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      

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.

   I show you a picture of a man named Kyle Bell. Kyle Bell is shown standing in this picture in shackles and handcuffs. He is a man who murdered an 11-year-old girl in Fargo, ND. But that was not all of his crime spree. He has committed other unspeakable acts, criminal acts. His criminal behavior culminated in the murder of a young girl named Jeanna North in Fargo, ND.

   Kyle Bell was apprehended, sent to trial, and convicted of murder. When convicted of murder in the State of North Dakota, Kyle Bell was to go to the penitentiary to spend the rest of his life. But instead, Kyle Bell was put on a bus that was operated by a private company called TransCor. TransCor is a pretty good size company that hauls prisoners around America by contract. TransCor put Kyle Bell on a bus with about 12 other prisoners. He was being transported, under the Prisoner Exchange Program, to another prison in another State to be incarcerated.

   They got to New Mexico. In fact, he was not going south, he was going straight west, over to the State of Oregon. But they got to New Mexico, and this Kyle Bell escaped.

   The bus stopped for gas, apparently. One security guard from this private company was buying gas. Another two were asleep in the bus. And another was probably in buying a cheeseburger, as best we can tell. And so with both guards in the bus asleep--Kyle Bell apparently produced a key for his shackles and handcuffs, crawled out the roof of the bus, and while he was in civilian clothing being transferred in this bus, walked through the parking lot of a big shopping center, and they didn't see him again.

   Kyle Bell, this child killer, was on the loose for several months. He has now been apprehended and he is back in prison. But I started evaluating what happened. It sounds as if the three stooges were given custody of a convicted child killer: two guards asleep, another guard buying a cheeseburger. What happened here? The more I look at it, the more I understand that there is something fundamentally wrong on our highways.

   Do you know we have private companies taking possession of violent offenders, murderers, and others, to transport around the country, and there is not one regulation they must meet in order to hire themselves out as transport companies? You can be a retired county sheriff, and you and your brother-in-law and your wife can rent a minivan and say you are in business to haul prisoners, someone will turn a convicted murderer over to you, and away you go.

   Interestingly enough, when they were transporting Kyle Bell, this child killer--he escaped in New Mexico--do you know how long it took them to understand he was gone, that he was not on the bus anymore? Nine hours later they finally counted their prisoners on the bus, to discover they had lost a child killer--9 hours later.

   We have a circumstance in this country where when you pull up to the gas pumps next to a minivan or a small bus, you may not know it but you may be pulling up next to a minivan with four convicted murderers being transported by a retired police officer and his brother-in-law.

   In fact, in Iowa, a man and his wife, hiring themselves out as a transport company, showed up at a prison to take possession of

   five convicted murderers and a convicted kidnapper. And the prison warden said: You've got to be kidding me. You and your wife have come to take possession of five convicted murderers and a convicted kidnapper? The Warden said: You've got to be kidding me. But the warden turned the prisoners over to this man and his wife. And, of course, they escaped. It is absurd for us to be turning violent criminals over to private companies that do not have to meet any basic or reasonable standards .

   As I indicated, Kyle Bell is now back in prison.

   We do not know what he did when he was on the loose. He was on the loose for some long while. They apprehended him in Texas, as a matter of fact.

   Then, just a couple of weeks ago, I read in the newspaper that the State of Nevada was going to send a convicted murderer to North Dakota under the Prisoner Exchange Program, a man named James Prestridge. So Nevada was going to send a murderer to North Dakota. James Prestridge, along with an armed robber, escaped in California while being transported. The two of them were gone. Once again, we had apparently a kind of three-stooges approach by the people who were supposed to have been guarding these violent criminals.

   They found the armed robber who escaped with Mr. Prestridge just south of the Mexican border with a bullet through his head, dead. They apprehended James Prestridge recently. He is now back in prison.

   Here is a man who is serving a life sentence without parole for first-degree murder, and he is turned over to a private company and that private company loses him. Extraditions International is the name of that company.

   My proposition is this. When we in our criminal justice system convict violent criminals, convict people of murder, convict Kyle Bell of killing Jeanna North, I do not want those prisoners turned over to a private company that is going to put them in a minivan and transport them across the country with guards who are ill-prepared and ill-trained and follow no procedures. I do not want that to happen.

   The private companies, if they are going to transport criminals across State lines in this country, ought to have to meet basic standards .

   The amendment I have introduced--again, a bipartisan amendment--says the Department of Justice should establish regulations that must be met by private companies that are going to haul violent offenders. The standards should be no more than the standards that exist for law enforcement when they transport the same criminals.

   I should mention, incidentally, the U.S. Marshals Service has a service, for a flat fee, of taking these child killers and violent offenders anywhere in the country.

   In fact, I don't believe State and local governments ought to contract with private companies to transport violent criminals, as they now do.

   The legislation I propose would require that a private company that is preparing to do this must meet basic safety standards with respect to training and other kinds of security circumstances that would give the American people some comfort that they are not in jeopardy by driving down the highway only to confront a minivan or a bus carrying 20 criminals coast to coast.

   It might be useful to read into the RECORD other circumstances that persuade me there is something wrong in this area.

   On January 22 of this year, three prisoners escaped while a van transporting them stopped at a minimart for a restroom break. While the two guards weren't looking, two inmates jumped into the front seat where the keys had been left in the ignition. How much judgment did that take? You are hauling criminals around the country. You stop at a gas station to go to the bathroom. You leave the keys in the vehicle. I am sorry; something is wrong. It is serious.

   On July 24, last year, two men convicted of murder escaped from a van while being transported from Tennessee to Virginia. The two guards went into a fast food restaurant to get breakfast for the convicts. When they returned, they didn't notice the convicts had freed themselves from their leg irons, possibly with a smuggled key. While one guard went back into the restaurant, the other stood watch--there is some improvement; at least they are standing watch--but he forgot to lock the van door. The inmates kicked it open and fled.

   On July 30, 1997, convicted rapist and kidnapper Dennis Glick escaped from a van while being transported from Salt Lake City to Pine Bluff, AR. While still in the van, Glick grabbed a gun from a guard who had fallen asleep, took seven prisoners, a guard, and a local rancher hostage and led 60 law enforcement officials on an all-night chase across Colorado. He was finally recaptured the next morning.

   I won't read all of these, but there are plenty of them.

   A husband-and-wife team of guards showed up at an Iowa State prison to transport six inmates, five of them

[Page: S5096]  GPO's PDF

   My point is, I wasn't aware, and I will bet most Members of Congress are not aware, that State and local governments are routinely turning violent criminals over to the hands of private companies for transport across this country. Yet there is no basic standard, no set of regulations to guarantee the safekeeping of those violent offenders. I believe there ought to be. Republicans and Democrats who have joined us on this amendment believe there ought to be. That is the purpose of the amendment.

   I understand this will probably be subject to rule XVI. I also understand the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator SHELBY, is trying to get this subcommittee markup moving. I sympathize with that. Senator LAUTENBERG wants the same thing. They want to get this through. I fully understand that. I hope the authorizing committee, where we hope to have a hearing on this legislation, will allow us to get that hearing and to advance this matter in another way, if in fact it is subject to rule XVI.

   It is my belief, and I think the belief of almost everyone, that something needs to be done in this area to set some

   commonsense rules. My first choice would be, if you have a violent offender, a criminal who has been judged violent by his or her behavior, they ought never leave the embrace of a law enforcement official. The address of someone convicted of murder ought to be their prison cell until the end of their term, with no time off for good behavior. Convict them and put them in prison.

   Instead, what is happening is, too often they are being convicted and then under prisoner exchanges turned over to a private company for transport, only to discover that it is not very secure with respect to this transport: Guards who are ill prepared, vehicles that are not sufficient, procedures that are nonexistent.

   Lest one doubt that, when Kyle Bell escaped in New Mexico, a child killer walked off the bus, a vicious child killer walked off the bus. The guards in that bus didn't count heads to find out that 1 of their inmates had escaped for 9 full hours. They didn't miss a child killer for 9 hours. Does anybody think this might be an area ripe for some thoughtful regulations and some thoughtful restraint? I think it is. That is why I offer the amendment.

   I thank the Senator for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of the bill, I make the point of order that the amendment violates rule XVI.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.

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

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

   (The remarks of Mr. CONRAD pertaining to the introduction of S. 2729 are located in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that will be before the body tomorrow. That is a motion to instruct conferees on an issue we have debated last year and in previous years dealing with corporate average fuel economy , CAFE. That is an acronym that many Americans are not familiar with, but it is something that can have a profound and important impact on their lives. Perhaps a little background will be instructive.

   In the early 1970s, our economy was sent into a convulsion as a result of our dependence on imported oil, primarily from the Middle East. The OPEC oil embargo, followed by the fall of the Shah of Iran later in the decade, sent fuel prices skyrocketing, plummeted the economy into a situation known as ``stagflation,'' and the effect was devastating.

   Congress responded in 1974 with a piece of legislation designed to make the U.S. less dependent upon foreign oil and to provide for better fuel economy , thereby saving American consumers millions of dollars each year in fuel costs and improving the quality of the air and reducing our trade deficit.

   In 1974, before these CAFE or fuel economies were established for the first time, the average fuel economy of all vehicles in America was 13.8 miles per gallon. As a result of those CAFE standards adopted in 1975, the current average is 28.1 miles per gallon. That is slightly more than twice the average economy in 1974. The effect of that has produced each and every day a savings of 3 million barrels of oil that would otherwise have been consumed.

   That issue was not an easy issue for the Congress to deal with in 1974 because testimony before the congressional committees suggested if such standards were required, and they were set on an incremental basis to be expanded over the course of a decade, it was asserted that terrible things would happen in terms of consumer choice and size of the vehicle. In 1974, the Ford Motor Company testified this proposal for the fuel economy standards , which ultimately doubled fuel economy , would require a Ford product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles--some may recall that was the smallest automobile that Ford made at the time--or some mix of vehicles ranging from a ``sub-subcompact'' to perhaps a Maverick. The clear thrust of the testimony is, if these fuel economy standards are imposed upon the industry, a full-sized four-door vehicle would be impossible to produce.

   Let me skip for a moment to the present. Today, the largest automobile--I am not talking about a sport utility vehicle--that Ford makes has better fuel economy than the smallest produced in 1974. There is, indeed, a full range of vehicle choice available to American consumers.

   Chrysler Motors also joined in with the Big Three and made this statement in 1974:

   In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-sized sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing sub-compact-sized cars--or even smaller ones.

   That was the testimony by Chrysler.

   General Motors went on to say:

   This legislation would have the effect of placing restrictions on the availability of 5 and 6 passenger cars--regardless of consumer needs or intended use of vehicles.

   Once this legislation was enacted, the automotive industry, with

   some of the best and brightest engineering minds anywhere in the world, went to work. Indeed, astonishing technological developments occurred and today Americans enjoy a full range of automobiles in terms of size and choice. We have been successful in saving 3 million barrels of oil each and every day, reducing to some extent our dependence on imported foreign fuel and alleviating, in part, the trade deficit.

   Unfortunately, no new fuel requirements have been enacted since 1975. Once again, the auto industry is suggesting that if, indeed, new fuel economy standards are required, that customer choice, size of vehicle, and a whole host of safety concerns, will place the American public at risk.

   I am not sure what it is. I happen to be an automobile buff. I am of the age that I can recall the excitement of the introduction each year of the new models, the changes and the configuration of lights, the chrome, the fins, all of the things that in my generation were pretty exciting stuff. And I love automobiles today.

   So I come to the floor as a Member of this body not with any antipathy toward automobiles. I freely acknowledge both my dependence and my love of the American automobile. However, I must say there is something that

[Page: S5097]  GPO's PDF

   For decades, the automobile industry resisted the introduction of airbags. It took my colleagues, Senator GORTON and I, a decade ago to get that language changed. Today, Americans have a choice in their safety. Many lives have been saved as a result of that. But the auto industry strenuously resisted that effort.

   Indeed, when catalytic converter technology came online, even though the engineers acknowledged its significance, there was great resistance to requiring the introduction of catalytic converters. Our air is cleaner, our tailpipe emissions substantially less. Some of the major cities of America that still struggle with pollution now have perhaps twice as many vehicles on the road, but their air is cleaner than it would have been but for these technological advancements.

   There must be something in the corporate culture of the automobile industry that resists this technology. These are remarkably able and talented engineers, the best and brightest. I wish they had more confidence in themselves.

   We are placed in an anomalous situation wherein none of the technology that has been available for the past quarter of a century, 25 years, that might have enabled us to move forward and to improve fuel economy , to reduce our dependence on imported oil, has been used to help improve quality.

   Since 1975, a rider has been added in the other body to this appropriations bill that prevents the Department of Transportation from even considering, even looking at any technological changes. In effect, it is a provision that requires us all to be deaf, dumb, and blind to any technology that has been developed in the last quarter century. I need not remind my colleagues and the American public that the last 25 years has been the most remarkable quarter of a century since human history was recorded in terms of technological advances; 25 years ago all but a handful of people would have been totally mystified if the term ``Internet'' was used. E-commerce was not a part of our conversation. Nobody discussed e-mail or m-commerce. Indeed, most Americans had never heard of cellular telephones. I just cite but two of the more obvious and more dramatic technological changes that have had a profound impact upon our economy .

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