[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.''.

                          ____________________