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
[Page: S5536] GPO's PDF---
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. DAYTON):
S. 2617. A bill to protect the rights of American consumers to diagnose, service, and repair motor vehicles purchased in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive service providers.
The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech'' business and making access to the computer and the information it contains vital to the ability to perform repairs.
Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family owned repair shops across the country.
On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota. The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small, independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers
Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a manufacturer's trade secret.
This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals.
To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners Right to Repair Act . There has to be a better title.
Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years, has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with you the information about the computer system so you can get into the computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair , in which case I think it is a blatant anticompetitive practice.
[Page: S5537] GPO's PDF
It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business. In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take your car back to the dealership for repair , but now that is your only choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to make it impossible for you to go there.
I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys.
In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and asked for some help.
I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think there will be a lot of support.
This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats.
The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what they are dealing with.
Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry basically saying we will not share with you any information about our computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. SESSIONS):
S. 2619. A bill to provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding to protect individuals from prison rape; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear, ``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent prison violence.
Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons.
Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they are released, as 600,000 prisoners are each year.
To deal with this serious problem, Senator SESSIONS and I are today introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary role of States and local governments in administering prisons and jails.
Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape.
Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent these abuses.
Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20 percent of their prison-related federal funding.
Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza. Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral leadership on this issue.
It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen FRANK WOLF and BOBBY SCOTT in the House and Senator SESSIONS in the Senate. While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to end it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator KENNEDY for his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though Senator KENNEDY and I come from different backgrounds and have different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should act to reduce prison rape.
I would also like to thank Congressman FRANK WOLF and BOBBY SCOTT for their important leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Congressman WOLF is a recognized champion for human dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is consistent with his philosophy. Congressman SCOTT is very knowledgeable on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape.
As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this area.
However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful sentence.
This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results
[Page: S5538] GPO's PDF
Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons. This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue.
Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent of certain Federal funds.
In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates.
A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have added their support to this bill. The list includes: American Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House;
Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza; National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center.
I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects those values.
I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived, carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political initiatives that become law after people work together to form a bipartisan, moral position.
I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this legislation at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship, has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at the press conference to express his support of the bill.
This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. BIDEN);
S. 2621. A bill to provide a definition of vehicle for purposes of criminal penalties relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation today with Senator Biden to clarify that an airplane is a vehicle for purposes of terrorist and other violent acts against mass transportation systems. A significant question about this point has been raised in an important criminal case and deserves our prompt attention.
Earlier this week, on June 11, 2002, a U.S. District Judge in Boston dismissed one of the nine charges against Richard Reid stemming from his alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device in his shoe while onboard an international flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001. The dismissed count charged defendant Reid with violating section 1993 of title 18, United States Code, by attempting to ``wreck, set fire to, and disable a mass transportation vehicle.''
Section 1993 is a new criminal law that was added, as section 801, to the USA PATRIOT Act to punish terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against, inter alia, a ``mass transportation'' vehicle or ferry, or against a passenger or employee of a mass transportation provider. I had urged that this provision be included in the final anti-terrorism law considered by the Congress. A similar provision was originally part of S. 2783, the ``21st Century Law Enforcement and Public Safety Act ,'' that I introduced in the last Congress in June, 2000 on the request of the Clinton Administration.
The district court rejected defendant Reid's arguments to dismiss the section 1993 charge on grounds that 1. the penalty provision does not apply to an ``attempt'' and 2. an airplane is not engaged in ``mass transportation.'' ``Mass transportation'' is defined in section 1993 by reference to the ``the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, U.S.C., except that the term shall include schoolbus, charter and sightseeing transportation.'' Section 5302(a)(7), in turn, provides the following definition: ``mass transportation'' means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter or sightseeing transportation.'' The court explained that ``commercial aircraft transport large numbers of people every day'' and that the definition of ``mass transportation'' ``when read in an ordinary or natural way, encompasses aircraft of the kind at issue here.'' U.S. v. Reid, CR No. 02-10013, at p. 10, 12 (D. MA, June 11, 2002).
Defendant Reid also argued that the section 1993 charge should be dismissed because an airplane is not a ``vehicle.'' The court agreed, citing the fact that the term ``vehicle'' is not defined in section 1993 and that the Dictionary Act , 1 U.S.C. §4, narrowly defines ``vehicle'' to include ``every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land.'' Emphasis in original opinion. Notwithstanding common parlance and other court decisions that have interpreted this Dictionary Act definition to encompass aircraft, the district court relied on the narrow definition to conclude that an aircraft is not a ``vehicle'' within the meaning of section 1993.
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