May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6447

Mr. President, I believe that it is urgent that we pass legislation on this

subject. I would hope that before we

complete our deliberations that we

would think seriously about the restraints that we are imposing—I think,

unnecessarily—that we would think

about the degree to which we are Federalizing what has been a traditional

local responsibility, the decision of

where to dispose of garbage.

We are going to continue to be engaged as we have over the past several

weeks in some fundamental questions

of what level of government should decide important public issues and

whether those decisions should be

made one time here in Washington or

should be made 50, or 500, or 5,000 times

at State and local levels.

Earlier today, we passed legislation

that changed over two centuries of

American law relative to product liability. For two centuries that responsibility was placed at the State level.

States had the responsibility to understand their own history, culture, politics, economics, and they make a judgment as to how these matters of civil

justice should be resolved.

Colorado is a different State than

Florida. South Carolina is a different

State than South Dakota. I believe in

the proposition that the citizens of

those individual States should make

judgments as to what is appropriate for

them today and in the future.

I strongly feel that that is also true

of the issue of how to protect natural

resources, and how the disposition of

solid waste affects the protection of

those resources. The situation is different from a relatively arid State in

the West than it is in a subtropical environment in my State of Florida. The

situation is different in the State with

the peaks of Colorado, from the State

that is relatively close to its water

supply as we are with our high underground surface water in Florida.

I believe that prudent policy for the

future should be as it has been in the

past. That it is a responsibility of locally-elected officials who are accountable to the people that elect them, to

make a judgment as to what is in the

best interest. They would have the

same range of choices that we would

have, but they would be making it

based on their understanding of the

specific circumstances in their community.

I think that is intelligent federalism

which we should apply to this issue of

solid waste disposal in the future, as

we have in the past. That it is not appropriate for Congress to make a decision here today that two centuries of

American tradition will be overturned,

and now we are going to federalize into

a single decision here in Washington

for all of our States and all of our local

communities one answer to the question, of how they can dispose of their

garbage.

Mr. President, I think the American

people feel we have a lot of important

things to be dealing with here in Washington. Clearly, one of those is going to

be how to bring the Federal budget

into balance.

I would suggest that that is a demanding enough responsibility for Senators to make. We do not have much

time left over to decide how Quincy or

Greeley will dispose of their garbage.

We ought to let the people in Greeley,

CO, and Quincy, FL, decide how to dispose of their garbage and put our attention to what the public expects Congress to do—how are we going to balance our budget.

If we allocate responsibilities in that

way, I think both the citizens of Greeley, the citizens of Quincy, and the

citizens of America, would feel as if we

were doing the jobs that they expected

the Senate to do, and how we were

graded on how well we balanced the

budget, would hold Senators to account

and how well the county and city commissioners of Greeley and Quincy did

their job would be the basis upon which

they would be held accountable by

their vote.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I appreciate the fact that my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode

Island and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,

accepted the amendments which I offered earlier. I hope that during this

process we will give serious attention

to the question of, do we really want to

federalize the issue of disposal of local

garbage? Or would we not be more prudent to accept the invitation of the Supreme Court to allow this to continue

to be a responsibility of properly elected State and local officials?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.

Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that I be permitted

to speak as this morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

THE PRESIDENT’S TRIP TO

fRUSSIA

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier

today Senator MCCONNELL suggested

on the Senate floor that the President’s trip to Moscow has been a wasted effort—that there has not been a

shred of progress made there. I do not

want anyone who may have been listening to that statement to be misled

by it, for, in my view, it simply is not

accurate. It is important to review the

reasons President Clinton went to Moscow and to assess his trip to Moscow—

which is not yet over—with those goals

in mind.

The President went to Moscow to

honor the sacrifices of the Russian people to defeat the Nazis and fascism in

World War II. Russians lost approximately 20 million people in that war—

more than any other Nation. With the

end of the cold war, this is the United

States first opportunity to convey our

appreciation. Our policy’s to seek better relations not only with the Russian

Government, but with the Russian people as well to help democracy take root

there.

The President also went to Moscow

to pursue discussion on key issues. The

United States expectations were low,

and our progress has exceeded those expectations. Among the accomplishments so far—and I emphasize that the

trip continues tomorrow—are:

First, with respect to European Security, the Russians agreed to implement

two Partnership for Peace agreements

that are important to realize our goal

of a comprehensive system of security

in Europe.

Second, on the issue of theater missile defenses. The Russians agreed to a

Statement of Principles that preserves

the ABM Treaty and enables us to proceed with deployment of theater missile defense systems.

Third, the Russians agreed not to

provide a gas centrifuge enrichment facility to Iran and to continue to review

and discuss the proposed sale of lightwater reactors. That review will be

through a special group created at the

March ministerial meeting of Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev.

Fourth, President Clinton secured an

agreement with respect to nuclear materials to enable both countries to cooperate to ensure the safe storage of

nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons

materials.

Finally, agreement was reached on a

statement to guide economic relations

between the two countries that is important to our efforts to keep the Russian economic reforms on track.

So, in my view, a substantial degree

of progress has been made with regard

to Iran, with regard to the ABM Treaty, with regard to a number of issues

relating to European security. And, as

I indicated, the trip continues.

That list of substantive accomplishments is impressive; to expect more

from one trip is, frankly, unrealistic.

Overall, the progress is indicative of

the continuing interest of both countries to cooperate where we can and

manage our differences constructively.

We should not judge this relationship

or this meeting against an arbitrary

scorecard, and we must not forget that

this is not the old Soviet Union. This is

a process to develop our relationship

with the new Russia—again, not just

its government, but also its people; to

build on the potential that resides

within that relationship that must be

rooted in democracy and a mature and

balanced dialog.

It is an important relationship, and

the President is wise to invest in it. I

applaud his efforts, and the fact that

he has accomplished as much as he has

in the last 2 days.
S6448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

Perhaps President Clinton said it

best today:

If you asked me to summarize in a word or

two what happened today, I would say that

we advanced the security interests of the

people of the United States and the people of

Russia.

I should also note that, regarding

Chechnya, the President spoke out

strongly and publicly against Russian

action in Chechnya at an event at Moscow State University. He has made

clear to President Yeltsin and to the

Russian people the United States position. Tomorrow he will meet with opposition leaders and with the family of

Fred Cuny, the American aid worker

still missing in Chechnya.

So I would say the President certainly went to Russia knowing we have

serious differences with Russia, but

committed to the essential process of

supporting democratic roots and institutions in Russia and developing our

relationship with the Russian people.

The list of accomplishments is impressive, and the trip continues.

I only hope that in the interest of ensuring the greatest degree of success,

at least until he returns, we give him

the greatest benefit of the doubt, that

we offer him our support, that we send

the right message to the Russian people that we stand behind this President

as he negotiates, as he continues to

confront the many very perplexing issues that we must address in our complicated relationship with the people of

Russia and certainly Russian leadership.

So, again, I must say I think in 2

days it is remarkable the President has

developed the list of accomplishments

he has. I hope we could continue to add

to that list in the remaining time the

President spends in Russia. It was a

trip well spent. It was a trip I think we

can look on with some satisfaction. I

hope as the President continues to

travel we can demonstrate our support

for him and for his efforts, and wish

him well as he continues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. CHAFEE pertaining to the introduction of S. 789 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending question before the body is the

substitute amendment reported by the

Committee on Environment and Public

Works to S. 534. Is there further

amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 754

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate

on taking all possible steps to combat domestic terrorism in the United States)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk on behalf of

myself, Senator CRAIG, Senator GRASSLEY, and Senator BROWN, and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER] for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. GRASSLEY,

and Mr. BROWN, proposes an amendment

numbered 754.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear in the U.S. over international terrorism for many years;

(2) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear in the U.S. over the

threat of domestic terrorism after the bombing of the New York World Trade Center on

February 26, 1993;

(3) There is even more public concern,

worry and fear since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995;

(4) Public concern, worry and fear has been

aggravated by the fact that it appears that

the terrorist bombing at the Federal building in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by

Americans;

(5) The United States Senate should take

all action within its power to understand and

respond in all possible ways to threats of domestic as well as international terrorism;

(6) Serious questions of public concern

have been raised about the actions of federal

law enforcement officials including agents

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms relating to the arrest of Mr. Randy

Weaver and others in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in

August, 1992 and Mr. David Koresh and others associated with the Branch Davidian sect

in Waco, Taxas, between February 28, 1993,

and April 19, 1993;

(7) Inquiries by the Executive Branch have

left serious unanswered questions on these

incidents;

(8) The United States Senate has not conducted any hearings on these incidents;

(9) There is public concern about allowing

federal agencies to investigate allegations of

impropriety within their own ranks without

congressional oversight to assure accountability at the highest levels of government;

(10) Notwithstanding an official censure of

FBI Agent Larry Potts on January 6, 1994,

relating to his participation in the Idaho incident, the Attorney General of the United

States on May 2, 1995, appointed Agent Potts

to be Deputy Director of the FBI;

(11) It is universally acknowledged that

there can be no possible justification for the

Oklahoma City bombing regardless of what

happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Waco,

Texas;

(12) Ranking federal officials have supported hearings by the U.S. Senate to dispel

public rumors that the Oklahoma City bombing was planned and carried out by federal

law enforcement officials:

(13) It has been represented, or at least

widely rumored, that the motivation for the

Oklahoma City bombing may have been related to the Waco incident, the dates falling

exactly two years apart; and

(14) A U.S. Senate hearing, or at least setting the date for such a hearing, on Waco

and Ruby Ridge would help to restore public

confidence that there will be full disclosure

of what happened, appropriate congressional

oversight and accountability at the highest

levels of the federal government.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense

of the Senate that hearings should be held

before the Senate Judiciary Committee on

countering domestic terrorism in all possible

ways with a hearing on or before June 30,

1995, on actions taken by federal law enforcement agencies in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and

Waco, Texas.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the

thrust of this amendment is clear on

its face; that is to proceed as promptly

as possible, but in a reasonable way, to

have as comprehensive hearings as possible in the U.S. Senate on ways to

combat terrorism.

Pursuant to that general objective,

this Senator scheduled hearings in the

Subcommittee on Terrorism, a series

of four hearings, with a fifth one

planned. The first hearing was scheduled for April 27 on legislation which

had been pending dealing with terrorism, with its focus on transnational

terrorism but also with some focus on

domestic terrorism as it related to FBI

counterterrorism strategies. A second

hearing was scheduled for May 4, with

the subject being technical aspects of

the legislation and also to provide an

opportunity to the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish

Congress, the Irish National Caucus,

and the National Association of ArabAmericans to be heard on the civil liberties issues raised by the legislation.

The third hearing is scheduled for May

11, which is tomorrow, on the subject

of the so-called mayhem manuals on

how to make bombs being transmitted

over the Internet. A fourth hearing is

scheduled for May 18, dealing with

Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX. There is

a fifth hearing planned, which we may

be able to schedule for May 25, which

would deal with the growth of the militia movement around the United

States.

The hearing scheduled for April 27 became a full committee hearing and proceeded on that basis. Then Senator

HATCH, who is on the floor at the moment—I had notified him that I would

be presenting this sense-of-the-Senate

resolution at about 6:20, as we are

doing at this time—wrote to me saying

that he believed the May 18 hearing

should not be held as scheduled but

ought to be held at some time in the

future with a date not specified.

It is my view, Mr. President, that it

is a matter of urgent public interest

that the hearing be held as promptly as

reasonably possible, but in any event

that a date certain should be set so