[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.

                          ____________________