[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 29 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2078-S2088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 412. A bill to provide for a national standard to prohibit the
operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated individuals; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE SAFE AND SOBER STREETS ACT
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that, if
enacted, will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of
drinking and driving. I am proud to stand with Senator Mike DeWine of
Ohio in introducing this bill. The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997
sets a national illegal blood alcohol content [BAC] limit of .08
percent for drivers over 21 years of age. The bill gives States that
have a limit above .08 BAC, 3 years to adopt .08 laws. States that fail
to enact this limit will have a percentage of their highway
construction funds withheld.
Mr. President, drunk driving continues to be a national scourge that
imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of drunk driving accidents
and their loved ones. In 1995, drunk driving increased for the first
time in a decade. That year, 17,274 people were killed in alcohol-
related crashes. Every one of those deaths could have been prevented,
had the driver decided to call for a ride, handed the keys to a friend,
or did anything other than taking the wheel.
Every 30 minutes someone in America--a mother, husband, child,
grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash. The
numbers are increasing. Our highways are turning into death traps and
our concrete clover leaves into killing fields.
Mr. President, we have made progress over the past few decades in the
fight against drunk driving. In 1982, 53 percent of motor vehicle
fatalities involved alcohol; today, alcohol-involved motor vehicle
crashes is 40.5 percent. In 1984, I authored the bill that President
Ronald Reagan signed into law to increase the drinking age to 21. Since
1975, 21 drinking age laws have saved roughly 15,700 lives. And, 2
years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a zero
tolerance bill with sanctions, making it illegal for drivers under 21
years of age to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system.
While that shows promise, we know we must do more--17,274 lives lost
is 17,274 too many. Instituting a national standard for impaired
driving at .08 BAC is the next logical step in the fight against drunk
driving.
There are those who ask why the standard for impaired driving should
be .08 BAC. But I think the better question is: why should the standard
be as high as .10? We know that any amount of alcohol affects motor
skills and driving behavior to some degree. A 1991 study by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that each .02 increase
in the BAC of a driver with nonzero BAC, nearly doubles the risk of
being in a fatal crash. This means that the risk a driver faces begins
much earlier than when his or her blood alcohol content is at .10 or
.08, after the first or second drink. In fact, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] reports that in single vehicle
crashes, the relative fatality risk of drivers with BAC's of .05 and
.09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with a BAC of zero.
Mr. President, .08 BAC is not an insignificant level. A 170 lb. male
must consume four and a half drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to
reach .08 BAC. This is not social drinking. While most States have .10
BAC as their legal limit, it is actually at .08 BAC where driving
skills are seriously compromised. At that level, the vast majority of
drivers are impaired when it comes to critical driving tasks. Braking,
steering, speed control, lane changing, and divided attention are all
compromised at .08 BAC.
Thirteen States have .08 BAC limits, and many industrialized
countries have .08 BAC limits or lower. Canada, Great Britain, Austria,
and Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France and The Netherlands have a
.05 BAC limit. They adopted these laws because they know that
[[Page S2079]]
they work. They work for these reasons:
First, .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and fatalities.
Most States that have adopted the .08 BAC level have found a measurable
drop in impaired driving crashes and fatalities. A study conducted by
Ralph Hingson, ScD. and published in the American Journal of Public
Health showed that those States that adopted .08 BAC laws experienced a
16-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally
injured drivers whose BAC were .08 or higher. And, those same States
experienced an 18-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes
involving drivers whose BAC was .15 or higher. That means that not only
did the rates decrease for overall drinking and driving, but also for
drivers who were extremely impaired. This same study concluded that if
.08 BAC were adopted nationwide, 500 to 600 lives would be saved
annually. That alone should be enough to convince all of us that this
should be a national standard.
Second, .08 BAC laws deter driving after drinking. Crash statistics
show that even heavy drinkers, who account for a high percentage of DWI
arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the general
deterrent effect of the .08 BAC.
All of these facts, Mr. President, show us that .08 BAC needs to be a
national standard, not just an option. Different standards lead to
different perceptions, and in this case these differences can be
deadly. In regions with high interstate traffic, a driver should not be
considered ``impaired'' in one State, and then is legally sober by
simply crossing a border. Pedestrians, passengers, and safe drivers
should be protected no matter in which part of our nation they are.
Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC laws work. We know that .08 BAC
saves lives. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that .08 BAC laws are
adopted. That's why my bill gives States 3 years to adopt .08 BAC laws.
If a State does not meet that deadline, the Secretary of Transportation
will withhold 5 percent of a State's total Interstate Maintenance,
National Highway System, and Surface Transportation Program funding
combined in fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for each year thereafter
until that State adopts the .08 BAC limit.
Mr. President, sanctions work. While incentive grant programs allow
States to decide whether to pass laws on their own, they are
notoriously underfunded and States pay little attention. Since the
inclusion of the .08 BAC limit as an incentive criteria, only seven
States have passed laws due to that incentive. The Federal Government
has a role to play to ensure that our highways and roads are safe, and
that drunk driving is decreased. The public is on our side. We must not
back down.
Mr. President, .08 BAC limits save lives. This bill, if enacted into
law, will work. I urge all my colleagues to join in the fight to
decrease drunk driving, to make our roadways safer, and most important,
to provide comfort to those victims of drunk driving and their families
that the Federal Government stands behind them in the memories of their
loved ones.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, according to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, there were 17,274 alcohol-related traffic
fatalities in 1995. Each year, 1 million people are injured in alcohol-
related traffic crashes. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor
vehicle deaths and injuries.
It is estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45
billion every year, when you count up items like emergency and acute
health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and
judicial services, insurance, disability and workers' compensation,
lost productivity, and social services for those who cannot return to
work and support their families. Just one alcohol-related fatality is
estimated to cost society $950,000. The cost of each alcohol-related
injury averages $20,000.
fixing the problem
The legislation we are introducing today would enact nationally a
strategy that has been proven to work against alcohol-impaired
driving--making it per se illegal to have a .08 level of blood alcohol
content [BAC] when driving.
An illegal per se law makes it illegal in and of itself to drive with
an alcohol concentration measured at or above the established legal
level. Forty-eight States have established a per se law. Thirty-five
States have established per se laws at .10 BAC. Thirteen others have
established the law at .08 BAC.
Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC.
Laboratory and on-road tests show that the vast majority of drivers,
even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 BAC with
regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane
changing, judgment, and divided attention. The risk of being in a crash
rises with each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver
reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their
systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
concluded that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative risk for drivers
with BAC's between .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for
drivers with no alcohol in their systems.
The .08 laws reduce the incidence of impaired driving at .08.
However, they reduce even more the incidence of impaired driving at
high BAC's over .15.
Most States with a .08 law have found that it has helped decrease the
incidence of alcohol-related fatalities. In California, NHTSA found
that the State experienced a 12-percent reduction in alcohol-related
fatalities. A recent study conducted by a professor at Boston
University compared the first five States to lower their BAC limit with
five nearby States with a .10 limit. Overall, the .08 States
experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes
with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as
an 18 percent reduction in crashes where the fatally injured driver's
BAC was .15 or higher. The study concluded that if all States lowered
their BAC limits to .08, alcohol-related highway deaths would decrease
by 500-600 per year.
Furthermore, .08 laws make it easier to arrest and convict drivers
with BAC's of .10 or .11 because these are no longer borderline cases.
Laws establishing a .08 per se limit serve as a powerful deterrent to
drinking and driving--sending a message that the State is getting
tougher on drunk driving, and making people think twice about getting
behind the wheel. I strongly support this legislation.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux and Mr.
Gorton):
S. 414. A bill to amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to encourage
competition in international shipping and growth of U.S. imports and
exports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
the OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 1997
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last Congress, we made substantial
progress toward enacting ocean shipping reform. The House passed a bill
and, under the leadership of Senators Lott and Pressler, we in the
Senate were presented with a very workable framework for ocean shipping
reform. I am pleased to make it the framework upon which we base the
bill which Senators Lott, Gorton, Breaux, and I are introducing today.
It is my hope that we can develop the consensus necessary to pass this
measure in a timely way.
The next step in this process is the hearing later this month before
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, which I
chair. I am looking forward to hearing from those who will be impacted
by our legislative efforts. Ninety-five percent of U.S. foreign
commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Half of this trade, which
is carried by container liner vessels with scheduled service and is
regulated under the Shipping Act of 1984, is affected by these reforms.
This legislation represents an important opportunity to ease the hand
of regulation on a significant sector of commerce, and eliminate a
regulatory agency altogether. Our bill terminates the Federal Maritime
Commission and consolidates remaining maritime regulatory
responsibilities into a renamed Surface Transportation Board. Thus, we
will eliminate one regulatory agency and improve another by making its
mission more reflective of the shipping world where commerce moves
intermodally--over rail, road, and ocean.
This bill allows for greater flexibility in service contracting by
shippers and
[[Page S2080]]
ocean common carriers, which will permit freight to move at the most
competitive prices while we continue to protect against discriminatory
practices. To this end, we continue to require a form of tariff
publication. However, it is much more flexible than current tariff
filing. Tariffs become effective upon publication through a private
system, not the Government, and tariff changes do not require
Government approval. This puts the maritime industry on similar footing
as other transportation industries which we have deregulated in recent
years, providing carriers with much greater rate flexibility. At the
same time, we preserve protections required to counter the effects of
ocean carrier antitrust immunity and foreign carrier involvement in
this segment of commerce.
I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to pass this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 414
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 ``Ocean Shipping Reform Act of
1997'' .
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, this
Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on March
1, 1998.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1701)
is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph (2);
(2) striking ``needs.'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``needs; and''; and
(3) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(4) to promote the growth and development of United
States exports through competitive and efficient ocean
transportation and by placing a greater reliance on the
marketplace.''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
U.S.C. App. 1702) is amended by--
(1) striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph (4)
as paragraph (5);
(2) inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) `Board' means the Intermodal Transportation Board.'';
(3) striking ``the government under whose registry the
vessels of the carrier operate;'' in paragraph (8) and
inserting ``a government;'';
(4) striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
``(9) `deferred rebate' means a return by a common carrier
of any portion of freight money to a shipper as a
consideration for that shipper giving all, or any portion, of
its shipments to that or any other common carrier over a
fixed period of time, the payment of which is deferred beyond
the completion of service for which it is paid, and is made
only if the shipper has agreed to make a further shipment or
shipments with that or any other common carrier.'';
(5) striking ``in an unfinished or semifinished state that
require special handling moving in lot sizes too large for a
container'' in paragraph (11);
(6) striking ``paper board in rolls, and paper in rolls.''
in paragraph (11) and inserting ``paper and paper board in
rolls or in pallet or skid-sized sheets.'';
(7) striking ``conference, other than a service contract or
contract based upon time-volume rates,'' in paragraph (14)
and inserting ``conference'';
(8) striking ``conference.'' in paragraph (14) and
inserting ``conference and the contract provides for a
deferred rebate arrangement.'';
(9) striking ``carrier.'' in paragraph (15) and inserting
``carrier, or in connection with a common carrier and a water
carrier subject to subchapter II of chapter 135 of title 49,
United States Code.''.
(10) striking paragraph (17) and redesignating paragraphs
(18) through (27) as paragraphs (17) through (26),
respectively;
(11) striking paragraph (18), as redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(18) `ocean freight forwarder' means a person that--
``(A)(i) in the United States, dispatches shipments from
the United States via a common carrier and books or otherwise
arranges space for those shipments on behalf of shippers; and
``(ii) processes the documentation or performs related
activities incident to those shipments; or
``(B) acts as a common carrier that does not operate the
vessels by which the ocean transportation is provided, and is
a shipper in its relationship with an ocean common
carrier.'';
(12) striking paragraph (20), as redesignated and inserting
the following:
``(20) `service contract' means a written contract, other
than a bill of lading or a receipt, between one or more
shippers and an individual ocean common carrier or an
agreement between or among ocean common carriers in which the
shipper or shippers makes a commitment to provide a certain
volume or portion of cargo over a fixed time period, and the
ocean common carrier or the agreement commits to a certain
rate or rate schedule and a defined service level, such as
assured space, transit time, port rotation, or similar
service features. The contract may also specify provisions in
the event of nonperformance on the part of any party.'';
(13) striking paragraph (22), as redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(22) `shipper' means--
``(A) a cargo owner;
``(B) the person for whose account the ocean transportation
is provided;
``(C) the person to whom delivery is to be made;
``(D) a shippers' association; or
``(E) an ocean freight forwarder, as defined in paragraph
(18)(B) of this section, that accepts responsibility for
payment of all charges applicable under the tariff or service
contract.''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment, except
that the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) take
effect on January 1, 1999.
SEC. 103. AGREEMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT.
(a) Ocean Common Carriers.--Section 4(a) of the Shipping
Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1703(a)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``operators or non-vessel-operating common
carriers;'' in paragraph (5) and inserting ``operators;'';
(2) striking ``and'' in paragraph (6) and inserting ``or'';
and
(3) striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) discuss and agree upon any matter related to service
contracts.''.
(b) Marine Terminal Operators.--Section 4(b) of that Act
(46 U.S.C. App. 1703(b)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``(to the extent the agreements involve ocean
transportation in the foreign commerce of the United
States)''; and
(2) striking ``arrangements.'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``arrangements, to the extent that such agreements
involve ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the
United States.''.
SEC. 104. AGREEMENTS.
Section 5(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1704(b)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) provide that any member of the conference may take
independent action on any rate or service item upon not more
than 5 calendar days' notice to the conference and that,
except for exempt commodities not published in the conference
tariff, the conference will include the new rate or service
item in its tariff for use by that member, effective no later
than 5 calendar days after receipt of the notice, and by any
other member that notifies the conference that it elects to
adopt the independent rate or service item on or after its
effective date, in lieu of the existing conference tariff
provision for that rate or service item; and
``(9) prohibit the conference from--
``(A) prohibiting or restricting the members of the
conference from engaging in negotiations for individual
service contracts under section 8(c)(3) of this Act with 1 or
more shippers;
``(B) requiring a member of the conference to disclose the
existence of a confidential individual service contract under
section 8(c)(3) of this Act, or a negotiation on an
individual service contract under section 8(c)(3) of this
Act, except when the conference enters into negotiations with
the same shipper; and
``(C) issuing mandatory rules or requirements affecting
individual service contracts under section 8(c)(3) of this
Act, except as provided in subparagraph (B).
A conference may issue voluntary guidelines relating to the
terms and procedures of individual service contracts under
section 8(c)(3) of this Act if the guidelines explicitly
state the right of members of the conference not to follow
the guidelines.''.
SEC. 105. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITRUST LAWS.
(a) In General.--Section 7 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
U.S.C. App. 1706) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``or publication'' in paragraph (2) of
subsection (a) after ``filing'';
(2) inserting ``Federal Maritime'' before ``Commission'' in
paragraph (6) of subsection (a);
(3) striking ``or'' at the end of subsection (b)(2);
(4) striking ``States.'' at the end of subsection (b)(3)
and inserting ``States; or''; and
(5) adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``(4) to any loyalty contract.''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment except
the amendment made by paragraph (2) of subsection (a) takes
effect on January 1, 1999.
SEC. 106. TARIFFS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 8 of the
Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1707) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``new assembled motor vehicles,'' after
``scrap,'' in paragraph (1);
(2) striking ``file with the Commission, and'' in paragraph
(1);
[[Page S2081]]
(3) striking ``inspection,'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``inspection in an automated tariff system,'';
(4) striking ``tariff filings'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``tariffs'';
(5) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(D);
(6) striking ``loyalty contract,'' in paragraph (1)(E);
(7) striking ``agreement.'' in paragraph (1)(E) and
inserting ``agreement; and'';
(8) adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
``(F) include copies of any loyalty contract, omitting the
shipper's name.''; and
(9) striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Tariffs shall be made available electronically to any
person, without time, quantity, or other limitation, through
appropriate access from remote locations, and a reasonable
charge may be assessed for such access. No charge may be
assessed a Federal agency for such access.''.
(b) Service Contracts.--Subsection (c) of that section is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Service Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--An individual ocean common carrier or an
agreement between or among ocean common carriers may enter
into a service contract with one or more shippers subject to
the requirements of this Act. The exclusive remedy for a
breach of a contract entered into under this subsection shall
be an action in an appropriate court, unless the parties
otherwise agree.
``(2) Agreement service contracts.--Except for service
contracts dealing with bulk cargo, forest products, recycled
metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper, or
paper waste, each contract entered into under this subsection
by an agreement shall be filed confidentially with the
Commission, and at the same time, a concise statement of its
essential terms shall be published and made available to the
general public in tariff format, and those essential terms
shall be available to all shippers similarly situated. The
essential terms shall include--
``(A) the origin and destination port ranges in the case of
port-to-port movements, and the origin and destination
geographic areas in the case of through intermodal movements;
``(B) the commodity or commodities involved;
``(C) the minimum volume;
``(D) the line-haul rate;
``(E) the duration;
``(F) service commitments; and
``(G) the liquidated damages for nonperformance, if any.
``(3) Individual service contracts.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a) of this section and paragraph (2) of this
subsection, service contracts entered into under this
subsection between 1 or more shippers and an individual ocean
common carrier--
``(A) may be made on a confidential basis;
``(B) are not required to be filed with the Commission; and
``(C) shall be retained by the parties to the contract for
3 years subsequent to the expiration of the contract.'';
(c) Rates.--Subsection (d) of that section is amended by--
(1) striking ``30 days after filing with the Commission.''
in the first sentence and inserting ``21 calendar days after
publication.'';
(2) striking ``less than 30'' in the next sentence and
inserting ``less than 21 calendar''; and
(3) striking ``publication and filing with the
Commission.'' in the last sentence and inserting
``publication.''.
(d) Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.--Subsection (e) of
that section is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.--A marine
terminal operator may make available to the public a schedule
of rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations
of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to
receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its
marine terminal. Any such schedule made available to the
public shall be enforceable as an implied contract, subject
to section 10 of this Act, without proof of actual knowledge
of its provisions.''.
(e) Automated Tariff System Requirements; Form.--Subsection
(f) of that section is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Regulations.--The Commission shall by regulation
prescribe the requirements for the accessibility and accuracy
of automated tariff systems established under this section.
The Commission may, after periodic review, prohibit the use
of any automated tariff system that fails to meet the
requirements established under this section. The Commission
may not require a common carrier to provide a remote terminal
for access under subsection (a)(2). The Commission shall by
regulation prescribe the form and manner in which marine
terminal operator schedules authorized by this section shall
be published.''.
SEC. 107. AUTOMATED TARIFF FILING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM.
Section 502 of the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement
Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1707a) is repealed.
SEC. 108. CONTROLLED CARRIERS.
Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1708)
is amended by--
(1) striking ``filed with the Commission'' in the first
sentence of subsection (a) and inserting a comma and ``or
charge or assess rates,'';
(2) striking ``or maintain'' in the first sentence of
subsection (a) and inserting ``maintain, or enforce'';
(3) striking ``disapprove'' in the third sentence of
subsection (a) and inserting ``prohibit the publication or
use of''; and
(4) striking ``filed by a controlled carrier that have been
rejected, suspended, or disapproved by the Commission'' in
the last sentence of subsection (a) and inserting ``that have
been suspended or prohibited by the Commission'';
(5) striking ``may take into account appropriate factors
including, but not limited to, whether--'' in subsection (b)
and inserting ``shall take into account whether the rates or
charges which have been published or assessed or which would
result from the pertinent classifications, rules, or
regulations are below a level which is fully compensatory to
the controlled carrier based upon that carrier's actual costs
or upon its constructive costs. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `constructive costs' means the costs of
another carrier, other than a controlled carrier, operating
similar vessels and equipment in the same or a similar trade.
The Commission may also take into account other appropriate
factors, including but not limited to, whether--'';
(6) striking paragraph (1) of subsection (b) and
redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3), respectively;
(7) striking ``filed'' each place it appears in subsection
(b) and inserting ``published or assessed'';
(8) striking ``filing with the Commission'' in subsection
(c) and inserting ``publication'';
(9) striking ``Disapproval.--'' in subsection (d) and
inserting ``Prohibition of Rates.--Within 120 days after the
receipt of information requested by the Commission under this
section, the Commission shall determine whether the rates,
charges, classifications, rules, or regulations of a
controlled carrier may be unjust and unreasonable.'' ;
(10) striking ``filed'' in subsection (d) and inserting
``published or assessed'';
(11) striking ``may issue'' in subsection (d) and inserting
``shall issue'';
(12) striking ``disapproved.'' in subsection (d) and
inserting ``prohibited.'';
(15) striking ``60'' in subsection (d) and inserting
``30'';
(16) inserting ``controlled'' after ``affected'' in
subsection (d);
(17) striking ``file'' in subsection (d) and inserting
``publish''.
(18) striking ``disapproval'' in subsection (e) and
inserting ``prohibition'';
(19) inserting ``or'' after the semicolon in subsection
(f)(1);
(20) striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection
(f); and
(21) redesignating paragraph (5) of subsection (f) as
paragraph (2).
SEC. 109. PROHIBITED ACTS.
(a) Section 10(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1709(b)) is amended by--
(1) striking paragraphs (1) through (3);
(2) redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (1);
(3) inserting after paragraph (1), as redesignated, the
following:
``(2) provide service in the liner trade that--
``(A) is not in accordance with the rates contained in a
tariff published or a service contract entered into under
section 8 of this Act unless excepted or exempted under
section 8(a)(1) or 16 of this Act; or
``(B) is under a tariff or service contract which has been
suspended or prohibited by the Commission under section 9 or
11a of this Act;'';
(4) redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as paragraphs
(3) through (6), respectively;
(5) striking paragraph (9) and redesignating paragraphs
(10) through (16) as paragraphs (7) through (13),
respectively;
(6) in paragraph (7), as redesignated, inserting ``except
for service contracts,'' before ``demand,'';
(7) in paragraph (9), as redesignated --
(A) inserting ``port, class or type of shipper, ocean
freight forwarder,'' after ``locality,''; and
(B) inserting a comma and ``except for service contracts,''
after ``deal or'';
(8) striking ``a non-vessel-operating common carrier'' each
place it appears in paragraphs (11) and (12), as
redesignated, and inserting ``an ocean freight forwarder'';
(9) striking ``sections 8 and 23'' in paragraphs (11) and
(12), as redesignated, and inserting ``sections 8 and 19'';
(10) striking ``paragraph (16)'' in the matter appearing
after paragraph (13), as redesignated, and inserting
``paragraph (13)''; and
(11) inserting ``the Commission,'' after ``United States,''
in such matter.
(b) Section 10(c)(5) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1709(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``as defined by
section 3(18)(A) of this Act,'' before ``or limit''.
(c) Section 10(d)(3) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1709(d)(3)) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(11),
(12), and (16)'' and inserting ``subsections (b)(8), (9), and
(13)''.
SEC. 110. COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS, REPORTS, AND
REPARATIONS.
Section 11(g) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1710(g)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``section 10(b)(5) or (7)'' and inserting
``section 10(b)(3) or (5)''; and
(2) striking ``section 10(b)(6)(A) or (B)'' and inserting
``section 10(b)(4)(A) or (B).''.
[[Page S2082]]
SEC. 111. FOREIGN SHIPPING PRACTICES ACT OF 1988.
Section 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988
(46 U.S.C. App. 1710a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier,'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``ocean freight forwarder,'';
(2) striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier
operations,'' in paragraph (4);
(3) by inserting ``and service contracts'' after
``tariffs'' each place it appears in subsection (e)(1)(B);
(4) by striking ``filed with the Commission'' in subsection
(e)(1)(B); and
(5) by striking ``section 13(b)(5) of the Shipping Act of
1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(5)'' in subsection (h) and
inserting ``section 13(b)(6) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(6))''.
SEC. 112. SUBPOENAS AND DISCOVERY.
Section 12(a)(2) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1711 (a)(2)) is amended by striking ``evidence.'' and
inserting ``evidence, including individual service contracts
described in section 8(c)(3) of this Act.''.
SEC. 113. PENALTIES.
(a) Section 13(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1712(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following: ``The amount of any penalty imposed upon a common
carrier under this subsection shall constitute a lien upon
the vessels of the common carrier and any such vessel may be
libeled therefor in the district court of the United States
for the district in which it may be found.''.
(b) Section 13(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1712(b)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``section 10(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (8)'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``section 10(b)(1), (2), or
(6)'';
(2) redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(3) inserting before paragraph (5), as redesignated, the
following:
``(4) If the Commission finds, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, that a common carrier has failed
to supply information ordered to be produced or compelled by
subpoena under section 12 of this Act, the Commission may
request that the Secretary of the Treasury refuse or revoke
any clearance required for a vessel operated by that common
carrier. Upon request by the Commission, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall, with respect to the vessel concerned, refuse
or revoke any clearance required by section 4197 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91).'';
and
(4) striking ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)'' in paragraph
(6), as redesignated, and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2),
(3), and (4)''.
(c) Section 13(f)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.
App. 1712(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``or (b)(4)'' and
inserting ``or (b)(2)''.
SEC. 114. REPORTS AND CERTIFICATES.
Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1714) is amended by--
(1) striking ``and certificates'' in the section heading;
(2) striking ``(a) Reports.--'' in the subsection heading
for subsection (a); and
(3) striking subsection (b).
SEC. 115. EXEMPTIONS.
Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1715) is amended by striking ``substantially impair effective
regulation by the Commission, be unjustly discriminatory,
result in substantial reduction in competition, or be
detrimental to commerce.'' and inserting ``result in
substantial reduction in competition or be detrimental to
commerce.''.
SEC. 116. AGENCY REPORTS AND ADVISORY COMMISSION.
Section 18 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1717) is repealed.
SEC. 117. OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS.
Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1718) is amended by--
(1) striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) License.--No person in the United States may act as
an ocean freight forwarder unless that person holds a license
issued by the Commission. The Commission shall issue a
forwarder's license to any person that the Commission
determines to be qualified by experience and character to act
as an ocean freight forwarder.'';
(2) redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
(3) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Financial Responsibility.--
``(1) No person may act as an ocean freight forwarder
unless that person furnishes a bond, proof of insurance, or
other surety in a form and amount determined by the
Commission to insure financial responsibility that is issued
by a surety company found acceptable by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
``(2) A bond, insurance, or other surety obtained pursuant
to this section--
``(A) shall be available to pay any judgment for damages
against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its
transportation-related activities under section 3(18) of this
Act, or any order for reparation issued pursuant to section
11 or 14 of this Act, or any penalty assessed pursuant to
section 13 of this Act; and
``(B) may be available to pay any claim against an ocean
freight forwarder arising from its transportation-related
activities under section 3(18) of this Act that is deemed
valid by the surety company after providing the ocean freight
forwarder the opportunity to address the validity of the
claim.
``(3) An ocean freight forwarder not domiciled in the
United States shall designate a resident agent in the United
States for receipt of service of judicial and administrative
process, including subpoenas.'';
(4) striking ``a bond in accordance with subsection
(a)(2)'' in subsection (c), as redesignated, and inserting
``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety in accordance
with subsection (b)(1)'';
(5) striking ``forwarder'' in paragraph (1) of subsection
(e) and inserting ``forwarder, as described in section
3(18),'';
(6) striking ``license'' in paragraph (1) of subsection (e)
and inserting ``license, if required by subsection (a),'';
(7) striking paragraph (3) of subsection (e), as
redesignated, and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(3); and
(8) adding at the end of subsection (e), as redesignated,
the following:
``(4) No conference or group of 2 or more ocean common
carriers in the foreign commerce of the United States that is
authorized to agree upon the level of compensation paid to an
ocean freight forwarder, as defined in section 3(18)(A) of
this Act, may--
``(A) deny to any member of the conference or group the
right, upon notice of not more than 5 calendar days, to take
independent action on any level of compensation paid to an
ocean freight forwarder, as so defined; or
``(B) agree to limit the payment of compensation to an
ocean freight forwarder, as so defined, to less than 1.25
percent of the aggregate of all rates and charges which are
applicable under a tariff and which are assessed against the
cargo on which the forwarding services are provided.''.
SEC. 118. CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, AND LICENSES UNDER PRIOR
SHIPPING LEGISLATION.
Section 20 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1719) is amended by--
(1) striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Effects on Certain Agreements and Contracts.--All
agreements, contracts, modifications, and exemptions
previously issued, approved, or effective under the Shipping
Act, 1916, or the Shipping Act of 1984 shall continue in
force and effect as if issued or effective under this Act, as
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997, and all new
agreements, contracts, and modifications to existing,
pending, or new contracts or agreements shall be considered
under this Act, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 1997.'';
(2) inserting the following at the end of subsection (e):
``(3) The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997 shall not
affect any suit--
``(A) filed before the effective date of that Act; or
``(B) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged
in before the effective date of that Act filed within 1 year
after the effective date of that Act.
``(4) Regulations issued by the Federal Maritime Commission
shall remain in force and effect where not inconsistent with
this Act, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of
1997.''.
SEC. 119. SURETY FOR NON-VESSEL-OPERATING COMMON CARRIERS.
Section 23 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1721) is repealed.
SEC. 120. REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION WITH
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD.
(a) In General.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.
1701 et seq.) is amended by--
(1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it
appears, except in sections 7(a)(6) and 20, and inserting
``Intermodal Transportation Board'';
(2) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears
(including chapter and section headings), except in sections
7(a)(6) and 20, and inserting ``Board''; and
(3) striking ``Commission's'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Board's''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on January 1, 1999.
TITLE II--TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION TO
THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD
SEC. 201. TRANSFER TO THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD.
(a) Change of Name of Surface Transportation Board to
Intermodal Transportation Board.--The ICC Termination Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-88) is amended by striking ``Surface
Transportation Board'' each place it appears and inserting
``Intermodal Transportation Board''.
(b) Functions of the Federal Maritime Commission.--All
functions, powers and duties vested in the Federal Maritime
Commission shall be administered by the Intermodal
Transportation Board.
(c) Regulations.--No later than January 1, 1998, the
Federal Maritime Commission, in consultation with the Surface
Transportation Board, shall prescribe final regulations to
implement the changes made by this Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998.--
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Maritime Commission, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
(e) Commissioners of the Federal Maritime Commission.--
Subject to the political
[[Page S2083]]
party restrictions of section 701(b) of title 49, United
States Code, the 2 Commissioners of the Federal Maritime
Commission whose terms have the latest expiration dates shall
become members of the Intermodal Transportation Board. Of the
2 members of the Intermodal Transportation Board first
appointed under this subsection, the one with the first
expiring term (as a member of the Federal Maritime
Commission) shall serve for a term ending December 31, 2000,
and the other shall serve for a term ending December 31,
2002. Effective January 1, 1999, the right of any Federal
Maritime Commission commissioner other than those designated
under this subsection to remain in office is terminated.
(f) Membership of the Intermodal Transportation Board.--
(1) Number of members.--Section 701(b)(1) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by--
(A) striking ``3 members'' and inserting ``5 members''; and
(B) striking ``2 members'' and inserting ``3 members''.
(2) Qualifications.--Section 701(b)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after ``sector.'' the
following: ``Effective January 1, 1999, at least 2 members
shall be individuals with--
``(A) professional standing and demonstrated knowledge in
the fields of maritime transportation or its regulation; or
``(B) professional or business experience in the maritime
transportation private sector, including marine terminal or
public port operation.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 1999, except as otherwise
provided.
TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER SHIPPING AND MARITIME LAWS
SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT, 1920.
(a) In General.--Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act,
1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 876) is amended by--
(1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Intermodal Transportation Board'';
(2) inserting ``ocean freight'' after ``solicitations,'' in
subsection (1)(b);
(3) striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier
operations,'' in subsection (1)(b);
(4) striking ``methods or practices'' and inserting
``methods, pricing practices, or other practices'' in
subsection (1)(b);
(5) striking ``tariffs filed with the Commission'' in
subsection (9)(b) and inserting ``tariffs and service
contracts''; and
(6) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears
(including the heading) and inserting ``Board''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, except that the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and
(6) of that subsection take effect on January 1, 1999.
SEC. 302. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Public Law 89-777.--The Act of November 6, 1966, (Pub.
L. 89-777; 80 Stat. 1356; 46 U.S.C. App. 817 et seq.) is
amended by--
(1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Intermodal Transportation Board'';
and
(2) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Board''.
(b) Title 28, United States Code, and Cross Reference.--
(1) Section 2341 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by--
(A) striking ``Commission, the Federal Maritime
Commission,'' in paragraph (3)(A); and
(B) striking ``Surface'' in paragraph (3)(E) and inserting
``Intermodal''.
(2) Section 2342 of such title is amended by--
(A) striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the
Secretary of Transportation issued pursuant to section 2, 9,
37, 41, or 43 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802,
803, 808, 835, 839, or 841a) or pursuant to part B or C of
subtitle IV of title 49 (49 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. or 15101 et
seq.);''; and
(B) striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the
Intermodal Transportation Board--
``(A) made reviewable by section 2321 of this title; or
``(B) pursuant to--
``(i) section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46
U.S.C. App. 876);
``(ii) section 14 or 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
U.S.C. App. 1713 or 1716); or
``(iii) section 2(d) or 3(d) of the Act of November 6, 1966
(46 U.S.C. App. 817d(d) or 817e(d));''.
(c) Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988.--Section
10002(i) of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46
U.S.C. 1710a(i)) is amended by striking ``2342(3)(B)'' and
inserting ``2342(5)(B)''.
(d) Tariff Act of 1930.--Section 641(i) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1641) is repealed.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c)
take effect January 1, 1999.
(2) The repeal made by subsection (d) takes effect March 1,
1998.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan
legislation that will update, revise and improve upon the Shipping Act
of 1984. This legislation is a continuation and extension of work
initiated in the last Congress by Representative Bud Shuster, my friend
in the House of Representatives and Senator Larry Pressler, then
chairman of the Senate's Commerce Committee.
Under the leadership of Senator Pressler, the proposal from the House
of Representatives was examined through an initial hearing, and it was
modified to address the concerns expressed by many in the industry.
Only after a critical review of the key issues and concerns was a
revised bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill introduced.
Unfortunately, time ran out in the 104th Congress and the Senate
Commerce Committee could not hold another hearing on the proposal.
Still, changes continued to be incorporated into a single new version
of the amendment, and in the last week of the 104th Congress the
amendment was placed in the Congressional Record.
My legislative plan was simple and direct--introduce a bill and then
hold a hearing so that public input would have a genuine opportunity to
affect the legislative process. This remains my plan, and that is why I
used my public ending point in the 104th Congress as my new beginning
point in the 105th Congress.
As the process began again in this Congress, we again sought input
from the maritime world as we prepared this important legislation for
reintroduction. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives was
the first to act. In the 105th Congress, the Senate will be the first
to act.
Mr. President, this explanation of the legislative journey was
necessary so that my colleagues will have an appreciation of the
outreach that was pursued by the Senate in its drafting process
regarding this shipping reform.
Let me say that I grew up in an active port community. In fact, I
still live in that port city of Pascagoula. There is nothing in our
legislative proposal that is intended to harm the onshore maritime
community. Believe me, I know first hand the challenges faced by ports
because I have lived with them. I still remember the committee hearing
on the shipping act last year where I had to give lessons in how to
pronounce ``Pascagoula.'' On that day, I wanted to make sure people who
develop and comment on maritime policy know and remember Pascagoula.
I would like to add one more comment about the development of this
legislation before I say a few words on what the bill will accomplish.
The U.S. Coast Guard detailed an officer to the Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee to assist the committee's members and staff on
both sides of the isle on issues affecting the Coast Guard and the
maritime world. Last year and part of this year we have had the able
assistance of Lt. Comdr. Jim Sartucci. He was instrumental in
collecting comments and in drafting provisions of this proposal in both
the 104th and now the 105th Congress.
I have received many unsolicited compliments about Jim's willingness
to listen and merge in a meaningful way, individual proposals from all
segments of the maritime world. Everyone that I have encountered has
told me that Jim was both professional and fair as we worked through
the process.
Mr. President, Lieutenant Commander Sartucci has clearly reflected
great credit upon the Coast Guard, the Commerce Committee, and on this
legislative proposal.
Mr. President, we now know how we got to this point in the
legislative process. There are still two topics that need to be
addressed today.
First, why do we need shipping reform and second, how does the bill
accomplish that reform?
In just a few minutes, let me explain why we need shipping reform.
Last year's successful maritime reform effort addressed the critical
requirement of guaranteeing an American fleet and American crews in the
context of necessary sealift capabilities for deploying and supporting
our military forces overseas. Our efforts in shipping reform this year
focus on the needs of America's ports and Americans who work dockside.
Both big and little ports. were considered as part of the process.
Ports with and without cranes.
Mr. President, last year, I spoke at length with the Honorable Helen
[[Page S2084]]
Delich Bentley, the former Maryland Congresswoman. She has been an
effective defender of ports and maritime labor for years. She is a true
champion, and I value her advice. I made a commitment to Helen then and
I believe it has been honored this year with the legislative language.
The legislation will provide adequate protection for small ports and
small shippers. Also, the legislation will ensure that the collective
power of some industry elements will not be allowed to abuse other
segments of the industry.
Having said this, it is time to deregulate the ocean shipping
industry and to sunset the FMC. The path was started by President
Reagan back in 1984. Senator Slade Gorton, my colleague and friend, was
the principal author of this initial step and with his help we took the
next step when we put together the proposal in the 104th Congress. I am
very pleased that the author of the original act that we are amending
has agreed to cosponsor this bill.
Mr. President, this year Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be leading
the charge to complete this second part of maritime reform. She has a
clear understanding of what is necessary to strike the delicate balance
to achieve deregulation without permitting marketplace abuses. She will
do an excellent job in chairing the hearing and finalizing the
legislative language for the full Senate.
Let me be very clear; this proposal only deals with liner shipping,
basically container ship, legislation--not bulk cargo shipping, which
represents the other half of U.S. ocean borne trade. Do not let the
opponents of reform confuse the issue. The already deregulated world of
bulk cargo shipping is not being disturbed.
I must also be candid. The challenge is to balance ocean common
carrier antitrust issues and large ocean carrier and shipper desires
for more private business relationships with meaningful oversight to
produce a fair, yet competitive playing field. I believe this
legislation strikes the right balance.
I must also say that at the Commerce Committee hearing back in 1995,
both Senator Breaux and I challenged the witnesses to work with us to
resolve the concerns we were hearing from our constituents. The
witnesses and many others did just that. They showed up and
participated in extensive, good faith negotiations.
This bill is not antilabor. The shoreside and seafaring unions
continue to work with us in a constructive manner. Their goal and ours
is to put in place an ocean shipping framework that eliminates
inefficient and burdensome regulations, promotes U.S. trade, and in so
doing, preserves and creates American jobs.
This bill is not about dealing with just a couple of players in the
maritime community. Many members of the industry were consulted. We
provided a genuine opportunity to participate in dialog as we drafted
this bill. Introduction should not stop the consensus seeking process.
And, I hope the discussion will continue with Senator Hutchison as she
prepares for the upcoming hearing and even following the hearing.
Let me now explain how this legislation accomplishes our goals to
reform this critical industry.
This legislation will permit confidential contracting between
individual ocean common carriers and shippers, but will continue
current public filing requirements for joint ocean common carrier
contracts. This action balances the desire to make the U.S. ocean liner
contracting process consistent with international ocean shipping
practices and other U.S. transportation modes with the unique
application of ocean common carrier antitrust immunity in the ocean
liner shipping industry. At recent meetings held by the Maritime
Administration on the diversion of cargo from U.S. ports, the current
U.S. ocean liner shipping system was identified as a contributor to
this problem. This legislation will help eliminate this U.S. port
handicap.
This legislation will retain common carrier tariff enforcement, but
would eliminate the requirement to file tariffs with the Government.
Common carriers would be able to take advantage of available modern
technology by using a World Wide Web home page to satisfy the tariff
publication requirement. This just makes common sense and reduces the
cost of doing business while maintaining protections for small
shippers.
This legislation will streamline and reform the Federal Maritime
Commission [FMC], and establish a responsible time line to downsize the
FMC in accordance with its new mission and merge it with the Surface
Transportation Board. America will then have a single, centralized,
independent, Federal agency where the distinct regulatory systems for
each mode of transportation are monitored and enforced in a coherent
manner.
This legislation does much to ensure that America's presence in the
ocean shipping business is not subjected to unfair foreign rules or
practices. The recent FMC enforcement actions taken against unfair port
practices in Japan is an illustration of an essential FMC mission that
is not performed by other Federal agencies. This mission will continue,
and I will support it wholeheartedly.
Let me be clear. This bill will significantly change the regulations
governing ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the United
States while providing Government efficiencies and genuine reforms to
protect American interests. The changes will strengthen ocean common
carriers' ability to competitively price their services, in turn,
making American shippers more competitive.
Mr. President, the world's transportation community is now, and has
been for some time, a seamless intermodal world. With this bill our
Federal Government will finally be able to think and act in an
intermodal manner. The American people get less Federal micro-
management of our ocean shipping industry while receiving the
protection of a government agency focused on preserving fair
competition. An economically efficient, market oriented shipping
industry provides America an advantage in the global marketplace.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and
I hope they will give serious consideration to becoming a cosponsor to
this necessary bipartisan legislative reform. Remember this is not just
a port State matter; it is also an exporting State concern.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rockefeller, and
Mr. Thomas):
S. 415. A bill to amend the Medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to improve rural health services, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE RURAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health
Improvement Act of 1997. This bill makes rural health care more
convenient, more effective, and more responsive.
The cornerstone of this bill is an extension of the successful
medical assistance facility program, known as MAF's. Without the Rural
Health Improvement Act, MAF will remain only a test program which could
be discontinued in the future. Passing this legislation will make MAF's
permanent and nationwide.
Big Timber, MT, is a good example of how MAF could help out a
community. It is a small ranching and farming town on the edge of the
Absaroka mountain range. People in that town of Big Timber say hi and
chat when they see each other on the street. They are very friendly,
very down to Earth, very basic. Every year, the town puts on the Big
Timber rodeo and black powder shoot. Big Timber is a town like many in
rural Montana.
A few years back, the hospital in Big Timber had to shut down, as is
the case with many hospitals in our country. They could not make ends
meet with the regulations of the current system. But instead of
watching their health care services leave town, the people of Big
Timber got together and applied for a MAF waiver.
I was fortunate enough to be in Big Timber last summer for the grand
opening of their new MAF building. It was a pretty typical July day in
Montana, which means it was very hot. But that did not stop the whole
town from turning out for the dedication ceremony. The MAF Program not
only saved Big Timber's hospital, but it renewed their sense of
community spirit. It was wonderful to watch, wonderful to see. Big
Timber faced the same situation many rural communities face every day.
They found the solution.
Rural life has qualities you cannot find in big cities: The crime
rate is low;
[[Page S2085]]
people go out of their way to help a friend in need; and folks take the
time to know their neighbors, even if that neighbor happens to live 5
miles down the road.
But challenges come with living in such remote surroundings. One of
the biggest is access to quality health care. Randy Dixon, a
physician's assistance at Philipsburg MAF, really hit the nail on the
head when he wrote to me:
Having arrived in your home State, I am greatly impressed
with its magnitude and expanse. However, those same
attributes turn into detriments when you are considering
access to primary health care. My history and recent
acquaintances have taught me that the people of Montana are a
tough, resilient people. But those acquaintances also tell me
that they have not had consistent, reliable primary care
available when that ``toughness'' had a dent or two in it.
Randy sums up life in rural Montana pretty well, but what he really
underscores is the importance of rural medical facilities. In Montana,
vast distances and bad weather are about the only two things you can
count on. Rural hospitals make up a network that blankets Montana and
makes access to health care convenient for folks who are isolated by
distance and weather. When one of these hospitals closes its doors, the
network falls apart, and people can no longer depend on access to
health care.
Jordan, MT, is another example. Without an MAF, the nearest health
facility would be Miles City, over 80 miles away. And whether you have
a serious medical emergency or simply need a routine checkup, 80 miles
is too far, often, to travel.
Rural communities often don't have the patient base or the money to
support a fully functional hospital. Yet, the care that these hospitals
provide is irreplaceable.
Essentially, Mr. President, there are a lot of communities like
Jordan, like Big Timber, Ekalaka, and other small communities in
Montana and other parts of our Nation. Under my bill, an MAF can
provide emergency services during the day and have someone on call at
night. In a small town, that means that the hospital can be opened at a
moment's notice. Folks can still have immediate access to emergency
care, and rural hospitals do not have some of the same burdens and
overhead expenses and all the redtape and regulations that the big
hospitals, unfortunately, often have.
MAF makes exceptions to rules like that.
The whole point of this legislation is to make the MAF waiver
permanent, so that hospitals do not have to apply year after year for
MAF status. Rather, once that status is determined, that status can be
permanent and people in rural communities can rest a little more
assured they are going to have pretty good health care.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rural Health
Improvement Act of 1997, which I joined in introducing today with
Senators Baucus, Rockefeller, and Thomas.
We've heard a lot lately, Mr. President, about how hospitals are
doing better financially than they have in years. ProPAC's recent
report to the Congress indicated that the average prospective payment
margins for hospitals are becoming healthy again. In 1995, the average
PPS margin was 7.9 percent; only 3 years before, the average PPS
margins were negative.
This has truly been a remarkable turnaround, and I applaud hospitals
for their success at improving their efficiency. We must remember,
however, that anytime we use average statistics, there are those which
are below the average, as well as those are above it.
In my State of Iowa, as in many areas of the United States, small
rural hospitals are essential links in the chain of health care access.
For these small hospitals, however, economic survival is a constant
struggle.
There are limits to what we here in Congress can do to help these
hospitals survive. But I believe that we have an obligation to do our
best to give rural Americans a fighting chance at access to health
care. And at the very least, we must not hinder small rural hospitals
as they try to serve their essential role.
Unfortunately, our Medicare policies have often been an obstacle,
rather than a help. Our inflexible rules and reimbursement policies
have made it even harder for small, rural hospitals to survive. I am
pleased to report that the legislation we have introduced today is an
important step toward making the Medicare Program a true partner with
these hospitals.
This bill expands two successful demonstration projects: the Montana
Medical Assistance Facility project, and the Essential Access Community
Hospital, and Rural Primary Care Hospital projects. These projects have
been limited to eight States, with Iowa not among them. Mr. President,
I believe that the purpose of demonstration projects is to see what
works. Well, the results from the eight States have been very good. It
is high time to make the same help available to hospitals in all 50
States. That is what this bill will do.
This legislation allows the designation of certain hospitals as
critical access hospitals. To qualify, hospitals must have average
lengths of stay of not more than 96 hours, referral relationships with
larger hospitals, and 15 or fewer beds, which may be used either for
inpatient care or as swing beds. The bill also imposes a general
distance requirement of 35 miles from another hospital, but this
requirement need not be met if the State certifies that the hospital is
a necessary provider of services to residents in the area. The ability
of States to waive the 35-mile rule is crucial to hospitals in Iowa,
where the distances between communities are not as vast as in some
Western states.
Critical access hospitals will be given greater flexibility in
meeting Medicare regulations that were designed for larger hospitals.
Most important, the legislation will help these hospitals to make their
transition from acute care to less expensive primary care. This is why
the General Accounting Office has found that the demonstration project
has not only assisted the hospitals, and the rural Americans they
serve, but that it has actually saved money for the Medicare Program.
Mr. President, as you might expect, this bill will make a big
difference in Iowa. In 1995, 43 Iowa hospitals had six or fewer
inpatients per day. Of these 43, 15 had negative operating margins.
Many of these are not county hospitals, and thus are not subsidized by
county tax revenues. These hospitals are in a real bind, and many will
benefit from this legislation. Some of the small towns which are likely
to be helped are Hawarden, Primghar, Eldora, Rock Valley, Corning, and
Rock Rapids. For these Iowa communities, and for many others across
America, the Rural Health Improvement Act of 1997 could be a lifesaver.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
from Montana, Iowa, and Wyoming, Senators Baucus, Grassley, and Thomas,
in re-introducing a very important bill for rural communities. My
colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, has long been a strong advocate
of rural health care issues and I am very pleased to be working with
him on such an important issue to rural America. Since Medicare's
enactment in 1965, the Medicare Program has played a vital role in
making sure senior citizens living in rural areas have adequate access
to health care services. A disproportionate number of the elderly live
in rural areas. As a result, rural hospitals are heavily reliant on the
Medicare Program.
Our legislation will provide some basic assistance to help rural
hospitals keep their doors open. The changes we are recommending are
based on carefully studied pilot projects in West Virginia, Montana,
and other States, and we think it is time to apply some very good ideas
to the rest of the Nation. I am pleased that President Clinton's budget
would also expand Essential Access Community Hospital [EACH] and the
Rural Primary Care Hospital [RPCH] program. We are very interested in
seeing the specific details of his proposal.
Mr. President, most rural hospitals have only one choice when faced
with shrinking occupancy rates, declining Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement rates, and intense market pressures to lower their costs:
close their doors. That is where our bill steps in. When being a full-
service hospital is no longer viable, our bill gives them a way to
become what we call a critical access hospital--a way to preserve
essential primary care and emergency health care services for rural
America.
West Virginia is one of only seven States that is currently allowed
to operate a EACH/RPCH Program. Since we
[[Page S2086]]
introduced our bill in the 104th Congress, the EACH/RCPH Program, once
again, proved to be the salvation for a rural West Virginia county that
was on the brink of losing its access to primary care and emergency
care services. Because of the availability of the EACH/RCPH Program in
West Virginia, the local residents of Calhoun County, WV were able to
merge and reorganize two existing, but financially strapped, health
care providers, the Minnie Hamilton Primary Care Center and Calhoun
General Hospital. A neighboring hospital, Stonewall Jackson, stepped in
and offered financial and administrative assistance during this very
difficult period of time. As a result, Calhoun County now has a
thriving and financially stable health care provider that is meeting
the health care needs of its local residents. This is huge relief to
the residents of Calhoun County.
Mr. President, our bill is modeled on two separate, ongoing rural
hospital demonstration projects, the EACH-RPCH Program, the other is
the Montana Medical Assistance Facility [MAF] Program. The basic
concept is to place limits on the number of licensed beds and patient
length of stays in the participating rural hospitals, and in exchange,
hospitals receive Medicare payment rates that will cover their patient
care costs, along with badly needed relief from regulations that are
intended for full-scale, acute care hospitals.
We believe, based on work by the General Accounting Office, that our
legislation will wind up saving the Medicare Program money. We are
encouraging the development of rural health networks, to help small,
rural hospitals save money and improve quality by working more closely
with larger, full-service hospitals.
I am very proud to note that West Virginia has been a leader in
helping small, rural hospitals figure out how to adapt and cope with
rapid changes in the economics of health care. Six hospitals in West
Virginia are federally designated RPCH hospitals and six hospitals are
federally designated EACH hospitals. I know that many other rural
States and rural hospitals are anxious to enjoy the benefits of this
program.
Our legislation draws on the lessons learned from the pilot programs,
improves on them, and expands them so that rural hospitals and patients
all across America will have the same benefits. Our legislation will
give other States the same opportunities already available in
California, Colorado, Kansas, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota,
and West Virginia through the EACH/RPCH Program and in Montana through
the MAF Program.
Our legislation is targeted at the 1,186 rural hospitals nationwide
with fewer than 50 beds. While these hospitals are essential to
assuring access to health care services in their local communities,
these hospitals account for only 2 percent of total Medicare payments
to hospitals. In return for certain limits, rural hospitals can count
on Medicare payments and regulatory relief to fit their circumstances.
They can form new relationships with health care providers in their
community, and larger hospitals farther away, so patients have the kind
of access to care where it is best to get it.
Mr. President, as we move to adopt Medicare reforms in the Finance
Committee later this year, I will be working to make sure that
commonsense reforms to help rural hospitals are also adopted.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 417. A bill to extend energy conservation programs under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the energy policy and conservation act authorization
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill is very simple, yet it
is extremely important to our Nation's energy security. This bill
contains the authorizations for two vital energy security measures, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International
Energy Agency, which will expire at the end of this fiscal year. This
bill would extend those two vital authorities, as well as several other
important DOE programs, through 2002.
For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this act on a
year-to-year basis, and we have faced a potential crisis as these
authorizations go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. We
always seem to end up facing a situation where the President does not
have authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if
an energy emergency occurs.
Further, if these authorities are not renewed, our Government does
not have authority to participate in International Energy Agency
emergency actions in an international energy emergency. There will be
no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow
them to cooperate with the IEA and our Government to respond to the
crisis. These provisions are not controversial in and of themselves,
but this bill has a tendency to become a vehicle to address concerns
over unrelated issues.
In an attempt to avoid the annual crisis, I am introducing
legislation today that will renew these authorities for 5 years. The
bill also provides for the leasing of extra capacity in our reserve
facilities and changes to the antitrust exemption in the bill to
comport with the policies adopted by the IEA at our request.
Although it appears to be easy for some to disregard these dangers,
recent events have underscored exactly how precarious this Nation's
energy security is. Events in the Middle East clearly demonstrate the
instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps
this Nation moving.
The situation is only getting worse. Since the establishment of the
Department of Energy, our reliance on imported oil has passed 50
percent, and is expected to rise to 71 percent by 2015. The OPEC
countries are steadily regaining lost market share and it is projected
to exceed 50 percent by 2000. The U.S. economy appears to be as exposed
as it was in the early 1970's to supply disruptions and losses from
monopoly oil pricing. We are talking about jobs and people's lives. In
the face of these numbers, DOE has no real plan to stop our slide into
near complete dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the President's
budget contains a proposal to sell 67 million barrels of oil from the
SPR in the year 2002.
I am dismayed by a recent trend toward using the SPR as a piggy bank
to pay for other programs. The oil in the SPR cost an average of $27
per barrel. We have sold it for anywhere from $18 to $20 per barrel.
Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in
the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that he
would make it up on volume.
In the face of our growing oil dependence, and the administration's
proposal to sell oil from the SPR, I can't resist noting the
administration's opposition to the production of our domestic oil
resources. The administration does not support the domestic storage or
production of oil. They do not appear to like the reality that this
Nation will continue to need petroleum. However, reality doesn't cease
to be reality because we ignore it.
We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer money in these
stockpiles. As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing
effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The
simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on
oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an
energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there
is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those
tax dollars away.
So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are
fully authorized and available to dampen the effects of the most severe
supply disruptions. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The
least we can do is try to limit the possibility that this measure will
be held hostage to political ambition.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I
would also like to introduce, by request, proposed legislation
transmitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the
administration's transmittal letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S2087]]
The Secretary of Energy,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
Hon. Al Gore,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a legislative proposal
cited as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of
1997. This proposal would amend and extend certain
authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
which either have expired or will expire September 30, 1997,
as well as a weatherization provision in the Energy
Conservation and Production Act.
The EPCA was enacted in 1975. Title I authorizes creation
and maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (the
Reserve), which is the Nation's first line of defense in
responding to domestic and international oil supply
disruptions. Title II contains authorities essential for
maintaining a continuing commitment to the International
Energy Program administered by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) in Paris. Effective participation by the United
States in the IEA is critical to assuring our allies of our
mutual energy emergency preparedness in the event of a severe
interruption of international oil supplies. Title III
contains authorities for certain energy efficiency and
conservation programs.
As a result of changes in the overall energy environment
since the Reserve was authorized in 1975, the Department is
conducting a comprehensive review of Reserve policy. That
review will be completed during fiscal year 1997. If the
review results in recommendations for changes in title I of
EPCA, the Department will submit a legislative proposal under
separate cover. This would include proposals relating to
title I similar to those submitted to the Congress in October
1995.
Since Reserve and other authorities under EPCA expire on
September 30, 1997, it is necessary to extend, until
September 30, 1998, authorization for EPCA titles I and II,
and several provisions in title III, as well as the
Department's weatherization program in title IV of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act. The Administration also is
proposing amendments to certain provisions in EPCA title II
to ensure that the legal authorities for U.S. oil company
participation in the IEA's emergency preparedness programs
are fully in accord with current U.S. and IEA emergency
response policy. The United States has long advocated a
policy at the IEA of coordinated drawdown of government-
controlled oil stockpiles (e.g., the Reserve) to respond to
international oil supply disruptions, with reference on the
IEA's emergency oil allocation program as a last resort. This
is now IEA's accepted policy. Unfortunately, EPCA's current
antitrust provisions do not enable U.S. oil companies to take
part in the full range of IEA oil crisis planning activities.
The Administration's proposed bill would amend the present
limited antitrust defense available to U.S. oil companies to
enable them to assist the IEA in planning or implementing a
coordinated drawdown of government-controlled oil stockpiles.
The proposed legislation and a sectional analysis are
enclosed. The Office of Management and Budget advises that
submission of this proposal to the Congress would be in
accord with the President's program.
We look forward to working with the Congress toward
enactment of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Curtis,
Acting Secretary.
Section-by-Section
section 2. energy policy and conservation act amendments
Section 2 of the bill would amend the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act.
Paragraph (1) would amend section 166 of EPC to authorize
appropriations necessary to implement the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve for fiscal year 1998.
Paragraph (2) would amend section 181 of EPCA by extending
the expiration date of title I, parts B and C from September
30, 1997 to September 30, 1998.
Paragraph (3) is a technical correction which would amend
section 251(e)(1) by striking section ``252(1)(l)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``252(k)(l).''
Paragraph (4) would amend section 252 of EPCA, which makes
available to United States oil companies a limited antitrust
defense and breach of contract defense for actions taken to
carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action to
implement the ``allocation and information provisions'' of
the Agreement on an International Energy Program (``IEP'').
These limited defenses are now available only in connection
with the companies' participation in planning for and
implementation of the IEP's emergency oil sharing and
information programs. The amendment would extend the section
252 antitrust defense (but not the breach of contract
defense) to U.S. companies when they assist the International
Energy Agency (``IEA'') in planning for and implementing
coordinated drawdown of government-owned or government-
controlled petroleum stocks. In 1984, largely at the urging
of the United States, the IEA's Governing Board adopted a
decision on ``Stocks and Supply Disruptions'' which
established a framework for coordinating the drawdown of
member countries' government-owned and government-controlled
petroleum stocks in those oil supply disruptions that appear
capable of causing severe economic harm, whether or not
sufficient to activate the IEP emergency oil sharing and
information programs. During the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis,
the IEA successfully tested the new coordinated stockdraw
policy.
Subparagraph (4)(A) would amend subsection 252 (a) and (b)
of EPCA. These sections would be amended by substituting the
term ``international emergency response provisions'' for the
term ``allocation and information provisions of the
international energy program.'' The new term establishes the
scope of oil company activities covered by the antitrust
defense and includes actions to assist the IEA in
implementing coordinated drawdown of petroleum stocks.
Subparagraph (4)(B) would amend paragraph 252(d)(3) of EPCA
to clarify that a plan of action submitted to the Attorney
General for approval must be as specific in its description
of proposed substantive actions as is reasonable ``in light
of circumstances known at the time of approval'' rather than
``in light of known circumstances.''
Subparagraph (4)(C) would amend paragraph 252(e)(2) of EPCA
to give the Attorney General flexibility in promulgating
rules concerning the maintenance of records by oil companies
related to the development and carrying out of voluntary
agreements and plans of action.
Subparagraph 4(D) would amend paragraph 252(f)(2) of EPCA
to clarify that the antitrust defense applies to oil company
actions taken to carry out an approved voluntary agreements
as well as an approved plan of action.
Subparagraph 4(E) would amend section 252(h) of EPCA to
strike the reference to section 708(A) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, which was repealed by Public Law 102-
558 (October 28, 1992), and the reference to the Emergency
Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, which expired in 1981.
Subparagraph 4(F) would amend subsection 252(i) of EPCA to
require the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission
to submit reports to Congress and to the President on the
impact of actions authorized by section 252 on competition
and on small businesses annually rather than every six
months, except during an ``international energy supply
emergency,'' when the reports would be required every six
months.
Subparagraph 4(G) would amend paragraph 252(k)(2) of EPCA
by substituting a definition of the term ``international
emergency response provisions'' for the present definition of
``allocation and information provisions of the international
energy program.'' The new term, which establishes the scope
of company actions covered by the antitrust defense, covers
(A) the allocation and information provisions of the IEP and
(B) emergency response measures adopted by the IEA Governing
Board for the coordinated drawdown of stocks of petroleum
products held or controlled by governments and complementary
actions taken by governments during an existing or impending
international oil supply disruption, whether or not
international allocation of petroleum products is required by
the IEP.
Subparagraph 4(H) would amend subsection 252(l) of the EPCA
to make clear that the antitrust defense does not extend to
international allocation of petroleum unless the IEA's
Emergency Sharing System has been activated.
Paragraph (5) would amend section 256(h) of EPCA to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for the
activities of the interagency working group and interagency
working subgroups established by section 256 of EPCA to
promote exports of renewable energy and energy efficiency
products and services.
Paragraph (6) would amend section 281 of EPCA by extending
the expiration date of title II from September 30, 1997, to
September 30, 1998.
Paragraph (7) would amend section 365(f)(1) to provide
authorization for appropriations in fiscal year 1998 for
State Energy Conservation Programs.
Paragraph (8) would amend section 397 to provide
authorization for appropriations in fiscal year 1998 for the
Energy Conservation Program for Schools and Hospitals.
Paragraph (9) would amend section 400BB to extend the
authorization for the appropriation for the Alternative Fuels
Truck Commercial Application Program to fiscal year 1998.
section 3. energy conservation and production act amendment
Section 3 would amend section 422 of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act to provide authorization for
appropriation for the weatherization program in fiscal year
1998.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 418. A bill to close the Lorton Correctional Complex, to prohibit
the incarceration of individuals convicted of felonies under the laws
of the District of Columbia in facilities of the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
THE LORTON CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX CLOSURE ACT
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure today that I
introduce the Lorton Correctional Complex Closure Act. For, while a
small penitentiary with 60 inmates might have been acceptable in rural
Fairfax County in 1916, when the prison was first established as a
farming work force, to have over 7,000 inmates in the middle of the
heavily populated modern area of Fairfax today, this Senator finds
totally
[[Page S2088]]
unacceptable, legally, environmentally, and in terms of public safety.
The facts about Lorton clearly demonstrates that it should be
removed. I say that, Mr. President, having worked on it for some 18
years that I have been here in the Senate. These facts clearly
demonstrate that it must be removed in a reasonable period of time,
recognizing that such removal requires careful planning, not only
taking into consideration the needs of the people in the communities of
Virginia, but many other considerations, among them humanitarian needs.
The current facility is inadequate and unsafe. The facilities now
lack any institutional control, certainly not that measure of control
that should be accorded an institution of this importance.
Also, on the question of rehabilitation, I do not think this facility
today is serving to rehabilitative purpose, which is a very vital and
important part of the ability to take people who have finished their
sentences and equip them to return to society.
The antiquated management and physical structures mean the taxpayers
in the District of Columbia get a very poor return on their investment,
and a considerable part of the cost is directed to the citizens of the
District of Columbia. With its far too many escapes and disastrous
pollution record, this facility has continually degraded the quality of
life for those living in the immediate area. This is the combination of
facts that compels Congress, in my judgment, to end this unfairness to
Virginia.
Now, part of the plan that the President of the United States is
considering to revitalize the District includes Federal assumption of
the District's correctional facilities, including those at the Lorton
Prison Complex in Northern Virginia. The present proposal anticipates
massive renovation of the existing prison and new construction, as well
as a cost of nearly $1 billion to the Federal taxpayer.
Now, Mr. President, that is just not going to happen. I have
consistently advocated the closing of Lorton prison in its entirety
throughout my 18 years of Senate service. Several years ago, Mr.
President, I participated with others on both sides of the aisle, and
with the House of Representatives, and we secured legislation and
included initial appropriations to start the relocation of the Lorton
facility. The mayor at that time and other District of Columbia
officials refused even to make the first steps toward a site selection.
We were stonewalled even though Congress had spoken, even though
Congress had anted up the necessary funds to conduct that site
selection and to begin the relocation.
I know of one community in a nearby State that was more than anxious
to participate in the construction of a major modern facility. District
officials looked the other way. I do not intend, and I say this
respectfully to the Senate and the President and his efforts, and I am
not known around here as one to make threats, but I do not intend to
abandon my goal to relocate Lorton. I say that again. I do not intend
to abandon my effort to relocate the Lorton facility.
I wish to be fair and constructive. Consequently, I wish to make it
clear that I will be a constructive working partner on the President's
proposals as they relate to other aspects of the District of Columbia,
because I believe the Nation's Capital needs the help on a wide range
of issues. It is my hope to vote in support of a broad relief plan,
provided, however, that the proposal contains a clear provision which
is binding on D.C. officials, a provision that has a binding obligation
on the part of those in the executive branch, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons and others, to work with the District, to work with other
jurisdictions on the relocation, if that is necessary. There could be a
site right in the District: I know of one site that lends itself more
than adequately to relocation. But unless those clear and binding
provisions are in there for a relocation within a stipulated and
reasonable time--and that timetable should be laid out--then I will
fight this. I will fight this.
I wish to advise my colleagues that absent such clear plans to remove
this facility, then I, the senior Senator from Virginia, would be
forced to utilize to the fullest extent all rules of the U.S. Senate to
block any proposal relating to the District of Columbia. It is as
simple as that. I fervently hope I shall not do it, and I will work
industriously to include that provision.
I look forward, as I say, to working with my colleagues in the
Virginia delegation to have Congress finally put Lorton on the road for
removal and relocation. I will work very closely with my good friend,
the distinguished Representative from Virginia, Congressman Tom Davis,
chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who has shown incredible
leadership on this issue. I cannot recall any Member of Congress on
either side of the aisle who has worked more diligently and more
conscientiously with very little return, if any, to him politically or
otherwise, but nevertheless has plowed ahead to show leadership on
resolving the tough issues relating to the Nation's Capital. Tom Davis
is to be saluted and commended. I know Senator Robb and Representatives
Frank Wolf and Jim Moran from Virginia, as well, and the Governor and
attorney general of Virginia, will do their best. The present Governor
and attorney general, and hopefully their successors, will do their
best to make the removal of Lorton a reality in the near future.
____________________