[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4357-S4365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2032. A bill to designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alaska,
as the ``Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building''; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
hurff a. saunders federal building
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
will dedicate the Juneau, Alaska Federal building in honor of Hurff
Saunders who passed away in 1996. Hurff was a lifelong Alaskan who
touched the lives
[[Page S4358]]
of countless people in Southeast Alaska and played an important role in
Alaska's history both as a territory and as a state.
Among his many accomplishments, Hurff was a federal government civil
engineer in charge of the construction of the Juneau federal building.
Typical of Hurff's efforts, the Juneau federal building project was
completed on time and under budget. In addition, Hurff helped to
correct many of the navigational charts for Southeast Alaska thereby
assisting the United States Navy and the Coast Guard in safely carrying
out their missions in southeast Alaska during World War II.
I am privileged to have known Hurff and his family quite well.
Hurff's wife Florence was one of my teachers as a young boy growing up
in Ketchikan. Hurff and Florence were wonderful people, who left a long
and lasting impression on those around them.
Mr. President, I have received copies of a number of resolutions,
including one passed by the City and Borough of Juneau, all requesting
that the Juneau federal building be dedicated in Hurff's memory. Many
other Alaskans who also knew Hurff have taken the time to write and to
share their support.
Hurff was a dedicated public servant who touched the lives of many
Alaskans. Naming the Juneau federal building in his honor would be a
fitting and lasting tribute to his memory.
Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation and supporting resolutions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2032
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HURFF A. SAUNDERS FEDERAL BUILDING.
The Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and
designated as the ``Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the ``Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building''.
____
Resolution of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska
Whereas, the late Hurff Saunders was a civil engineer
employed by the federal government in Alaska for many years,
and
Whereas, Mr. Saunders served his fellow Americans and the
people of Alaska with distinction, beginning in world War II,
when he played a critical role in the ability of our U.S.
Navy and Coast Guard to navigate in North Pacific waters by
correcting official charts to show the true latitude and
longitude of aids to navigation, and
Whereas, after the war Mr. Saunders worked as a civil
engineer for the federal government, supervising the
construction of many important projects throughout the
territory, then the state of Alaska, and
Whereas, Mr. Saunders was the engineer in charge of
constructing the Juneau Federal Building, which, like most of
his projects, was completed on time and under budget, and
Whereas, the career of Hurff Saunders exemplifies the best
qualities of public service in Alaska: perserverence,
efficiency, and a love of community; now therefore,
Be it Resolved by the Assembly of the City and Borough of
Juneau, Alaska:
Section 1. That the Alaska Congressional Delegation is
respectfully requested to endorse naming the Juneau Federal
Building the Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building.
Section 2. That the federal government cause a suitable
bronze plaque be affixed in a place of honor in the lobby of
the Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building at the time of the
dedication ceremony.
Section 3. That the clerk shall distribute copies of this
resolution to the Alaska Congressional Delegation.
Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be
effective immediately upon adoption.
Adopted this 2nd day of February, 1998.
____
Resolution adopted by the Membership of the Juneau Rotary Club honoring
the Memory of Hurff A. Sanders
Hurff A. Saunders and Florence Saunders, married for over
70 years, moved from South Dakota to Ketchikan, prior to
World War II where he accepted the position of civilian
engineer for the United States Coast Guard.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders played a critical role in the
ability of our U.S. Navy and Coast Guard to navigate in the
North Pacific waters by correctly determining the latitude
and longitude of various key aids to navigation that were in
place, but incorrectly located on official charts at the
time.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, in his capacity as civil
engineer, supervised the construction of many important
public works projects throughout the Territory and now State
of Alaska, completing the projects on schedule and within
budget.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders was invited to become a member
of Rotary International, first in Ketchikan, then Juneau, and
was very active at all levels, from being elected president
of the Juneau Club, Governor of District 5010, and then on to
the board of directors of Rotary International.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders accompanied by his wife Florence
Saunders, most times at their own expense, represented this
Rotary District at many Rotary International Conferences
throughout the world during his tenure as District Governor
and beyond.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders led his private and professional
life according to his Christian beliefs and Rotary
International's highest standards, being recognized as a true
and effective leader.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, just before his retirement in
1966, successfully completed his last federal construction
project, the Juneau Federal Building, Post Office and Court
House, located on 10th Street, again under budget and on time
for a cost to the taxpayers of just $33.00 per square foot.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders life peacefully ended August
29th, 1996 shortly after his 94th birthday, here at his home
in Juneau bringing him back together with his wife Florence
who passed on just a little over a year earlier.
Whereas, the officers of the Juneau Rotary Club, and all
its members deeply miss the presence of Hurff A. Sanders:
Now, therefore be it hereby.
Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Juneau Rotary
Club wish to petition the office of our United States Senator
Frank Murkowski, a former student of Florence Saunders in
Ketchikan, to assist us in having the Juneau Federal
Building, just newly remodeled, dedicated to the memory of
Hurff A. Saunders by naming the building the Hurff A.
Saunders Federal Building.
Be it further resolved, That the federal government cause a
suitable bronze plaque be affixed in a place of honor in the
lobby of the Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building at the time
of the dedication ceremony.
Signed:
Robert Rehfeld,
President, Juneau Rotary Club.
____
Proposed Resolution 97-3, Rotary International District 5010,
Conference at Girdwood, Alaska
To honor fellow Rotarian and Past District Governor (1966-
67) Hurff A. Saunders for a life time of dedication and
devotion to the Rotary Ideal ``Service above Self''.
Whereas, the service to Rotary International by Hurff A.
Saunders, Past District Governor 1966-67 exemplifies truly
outstanding dedication and devotion, and
Whereas, Past District Governor Saunders was a Rotarian for
over 50 years with membership first in the Ketchikan Rotary
Club and later with the Juneau Club and served as President
of both of these clubs, and
Whereas, Past District Governor Saunders was chosen to be
District Governor of District 504 during the Rotary Year of
1966-67, and
Whereas Hurff and his late wife continued the Rotary Ideal
``Service above Self'' by visiting much of the Rotary World
as Chairman of Rotary International's World Community Service
Committee 1968 to 1970, and
Whereas, Rotary history shows Rotarian Saunders continued
his dedication with multiple Paul Harris Fellowships, service
as Vice Chairman, RI Extension Committee 1970-71, and Rotary
Exchange South Africa 1972; it is hereby
Resolved by Rotary International District 5010 that Past
District Governor Hurff A. Saunders truly possessed a full
measure of humanitarian attributes recognized not only by
Rotary International but also by his fellow Rotarians and his
community and that his dedication to ``Service above Self''
is a credit to his family and friends.
It is further resolved, that we as Rotarians of District
5010 by honoring his devotion and self sacrifice recognize a
truly outstanding inspired leader in the Rotary world.
purpose and effect
To honor Past District Governor Hurff A. Saunders.
Adopted at Conference assembled at Girdwood, Alaska, May 3,
1997.
____
Juneau Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers, A Resolution
Honoring Hurff A. Saunders, ``A competent man'', Adopted April 29,
1997.
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders and Florence Saunders, married
for over 70 years, moved from South Dakota to Ketchikan prior
to World War II to work for the United States Coast Guard as
a civilian Civil Engineer; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders played a critical role in the
ability of our U.S. Navy and Coast Guard to navigate in the
Northern Pacific waters by correctly determining the latitude
and longitude of the aids to navigation that were in place,
though incorrectly located on official charts at the time;
and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, in his capacity as Civil
Engineer, supervised the construction of many public works
projects throughout the Territory and now State of Alaska,
bring in the projects under budget and on time; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, just before his retirement in
1966, successfully completed
[[Page S4359]]
his last federal construction project, the Juneau Federal
Building, Post Office and Court House, located on 10th Street
in Juneau, again under budget and on time for $33.00 per
square foot; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, life peacefully ended August
29, 1996 shortly after his 94th birthday, here in Juneau; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, the officers of the Juneau
Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and all
its members deeply miss the presence of Hurff A. Saunders;
now, therefore, be it hereby
Resolved, That the Officers of the Juneau Branch of the
American Society of Civil Engineers wish to petition the
office of our United States Senator Frank Murkowski, a former
student of Florence Saunders, to assist in having the Juneau
Federal Building, just remodeled, dedicated to the memory of
Hurff A. Saunders by naming the building the Hurff A.
Saunders Federal Building.
____
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders and Florence Saunders, married
for over 70 years, moved from South Dakota to Ketchikan,
prior to World War II where he accepted the position of a
civilian engineer for the United States Coast Guard; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders played a critical role in the
ability of our U.S. Navy and Coast Guard to navigate in the
North Pacific waters by correctly determining the latitude
and longitude of various keys to navigation that were in
place, but incorrectly located on official charts at the
time; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, in his capacity as a civil
engineer, supervised the construction of many important
public works projects throughout the Territory and now State
of Alaska, completing the projects on schedule and within
budget; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders was invited to become a member
of Rotary International, first in Ketchikan, then in Juneau,
and was very active at all levels, from being elected
president of the Juneau Club, Governor of the District 501,
and then on to the board of directors of Rotary
International; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, accompanied by wife Florence
Saunders-most time at their own expenses, represented this
Rotary District at many Rotary International Conferences
throughout the world during his tenure as District Governor
and beyond; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, led his private and
professional life according to his Christian beliefs and
Rotary International's highest standards, being recognized as
a true and effective leader; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders, just before his retirement in
1966, successfully completed his last federal construction
project, the Juneau Federal Building, Post Office and Court
House, located on 10th street, again under budget and on time
for a cost to the taxpayers of just under $33.00 per square
foot; and
Whereas, Hurff A. Saunders life peacefully ended August
29th, 1996 shortly after his 94th birthday, here at his home
in Juneau bringing him back together with his wife Florence
who passed on just a little over a year earlier; and
Whereas, the officers of the Alaska Society of Professional
Engineers and its members deeply miss the presence of Hurff
A. Saunders: now therefore be it hereby
Resolved, that the Board of Alaska Society of Professional
Engineers--Juneau Chapter wish to petition the office of our
United States Senator Frank Murkowski, a former student of
Florence Saunders in Ketchikan, to assist us in having the
Juneau Federal Building, just newly remodeled, dedicated to
the memory of Hurff A. Saunder by naming the building the
Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building; and
Be it further resolved, That the federal government cause a
suitable bronze plaque be affixed in a place of honor in the
lobby of the Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building at the time
of the dedication ceremony.
David Khan,
President, Acting on behalf of the Board of Alaska Society
of Professional Engineers--Juneau Chapter.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Helms, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr.
Hagel):
S. 2033. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect
to penalties for crimes involving cocaine, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
the powder cocaine mandatory minimum sentencing act of 1998
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Powder Cocaine
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act,'' along with Senator Allard and other
Senators whose names I will be submitting in a moment.
This legislation will toughen sentences for drug dealers caught
peddling powder cocaine.
I believe it is crucial, given our continuing struggle in the war on
drugs, that we send an unwavering and unambiguous message to all
Americans, and our children in particular, that the sale of illegal
drugs is dangerous, wrong, and will not be tolerated.
As the father of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by
recent trends in drug use. Indeed, since 1992 Washington has been
losing important ground in the war on drugs. Let me cite just a few of
the alarming facts:
Over the past five years, the average number of federal drug
defendants prosecuted has dropped by almost 1500 cases from the 1992
level. And the average number of drug convictions has gone down by a
similar amount since 1993.
The drug interdiction budget was cut by 39 percent from 1992 to 1996
and drug surveillance flights were cut in half.
The impact on our kids has been serious. In the last six years, the
percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an
illicit drug has risen by more than half.
Incredibly, 54 percent of the Class of 97 had used an illicit drug by
graduation.
For 10th graders during that same time, drug use has doubled.
And--perhaps worst of all--nearly 20 percent of our 8th graders use
illegal drugs.
Faced with this bad news, this year the Administration finally
submitted a comprehensive long range National Drug Strategy to
Congress.
Unfortunately, it took them nearly five years to take this step. And,
as the numbers show, our children have been paying the price.
What is more, when it comes to one crucial part of the war on drugs--
punishing drug pushers--the Administration wants to move us in the
wrong direction. It would make the mandatory minimum prison sentences
for crack cocaine dealers 5 times more lenient than they are today.
The President would raise, from 5 to 25 grams--that is, from about 50
to about 250 doses--the amount of crack a person could sell before
triggering a mandatory 5 year sentence. And he would raise from 50 to
250 grams the amount of crack a person could sell before triggering a
mandatory 10 year sentence.
This would have the effect of lowering sentences for all those who
deal crack--even though just 2 years ago the President vetoed a similar
proposal, explaining ``I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs
get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down.''
The President says we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because
they are too tough compared to sentences for powder cocaine kingpins. I
agree. It doesn't make sense for people who are higher on the drug
chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But going
easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and
playgrounds--is in my judgment the solution.
Crack is a cheap drug and highly addictive. Tough sentences for crack
dealers has forced many of them to turn in their superiors in the drug
trade, in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences will remove
that incentive and undermine our prosecutors.
I might add, in my State of Michigan, if we were to soften these
sentences, it would create a considerable disparity between the
mandatory minimums under the State law and the mandatory minimums under
the Federal law. My prosecutors and local law enforcement officials are
very concerned about this because it would, in effect, mean that a lot
of drug dealers they are pursuing will begin making deals with and
negotiating with Federal prosecutors in order to avoid the tough
sanctions the people of Michigan have attempted to put into effect.
I believe there's a better way. We must reject President Clinton's
proposal to lower sentences for crack dealers. Instead, let's make the
sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher.
I agree with the Administration's view that the differentiation
between crack and powder sentences is too sharp and should be reduced.
But I do not agree with its conclusion that therefore we should lower
sentences for crack dealers.
We can instead accomplish this entirely by increasing sentences for
dealing powder cocaine.
For the sake of our children, I urge President Clinton to abandon his
plans to lower sentences for crack dealers and instead support
legislation for tougher sentences on powder dealers.
[[Page S4360]]
Powder sentences are too low. Powder is the raw material for crack,
yet sentences for powder dealers were set before the crack epidemic,
without accounting for powder's role in causing it.
Moreover, we occasionally see a large powder supplier get a lower
sentence than the low-level crack dealer who resold some powder in
crack form, simply because the powder dealer took the precaution of
selling his product only in powder form.
That is a genuine disparity that should be remedied, although without
eliminating the differential altogether.
That differential should remain, Mr. President, because, as both the
President and the Sentencing Commission recognize, crack is more
addictive, more available to minors, and more likely to result in
violence than is powder cocaine, and hence its sale should continue to
be punished more harshly.
That is why today I am introducing the Powder Cocaine Mandatory
Minimum Sentencing Act.
This legislation reduces from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder
cocaine a person must be convicted of selling before receiving a
mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.
By so doing it changes the quantity ratio for powder and crack
cocaine from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1, the same ratio proposed by the
Administration and within the range recommended by the Sentencing
Commission. But this legislation reduces that ratio by getting tougher
on powder dealers, not by giving a break to crack dealers.
We owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families struggling to
protect their children from the scourges of drugs and drug violence to
stay tough on the criminals who prey on their neighborhoods.
At this critical time it would be a catastrophic mistake to let any
drug dealer think the cost of doing business is going down.
More importantly it will be nearly impossible to succeed in
discouraging kids from using drugs if they learn we are lowering
sentences for any drug dealers.
Protecting our kids means staying tough on those who peddle drugs and
sending a clear message to our young people that we will not tolerate
crack dealers in our neighborhoods.
President Clinton had it right two years ago when he said:
We have to send a constant message to our children that
drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost your
life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe.
Unfortanately, President Clinton's new plan to reduce sentences for
crack dealers does not live up to this obligation. It sends our kids
exactly the wrong message and it does not do any favor to anybody
except drug pushers.
In contract, the legislation I am introducing today is faithful to
this obligation. It achieves a reduction in the disparity between crack
and powder cocaine sentencing in the right way, through legislation
making the sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher.
By enacting the Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act we
can send our kids the right message. We will not tolerate crack dealers
in our neighborhoods, and we will make the sentences on powder cocaine
dealers a lot tougher.
Success in the drug war depends above all on the efforts of parents,
schools, churches, and medical community, local law enforcement
officials and community leaders. And they are doing a great job in the
drug fight. But the Federal Government must do its part too.
Washington has to renew the war on drugs. We must provide needed
resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't
acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison--for a long time.
Our kids deserve no less.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
At this time, I yield to the Senator from Colorado who, under the
unanimous consent that we just proposed here, will now take the floor
and speak on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my good friend, the
Senator from Michigan, for his very hard work on this particular issue.
He was working on the issue before I was elected to the Senate and is
recognized for his efforts to try to control the use of illegal drugs.
His national reputation precedes my meeting him here in the Senate, so
the question is, How did I get involved in this particular issue? I got
involved in this issue because I do hold a lot of town meetings in the
State of Colorado, the State which I represent. In the inner-city areas
of the Denver metropolitan area, the issue of discrepancy sentencing
between powder cocaine and crack cocaine was brought up by the minority
communities. There were a few members who felt the crack cocaine
penalties should be less. But, by far, the majority of members in those
meetings felt we needed to make tougher powder cocaine penalties
because the crack cocaine penalties were working.
I also heard some concern from within the judiciary of the State of
Colorado about the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine. So
that is how I got involved in the issue. Then I had introduced some
legislation to deal with this issue. I had an opportunity to sit down
with the Senator from Michigan and we have worked out a provision in a
new bill that I think is the right answer. It does toughen the
penalties on powder cocaine, brings it more in line with crack cocaine.
It is a position I support. It is a position I believe the voters of
Colorado and the people of Colorado, even in the minority communities,
do support.
Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most longstanding
and racially sensitive disputes in the criminal justice system.
Senators Abraham, Hatch, Feinstein, Kyl, and I are introducing a bill
to lessen the disparity between criminal penalties of selling crack and
powder cocaine.
Under current law, a seller of 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the
same mandatory 5-year prison term as a seller of 500 grams of powder
cocaine. I believe this is inexcusable.
The disparity between penalties has been scrutinized by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, Congress, and the Clinton administration for the
last several years. Recommendations by the administration and U.S.
Sentencing Commission have called for lessening the penalties for crack
dealers, bringing them closer to the lax penalties applied to powder
offenders.
Our legislation rejects the administration's harmful solution.
Lowering the penalty for crack to make it equal to powder cocaine
penalties goes against our Nation's conviction to send a strong message
to drug dealers: If you sell drugs, you are going to have to face
serious consequences.
The Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act increases the
mandatory penalties for dealing powder cocaine to 50 grams receiving a
5-year minimum sentence, bringing it closer to crack's stiff sentence
of 5 grams for a minimum of 5 years.
The disparity ratio of powder to crack cocaine will be a 10-to-1
ratio under our bill instead of the 100-to-1 ratio. This is the same
number ratio recommended, by the way, by the commission and by the
administration. This correction goes a long way in reforming the unjust
disparity that we see now.
Critics of current law remind us that cocaine dealers carry powder
cocaine, leaving customers the risk of converting to crack. The very
core of the drug crisis in the United States begins with the arrogance
of drug traffickers who have found a way to ``work the system.'' Our
bill will destroy the ease drug dealers now enjoy as they choose to
traffic their drug in powder form alone. No longer will the penalty
price for dealing powder be a bargain for drug traffickers. The safe
option for dealing cocaine will no longer exist.
During the 1980s, Congress legislated steep consequences for crack
cocaine. The crack epidemic was plaguing our Nation with high crime
rates and unprecedented statistics of addiction, and it warranted
several drastic legal reforms. We saw the destruction wrought on entire
communities by this cheap and highly addictive form of cocaine and
realized that tough penalties were needed to restrict its availability.
These tougher sentences were needed, but the problem we are seeing
today is that powder cocaine sentences were set before the crack
epidemic began. They don't reflect the influence powder has had on
crime and drug trafficking.
It is time to admit that the penalty for powder cocaine must change.
The
[[Page S4361]]
notion that powder cocaine is not dangerous is simply false. A Rocky
Mountain News reporter was killed 2 years ago when an heir to one of
Colorado's largest fortunes, high on powder cocaine, plowed his sports
car into the reporter's car. Ask the wife and son of this young
reporter if they think the penalty for powder cocaine should be 100
times less than that of crack.
Law enforcement officials, including drug enforcement detectives in
both Denver and Washington, DC, have encouraged me to pursue passage of
this legislation. The National Headquarters for the Fraternal Order of
Police issued a statement several weeks ago saying:
The current disparities in the sentencing are unjust and do
not provide law enforcement with the tools they need to
restrict the sale of powder cocaine.
The overwhelming majority of violent crime in this country
is drug related. We need to do more to get and keep dealers
of drugs, whatever the form, off the streets. Your bill will
help us do it.
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Henry Solano,
supports this legislative concept saying:
The law enforcement community learned years ago that the
strong sentences meted out to crack cocaine dealers has had a
significant deterrent effect on the production and
distribution of crack.
Senator Allard's proposed penalty for powder cocaine will
likewise restrict the flow of powder cocaine in this country.
In light of the numerous proposals introduced to correct this
problem, I encourage my colleagues to contemplate the alternatives and
consider how justice is served in this matter. Maintaining the current
ratio is allowing a wrongful disparity in penalties to continue. It is
time to act to correct this injustice. I encourage my colleagues to
support the powder cocaine mandatory minimum sentence bill.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just have one or two additional
comments to make before yielding the floor.
In the process of putting together this legislation which we
introduce today, I had the occasion to speak to a number of people in
the law enforcement community in our State, as well as individuals who
have been touched in some way or another by the crack cocaine epidemic.
There are two or three points I would like to enter into the Record at
this point, in conjunction with our legislation, that are drawn from
some of the comments I have heard.
One of them I have already mentioned, and that is the concerns local
law enforcement people have that if we change the crack minimum
mandatory threshold at the Federal level, it will create a problem in
our State, and probably in a lot of other States where there are very
tough mandatory minimums for crack dealing, because it will give people
who are criminal defendants the option of going into the Federal system
to avoid tough State-level penalties. I don't think we want to do that.
Second, it was pointed out to me that the 5-gram trigger which
currently exists for crack is very appropriate for the simple reason
that most drug dealers who at least deal in crack cocaine do so in very
small quantities; that there are very, very, very few crack cocaine
dealers who are ever dealing in quantities such as 25 grams where they
can be found in possession of and dealing at that level. In fact, what
happens is that they essentially hide their crack cocaine stash in
locations that are very hard to trace to the dealer and carry around
quantities in the 5-gram level, which is why the mandatory minimum is,
in fact, only appropriate.
A third point that was made to me is the fact that by having this
tough mandatory minimum in place at the Federal level, as well as in
our State, at the State level, we have been very successful, through
the safety valve process that exists in the Federal legislation, in
getting people at the lower end of the drug chain, the crack dealer at
the 5-gram level confronted with the possibility of a very severe
prison sentence, to begin cooperating with authorities in exchange for
the benefits to be received under the safety valve, to, in fact, begin
to allow law enforcement to pursue people further up the drug chain.
Increasing the threshold for the crack mandatory minimum, as the
administration has proposed and consistent with the sentencing
commission's recommendations, will affect very dramatically, it is
believed by at least the law enforcement people in my State, the level
of cooperation people will have, because in individual transactions
they will be dealing below that 25-gram level and, therefore, not
confronted with the 5-year mandatory minimum threat, consequently, not
nearly in the same position of jeopardy as is the case today. It means,
in fact, that we might have less cooperation, less ability to pursue
the people who are the drug lords rather than those who are at the
dealer level.
Finally, again, I want to talk, as I said, about some of the contact
we have had with the people who are victims. When we have talked to
those people to the extent we have, it doesn't really matter--Senator
Allard alluded to the racial disparity and it is a very significant
issue that we are trying to address with our bill--but I have not found
people, regardless of their race, whose children have been touched by a
crack cocaine dealer who don't want to see the person responsible
suffer consequences.
Their families are suffering consequences, their school yards are
suffering consequences, their neighborhoods are suffering consequences.
They believe that the people behind it --whether it is the peddler in
the school yard or the kingpin selling the powder cocaine--ought to
suffer the consequences, as well.
The way to do that, in my judgment, Mr. President, and the reason
Senator Allard and I are here today, is to make it tougher on the drug
kingpins and make it no easier on anybody involved in this heinous
activity. We hope our colleagues will join us in this legislation.
We think the arguments for it, as we have attempted to lay it here
today, should be ones that are persuasive as they have been persuasive
to us.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 2034. A bill to establish a program to provide for a reduction in
the incidence and prevalence of Lyme disease; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
the lyme disease initiative act of 1998
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lyme Disease
Initiative Act of 1998, companion legislation to a bill being
introduced today by Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey.
The objective of this bill is to put us on the path toward eradicating
Lyme disease--a disease that is unfamiliar to some Americans, but one
that those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast know all too well.
Almost everyone in my state, including myself, has seen the
devastating impact that this disease can have on its victims. Lyme
disease can cause serious health problems, both physical and
psychiatric, and can ruin a family's life. Some damage due to the
disease, especially memory loss and other brain damage, is permanent.
And we have also seen that, in many ways, efforts to educate people
about this disease and to find a cure have come up short.
The number of cases reported to the CDC increased from 500 cases in
1982 to 16,000 cases in 1996. And some reports suggest that these cases
only represent the tip of the iceberg--that there are in fact tens of
thousands more cases that have gone unreported or undiagnosed, due in
part to the lack of a standardized diagnostic test.
Studies indicate that long term treatment of infected individuals
often exceeds $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society.
Because Lyme disease mimics other health conditions, patients often
must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This
results in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, and costly
and futile treatments. But an even greater price is paid by the victims
and their families--we can put no price tag on the emotional costs
associated with this disease.
But there is hope. We are close to the approval of vaccines to
prevent this disease--perhaps as soon as next spring. And combined with
a strong commitment to public education, we can hope that the numbers
of new families affected by this terrible disease will finally begin to
diminish.
[[Page S4362]]
But we can't let down our guard. We can't let the promise of a
vaccine to prevent Lyme disease distract us from seeking more effective
ways to diagnose an treat those individuals who are already infected.
The Lyme Disease Initiative is a $100 million federal initiative
which will, for the first time, establish prominent, coordinated,
federal role in Lyme disease research, treatment, and education.
Various agencies within the federal government have made a good start
in addressing Lyme disease concerns. These efforts have been hampered,
however, by a lack of interagency coordination, inconsistent funding,
and limited agency staff attention. The Lyme Disease Initiative will
correct these problems.
First, my bill calls for a 5 year plan to be established by the
Secretary of Health and Human and Services, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense and outside experts, to advance the treatment of
and a cure for Lyme disease. This legislation also sets out four
critical public health goals for advancing Lyme disease research
efforts which include: the development of standardized diagnostic
tests; a review of current systems for reporting cases; a study on how
to improve the accuracy of diagnoses; and a campaign to educate
physicians how to properly diagnose and treat Lyme disease.
Other major provisions of the bill include establishing a Lyme
Disease Taskforce to provide advice and expertise to Congress and
federal agencies on all areas of Lyme disease policy; requiring that
annual reports be submitted to Congress on the progress of NIH, CDC,
and DoD with respect to the goals and programs funded in this bill; an
authorization of $100 million over five years to ensure sufficient
resources for critical, scientific research; and a request to the FDA
rapidly and thoroughly review pending Lyme disease vaccine
applications.
Summer is just around the corner. My hope is that the Lyme Disease
Initiative Act of 1998 will help to ensure a future where children and
their families can engage in outdoor activities without the fear of
contracting this dreaded disease.
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. 2034
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 ``Lyme Disease Initiative Act
of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The incidence of Lyme disease in the United States is
increasing more rapidly than most other diseases. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that, since
1982, there has been a 32-fold increase in reported cases.
(2) For 1996, such Centers determined that 16,455 cases of
the disease were reported.
(3) There is no reliable standardized diagnostic test for
Lyme disease, and it is therefore likely that the disease is
severely underreported. The disease is often misdiagnosed
because the symptoms of the disease mimic other health
conditions.
(3) Lyme disease costs our Nation at least $60,000,000 a
year in direct medical costs for early, acute cases. The
costs of chronic cases of the disease, as well as the costs
of lost wages and productivity, are many times higher.
(4) Many health care providers lack the necessary knowledge
and expertise--particularly in non-endemic areas--to
accurately diagnose Lyme disease. As a result, patients often
visit multiple doctors before obtaining a diagnosis of the
disease, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering,
unnecessary tests, and costly and futile treatments.
SEC. 3. PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS; FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(acting as appropriate through the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the
National Institutes of Health) and the Secretary of Defense
shall collaborate to carry out the following:
(1) The Secretaries shall establish the goals described in
subsections (c) through (f) (relating to activities to
provide for a reduction in the incidence and prevalence of
Lyme disease).
(2) The Secretaries shall carry out activities toward
achieving the goals, which may include activities carried out
directly by the Secretaries and activities carried out
through awards of grants or contracts to public or nonprofit
private entities.
(3) In carrying out paragraph (2), the Secretaries shall
give priority--
(A) first, to achieving the goal under subsection (c);
(B) second, to achieving the goal under subsection (d);
(C) third, to achieving the goal under subsection (e); and
(D) fourth, to achieving the goal under subsection (f).
(b) Five-Year Plan.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretaries shall establish a plan that, for the 5 fiscal
years following the date of the enactment of this Act,
provides for the activities to be carried out during such
fiscal years toward achieving the goals under subsections (c)
through section (f). The plan shall, as appropriate to such
goals, provide for the coordination of programs and
activities regarding Lyme disease that are conducted or
supported by the Federal Government.
(c) First Goal: Detection Test.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the goal
described in this subsection is the development, by the
expiration of the 18-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, of--
(A) a test for accurately determining whether an individual
who has been bitten by a tick has Lyme disease; and
(B) a test for accurately determining whether a patient
with such disease has been cured of the disease.
(d) Second Goal: Improved Surveillance and Reporting
System.--For purposes of subsection (a), the goal described
in this subsection is to review the system in the United
States for surveillance and reporting with respect to Lyme
disease and to determine whether and in what manner the
system can be improved (relative to the date of the enactment
of this Act). In carrying out activities toward such goal,
the Secretaries shall--
(1) consult with the States, units of local government,
physicians, patients with Lyme disease, and organizations
representing such patients;
(2) consider whether uniform formats should be developed
for the reporting by physicians of cases of Lyme disease to
public health officials; and
(3) with respect to health conditions that are reported by
physicians as cases of Lyme disease but do not meet the
criteria established by the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to be counted as such cases,
consider whether data on such health conditions should be
maintained and analyzed to assist in understanding the
circumstances in which Lyme disease is being diagnosed and
the manner in which it is being treated.
(e) Third Goal: Indicator Regarding Accurate Diagnosis.--
For purposes of subsection (a), the goal described in this
subsection is to determine the average number of visits to
physicians that are made by patients with Lyme disease before
a diagnosis of such disease is made. In carrying out
activities toward such goal, the Secretaries shall conduct a
study of patients and physicians in 2 or more geographic
areas in which there is a significant incidence or prevalence
of cases of Lyme disease.
(f) Fourth Goal: Physician Knowledge.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the goals described in this subsection are to
make a significant increase in the number of physicians who
have an appropriate level of knowledge regarding Lyme
disease, and to develop and apply an objective method of
determining the number of physicians who have such knowledge.
SEC. 4. LYME DISEASE TASK FORCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, there shall be established in
accordance with this section an advisory committee to be
known as the Lyme Disease Task Force (in this section
referred to as the Task Force).
(b) Duties.--The Task Force shall provide advice to the
Secretaries with respect to achieving the goals under section
3, including advice on the plan under subsection (b) of such
section.
(c) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of 9
members with appropriate knowledge or experience regarding
Lyme disease. Of such members--
(1) 2 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, after consultation with the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
(2) 2 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, after consultation with the Director of the
National Institutes of Health;
(3) 1 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense;
(4) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, after consultation with the Minority Leader
of the House; and
(5) 2 shall be appointed by the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate, after consultation with the Minority Leader of
the Senate.
(d) Chair.--The Task Force shall, from among the members of
the Task Force, designate an individual to serve as the chair
of the Task Force.
(e) Meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at the call of the
Chair or a majority of the members.
(f) Term of Service.--The term of service of a member of
the Task Force is the duration of the Task Force.
(g) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the membership of the Task
Force shall be filled in the manner in which the original
appointment was made and shall not affect the power of the
remaining members to carry out the duties of the Task Force.
[[Page S4363]]
(h) Compensation; Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of
the Task Force may not receive compensation for service on
the Task Force. Such members may, in accordance with chapter
57 of title 5, United States Code, be reimbursed for travel,
subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in
carrying out the duties of the Task Force.
(i) Staff; Administrative Support.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall, on a reimbursable basis, provide to
the Task Force such staff, administrative support, and other
assistance as may be necessary for the Task Force to
effectively carry out the duties under subsection (b).
(j) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on the
date that is 90 days after the end of the fifth fiscal year
that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS.
The Secretaries shall submit to the Congress periodic
reports on the activities carried out under this Act and the
extent of progress being made toward the goals established
under section 3. The first such report shall be submitted not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and subsequent reports shall be submitted annually
thereafter until the goals are met.
SEC. 6. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``Secretaries'' means--
(1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting as
appropriate through the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Director of the National
Institutes of Health; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) National Institutes of Health.--In addition to other
authorizations of appropriations that are available for
carrying out the purposes described in this Act and that are
established for the National Institutes of Health, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Director of such
Institutes for such purposes $9,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(b) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.--In
addition to other authorizations of appropriations that are
available for carrying out the purposes described in this Act
and that are established for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Director of such Centers for such purposes $8,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(c) Department of Defense.--In addition to other
authorizations of appropriations that are available for
carrying out the purposes described in this Act and that are
established for the Department of Defense, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Defense for
such purposes $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999
through 2003.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Food and Drug
Administration should--
(1) conduct a rapid and thorough review of new drug
applications for drugs to immunize individuals against Lyme
disease; and
(2) ensure that the labeling approved for such drugs
specifically indicate the particular strains of Lyme disease
for which the drugs provide immunization, the duration of the
period of immunization, and the reliability rate of the
drugs.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2035. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to establish
guidelines for the relocation, closing, or consolidation of post
offices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
the community and postal participation act of 1998
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community
and Postal Participation Act of 1998. This legislation aims to preserve
the fabric of downtown American communities by giving citizens a say in
Postal Service decisions to close, relocate or consolidate post
offices.
Mr. President, the Postal Service is near and dear to the people of
the United States. Since its establishment over 200 years ago with
Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the Postal Service
has dutifully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. In many
towns across the U.S., the post office is still the center of the
community, the very anchor of what we fondly refer to as ``small-town
America.'' Nowhere is that more true than in my own state of Montana.
In Livingston, people meet to collect their mail and talk about what
flies are hatching on the Yellowstone River. In Red Lodge, folks come
together at the post office not only to collect their mail but to
discuss last weekend's track meet. And in Plains, Montana, the place
where people receive their mail is as important a meeting-spot as it
was when the first post office opened there more than 115 years ago.
But sadly, Mr. President, America has seen a rash of post office
closings, relocations and consolidations in recent years. From
California to Connecticut, Montana to Maine, the Postal Service has
proposed closing post offices located in the very heart of their
communities. When the post office goes, often the central business
district goes with it. And, more important, the local gathering place
disappears.
Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords and I are introducing
legislation to change that. With passage of the Community and Postal
Participation Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in
their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that
affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer
alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities
have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would
change that by: allowing those served by a post office to receive at
least 60 days' notice before the USPS decides to relocate, close or
consolidate a post office; giving those affected by the closing a
chance to respond to the proposed changes by offering an alternative to
the USPS proposals; providing for a public hearing before a final
determination is made; allowing those affected by the relocation,
closing or consolidation to appeal to the Postal Rate Commission (PRC);
and requiring the USPS to comply with applicable zoning, planning or
land use laws.
Mr. President, I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests
of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed
the very name--of this legislation is participation. I am confident
that with its passage our communities and this important American
institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all
involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and I
in passing 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. 2035
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 ``Community and Postal
Participation Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. GUIDELINES FOR RELOCATION, CLOSING, OR CONSOLIDATION
OF POST OFFICES.
Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b)(1) Before making a determination under subsection
(a)(3) as to the necessity for the relocation, closing, or
consolidation of any post office, the Postal Service shall
provide adequate notice to persons served by that post office
of the intention of the Postal Service to relocate, close, or
consolidate that post office not later than 60 days before
the proposed date of that relocation, closing, or
consolidation.
``(2)(A) The notification under paragraph (1) shall be in
writing, hand delivered or delivered by mail to persons
served by that post office, and published in 1 or more
newspapers of general circulation within the zip codes served
by that post office.
``(B) The notification under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(i) an identification of the relocation, closing, or
consolidation of the post office involved;
``(ii) a summary of the reasons for the relocation,
closing, or consolidation; and
``(iii) the proposed date for the relocation, closing, or
consolidation.
``(3) Any person served by the post office that is the
subject of a notification under paragraph (1) may offer an
alternative relocation, consolidation, or closing proposal
during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the
notice is provided under paragraph (1).
``(4)(A) At the end of the period specified in paragraph
(3), the Postal Service shall make a determination under
subsection (a)(3). Before making a final determination, the
Postal Service shall conduct a hearing, and persons served by
the post office that is the subject of a notice under
paragraph (1) may present oral or written testimony with
respect to the relocation, closing, or consolidation of the
post office.
``(B) In making a determination as to whether or not to
relocate, close, or consolidate a post office, the Postal
Service shall consider--
``(i) the extent to which the post office is part of a core
downtown business area;
``(ii) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or
consolidation on the community served by the post office;
``(iii) whether the community served by the post office
opposes a relocation, closing, or consolidation;
[[Page S4364]]
``(iv) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or
consolidation on employees of the Postal Service employed at
the post office;
``(v) whether the relocation, closing, or consolidation of
the post office is consistent with the policy of the
Government under section 101(b) that requires the Postal
Service to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular
postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns
in which post offices are not self-sustaining;
``(vi) the quantified long-term economic saving to the
Postal Service resulting from the relocation, closing, or
consolidation;
``(vii) whether postal officials engaged in negotiations
with persons served by the post office concerning the
proposed relocation, closing, or consolidation;
``(viii) whether management of the post office contributed
to a desire to relocate;
``(ix)(I) the adequacy of the existing post office; and
``(II) whether all reasonable alternatives to relocation,
closing, or consolidation have been explored; and
``(x) any other factor that the Postal Service determines
to be necessary for making a determination whether to
relocate, close, or consolidate that post office.
``(5)(A) Any determination of the Postal Service to
relocate, close, or consolidate a post office shall be in
writing and shall include the findings of the Postal Service
with respect to the considerations required to be made under
paragraph (4).
``(B) The Postal Service shall respond to all of the
alternative proposals described in paragraph (3) in a
consolidated report that includes--
``(i) the determination and findings under subparagraph
(A); and
``(ii) each alternative proposal and a response by the
Postal Service.
``(C) The Postal Service shall make available to the public
a copy of the report prepared under subparagraph (B) at the
post office that is the subject of the report.
``(6)(A) The Postal Service shall take no action to
relocate, close, or consolidate a post office until the
applicable date described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) The applicable date specified in this subparagraph
is--
``(i) if no appeal is made under paragraph (7), the end of
the 60-day period specified in that paragraph; or
``(ii) if an appeal is made under paragraph (7), the date
on which a determination is made by the Commission under
paragraph 7(A), but not later than 120 days after the date on
which the appeal is made.
``(7)(A) A determination of the Postal Service to relocate,
close, or consolidate any post office may be appealed by any
person served by that post office to the Postal Rate
Commission during the 60-day period beginning on the date on
which the report is made available under paragraph (5). The
Commission shall review the determination on the basis of the
record before the Postal Service in the making of the
determination. The Commission shall make a determination
based on that review not later than 120 days after appeal is
made under this paragraph.
``(B) The Commission shall set aside any determination,
findings, and conclusions of the Postal Service that the
Commission finds to be--
``(i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with the law;
``(ii) without observance of procedure required by law; or
``(iii) unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
``(C) The Commission may affirm the determination of the
Postal Service that is the subject of an appeal under
subparagraph (A) or order that the entire matter that is the
subject of that appeal be returned for further consideration,
but the Commission may not modify the determination of the
Postal Service. The Commission may suspend the effectiveness
of the determination of the Postal Service until the final
disposition of the appeal.
``(D) The provisions of sections 556 and 557, and chapter 7
of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the
Commission under this paragraph.
``(E) A determination made by the Commission shall not be
subject to judicial review.
``(8) In any case in which a community has in effect
procedures to address the relocation, closing, or
consolidation of buildings in the community, and the public
participation requirements of those procedures are more
stringent than those provided in this subsection, the Postal
Service shall apply those procedures to the relocation,
consolidation, or closing of a post office in that community
in lieu of applying the procedures established in this
subsection.
``(9) In making a determination to relocate, close, or
consolidate any post office, the Postal Service shall comply
with any applicable zoning, planning, or land use laws
(including building codes and other related laws of State or
local public entities, including any zoning authority with
jurisdiction over the area in which the post office is
located).
``(10) The relocation, closing, or consolidation of any
post office under this subsection shall be conducted in
accordance with section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2).''.
SEC. 3. POLICY STATEMENT.
Section 101(g) of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``In addition to taking
into consideration the matters referred to in the preceding
sentence, with respect to the creation of any new postal
facility, the Postal Service shall consider the potential
effects of that facility on the community to be served by
that facility and the service provided by any facility in
operation at the time that a determination is made whether to
plan or build that facility.''.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that my
colleague Senator Baucus and I are introducing titled the, ``Community
And Postal Participation Act of 1998'' (CAPPA).
Coming from a small town in Vermont, I understand the importance
downtowns or village centers play in the identity and longevity of a
community. Downtowns are where people go to socialize, shop, learn what
their elected representatives are doing, and gather to celebrate
holidays with their neighbors.
One of the focal points of any downtown area is the community's post
office. Post offices have been part of downtowns and village centers as
long as most cities and towns have existed. These post offices are
often located in historic buildings and have provided towns with a
sense of continuity as their communities have changed over time. The
removal of this focal point can quickly lead to the disappearance of
continuity and spirit of a community and then the community itself.
Mr. President, this legislation will enable the inhabitants of small
villages and large towns to have a say when the Postal Service decides
that their local post office will be closed, relocated, or
consolidated. Some of my colleagues may ask why this legislation is
necessary. A few stories from my home state of Vermont will answer this
question and hopefully lead to quick passage of this important
legislation.
A few years ago the general store on the green in Perkinsville,
Vermont went bankrupt and the adjacent post office wanted to leave the
small village center for a new building outside of town. By the time
the community was aware of the project, plans were so far along--the
new building had actually been constructed based on the promise of the
post office as the anchor tenant--that there was no time to fully
investigate in-town alternatives. One elderly resident wrote that in
contrast to families now being able to walk to the post office, ``we
certainly won't be walking along the busy Route 106 two miles or more
to get our mail.'' The State Historic Preservation Officer commented
that as people meet neighbors at the post office, the threads of
community are woven and reinforced. ``It may be intangible, but its
real, and such interaction is critically important to the preservation
of the spirit and physical fabric of small village centers like
Perkinsville.''
In 1988, the post office in the Stockbridge Vermont General Store
needed to expand. The store owner tried to find money to rehabilitate
an 1811 barn next to the store to provide the needed space, but was not
successful. In 1990, the post office moved into a new facility located
on the outskirts of Stockbridge on a previously undeveloped section of
land at the intersection of two highways. People can no longer walk to
the post office as they once were able to do when it was located in the
village center. The relocation of the Stockbridge post office
unfortunately removed one of the anchors of the community.
These are not isolated examples. I ask unanimous consent that a
description of Postal Service activities related to the relocation of
post offices in the Vermont towns of Fairfax, Ascutney, Taftsville, and
Huntington be included for the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Vermont
Fairfax and Ascutney
Formerly located in an historic building at the center of
Fairfax village, the Postal Service sought larger quarters
and moved out of town to a new development known as the
``Fairfax Commons Shopping Center.'' Could the facility have
been accommodated in the village center? Possibly, if the
Postal Service had worked with the community, but no such
steps were taken.
In Ascutney, the Postal Service may vacate its existing
site on the village's Main Street to move around the corner
toward Exit 8 of the Interstate, to a new building which will
share the same floor plan as the Fairfax shopping center
facility. Prescription of stock requirements and layouts
[[Page S4365]]
leaves little room for creative adaptation of spaces in
existing buildings in existing village centers.
Taftsville
When the Postal Service advertised to lease a new, larger
space for the Taftsville Post Office, housed for 65 years in
the general store, people in town voiced their opposition.
One resident wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York
Times that focused attention on the issue. In a compromise
praised by locals, an addition to the rear of the store was
built to house expanded postal facilities. Village residents
care about preserving village post offices as centers of
community life, and will work to find solutions, if given the
chance.
Huntington
Development plans were well underway to move the post
office out of Huntington village to a new building before the
general public was aware of the proposal. When residents
found out, many voiced objection and they identified a
larger, historic building in the village that could serve the
Postal Service's need for expanded space. Plans are now being
developed to help fund the purchase and rehab of the building
for post office and other commercial use. Residents note that
lack of early notification polarized the community and slowed
progress of the proposed in-town solution.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, post office relocations are not only
occurring in Vermont, but all across the country. My colleagues will
quickly discover similar examples in their own states where the removal
of the post office has harmed the economic vitality of the downtown
area, deprived citizens without cars of access, and contributed to
urban sprawl.
The basic premise for this legislation is to give the individuals in
a community a voice in the process of a proposed relocation, closing or
consolidation of a post office. This community voice has been lacking
in the current process. This bill does not give the citizenry the
ultimate veto power over a relocation, closing or consolidation.
Instead, the bill sets up a process that makes sure community voices
and concerns are heard and taken into account by the Postal Service.
Additionally, this act will require the Postal Service to abide by
local zoning laws and the historic preservation rules regarding federal
buildings. Because it is a federal entity, the Postal Service has the
ability to override local zoning requirements. In some cases this has
lead to disruption of traffic patterns, a rejection of local safety
standards, and concerns about environmental damage from problems such
as storm water management.
Mr. President, post offices in Vermont and across the nation are
centers of social and business interaction. In communities where post
offices are located on village greens or in downtowns, they become
integral to these communities' identities. I believe that this
legislation will strengthen the federal-local ties of the Postal
Service, help preserve our downtowns, and combat the problem of sprawl.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and I in support of this
important legislation.
____________________