THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

If there is ever a doubt about the work we do here, about what it is we debate so harshly at times, the things we legislate, the laws we write, about the ultimate test of whether or not we have done the right thing, how does it affect people? What is the impact on a family? What is the impact on a child?

[Page: S5093]  GPO's PDF

   We have to think about those things and their impact. Are these a question of States rights, of rights other than the rights to bring up a child in safety? What is the most important right?

   What was the Million Mom March about? The million moms marched because they were so hurt, so anguished that no one was listening sufficiently to say, OK, sensible gun control. We weren't taking away everybody's gun. If people want to hunt, they have a right to hunt. People need them for law enforcement jobs. Or if someone really thinks they need it for protection, let them get a license and be identified. A million moms were down here to say: Please help us.

   That is the measure. That is what I have always found from Senator MIKULSKI, who manages this very important bill, VA-HUD, that takes care of veterans, housing, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. She does a remarkable job and we keep squeezing.

   My relationship with Senator MIKULSKI, my relationship with other dear friends in the Senate is what I will miss terribly. This has been one great experience. My desk is a couple rows back. If only my father or my mother could have seen what happens when I open the top of my desk. It says: Harry Truman, Missouri. He sat where I sit now. My parents came here from Ellis Island with not a dime. They didn't understand the language. My parents were brought here as little kids. They wanted to be in America; they wanted to talk English; they wanted to be part of the society. And they worked at it.

   We are in this illustrious place. As Senator BYRD will state, about 1,800 Members have served in the Senate since the founding of this country. And here we are, two good friends, sharing the same.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, each and every one of my colleagues has received a letter signed by this Senator and by Senators BRYAN and FEINSTEIN on the subject of CAFE standards --that is to say, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards --relating to gas mileage of automobiles.

   In that Dear Colleague letter, we indicated there would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on that subject that would come before the Senate during the course of the debate on this Transportation appropriations bill. The reason we had adopted that course of action, identical to the course of action we took last year, is that the Senate bill itself has no reference, one way or another, to automobile and small truck fuel economy . The House bill, however--as it has for at least 10 consecutive years--prohibits the use of any funds appropriated in this bill for even the study of increasing the mandated fuel economy of automobiles and small trucks in the United States.

   As a consequence, it seemed to us the only way we could get at this subject, and perhaps reverse that very head-in-the-sand policy that has plagued us for so long, was somehow or another to express the views of the Senate on the subject.

   A year ago, 40 Senators voted with us, if my memory serves me correctly; 57 voted against us.

   This year, however, the situation on appropriations bills has changed. It has changed effectively by the readoption of rule XVI and the extension of rule XVI, not only to substantive amendments but to sense-of-the-Senate amendments as well. As a consequence, we now need to notify our colleagues we will deal with this question in a different fashion.

   The proponents of better fuel economy standards have not yet met formally to discuss our various alternatives, but in my view they are basically two in nature. Technically, what is before us at this point is the House bill, including the prohibition against spending any money on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards , with an amendment that strikes everything after the enacting clause and substitutes the Senate-reported bill for the House bill.

   So at this point, an amendment is in order to strike that funding prohibition in the House bill, which will give us a direct vote on the issue, though that House provision, together with every other House provision, will eventually be stricken in any event by the adoption of the Senate amendment.

   Our other option is to wait until the end of the debate, wait until final passage of the Transportation appropriations bill, and make a motion to instruct the Senate conferees to uphold the Senate position, something the Senate conferees have notoriously failed to do during the course of the last decade.

   I am inclined to favor that latter course of action, but the group has not yet made its decision. But we do wish all of our colleagues to know we are not going to be engaged in any procedural legerdemain by any stretch of the imagination. We will be debating this issue. We regard the issue as vitally important.

   Perhaps most significantly, I should like to say the ground of the debate may be somewhat different from the debate a year ago, for several reasons--at least three in number. The first of those reasons is we were still living as a country in a fool's paradise a year ago,

   a fool's paradise of abnormally low retail prices for gasoline. During the course of the last 12 months, of course, we have been subjected to a huge runup in gasoline prices motivated almost entirely by the reanimation of OPEC and its throttling back on petroleum production among its various members.

   This left us earlier this year with what I considered to be the humiliating spectacle of a Secretary of Energy traveling from one OPEC country to another, hat in hand, asking those OPEC countries: Please, please, please, resume higher production of your product and, thus, lower those product prices.

   The point was that we had no bargaining ability as the United States of America whatsoever to accomplish that goal, and while there was a brief respite, though nothing like a return to the original status quo in gasoline prices, we now know they are, once again, very much on the rise: increases of 30 to 50 cents a gallon in many places in the Midwest that have special air pollution requirements, the highest prices reported yesterday in the Washington Post, perhaps forever.

   We can look forward with apprehension but with a real expectation of regular gasoline prices hitting $2 a gallon in the relatively near future. I cannot possibly emphasize enough the fact that this is a pricing structure that is simply beyond our control because we have allowed ourselves to become so dependent on foreign oil. The largest single percentage of our trade deficit, which is itself alarmingly high, is due to the importation of foreign oil. We have three possible answers to that question: We must either increase domestic production, encourage to an even greater extent than we do the use of alternative fuels, or to use the fuels we have more efficiently and more effectively. The latter not only has a very positive impact on the cost of gasoline to every consumer in the United States but also will, in a very significant fashion, help clean up our air. We will bring this subject up once again.

   Second is the proposition that last year we were told--I am not sure entirely accurately--the law under which fuel economy was mandated did not allow the Department of Transportation to consider the safety of vehicles that would be designed to meet these standards .

   It is our explicit intention this year, whatever the validity of that argument, to allow the Department of Transportation, in fixing new corporate average fuel economy standards , to consider factors of safety. That was a major argument a quarter of a century ago against the original CAFE standards . We were told everyone would be driving a subcompact and death rates would go up markedly. We

[Page: S5094]  GPO's PDF

   Third, whether one is on this side of the political aisle or the other side of the political aisle, it is obvious this process will not be completed during the course of this administration. It will be another administration, whether a Democratic or a Republican administration, that will make that final decision, and the final decision will, for all practical purposes, be subject to the same kind of prohibition that has prevented the study of corporate average fuel economy for the last two and a half decades.

   This is a vitally important matter. I commend Chairman SHELBY and Chairman STEVENS, once again, for not including any

   such prohibition in the Senate bill. This time we want the prohibition stricken from the final package, as well as not being included in the Senate bill itself. It seems to me to be paradoxical and foolish that the United States of America should consistently say, in spite of our magnificent technologies, in spite of the huge advances in technologies in the last couple of decades, that this is a subject we will not even study. And that, in effect, is what the present law requires of us.

   It makes Luddites of us. It says we are afraid of such a study. It is perfectly acceptable to increase our dependence on petroleum products each and every year; that in spite of the technology, we are going to be as ostriches with our heads in the sand and not go forward at all.

   I believe that to be an indefensible position, but as I say, this is just simply both the invitation to join us in this cause and a statement that there will be a vote on this issue. Whether in the form of an amendment to the House bill or in the form of instructions to the conferees is not yet certain.

   There will be plenty of additional time to debate this issue, and debate it we will and vote on it we will. I am confident of a greater number of votes this year, for the reasons I have already outlined, than was the case last year. I hope my colleagues will join me in saying the United States will, once again, lead not only in abstract technology but in applied technology, and begin at least not only to clean up our air but to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save money for our constituents every single day of their lives in which they drive automobiles and trucks .

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   AMENDMENT NO. 3427 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3426

   (Purpose: To provide protection against the risks to the public that are inherent in the interstate transportation of violent prisoners.)

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. DORGAN] for himself and Mr. ASHCROFT, proposes an amendment numbered 3427 to amendment No. 3426.

   Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:

   SEC. __. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.

    (a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 1999'' or ``Jeanna's Act''.

    (b) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that--

    (1) increasingly, States are turning to private prisoner transport companies as an alternative to their own personnel or the United States Marshals Service when transporting violent prisoners;

    (2) often times, these trips can last for days if not weeks, as violent prisoners are dropped off and picked up at a network of hubs across the country;

    (3) escapes by violent prisoners during transport by private prisoner transport companies have not been uncommon; and

    (4) oversight by the Attorney General is required to address these problems.

    (c) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

    (1) CRIME OF VIOLENCE.--The term ``crime of violence'' has the same meaning as provided in section 924(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code.

    (2) DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.--The term ``drug trafficking crime'' has the same meaning as provided in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

    (3) PRIVATE PRISONER TRANSPORT COMPANY.--The term ``private prisoner transport company'' means any entity other than the United States, a State or the inferior political subdivisions of a State which engages in the business of the transporting for compensation, individuals committed to the custody of any State or of the inferior political subdivisions of a State, or any attempt thereof.

    (4) VIOLENT PRISONER.--The term ``violent prisoner'' means any individual in the custody of a State or the inferior political subdivisions of a State who has previously been convicted of or is currently charged with a crime of violence, a drug trafficking crime, or a violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, or any similar statute of a State or the inferior political subdivisions of a State, or any attempt thereof.

    (d) FEDERAL REGULATION OF PRISONER TRANSPORT COMPANIES.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations relating to the transportation of violent prisoners in or affecting interstate commerce.

    (2) STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.--The regulations shall include, at a minimum--

    (A) minimum standards for background checks and preemployment drug testing for potential employees;

    (B) minimum standards for factors that disqualify employees or potential employees similar to standards required of Federal correction officers;

    (C) minimum standards for the length and type of training that employees must undergo before they can perform this service;

    (D) restrictions on the number of hours that employees can be on duty during a given time period;

    (E) minimum standards for the number of personnel that must supervise violent prisoners;

    (F) minimum standards for employee uniforms and identification, when appropriate;

    (G) standards requiring that violent prisoners wear brightly colored clothing clearly identifying them as prisoners, when appropriate;

    (H) minimum requirements for the restraints that must be used when transporting violent prisoners, to include leg shackles and double-locked handcuffs, when appropriate;

    (I) a requirement that when transporting violent prisoners, private prisoner transport companies notify local law enforcement officials 24 hours in advance of any scheduled stops in their jurisdiction and that if unscheduled stops are made, local law enforcement should be notified in a timely manner, when appropriate;

    (J) minimum standards for the markings on conveyance vehicles, when appropriate;

    (K) a requirement that in the event of an escape by a violent prisoner, private prisoner transport company officials shall immediately notify appropriate law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the escape occurs, and the governmental entity that contracted with the private prisoner transport company for the transport of the escaped violent prisoner;

    (L) minimum standards for the safety of violent prisoners; and

    (M) any other requirement the Attorney General deems to be necessary to prevent escape of violent prisoners and ensure public safety.

    (3) FEDERAL STANDARDS .--Except for the requirements of paragraph (2)(G), the regulations promulgated under this section shall not provide stricter standards with respect to private prisoner transport companies than are applicable to Federal prisoner transport entities.

    (e) ENFORCEMENT.--Any person who is found in violation of the regulations established by this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation and, in addition, to the United States for the costs of prosecution. In addition, such person shall make restitution to any entity of the United States, of a State, or of an inferior political subdivision of a State, which expends funds for the purpose of apprehending any violent prisoner who escapes from a prisoner transport company as the result, in whole or in part, of a violation of regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (d)(1).

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention, just for purposes of understanding, to speak on this amendment for a few minutes. I understand that some will raise rule XVI on this issue. This is an important issue, and I want to have the opportunity, in this context, to discuss this legislation.

   This amendment is in the form of a bill that I have introduced with my colleagues, Senators ASHCROFT, GRAMS,

[Page: S5095]  GPO's PDF

   I want to describe why I think this is important. I have spoken about this on the floor several times in the past.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents