement system.
  Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and 
firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal 
service. Most people would be surprised to learn that current law does 
not treat revenue officers, customs inspectors and immigrations 
inspectors as Federal law enforcement personnel. I feel very strongly 
that in the light of the increased duties that these men and women are 
doing to help combat terrorism, keep our homeland secure, and help with 
the war on drugs we need to do what we can to give them the benefits 
that they deserve.
  This legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the 
same 20-year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue 
Service, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
The employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically 
challenging occupations, and it is in the public's interest to make 
sure that these homeland security officials receive the benefits they 
earn on our frontlines everyday.
  The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the 
Customs Service is very clear. These employees are the country's first 
line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at 
our borders. They are

[[Page 1034]]

required to have the same law enforcement training as all other law 
enforcement personnel. These employees face so many challenges. They 
may potentially confront criminals in the drug war, organized crime 
figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar criminals.
  U.S. Customs inspectors have the authority to arrest those engaged in 
these crimes if the crimes are committed in their presence. These 
officers carry a firearm on the job. They are responsible for the most 
arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Along with U.S. Customs 
agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping provide 
additional security at the Nation's airports and could assist U.S. 
Customs agents with the arrest of anyone violating U.S. Customs laws. 
They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade 
Center.
  The Customs Service interdicts more narcotics than all other law 
enforcement agencies combined, over a million pounds a year. In 1996, 
they seized nearly 400 tons of marijuana, over 90 pounds of cocaine, 
and nearly 1.45 tons of heroin.
  Like U.S. Customs Service Inspectors, INS inspectors are part of the 
first line of defense for homeland security. INS inspectors enforce the 
nation's immigration laws at more than 300 ports of entry. In the 
normal course of their duties, they enforce criminal law, make arrests, 
carry firearms, interrogate applicants for entry, search persons and 
effects, and seize evidence. Inspector's responsibilities have become 
increasing complex as political, economic and social unrest has 
increased globally. The threat of terrorism only increases these 
responsibilities.
  INS Inspectors help secure our borders. In FY 2001, over 510 million 
inspections were performed by these inspectors with 700,000 individuals 
were denied entry, and approximately 15,000 criminal aliens being 
intercepted.
  Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job 
stress. Some IRS employees must even employ pseudonyms to hide their 
identity because of the great threat to their personal safety. The 
Internal Revenue Service currently provides it's employees with a 
manual entitled: Assaults and Threats: A Guide to Your Personal Safety 
to help employees respond to hostile situations. The document advises 
IRS employees how to handle on-the-job assaults, abuse, threatening 
telephone calls, and other menacing situations.
  This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this 
act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased 
revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical 
employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease 
employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention 
of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal 
employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to 
other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level 
of benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing 
support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will 
improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work 
force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of 
the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend Senator 
Mikulski in introducing the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity 
Act of 2002. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under 
current law, whereby U.S. Customs Service and INS Inspectors as well as 
revenue agents from the IRS are denied the same retirement benefits 
provided to other law enforcement officers. I have introduced a similar 
bill, S. 1828, with the support of Senator Hatch and Senator Mikulski, 
which would provide similar benefits to the Nation's Federal 
prosecutors, who are now more than ever facing the immense dangers and 
challenges of the war on terrorism. Both measures are long overdue and 
important corrections in the Federal law.
  This bill would increase the retirement benefits given to federal INS 
and Customs inspectors and IRS Revenue agents by including them as 
``law enforcement officers,'' LEOs, under the Federal Employees' 
Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The relevant 
provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits 
define an LEO as an employee whose duties are ``primarily the 
investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or 
convicted of violating Federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) & 
8401(17). Under that definition, it is inconceivable that Customs and 
INS Inspectors and IRS Revenue Agents would not be included, yet they 
are not. Customs and INS Inspectors spend their entire days searching, 
questioning, and investigating potential violations of Federal law by 
those who either cross our borders or those who send goods and freight 
into and out of the United States. In many cases, they are our first 
and last defense against smugglers and those who seek to enter the 
United States unlawfully. IRS Revenue Agents have a long history of tax 
enforcement, sometime in dangerous circumstances involving contraband 
materials.
  This bill would make these agents and inspectors eligible for 
immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of 
service. For example, those who are covered by the Civil Service 
Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their 
three highest years' salary. That is the retirement package that is 
currently afforded to nearly every other Federal law enforcement 
employee. Just like the Federal prosecutors covered by S. 1828, there 
is no good justification for not including these Customs, INS and IRS 
law enforcement employees with their peers in terms of their retirement 
benefits, and plenty of good reasons supporting their inclusion.
  First and foremost, the danger faced by these men and women supports 
their inclusion as LEOs. The primary reason for granting enhanced 
retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law 
enforcement, and at no time in our Nation's history has both the danger 
and importance of protecting our Nation's borders been more clear. As 
the September 11 attacks on our nation amply demonstrated, the tools of 
terrorism and the terrorists themselves are often imported to the 
United States from abroad--and often times illegally. The people who 
are included in this bill are the men and women who literally stand 
their posts to make sure that, among other things, illegal weapons and 
terrorists are not allowed into the United States. What could possibly 
be more dangerous?
  I know first hand, from my experience as a former prosecutor in 
Vermont that the men and women who stand watch at our Northern border 
put themselves in harm's way each and every day that they put on their 
uniforms and go to work. In Vermont, I know that these men and women 
have a proud history of confronting and apprehending those who seek to 
enter the county illegally and smuggle contraband into the United 
States. Already, as part of the USA PATRIOT Act, I was able to work to 
include important provisions which enhanced the protection of our 
Northern border. This bill is yet another overdue measure which 
recognizes the importance of such border protection.
  Another reason for correcting this inconsistency in the law is the 
retention of good officers at the agencies which guard the border. 
Faced with new security challenges, it is crucial that the Customs 
Service and the INS possess the tools to maintain an experienced and 
professional cadre of agents at our Nation's land borders, airports, 
and seaports. When one type of Federal law enforcement officer is 
provided worse benefits than all others for no good reason, there is a 
risk that the most qualified and successful agents will move to other 
comparable jobs with better benefits. Since LEO retirement benefits are 
currently afforded to nearly every other group of people that enforce 
our laws, there is currently a risk that the best and most dedicated 
Customs and INS Inspectors will be lured away from their jobs 
protecting the border for ``greener'' pastures. This bill

[[Page 1035]]

would eliminate this risk by providing proper incentives for the best 
people to stay right where we want them, protecting our borders.
  To conclude, I commend Senator Mikulsi's leadership in this area, and 
I join her in introducing the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement 
Equity Act of 2002. For all of these reasons, I urge its swift 
enactment into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 1936. A bill to address the international HIV/AIDS pandemic; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Global 
Coordination of HIV/AIDS Response Act, known as the Global CARE Act. 
HIV/AIDS is a national security issue, an economic issue, a health and 
safety issue, and most importantly a moral issue. It is for these 
reasons I am proposing comprehensive legislation to address the global 
HIV/AIDS pandemic. This bill will not solve all these problems. But it 
does set the bar where the need is, and it does offer innovative ideas 
to address the global AIDS crisis in a strategic, coordinated, 
accountable manner.
  Since the tragedy of September 11, we have all been focused on 
combating the war on terrorism, and rightfully so. But as we all know, 
perhaps even more clearly since September, fighting and preventing 
terrorism, preparing for and preventing bioterrorist attacks, 
maintaining international stability, and promoting global economic 
cooperation and growth require not only a military and political 
response but also a social and humanitarian effort.
  Today's reality is a world in which geographical borders seem to hold 
less and less significance. As we work to maintain economic prosperity 
and safety in our own Nation, we must face the fact that globalization 
is upon us. This has never been more true than in the case of disease. 
The HIV/AIDS pandemic, tuberculosis and other life threatening 
infectious diseases know no borders. They cannot be prevented by a 
missile defense system. We cannot halt the spread of AIDS with bombing 
raids.
  Whether deliberately spread as a man made bioterrorist threats or a 
naturally occurring, infectious diseases are a pressing national 
security issue. A CIA report last year noted the link between disease 
and political chaos, saying that rampant AIDS, tuberculosis and other 
infectious illnesses were ``likely to aggravate, and in some cases, may 
even provoke, economic decay, social fragmentation and political 
destabilization in the hardest hit countries.''
  The epidemic is not confined to Africa. HIV has reached epidemic 
proportions in India. The World Bank estimates that if effective 
prevention efforts are not implemented immediately and sustained, India 
could have more than 37 million people infected with HIV by the year 
2005. This is roughly equal to the total number of HIV infections in 
the world today. The AIDS epidemic is sweeping across Eastern Europe, 
where HIV infection rates are rising faster in the former Soviet Union 
than anywhere else in the world according to a U.N. Report on AIDS. The 
Baltic nation of Estonia reported 10 times as many new infections last 
year as it did in 1999. In China, the number of people living with AIDS 
now tops one million. This is a moral issue that cannot be ignored.
  The rising rates of infection and the rising death toll are draining 
national budgets and depriving local economies of their workforce. Last 
November United Nations officials predicted that some of the most 
affected African nations could lose more than 20 percent of their Gross 
Domestic Product, GDP, by 2020 because of AIDS. Recent studies by the 
World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health 
show that infections and disease are not only the product of poverty; 
they also create poverty. By investing in health in developing 
countries we can save lives and produce clear and measurable financial 
returns. For example, the Commission reported that well-targeted 
spending of shared among nations in the amount of $66 billion a year by 
2015 could save as many as 8 million lives a year and generate six-fold 
economic benefits, more than $360 billion a year by 2020.
  AIDS is also the single largest contributor to a worldwide resurgence 
in Tuberculosis, TB. The spread of TB in the developing world has a 
direct effect on the health and safety of Americans. Last month, forty-
eight people in Mobile, Alabama, tested positive for exposure to 
tuberculosis, three weeks after a graduate student at Spring Hill 
College died of the disease. The Student, from Nairobi, Kenya, is 
thought to have contracted TB before coming to the U.S. Also last 
month, health officials in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 
announced they were treating five people for drug-resistant TB. All 
were immigrants from countries where TB flourishes. Just last week, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated that the number of 
new cases of TB in this country declined in 2000 but the number of 
cases occurring in the foreign-born U.S. population increased. The 
point is clear: we cannot maintain our own safety if we neglect the 
health needs of the developing world.
  For all these reasons--national security, economic stability, public 
health, and our moral obligation, I have introduced the Global CARE 
Act. It is critically important that we demonstrate the political will 
to act on this issue. I think it would be productive for Congress to 
establish clear policy goals and funding targets that represent the 
real need. It is also our job to ensure that there is accountability 
for the money that we appropriate, and that we are able to articulate 
the results of our U.S. investment. It is my hope that by doing this we 
will secure a serious, effective financial commitment that to date has 
been woefully inadequate.
  The Global Coordination of HIV/AIDS Response Act is grounded in the 
principles of leadership and accountability.
  The policy goals I have set forth in this bill are the following: 
better coordination among the myriad of U.S. agencies active in the 
global AIDS fight; a more focused strategic planning initiative that 
makes the best use of U.S bilateral assistance; increased 
accountability for the health and policy objectives we seek to achieve 
with our financial and human investment in AIDS-ravaged countries; the 
ability to mobilize the most effective human and capacity-building 
tools to provide some of the building blocks that are needed; and a 
clear articulation of the broader issues that need to be addressed to 
have a real impact on HIV/AIDS, including not just prevention but 
treatment and care, and not just health initiatives but also economic 
investments.
  The Global CARE Act provides specific funding authorizations for the 
key agencies working on global AIDS, as well as for the Global Fund. 
Both bilateral and multilateral assistance is needed to address this 
problem. Before the Leadership and Investment in Fighting and Epidemic, 
LIFE, initiative authorized USAID to conduct activities specifically 
focused on global AIDS in FY2000, there was little direction from 
Congress on this issue. And up until the United Nations and President 
Bush specifically requested money for the Global Fund, there was little 
agreement about what was needed. It is now time for Congress to step up 
to the plate and provide some direction.
  The authorized funding levels in the Global CARE Act represent a need 
that has been well documented. The World Health Organization's 
Marcoeconomics and Health Commission has determined that by 2007, the 
international community--donor and affected countries--should be 
spending $14 billion in response to the AIDS pandemic. Last year, the 
United Nations called for roughly $10 billion annually.
  America has by far the greatest giving capacity, yet we devote the 
smallest percentage of our overall wealth to efforts aimed at 
alleviating global poverty and disease. Last year the United States 
gave one-tenth of 1 percent of its GNP to foreign aid--or $1 for every 
thousand dollars of its wealth, the lowest giving rate of any rich 
nation. By comparison, Canada, Japan, Austria, Australia and Germany 
each gave about one-quarter of 1 percent, of $2.50 for every thousand 
dollars of wealth.

[[Page 1036]]

Many other countries give even more, at rates 8 to 10 times higher than 
the United States. Based on its share of global GNP, the United States 
should contribute at least 25 percent of the total AIDS response cost 
in 2003. Twenty-five percent of the estimated $10 billion needed next 
year would be $2.5 billion. Hundreds of civic groups and religious 
leaders have joined together, calling on Congress to provide at least 
$2.5 billion to combat the pandemic.
  The Global CARE Act establishes broad policy goals and activities 
that are embodied in an international HIV/AIDS Prevention and Capacity 
Building Initiative and an International Care and Treatment Access 
Initiative. These goals and activities, which range from education, 
voluntary testing and counseling, to helping preserve families and 
ameliorate the orphan crisis, are not parceled out to the various 
agencies we know are actively engaged in this issue such as the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Rather this legislation generally 
relies on the existing authorities of the agencies to carry out these 
broad activities with the requirement that they coordinate their 
activities with each other and with host country needs and host country 
plans.
  The development of a coordinated, effective, and sustained plan for 
U.S. bilateral aid in relation to multilateral aid and other nation's 
bilateral aid is paramount. The U.S. has the opportunity to provide the 
requisite leadership in this global effort though operating 
strategically, and in an accountable and transparent manner.
  To provide an incentive for such coordination, the bill establishes 
an interagency working group charged with ensuring that global HIV/AIDS 
activities are conducted in a coordinated, strategic fashion. Members 
of this working group include agencies within the Department of State, 
specifically USAID; agencies within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
Health Resources and Services Administration, and the National 
Institutes of Health; the Department of Defense, Labor, Commerce and 
Agriculture, and the Peace Corps.
  This is policy working group with representatives from the agency 
programs doing the real work. It is my intention that the working group 
help to ensure that the various agencies we fund to provide bi-lateral 
assistance are making the most of the money we appropriate; that they 
are not duplicating efforts; that they are learning from each others' 
programmatic experience and research in order to implement the best 
practices; and that they are accountable to Congress and the American 
people for achieving measurable goals and objectives. In fact, the 
function of this group is very similar to the interagency working group 
established in H.R. 2069--legislation that passed the House of 
Representatives last year.
  The Global CARE Act very specifically directs the working group to 
report back to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, and the corresponding Committees in the House 
of Representatives, with the following information: 1. The actions 
being taken to coordinate multiple roles and policies, and foster 
collaboration among Federal agencies contributing to the global HIV/
AIDS activities; 2. A description of the respective roles and 
activities of each of the working group member agencies; 3. A 
description of actions taken to carry out the goals and activities 
authorized in the International AIDS Prevention and Capacity Building 
Imitative and the International AIDS Care and Treatment Access 
Initiative set out in the legislation; 4. Recommendation to specific 
Congressional committees regarding legislative and funding actions that 
are needed carry out the activities articulated in the bill; and 5. The 
results of the HIV/AIDS goals and outcomes as established by the 
working group. In my view, only by requiring very specific reporting 
requirements will the working group actually work.
  The Global CARE Act includes a number of other provisions. Some have 
been discussed on the Hill, others have not. It authorizes a Global 
Physician Corps to utilize the human capital we have in our working and 
retired physicians by providing a mechanism for them to serve overseas 
where their expertise is so needed.
  The bill authorizes a small amount for USAID to work on development 
and implementing initiatives to improve injection safety. According to 
the World Health Organization (WHO), each year the overuse of 
injections and unsafe injections combine to cause an estimated 8 to 16 
million hepatitis B virus infections, 2.3 million to 4.7 million 
hepatitis C infections and 80,000 to 160,000 HIV infections. Together, 
these chronic infections are responsible for an estimated 10 million 
new infections, more than 1.8 million deaths, 26 million years of life 
lost, and more than $535 million in direct medical costs.
  It includes a new pilot program to provide a limited procurement of 
antirectoriviral drugs and technical assistance to programs in host 
countries. And it includes a very important orphan relief and 
microcredit component that acknowledges that addressing the AIDS 
problem requires both an economic and social investment in women and 
families.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the framework and policy I have 
developed as we work to introduce a unified proposal to address the 
HIV/AIDS problem. Tackling this pandemic will take more than one good 
bill--it will take a concerted effort to combine the best ideas and 
realistic initaitives to get the job done.

                          ____________________