May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6485 

this point, because it is important—the 

intention here was to strike this balance and not to move too far. Not to 

allow open-ended flow control authority on the left, if you will, on the one 

side; and at the same time not to allow 

it to go back so far over to the free 

market side on this particular bill that 

we would lose the balance. 

I might say for the benefit of the 

Senator from Arizona, we have rejected 

a number of amendments that would 

allow for open-ended action. If this 

community says, ‘‘We would like to 

think about having flow control at 

some point within the 30-year period, 

will you exempt us?’’ The answer is, 

‘‘No, we will not.’’ In other words, 

there had to be some financial commitment, preferably a bond or contract, 

some amount of money had to be committed, usually in the form of a contract or a bond. So we were very, very 

tough on those people who came to us. 

We did not agree to allow that farreaching aspect of the bill. 

Again, it might not be exactly what 

everybody wanted but it is a compromise and I urge my colleagues, no 

matter whether you are moving further 

to the free market side as I am, or 

whether you are moving further toward 

flow control where Senator LAUTENBERG and others are, whichever one of 

those positions you favor, I urge my 

colleagues to stay here in the center, 

in the compromise, and reject the Kyl 

amendment and reject any amendments on the other side that may come 

up to expand flow control authority. 

So, on the one hand let us not expand 

it. On the other hand, let us not restrict it. 

I again encourage my colleagues, 

when the vote does come on this 

amendment, to defeat it for the reasons 

given. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. If no 

other Senators are seeking recognition, 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, Mr. 

President, I ask unanimous consent 

that the order for the quorum call be 

rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further 

ask unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, a few 

weeks ago on this Senate floor I discussed the problem of school bus safety. In February of this year a young 

girl by the name of Brandie Browder, 

an eighth grader in Beaver Creek, OH, 

was killed when the drawstring around 

the waist of her coat got caught in the 

handrail of her school bus. 

Just 4 days later, in Cincinnati, a 

seventh grader suffered a broken foot 

in a very similar accident. 

As I pointed out when I spoke previously about this matter, while school 

buses are certainly among the very 

safest modes of transportation, the sad 

fact remains that an average of 30 

schoolchildren are killed every single 

year in America either getting off or 

getting back on their own school 

buses—30 children. 

Each child, Mr. President, with parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters, and because of that child’s death 

their life will never be the same; 30 

children who will never have the opportunity to grow up, 30 children who will 

never have the opportunity to live out 

their potential. The sad fact is, Mr. 

President, that almost without exception these are preventable deaths. 

When I last spoke on this issue, I discussed three specific safety issues, 

three problems that cause these 

deaths. One was a handrail problem. 

The second was the problem of the 

child getting on and off the bus and 

how we can make that area safer so the 

school bus driver will know what is 

going on in that area. And finally, I 

talked about the possibility of better 

training for school bus drivers. 

Today, I would like to concentrate on 

the issue of handrails on these school 

buses because between the time that I 

last spoke to the Senate about this 

issue myself and my staff have spent a 

great deal of time looking at this issue 

and finding out additional facts. And 

the sad fact is that we lose many children because of this handrail problem. 

This is a problem, Members of the 

Senate, that can be corrected very easily for less than $20 per school bus. So 

it is not something that is going to 

cost a great deal of money. It is something though that will not be fixed unless parents, teachers, administrators, 

and members of the public demand that 

this problem be fixed in each school 

bus in the country. 

As I previously mentioned, an alarming number of these accidents are occurring when a strap from a backpack 

on a child or the drawstring of a little 

girl’s or little boy’s coat gets snagged 

in the handrail while that child is 

exiting the bus. We all know I think 

from our own experience from our own 

children how many kids today have 

backpacks or have a poncho or something that has a string that can in fact 

get caught as that child is getting off 

the bus. 

Mr. President, with many of these 

handrails there is a small space between the handrail and the wall of the 

bus where something like the 

drawstring around the waist of a coat 

can get snagged. The child is getting 

off the bus. The child begins to get off 

that bus but the child’s clothing is 

stuck and is still attached when the 

bus driver mistakenly begins to pull 

away thinking the child has exited the 

school bus. As I pointed out, a number 

of children have been killed in this 

exact manner since 1991. 

Let me give a little background on 

the analysis of this problem. Beginning 

in early 1993, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 

[NHTSA] initiated a series of investigations to find out if the handrails on 

school buses were actually designed in 

an unsafe manner. As a result of these 

investigations, nine distinct models of 

school buses were recalled because of 

potentially unsafe handrails. However, 

tens of thousands of these unsafe buses 

were not recalled. They are still on the 

road. The bus that killed little Brandie 

was not recalled, not because the bus 

was safe—just the contrary—but it was 

not recalled because the company that 

made the bus had already gone out of 

business. 

Mr. President, we clearly must track 

down these buses. We must make sure 

that every single bus in this country is 

inspected. We have to fix them or get 

them off the road. 

Let me again repeat. We are not talking about a very expensive repair. It is 

not a cost question. It is a question of 

locating the buses. It is a question of 

public awareness, which is why I am on 

the floor today. 

We as parents need to make sure our 

children are not getting on an unsafe 

bus this afternoon, tomorrow morning, 

or ever. We can all look for ourselves. 

When our child gets on the bus tomorrow morning, or gets off the bus this 

afternoon, look at the handrail to see if 

that gap does in fact exist. We must 

not rest until every one of these buses 

is identified and fixed. 

Let me advise my colleagues what we 

are doing in the State of Ohio with regard to this. I had the opportunity this 

morning to talk to highway patrol officials who are in charge in the State of 

Ohio of school bus inspections. 

As I have indicated, there really is a 

simple solution to this particular handrail problem. Every year the Ohio 

State Highway Patrol during the summer months when school is not in session conduct inspections of every single school bus in the State of Ohio. I 

suspect that there are other law enforcement agencies that perform the 

same function in all the other States of 

the Union as well. 

The Ohio State Highway Patrol, 

when they begin these inspections in 

the next several weeks, are going to in 

addition to what they normally do look 

for this specific problem. When they 

find the problem, if they do, they are 

going to take the bus off the road until 

the problem is corrected because as I 

indicated it is a very relatively simple 

problem to solve at a cost of probably 

no more than $20. 

They use an inspection device, a tool. 

If I describe it, I think it will give our 

listeners and Members of the Senate a 

good idea how simple it is. It is a tool 

made with a long string with a nut attached to the end. From outside the 

school bus door, you drop the nut end 

of the device into the crevice where 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

with the lower end of the handrail is 

attached to the lower area of the 

stepped wall. When you pull the device 

toward the outside of the school bus 

through the crevice, if the tool gets 

caught the bus is rejected and then not 

allowed onto the road until this is 

fixed. 

As I point out, fixing these buses is 

relatively easy. For around $20 you can 

put a safe new handrail on the bus, a 

whole new handrail, or for even less 

money than that you can modify the 

handrail by inserting a special wood or 

rubber spacer between the bottom attachment point of the handrail and the 

bus wall itself. The process is cheap, 

simple and will save lives. 

Mr. President, I urge that all States 

that are not currently following this 

inspection policy and are not looking 

for this problem start doing this as 

soon as possible. Ohio certainly does 

not have a monopoly on these potentially unsafe buses. These unsafe buses 

can probably and I am sure can be 

found in any State in the Union. 

Mr. President, this week just happens 

to be National Safe Kids Week. There 

is no better time than the present during this week to focus our attention on 

the real dangers to schoolchildren who 

travel by schoolbus. 

The goals of National Safe Kids Week 

are fourfold, but they are quite simple. 

First, raise awareness of the problem 

of childhood injuries. 

Second, build grassroots coalitions to 

implement prevention strategies. 

Third, stimulate changes in behavior 

and products to reduce the occurrence 

of injuries. 

Fourth, make childhood injuries a 

public policy priority. 

Mr. President, these four goals 

should set our agenda for safety for 

children and specifically should set our 

agenda for school bus safety. I will in 

the weeks ahead again return to the 

floor to revisit this entire issue, but at 

this time I think it is important that 

we get about the business of dealing 

with this handrail problem. 

In conclusion, I should like to alert 

my colleagues and other concerned 

Americans to an important satellite 

feed about this issue of school bus safety. Later today and tomorrow, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be showing a TV program 

on this very issue. This program will be 

available by satellite, and I would urge 

those who are interested in this vital 

issue to contact NHTSA about the details. 

Again, Mr. President, I thank all the 

concerned parents and the educators 

and others who are contributing to the 

success of National Safe Kids Week. To 

them I simply say thank you, thank 

you for caring, and, believe me, you are 

in fact making a difference. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the 

Senator suggest the absence of a 

quorum? 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I do suggest at this time the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

ABRAHAM). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

f 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, while I was 

presiding, the Senator from New Hampshire made some comments relative to 

the amendment I had just introduced 

and spoken on. I regret he is not here, 

but I would like to respond to those remarks. They were well put, and I appreciate the cooperative spirit in which 

he gently opposed my amendment. I 

wish to respond to the points he made 

to illustrate why I still think my 

amendment should be adopted. 

As you will recall, my amendment 

provides very simply that the 

grandfathering of monopoly status 

that these facilities need because the 

Supreme Court has declared them unconstitutional ought to be limited to 

the period of time that it takes for 

these facilities to repay the bonds; that 

beyond that time there is no rationale, 

at least no rationale that the Senate 

ought to be a party to, that once the 

bonds are paid off, the investor’s 

money has been returned in full, there 

is no rationale for protecting the municipality from competition in the handling of garbage. 

That is why my amendment would 

cut it off at that point and not allow 

the remaining exceptions, which include expanding the life of the plant, or 

the useful life of the plant to some unknown length of time with a 30-year 

time limit or for contracts that are in 

existence. 

It would limit the grandfathering to 

that which is necessary or required but 

not beyond. 

Mr. President, the Senator from New 

Hampshire made the point that investors believed that they would have the 

protection of the law and we ought to 

give it to them, and that is precisely 

what my amendment does—no less but 

no more. It says to those investors, you 

get your money back when the bonds 

are fully paid off; that then but only 

then does this exemption from the U.S. 

Constitution apply. So we give them 

that grace period. That is point No. 1. 

Point No. 2. The Senator from New 

Hampshire said, well, there is a provision in this carefully crafted compromise for upgrades of facilities. And 

my response to that is, yes, that is 

there, but it is not needed and certainly not deserved. It creates a giant 

loophole which in effect means that all 

that the owners of these plants have to 

do is to provide some kind of upgrade 

to their facility—I presume that is 

anything beyond usual maintenance—

and up to a 30-year period they can 

foreclose all competition. 

That is un-American, it is unconstitutional, and it is not something that 

the Senate should be a party to, Mr. 

President. That is why my amendment 

specifically would not permit this special monopoly to exist beyond the time 

that it takes to repay the bonds. You 

cannot just fix your facility up and say 

we have extended its useful life and we 

want to continue to have a monopoly 

during the useful life of the plant. 

That would not be a justifiable reason, and I know of no reason which justifies that particular exemption. None 

has been suggested. 

Third, our colleague from New Hampshire made the point that innocent 

people were impacted as a result of the 

Supreme Court decision, and that is 

true. My guess is that most of the people who invested in these bonds had no 

idea that the Supreme Court would declare the whole practice unconstitutional. 

Agreeing with the principle that 

those innocent people should be protected, my amendment does precisely 

that. It protects them. It says that 

until those bonds are paid off, the monopoly status of the facility is protected. So, in other words, the bonds 

get paid off, the investors get made 

whole, all of those innocent people 

have their investment returned, and 

they lose nothing as a result of my 

amendment. 

Mr. President, there are other innocent people involved in this as well. 

These are the people who are required 

to pay the higher taxes because of the 

unreasonably high prices extracted by 

virtue of the fact that this is a monopoly. That is why we have antitrust 

laws. That is why our Constitution 

contains a clause that says that States 

cannot interfere with interstate commerce. 

But that is what has been done in 

this case. That is what the Supreme 

Court outlawed. And the U.S. Senate 

ought to pay attention not only to the 

innocent people who invested, who are 

totally protected under my amendment, but also the totally innocent 

people of the State who are having to 

pay two, three, four times as much; the 

EPA estimates 40 percent more than 

they would otherwise have to pay as a 

result of this monopoly status that is 

being granted. So if the argument is 

that we should protect innocent people, 

then the Senate should adopt my 

amendment. 

Finally, and the real reason why I 

think there is an objection to my 

amendment is that it might unravel a 

carefully crafted compromise. 

Mr. President, that is the unprincipled but very pragmatic reason frequently given to opposing amendments 

in this Chamber and in the other body. 

We have all been a party to those. It is 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS