[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4625-S4627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2534. A bill to reduce crime and prevent terrorism at America's
seaports; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Reducing
Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act.'' This important
legislation will update Federal law to address critical security issues
at seaports in the United States and, in concert with recent efforts by
my good friend Senator Hollings and others, will help keep America safe
and secure.
Last October, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs on ``Defending America's Transportation
Infrastructure.'' At the hearing, we heard testimony from experts that
confirmed what many of us have known and preached for years: this
Nation's transportation infrastructure, our railways, our highways, our
seaports, is especially vulnerable to terrorist threats and other
nefarious activity. Our trains, trucks and sea vessels, and the systems
that carry them, are ripe targets and, if compromised, could jeopardize
American lives and devastate the American economy.
The U.S. Government has known of this tremendous vulnerability but,
until the tragic events of September 11, assessed the risk of an actual
attack, at least with respect to seaports, as relatively low. Well, we
all know how mistaken that assessment is now. While no one can predict
with certainty where the next attack might be, most clear thinkers
agree that there will be another attempt. The real question before us
is will we cower in a web of fear and bureaucratic inaction, or will we
focus on creative problem-solving, building partnerships, and
collaboratively fighting the well-funded and well-organized network of
criminals that seek to topple us. The choice, my friends, is clear.
In the aftermath of September 11, Congress moved expeditiously to
bridge the gaps in homeland security, passing landmark anti-terrorism
legislation, strengthening security at airports, and providing
additional funding for emergency law enforcement and domestic
preparedness. Despite our early efforts, however, there is much that
remains to be done. We have tackled the obvious and the easy. We must
now move as swiftly to resolve the more difficult, but no less
pressing, problems. And, as gateways to our largest cities and
industries, the protection of U.S. seaports must be at the top of our
priority list.
Failing to protect our Nation's ports will jeopardize American lives,
as well as property. It threatens to undermine national security,
especially where terrorists and other criminals illegally traffic
weapons, munitions and critical technology. And it will significantly
disrupt the free and steady flow of commerce.
Let me say a word about the threat to commerce. Ports connect
American consumers with global products, and U.S. farmers and
manufacturers with overseas markets. The U.S. marine transportation
system moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international
freight and imports 3.3 billion tons of oil. By some estimates, the
port industry generates more than 13 million jobs and $494 billion in
personal income; it contributes nearly $743 billion to the Nation's
gross domestic product, and $200 billion in Federal, State and local
taxes. These extraordinary numbers underscore the critical role that
seaports play in fueling economic growth. More importantly, they make
the point, more forcefully than any number of speeches or platitudes,
that port security will be a key element to building and sustaining a
stable national economy.
With that in mind, I introduce legislation today that would
substantially improve the inadequate protections currently contained in
the Federal code: first, the effectiveness of Federal, State and local
efforts to secure ports is compromised in part by criminals' ability to
evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of
cargo, with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. The existing
statutes simply do not provide adequate sanctions to deter criminal or
civil violations. As a consequence, vessel manifest information is
often wrong or incomplete, and our ability to assess risks, make
decisions about which containers to inspect more closely, or simply
control the movement of cargo is made virtually impossible. This bill
would substantially increase the penalties for non-compliance with
these reporting requirements.
Second, we know that cargo is especially vulnerable to theft once it
arrives at shore and is transported between facilities within a
seaport. To deter such larceny, this bill would significantly increase
penalties for theft of goods from Customs' custody.
Third, there currently exists no standard system for safeguarding
cargo; no requirement that all containers be sealed; and no consistent
guidance or protocol to direct action in the event that a container's
seal is compromised. This legislation would require the U.S. Customs
Service to develop a uniform system of securing or sealing at loading
all containers originating in or destined for the U.S.
Fourth, my friends at the Customs Service tell me that their ability
to conduct ``sting'' operations to detect illicit arms trafficking is
significantly curtailed by onerous pre-certification requirements. This
bill would give Customs agents the flexibility they need to conduct
these investigations where American lives and property are threatened.
Fifth, the bill would impose strict criminal penalties for the use of
a dangerous weapon or explosive with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury at a seaport. Notably, such a provision already
exists with respect to international airports and other mass
transportation systems. If my bill is enacted, we would take the
common-sense step of extending that same coverage to seaports.
Finally, while by all accounts the amount of crime at U.S. seaports
is great, there exists no national data collection and reporting
systems that capture the magnitude of serious crime at seaports.
Indeed, the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S.
Seaports concluded that it was unable to determine the full extent of
serious crime at the nation's 361 seaports, primarily because there is
no consolidated database. This legislation would help correct this
dearth of reliable information by authorizing pilot programs at several
seaports that would enable victims to report cargo theft and direct the
Attorney General to create a database of these crimes, which would be
available to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies.
Let me be clear: my legislation is not a cure-all. Comprehensive and
effective port security will require an interagency, intergovernmental
strategy that works to prevent and deter criminal and terrorist
activity, and, where those efforts fail, detect any wrongdoing before
harm or destruction results. The Federal Government, with my support
and oftentimes at my insistence, has established formal strategies and
protocols to address drug trafficking, domestic and international
crime, and airport security. But seaport security remains largely
[[Page S4626]]
unaddressed. If we are to win this new war and truly secure the
homeland, not just in word, but also in deed, we must focus the
attention of both the public and private sectors on safeguarding
America's seaports. We must do it now, and we must do it without
sacrificing the country's economic health.
My friends, September 11 was our clarion call. How we respond to that
call to action will be the real challenge of leadership, and
citizenship, in the 21st century.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2535. A bill to designate certain public lands as wilderness and
certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in the State of California, to
designate Salmon Restoration Areas, to establish the Sacramento River
National Conservation Area and Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California
always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural
treasures have always been one of the things that makes California
unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am
introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2002, the first
statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984.
This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public
lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22
rivers. Every acre of wild land is treasure. But the areas protected in
this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old
growth redwood forest near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt
Counties; 35 miles of pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt
and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather
Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White
Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San
Diego River area.
The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands
as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers, including the Clavey in
Tuolumne County, as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These destinations mean
no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new
drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Protection of the areas in this
bill is necessary to ensure that these previous places will be there
for future generations. Because much of our State's drinking water
supply is made up of watersheds in our national forest, this bill also
helps ensure California has safe, reliable supply of clean drinking
water. This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal
species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a
safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be
protected by this bill include: the bald eagle; Sierra Nevada Red Fox,
and Spring Run Chinook Salmon among others.
In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and it protects. It
preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it
protects our most endangered wildlife. That is why so many supporters
are throwing their weight behind this bill. Thousands of diverse
organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this
legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, hundreds of
local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their
local areas. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous support of this
bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large
and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide
wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California
Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of
the Tuolume River. The most recent Wilderness bill, the California
Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres. And
this must be taken in context. Only 13 percent of California is
currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to
15 percent.
The question is, how much wilderness is enough? For every
Californian, there is currently less than half an acre of wilderness
set aside. I think this is too little. During the last 20 years,
675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness, approximately the size of
Yosemite National Park, lost their wilderness character due to
activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and
California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of
the century, these development pressures are going to skyrocket. If we
fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers
left to protect.
We must reverse this. Many of the areas in this bill would have been
protected by the Clinton administration's Roadless Rule, but this rule
has been gutted by the Bush Administration, leaving these lands with no
guarantee of protection. That just makes the need for this bill even
greater. The other big question that has been raised is whether this
bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this
will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness
areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of
recreational activities, including: horseback riding, fishing, hiking,
backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing.
Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of road and
trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore,
numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that
attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that
have received this special designation.
Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility
to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They
have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur
and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine
living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future
generations, for our children's children, and their children. This bill
is the place to start and the time to start is now.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Johnson):
S. 2536. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
clarify that section 1927 of that Act does not prohibit a State from
entering into drug rebate agreements in order to make outpatient
prescription drugs accessible and affordable for residents of the State
who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under the
medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rx
Flexibilty for States Act along with Senators Durbin, Leahy, Jeffords,
Boxer, Levin, Dorgan, Schumer and Johnson.
This legislation would give States the flexibility to set up programs
to pass along Medicaid rebates and discounts to their citizens who do
not have prescription drug coverage and who are not currently eligible
for Medicaid.
One of the biggest challenges facing businesses, senior citizens,
families and State governments is the rising cost of prescription drug
prices. From 2000-2001, prescription drug prices rose 17 percent. This
is causing health expenditures and health insurance premiums to go up
rapidly.
In an attempt to respond to these skyrocketing prices, 30 States have
enacted laws providing some type of prescription drug coverage to those
without insurance, according to the National Governors' Association,
NGA.
However, the drug makers' trade association, PhRMA, has mounted legal
challenges against several States because it opposes State efforts to
lower prescription drug prices and increase coverage for those without
it. Specifically, they have filed lawsuits against Maine and Vermont
because the drug lobby does not want to extend Medicaid rebates and
discounts to non-Medicaid recipients.
While Maine's two programs have been upheld in Court, Vermont's has
not and both States are embroiled in lengthy appeals processes. These
legal challenges are very costly and may have deterred other States
from establishing similar demonstration projects.
In the absence of a Federal Medicare prescription drug benefit and
soaring price of prescription drugs, States should have the unfettered
ability to pass on Medicaid rebate to their residents! We need this
legislation now, because even if Congress passes a Medicare
prescription drug program, it will be several years before it is fully
phased in.
[[Page S4627]]
The Rx Flexibility for States Act would seek to remove the legal
hurdles that are preventing States from providing lower priced
prescription drugs to all their citizens.
Specifically, States would be able to extend Medicaid rebates and
discounts for prescription drugs to non-Medicaid eligible persons.
State governments are closer to the people and deserve the
flexibility to set up their own programs to lower the costs of
prescription drugs for their citizens.
This bill will give them that flexibility. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2536
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 ``Rx Flexibility for States
Act''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY RELATING TO MEDICAID
DRUG REBATE AGREEMENTS.
Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as prohibiting a State from--
``(1) directly entering into rebate agreements that are
similar to a rebate agreement described in subsection (b)
with a manufacturer for purposes of ensuring the
affordability of outpatient prescription drugs in order to
provide access to such drugs by residents of a State who are
not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under this
title; or
``(2) making prior authorization (that satisfies the
requirements of subsection (d) and that does not violate any
requirements of this title that are designed to ensure access
to medically necessary prescribed drugs for individuals
enrolled in the State program under this title) a condition
of not participating in such a similar rebate agreement.''.
____________________