[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8380-S8386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 920. A bill to assist the preservation of rail infrastructure, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


            THE RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail 
Infrastructure Preservation Act of 1995. This legislation is designed 
to target rail freight investment needs in neglected regions of the 
country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  The primary purpose of this bill is to provide a blueprint for 
rebuilding and improving the rail lines serving our smaller cities and 
rural areas. These lines, run mainly by short-line and regional 
railroads, are critical to the survival of rural America's economy. 
Yet, the capital needed to maintain these secondary rail lines is very 
limited.
  My colleagues may recall I introduced a similar bill during the last 
Congress. I continue to believe Federal involvement is necessary to 
preparing our Nation's rail transportation network for the next 
century. A national commitment to the future of rail freight service is 
critical to the advancement of our overall transportation system.
  Mr. President, we are facing very serious Federal budget constraints. 
I support comprehensive deficit reduction proposals and have backed 
that support with my voting record. I will continue to do so. In our 
efforts to tackle the deficit, it is important to allocate our limited 
tax dollars wisely.
  In my view, adequate investment in our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure provides for wise use of these dollars. However, as we 
consider national transportation infrastructure investment, we must not 
overlook one very critical transportation mode--rail freight service.
  During the 1970's and 1980's, the large railroads abandoned thousands 
of miles [[Page S8381]] of rail lines throughout the United States. 
Much of our former rail infrastructure has been abandoned. Fortunately, 
many independent regional and short-line railroads have filled the gap, 
keeping many essential rail lines in service.
  Despite the remarkable efforts by regional and short-line 
entrepreneurs to keep alive our Nation's secondary rail lines, the 
demand for capital investment to maintain these lines far out-paces 
supply. This situation keeps far too many rural communities on the 
brink of losing their rail service or having inadequate service due to 
unsound track conditions. Unfortunately, the Federal commitment to 
maintaining necessary rail lifelines has diminished almost to the point 
of nonexistence.
  It would help address the capital investment needs of our rail 
freight transportation system. Specifically, my legislation would 
permanently authorize the Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program. 
However, due to legitimate funding constraints, my bill would reduce 
the authorization level by 17 percent from the amount approved by the 
Senate Commerce Committee during the last Congress. It also updates the 
existing section 511 railroad loan guarantee program as I first 
proposed in the last Congress.
  The LRFA Program has proven to play a vital role in our Nation's rail 
transportation system. Created in 1973, LRFA provides matching funds to 
help States save rail lines that otherwise would be abandoned. For 
instance, over the past few years, several rail improvement projects in 
my home State of South Dakota have been made possible through LRFA 
funding assistance. Without LRFA, our freight funding needs would go 
largely unmet.
  Of particular importance is how LRFA's matching requirements enable 
limited Federal, State, and local resources to be leveraged. Indeed, 
LRFA's success has been in part due to its ability to promote 
investment partnerships, thus, maximizing very limited Federal 
assistance.
  Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal 
funding. For example, $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal year 
1995. But a substantial portion of this very limited appropriation--
$6.5 million--was rescinded recently by Public Law 104-6. Yet, LRFA 
remains very popular since it has been the only Federal program that 
provides infrastructure investment in short-line and regional railroads 
in the absence of section 511 appropriations.
  For example, in fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance 
for 59 projects, totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. 
Unfortunately, less than one-third of funding was available to meet 
these rail infrastructure needs. With continued railroad restructuring, 
these legitimate funding needs will only increase. LRFA is a worthy 
program and should be continued.
  In addition, adequate funding for the section 511 Loan Guarantee 
Program would permit high priority railroad transportation 
infrastructure investment on lines operated by short-line and regional 
railroads. In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 
program provides a cost effective method to insure modest 
infrastructure investment on a repayable basis.
  The 511 Program requires a processing fee paid to the Federal 
Government and the money borrowed is repaid with interest. The cost to 
the taxpayers should range from negligible to a positive return. In 
this time of fiscal pressure, we should support programs like the 511 
Program and LRFA that provide excellent leverage of our limited Federal 
dollars.
  The 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee Program is permanently authorized at 
$1 billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available 
for commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require an appropriation 
for the 511 Loan Program to cover the anticipated loss to the 
Government over the life of each loan. Based on a fiscal year 1994 
appropriation for a 511 project in New York State--the first 511 
application processed under the rules of the Credit Reform Act--5 
percent of the total obligation level must be appropriated.
  Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to submit loan 
applications as soon as the program is appropriated funding. For 
example, the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern [DM&E] Railroad, headquartered 
in Brookings, SD, is prepared to file an application for a 511 loan 
guarantee as part of a project to be matched by financing from revenue 
bonds issued by the State of South Dakota.
  It also is important to note that recently the House Transportation 
and Infrastructure Railroad Subcommittee approved an Amtrak 
reauthorization bill that includes a 511 loan guarantee provision 
specifically permitting $50 million of the $1 billion authorized for 
the section 511 program to be available for Amtrak for fiscal years 
1996 through 1999. Indeed, the 511 program is gaining increased 
Congressional attention and support.
  My legislation is intended to make the loan guarantee program more 
user friendly. My overall objective is to ensure the 511 Loan Program 
can best serve its customers. I am eager to explore all options to 
enable us to reach this goal.
  Mr. President, in my judgment, we need to help preserve our rural 
freight rail systems. Building up these systems would allow more 
freight to be shipped by rail and would help to alleviate highway 
traffic and congestion. Our national transportation needs can best be 
measured on this type of inter-modal perspective. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation while we work to address the 
larger issues of transportation investment policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 920

       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 ``Rail Infrastructure 
     Preservation Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. LOCAL RAIL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE; AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 22108 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out so much of subsection (a) as precedes 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) General.--(1) There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out this chapter 
     the sum of $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996, and for each subsequent fiscal year.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a)(3).

     SEC. 3. DISASTER FUNDING FOR RAILROADS.

       Section 22101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by redesignating subsection (d) as (e), and by inserting 
     after subsection (c) the following--
       ``(d) Disaster Funding For Railroads.--
       ``(1) The Secretary may declare that a disaster has 
     occurred and that it is necessary to repair and rebuild rail 
     lines damaged as a result of such disaster. If the Secretary 
     makes the declaration under this paragraph, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(A) waive the requirements of this section; and
       ``(B) prescribe the form and time for applications for 
     assistance made available herein.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not provide assistance under this 
     subsection unless emergency disaster relief funds are 
     appropriated for that purpose.
       ``(3) Funds provided for under this subsection shall remain 
     available until extended.''.

     SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       Section 101(a) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 801(a)(4)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) continuation of service on, or preservation of, light 
     density lines that are necessary to continued employment and 
     community well-being throughout the United States;''.

     SEC. 5. RAILROAD LOAN GUARANTEES; MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST.

       Section 511(f) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(f)) is amended 
     by striking ``shall not exceed an annual percentage rate 
     which the Secretary determines to be reasonable, taking into 
     consideration the prevailing interest rates for similar 
     obligations in the private market.'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``shall not exceed the annual percentage rate charged 
     equivalent to the cost of money to Government.''.

     SEC. 6. RAILROAD LOAN GUARANTEES; MINIMUM REPAYMENT PERIOD 
                   AND PREPAYMENT PENALTIES.

       Section 511(g)(2) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(g)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) payment of the obligation is required by its terms to 
     be made not less than 15 years nor more than 25 years from 
     the date [[Page S8382]] of its execution, with no penalty 
     imposed for prepayment after 5 years;''.

     SEC. 7. RAILROAD LOANS GUARANTEES; DETERMINATION OF 
                   REPAYABILITY.

       Section 511(g)(5) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(g)(5)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) either the loan can reasonably be repaid by the 
     applicant or the loan is collaterallized at no more than the 
     current value of assets being financed under this section to 
     provide protection to the United States;''.

     SEC. 8. RAILROAD LOANS GUARANTEES; RIGHTS OF SECRETARY.

       Section 511(i) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(i)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following;
       ``(4) The Secretary shall not require, as a condition for 
     guarantee of an obligation, that all preexisting secured 
     obligations of an obligor be subordinated to the rights of 
     the Secretary in the event of a default.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Johnston):
  S. 921. A bill to establish a Minerals Management Service within the 
Department of the Interior; and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


              THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE ORGANIC ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to establish the Minerals Management Service as a permanent agency at 
the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be joined in this 
effort by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Brown, and by the ranking 
member on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator 
Johnston.
  The legislation I sponsor is very straightforward. It would simply 
authorize the establishment of a Minerals Management Service at the 
Department of the Interior, require that it be headed by a Director who 
is to be appointment by the President and confirmed with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, and direct that it administer royalty management 
and Outer Continental Shelf lands programs. The Minerals Management 
Service already exists although, as I will explain, the Clinton 
administration has proposed to dismantle it. My bill, which is an MMS 
organic act, would authorize and preserve MMS.
  Mr. President, the Minerals Management Service--or MMS--was 
established by Secretarial order in 1982 in response to concerns about 
the amount of money the United States was receiving for Federal coal 
leases in the West and for the job that was being done in collecting 
mineral royalties owed the United States.
  When MMS was created, it was given two basic functions: first, to 
assure that there is timely and efficient collection, disbursement, 
accounting for and auditing of the royalties owed the United States for 
mineral leases both onshore and offshore. MMS has principal 
responsibility for handling the mineral receipts under provisions of 
the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management 
Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
  Second, MMS was given responsibility for managing a program to 
promote and regulate the use of lands on the Outer Continental Shelf 
for purposes of mineral exploration, development and production. The 
OCS contains abundant supplies of oil and natural gas, as well as other 
minerals used for industrial and commercial purposes, such as sulfur.
  When MMS was formed, many good Federal employees from the Interior 
Department's Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey, as 
well as some from the Department of Energy, were selected to staff this 
new agency. Most of these people brought a particular expertise to 
their jobs, with some having experience at the General Accounting 
Office and the Internal Revenue Service.
  What has MMS and its employees done with its responsibilities in last 
13 years, Mr. President? Well, it has significantly improved the 
royalty management program. It has reduced the number of data-related 
errors and royalty payor mistakes from about 39 percent in 1982 to less 
than 5 percent. In increased the percentage of monies being distributed 
on time from 92 to about 99 percent in a period of about 10 years. For 
its handling of the royalty management functions, MMS received an award 
for management excellence from the President's Council on Management 
Improvement in 1991, and twice in the last 5 years has been a finalist 
for the Federal Quality Institute's Quality Improvement Prototype 
Awards.
  Besides the IRS, the MMS is the second largest source of revenues for 
the Federal Government, handling more than 4 billion in mineral 
royalties, bonus bids, and rental payments each year. That is 
tremendous responsibility, and MMS is handling it well. Sure, there are 
disagreement over policy issues. But, for the most part, people would 
say MMS is doing a good job.
  As for its responsibilities over the OCS lands program, Mr. 
President, I believe MMS can take great pride in the fact that the OCS 
is contributing to our Nation's energy supply in an environmentally 
sound and safe manner. The OCS accounts for about 23 percent of the 
Nation's natural gas production and after 14 percent of our crude oil 
production. The OCS contains about 25 percent of our known natural gas 
reserves and about 15 percent of our known oil reserves. Historically, 
the OCS has accounted for more than 106 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas produced and the production of 9 billion barrels of oil.
  Remarkably, there has never been a blow-out from an oil well on the 
Federal OCS. The amount of oil spilled as a percentage of oil produced 
on the OCS amounts to one-one thousandth of a percent [.001 percent]. 
And, the Department has never lost a challenge to one of its 5-year oil 
and gas plans, which are the activity planning documents laying out the 
Department's proposed oil and gas leasing program each 5 years. For its 
part in assuring that NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] and 
other environmental requirements are fully implemented and adhered to 
with respect to oil and gas exploration, development and production 
activities on the OCS, MMS received the President's Council on 
Environmental Quality Award in 1994 for making environmental 
considerations an integral part of the agency's mission and decision-
making process.
  These are achievements of which MMS can be proud. All this from an 
agency that is not even 15 years old. Compare the effectiveness of MMS 
to one of its sister agencies at Interior, the Office of Surface 
Mining, and you have an example of one agency that functions well and 
one that is an absolute mess.
  Now, however, Mr. President, along come President Clinton and 
Secretary Babbitt and their half-baked reinvention of government 
proposal to dismantle MMS, to devolve some of its functions to the 
States, and to absorb the other functions elsewhere in Interior. If it 
weren't for the fact that we know the President and the Secretary are 
not economists, I'd swear the MMS devolution idea is the work of an 
economist. Economists have been described as people who sit around and 
wonder whether things that actually work in practice can work in 
theory.
  Here, we have the same kind of genius at work. MMS is recognized by 
people inside and outside of government as an effective agency. Yet 
President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt want to give States the task of 
collecting, disbursing, and auditing royalties, have the Federal 
Government keep responsibility for all major substantive functions, and 
double the States' contribution to administrative costs. What a deal!
  Under the present system, States are assessed 25 percent of the total 
administrative costs of royalty collection, disbursement and auditing. 
Under the Babbitt devolution proposal, the States would be assessed the 
present 25 percent, plus another 25 percent. Wyoming, New Mexico, 
Colorado, and Utah would pay an additional $3.2 million, $3.3 million, 
$1.5 million, and $1.1 million, respectively, for the privilege of 
doing MMS's job.
  At first blush, Mr. President, the concept of devolving 
responsibility to the States sounds like a good idea. It's one that 
Republicans have been espousing for years and one that Democrats only 
recently have begun to imitate. Give States primacy. Give them the 
ability to make decisions regarding issues affecting their economic 
well-being. Give them a greater say in how public lands and natural 
resources are managed. That is what Republicans [[Page S8383]] have 
been advocating for years. The Clinton-Babbitt proposal gives States 
more work at greater cost. This is their idea of reinventing 
government.
  Well, the President and his friend Secretary Babbitt have got it 
wrong. The devolution proposal was not clearly thought out beforehand, 
because it doesn't really pass true responsibility to the States. All 
it passes to the States is the ministerial function of royalty 
collection, disbursement, and auditing. And, as I just stated, for an 
added 25 percent administrative charge. Under the President's proposal, 
the Federal Government would retain rulemaking authority, 
responsibility to make valuation determinations, and other important 
responsibility. So the devolution of MMS responsibility is not really 
what it's cracked up to be.
  We have yet to see an explanation of the economic effects of the 
President's proposal that fully sets out the benefits of this proposal. 
We haven't seen a rush by the States to accept this responsibility, 
because many are still trying--as we are--to figure out the proposal, 
whether they are equipped to handle the responsibilities, and whether 
the proposal would impose an unfunded mandate. I suspect that some of 
the numbers used by the President and Secretary Babbitt came from the 
same creative genius that thought up the MMS devolution proposal in the 
first place.
  Mr. President, the long and short of it is this: President Clinton 
and Secretary Babbitt have missed the mark with their MMS devolution 
proposal. The President's efforts would be better directed in improving 
the Office of Surface Mining, or in significantly eliminating functions 
of the Department of Energy. MMS is not broken, and does not need to be 
dismembered as proposed by this ill conceived devolution.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that all the good things MMS has 
achieved will be lost if it is dismantled and its functions are spread 
to the wind. We are likely to get inconsistent interpretations, rulings 
and policies from the States on the few functions they will be given, 
while we still have the major ``inherently federal functions'' retained 
by the Interior Department. This will lead to costly litigation and an 
inefficient use of private and public sector resources.
  In addition, Mr. President, if the OCS minerals management function 
is absorbed--or more likely buried--elsewhere in the Department, who 
will be the advocate for the offshore oil and gas program? Who will 
assure that the OCS continues to be a vital contributor to our Nation's 
energy security and energy policy?
  The answer, I submit Mr. President, is that no single person and no 
agency will assure that responsibility. The President has not assumed 
responsibility for a national energy policy, and has no energy security 
program. The President is AWOL--absent without leadership--on our 
Nation's energy policy. The dismantling of MMS is consistent with that 
AWOL approach to executive management.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation. I urge them not to succumb to the baiting that is likely 
to come from President Clinton, his friend Secretary Babbitt and others 
who are attempting to ``reinvent government'' by destroying an agency 
that works and claiming that Republicans are against government reform, 
reduction of the Federal work force, and saving money. The MMS 
devolution is a bad idea, and is forced on an agency that works. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in sending a message to the President that he 
has completely missed the mark on this one.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN.
  S. 923. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
provide for a national program concerning motor vehicle pursuits by law 
enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             The national police pursuit policy act of 1995

  Mr. DORGAN.
  Mr. President, I intend to send some legislation to the desk of the 
Senate today dealing with an issue that does not command many headlines 
but that is a critically important issue, in my judgment. It is the 
issue of the policy of police pursuit in this country and the dangers 
resulting from people who flee from police.
  I received a letter about a month or two ago from a woman in Falls 
Church, VA. I had written to her 2 years ago. Her husband and two 
children, on a Sunday morning, on the way to church, were involved in a 
circumstance where a young fellow who was drunk and stole a car was 
being chased by the police at high rates of speed. This young fellow, 
being chased at a high rate of speed, crashed into the car of the 
father and his two daughters and all three were killed.
  Of course, the fellow who was drunk and fleeing from the police was 
not hurt so badly. He eventually recovered and not very much happened 
to him as far as court action. By contrast, this Virginia woman lost 
her husband and two children in a circumstance where there was a high-
speed police chase in a city.
  I wrote her a long letter when I read about it, because I sympathized 
substantially with her. I have written letters to others who suffered 
similar fates.
  My mother was killed in a high-speed police chase, and I understand 
that there are others around this country who, when confronted with 
this, become angry about the chases that occur on city streets. I have, 
for some years, felt we should do something about that.
  The police are not the villains. It is the folks who run from the 
police who are the villains. I have believed that for a long time and 
have introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to respond to 
this problem.
  It is not just the woman in Falls Church, VA, who lost her family in 
a senseless accident, or my mother who was senselessly killed in a 
similar circumstance in a police chase in Bismarck, ND, but let me 
expand on my own experience.
  Eyewitnesses said that particular chase occurred at speeds up to 80 
to 100 miles an hour on the city streets. My mother, coming home from 
the hospital, was a victim of that accident.
  The villain there was a fellow in the pickup truck who was drunk and 
who fishtailed his pickup truck because he was pushing the accelerator 
too hard, showing off. He took flight from the police at a very rapid 
rate of speed, and the result was that a wonderful woman was killed. 
She senselessly lost her life.
  Here's another tragic incident. On November 25, last year, a car 
carrying a family of four on their way to a movie in Houston, TX, was 
struck by a speeding car during a high-speed chase.
  I could stand here for some hours and talk about the number of people 
killed as a result of high-speed chases. In fact, a lot of people do 
not know, but more innocent people in this country are killed as a 
result of an accident that occurs from a high-speed police pursuit or 
chase on city streets than are killed as a result of an accidental 
shooting from a policeman's gun. We do not know how many, but we 
estimate probably a thousand people a year or more. Thousands and 
thousands more are injured as a result of these chases.
  The fact is that it is not the police that are the source of the 
problem, it is the people who run from the police. But it is also a 
fact that there are some circumstances where the police should not 
conduct a chase. If a motorist has a broken taillight and that results 
in a policeman trying to stop that person, and the person takes flight, 
that does not justify a 100-mile-an-hour chase through the city 
streets.
  There is an organization called STOPP, whose board of directors is 
meeting today in Washington, DC. And I believe one of the members of 
the board of directors is from the State of the Presiding Officer, the 
State of Pennsylvania. Every one of the folks on that board will tell 
you a similar story. Some member of their family or some friend was an 
innocent bystander or passenger, but yet a victim of a high-speed 
pursuit.
  Now, what ought we do about this?
  Well, I think we should do a couple of things. First, I like the 
system in Europe, where in most countries people who go out to drink 
understand that one of that group ought not to be drinking because they 
are going to drive. If you drive and get picked up drunk, you are in 
very serious trouble.
  In this country the consequence has been all too often sort of a 
smirk and [[Page S8384]] a smack on the wrist. We ought to understand 
in this country that both for drinking, and especially for those who 
are willing to flee from police and take flight when they are trying to 
apprehend you, two things are going to happen.
  One, you are going to be put in jail for 3 months, and second, you 
are going to lose your vehicle. There ought to be certainty in this 
country about that. If you take flight from the police, there ought to 
be certainty in every State in this country that you are going to be 
put in jail for doing it, and you are going to lose your vehicle.
  I propose legislation that puts this into law. It requires the States 
to adopt policies to comply with those goals. And second, it requires 
that at every law enforcement agency in this country there be uniform 
training about police pursuit, when to pursue and when not to pursue.
  Interestingly, I was talking to a county sheriff recently and I was 
talking about my legislation. He said to me, ``It is interesting, 
because just the night before, my deputies found a person who was dead 
drunk driving in a very dangerous way on the city streets, and my 
deputy turned on the light and siren to apprehend this person, and this 
person took off at an enormous rate of speed through the city streets.
  Later on, my deputy saw two small children in the back seat. My 
deputy and the person on the radio decided between them that this was 
not a chase that should continue. They broke off the pursuit.
  An hour later, they went and arrested the person at his home because 
the police had the license number. That is all they needed to do. They 
could have decided that nobody is going to outrun us and that at the 
end of this, a couple kids are going to be dead in the street. That 
probably is what would have happened. Fortunately, they made the right 
decision because these folks were trained and used proper procedures.
  The fact is that in a lot of law enforcement jurisdictions, there is 
not adequate training about when or when not to pursue. There are not 
adequate policies, and there ought to be. I want uniform training and 
policies across this country on police pursuits.
  This issue affects the lives of literally thousands of Americans. I 
would like to see--and my legislation provides for it--that in exchange 
for receiving the highway safety funds, we insist that States meet a 
list of criteria. I simply add to the list one feature. That feature is 
that you shall have certain punishment for those that flee, and the 
punishment is that they will do jail time and lose their vehicles. In 
turn, my legislation also requires a certification that the law 
enforcement jurisdictions have uniform policies and training on police 
pursuit.
  So I intend to offer this legislation again, and I well understand 
that it is hard to pass legislation like this. But it is legislation 
that will, I think, save lives and families the grief and heartache of 
losing loved ones.
  While I am on my feet, let me describe another piece of legislation 
that I will introduce, and which I introduced before, again without 
success partly because people feel we should not meddle.
  Most Members of the Senate will not probably know that you can 
reasonably drive across this country in a meandering line and either 
drink while you drive and be perfectly legal, or have other folks in 
the car drinking and be perfectly legal. You can do so because there 
are about 10 States in America where there is no prohibition against 
the driver drinking. You can get in the car, put a key in the ignition, 
have one hand on the steering wheel and the other on a bottle of 
whiskey and drink and drive to your little heart's content.
  As long as you are not drunk, you can drive in these States. Well, 
there ought not be any State in this country that does not have a law 
prohibiting an open container of liquor, of alcohol in a vehicle. There 
ought not be one. There is no justification in this country to allow 
anybody to move down the highways in a vehicle, that is a noncommercial 
vehicle, and have drinking involved in the vehicle.
  Yet, sadly, there are 10 States in which you can drink and drive and 
you are perfectly legal. You can start on the east coast, meander 
across the country to the west coast, and either drink yourself or have 
somebody else in the vehicle drinking, and do so legally.
  I also believe we ought to change that. Some people say that is 
meddling. That is the State's judgment. Well, I do not want my family, 
I do not want my friends, driving from one jurisdiction to another, 
across a river or across a State line, and discover all of a sudden in 
this State you can drink whiskey and drive. And it is hard to catch 
people who are drinking, whether they are drunk or sober.
  I do not want people to go across those lines and discover in this 
jurisdiction you can drive and drink, and it is fine. It is not fine 
with me. I want to change that law someday. What I would like to see is 
a circumstance where we have decided as a country, much of what the 
European countries have already decided, that drinking and driving 
turns drunk people into murderers. We ought to do what is necessary to 
tell the American people you cannot drink and drive. To do so will 
cause severe penalties.
  The legislation I will introduce this afternoon, dealing with police 
pursuit, sends a message that is just as strong on the issue of fleeing 
from police. If the police are trying to apprehend you and you flee 
from the police, you will face certain and tough penalties.
  I hope we will consider and discuss such discuss legislation this 
year. I know it comes from things that have happened in my family. I 
have lost two members of our family to drunk drivers. I lost my mother 
to an accident from police pursuit, a person fleeing from the police.
  I know we are all charged with doing things in our self-interest. 
Yes, it is my self-interest, but it is in the self-interest of a lot of 
people in this country who suffer the anguish they should never have to 
suffer. They suffer the loss of innocent lives because of people who 
drink and drive and people who flee from the police. As a result of 
that, police initiate pursuits in city streets that end in death, all 
too often, for innocent Americans.
  This is something we can do something about. This is not some 
mysterious disease. I hope some of my colleagues who might be 
interested in this legislation will join me in finally allowing the 
Senate to make some progress.
  Mr. President, one January morning in 1993 a high speed chase 
occurred in Arlington, VA, where a teenager, driving a stolen vehicle 
and allegedly drunk, fled the police. As the stolen car and police 
cruiser raced through Falls Church, VA, the fleeing teen ran a red 
light and crashed into a car carrying a family on its way to Sunday 
morning church. This high speed chase, one of many that occur every 
year, ended in tragedy: One elementary principal and his two daughters, 
ages 12 and 8, were killed, and the teenager driving the fleeing car 
was hospitalized.
  Public outrage erupted after this incident, with angry citizens 
calling the police department to say, ``* * * a stolen car is not worth 
a life.'' Mr. President, it seems to me that we need to ask ourselves: 
``Is a stolen car or a traffic violation worth the cost of an innocent 
life?'' Unfortunately, this question is not being adequately answered 
by hundreds of police officers who on a regular basis pursue stolen 
cars and law breakers at reckless speeds through city streets.
  There are countless other tragic examples, and I want to mention just 
a few. On November 25, 1994, a car carrying a family of 4, on their way 
to a movie in Houston, TX, was struck by a speeding car during a high 
speed police chase. Innocent passengers Laura Madrid, Robert Romero, 
and Maria Torres Romero later died as a result of injuries suffered in 
the accident. In fact, that same year in Houston, a total of 11 people 
were killed, amid 191 hot pursuit chases, prompting the Houston police 
department to reexamine and ultimately change its pursuit policy.
  In March of this year, police officers collided with a pickup truck 
while on pursuit, killing three passengers and injuring four others in 
Los Angeles, CA. That same month in Miami, FL, a woman was killed when 
a car full of burglary suspects being chased by police sped off a 
highway, broad-siding her car. That very same day, three police 
cruisers in Florida City, FL, chased a car at speeds of up to 100 miles 
per hour. The chase began when [[Page S8385]] police attempted to pull 
over a woman who was actually driving too slowly. The woman sped away 
from the police, and eventually veered into oncoming traffic, killing 
herself and two young men in an oncoming car.
  These were senseless deaths that could have--and should have--been 
avoided. All of these deaths the result of high speed chases, that 
simply did not justify putting so many innocent lives in the line of 
fire. Something's got to be done.
  Approximately hundreds of Americans are killed and many thousands of 
people are injured every year as a result of high speed chases that are 
started when motorists, whether out of fright, panic, or guilt, flee at 
high speeds instead of stopping when a police vehicle turns on its 
lights and siren. Some police become determined to apprehend the 
fleeing motorist at all costs, what is alarming is that about 60 to 80 
percent of all police pursuits are originated for minor traffic 
violations. The result is that the safety of the general public--the 
dangers that will be created by a high-speed chase in city traffic 
through stop signs and traffic lights--becomes secondary to catching 
someone whose initial offense may have been no greater than driving a
 car with a broken tail light. Tragically, as in the high-speed chase 
last January in Virginia, many people are dying unnecessarily from 
these ill advised pursuits.

  What needs to happen is for every single law enforcement jurisdiction 
in the United States to adopt a reasoned, well-balanced pursuit policy. 
Police officers should be trained to comply with their departments' 
pursuit policies and regularly retrained if needed to guarantee that 
all citizens, both civilians and police, receive the benefit of uniform 
awareness of this problem. A drive across country should not be a pot 
luck regarding one's chances of being maimed or killed by a police 
pursuit. We must strive for universal attention to this public safety 
problem.
  In addition, we need to focus on the people who are initiating these 
chases--the people who are fleeing from police. The punishment for 
fleeing the police should be certain and severe. People should be aware 
that if they flee they will pay a big price for doing so.
  I rise today, Mr. President, to introduce the National Police Pursuit 
Policy Act of 1995. It is my hope that this legislation, if enacted, 
will help prevent tragic losses like the episode that occurred in 1993 
in Arlington, as well as the thousands of other tragedies that occur 
each year all across America, including my own State of North Dakota.
  It's also my hope that the legislation I introduce today will reverse 
the trend of the past several years of ever increasing high-speed 
police pursuits that have caused human losses to steadily mount.
  Although we are finally seeing some initiative being taken by various 
States and local communities, there is still no coordinated effort in 
this country to attack this problem.
  The legislation that I am introducing today would require the 
enactment of State laws making it unlawful for the driver of a motor 
vehicle to take evasive action if pursued by police and would establish 
a standard minimum penalty of 3 months imprisonment and the seizure of 
the driver's vehicle. In addition, my bill would require each public 
agency in every State to establish a hot pursuit policy and provide 
that all law enforcement officers receive adequate training in 
accordance with that policy.
  I believe that these requirements, if passed, will demonstrate strong 
Federal leadership in responding to this problem. I am happy to be able 
to note that one important aspect of this issue, a severe under 
reporting of the accidents and deaths caused by police pursuits, has 
been addressed under provisions enacted in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Under that statute, the 
Secretary of Transportation is required to begin to collect accident 
statistics from each State, including statistics on deaths and injuries 
caused by police pursuits.
  Mr. President, the problem of hot pursuits is not an easy issue to 
solve. I understand that it will always be difficult for police 
officers to judge when a chase is getting out of hand and the public 
safety best served by holding back. However, we can make things better 
if we do everything we can to ensure that police officers are trained 
on how best to make these difficult judgments and if we send a message 
to motorists that if you flee, you will do time in jail and lose your 
car.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in 
the Record and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 923

       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 ``National Police Pursuit 
     Policy Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) accidents occurring as a result of high speed motor 
     vehicle pursuits of fleeing motor vehicles by law enforcement 
     officers are becoming increasingly common across the United 
     States;
       (2) the extent of the problem of those pursuits is evident 
     despite significant underreporting;
       (3) because the problem of those pursuits is extensive, it 
     is essential for all law enforcement agencies to develop and 
     implement policies and training procedures for dealing with 
     high speed motor vehicle pursuits;
       (4) a high speed motor vehicle pursuit in a community by a 
     law enforcement officer should be treated in the same manner 
     as the firing of a police firearm because a high speed motor 
     vehicle pursuit involves the use of a deadly force with the 
     potential for causing harm or death to pedestrians and 
     motorists;
       (5) the Federal Government should provide an incentive for 
     States to enact laws to prevent high speed motor vehicle 
     pursuits;
       (6) to demonstrate leadership in response to the national 
     problem of high speed motor vehicle pursuits, all Federal law 
     enforcement agencies should--
       (A) develop policies and procedures governing motor vehicle 
     pursuits; and
       (B) provide assistance to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in instituting such policies and procedures and in 
     conducting training; and
       (7) the policies referred to in paragraph (6) should 
     balance reasonably the need--
       (A) to apprehend promptly dangerous criminals; and
       (B) to address the threat to the safety of the general 
     public posed by high speed pursuits.

     SEC. 3. MOTOR VEHICLE PURSUIT REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE HIGHWAY 
                   SAFETY PROGRAMS.

       Section 402(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in each of subparagraphs (A) through (D), by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) on and after January 1, 1997, have in effect 
     throughout the State--
       ``(i) a law that--
       ``(I) makes it unlawful for the driver of a motor vehicle 
     to increase speed or to take any other deliberately evasive 
     action if a law enforcement officer clearly signals the 
     driver to stop the motor vehicle; and
       ``(II) provides that any driver who violates that law shall 
     be subject to a minimum penalty of--
       ``(aa) imprisonment for a period of not less 3 months; and
       ``(bb) seizure of the motor vehicle at issue; and
       ``(ii) a requirement that each State agency and each agency 
     of a political subdivision of the State that employs law 
     enforcement officers who, in the course of employment, may 
     conduct a motor vehicle pursuit shall--
       ``(I) have in effect a policy that meets requirements that 
     the Secretary shall establish concerning the manner and 
     circumstances in which a motor vehicle pursuit may be 
     conducted by law enforcement officers;
       ``(II) train all law enforcement officers of the agency in 
     accordance with the policy referred to in subclause (I); and
       ``(III) for each fiscal year, transmit to the chief 
     executive officer of the State a report containing 
     information on each motor vehicle pursuit conducted by a law 
     enforcement officer of the agency.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United 
     States, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chief of the 
     Capitol Police, and the Administrator of General Services 
     shall each transmit to the Congress a report containing--
       (1) the policy of the department or agency headed by that 
     individual concerning motor vehicle pursuits by law 
     enforcement officers of that department or agency; and
       (2) a description of the procedures that the department or 
     agency uses to train law enforcement officers in the 
     implementation of the policy referred to in paragraph (1).
       (b) Requirement.--Each policy referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) shall meet the requirements established by the 
     Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 
     [[Page S8386]] 402(b)(1)(F)(ii)(I) of title 23, United States 
     Code, concerning the manner and circumstances in which a 
     motor vehicle pursuit may be conducted.
