May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6435

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

AMENDMENT NO. 751

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we have

an amendment offered by Senator

KEMPTHORNE. I send the amendment to

the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.

SMITH], for Mr. KEMPTHORNE, proposes an

amendment numbered 751.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 69, line 13, strike the word, ‘‘remote’’.

On page 69, line 19, after the word, ‘‘infeasible’’, insert the word, ‘‘or’’.

On page 69, lines 21 and 22, strike the

words, ‘‘the unit shall be exempt from those

requirements’’ and in lieu thereof insert the

words, ‘‘the State may exempt the unit from

some or all of those requirements’’.

On page 69, line 22, add the following new

sentence: ‘‘This subsection shall apply only

to solid waste landfill units that dispose of

less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste

daily, based on an annual average.’’.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this

amendment offered by the Senator

from Idaho has been agreed to on both

sides.

There is no objection on either side.

It is a technical amendment to title III

and it deals with ground water monitoring.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there

be no further debate, the question is on

agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 751) was agreed

to.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield

the floor and suggest the absence of a

quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE] is recognized.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. CHAFEE pertaining to the introduction of S. 786 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DEWINE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call

be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMPSON). The Senator from Ohio is

recognized.

Mr. DE

CRIME IN AMERICA

WINE. Mr. President, in the

fcoming weeks the Senate will once

again turn to the very important issue

of crime. Within the next few days I

will be introducing on this floor a

crime bill of my own. Over the next 4

days I intend to discuss on each one of

those 4 days a different aspect of the

crime bill that I will be introducing.

Today, I would like to start by talking about two truly fundamental and

basic issues and questions. First, what

is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country? Second, despite all of the rhetoric,

what really works in law enforcement?

What matters? What does not matter?

What is rhetoric and what is reality?

What can the Federal Government do

to help local law enforcement? Because, Mr. President, the fact is that

over 90 percent of all criminal investigations, prosecutions, and trials do

not occur at the Federal level. Rather,

they take place at the local and State

level.

This means that one of the criteria

for any crime bill has to be the impact

that bill will have on the ability of

local communities themselves to fight

crime. Of any crime bill, we have to

ask this question: Does it help or does

it hurt the local crimefighters, the men

and women who are on the front line

every single day? Mr. President, if it

does help, does the help it gives help

permanently or just over the short

run? In other words, are we going to

get any lasting impact in our battle

against crime for the billions of dollars

that we are talking of spending at the

Federal level?

Mr. President, the role of the Federal

Government first and foremost is to do

those things that the local community

cannot do for itself. I believe the Federal Government has to provide the

tools to a local community to fight

crime, tools that they could not have

but for the help of the Federal Government.

One major Federal responsibility

that I would like to discuss today is

the creation and maintenance of a national criminal records system. The

idea is really very basic and very simple. We need to make it possible for

any police officer anywhere in the

country to access a national data base,

a fully automated data base, data

bank, which includes information on

fingerprints, DNA, ballistics, outstanding warrants, and complete criminal

record history of suspects and of those

who have previously been convicted of

crimes.

I believe that this system will be an

absolutely essential component of local

law enforcement in the 21st century.

We already have much of this technology in place today, but, quite frankly, it will only become more important

in the years ahead. That is why we

need to focus on it today, this year,

this crime bill. We have to build this

system correctly from the beginning.

Mr. President, we will soon be considering the single largest crime fighting

bill in the history of this country. If we

do not focus on this technology issue

now as part of this crime bill, we never

will again have the opportunity to do

it and to do it correctly. I think that

would be tragic, because if we do not do

this it will be much more difficult later

on for police to fight crime. Conversely, if we do do it, we will solve

crimes. We will save people from becoming victims. Yes, we will save lives.

I think that really is what is at stake.

Mr. President, if we do not do this

now, it will be more difficult for the

police to solve crimes committed by

the same individual in different

cities—to catch, for example, a criminal who used the same gun to commit

crimes in both Washington, DC, and

Baltimore, MD. It will be more difficult to keep track of sex offenders

and to prevent them from repeating

their offenses.

Mr. President, when a felon is fleeing

from justice and inadvertently falls

into the hands of law enforcers in some

other jurisdiction, those arresting officers will not know through fingerprints

that that person is wanted, let us say,

for kidnapping or a terrorist act—kidnapping a child.

Mr. President, when a brave police

officer pulls someone over on a deserted highway in the middle of the

night, that police officer will not know

the kind of person he is pulling over,

will not know that the person he has

pulled over is a convicted criminal,

maybe a fugitive from justice.

Local police work hard and do a

great job. They deserve much better

than this. They deserve to have the

best technology that we can give them.

To do that they need national help.

They need the technological backup

that only a fully functioning national—national—system can provide.

For local law enforcement to get the

maximum benefit from a national system, we have to grow this national system locally.

The unique thing about law enforcement in the United States, a country

with a Federal system, not a top-down

system, of government, is that you can

only have a national system if the

local law enforcement people build it

up themselves. To attempt to create a

national system from the top down is

like trying to create a TV network if

nobody has a television.
S6436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

We can have all the Federal technology in the world in Washington, DC,

but if a police officer in Tennessee or

in Ohio or in Massachusetts cannot

pull it up in his or her squad car or at

the police station, what in the world

use is it?

To make a national system, we really

need two things. We need the local people to collect data and put it into the

national system. And then we need to

make sure the men and women scattered throughout this country, tens of

thousands of them, who need this information have the ability to get the data

back and to use it and to solve crimes

and to convict criminals. Unless we invest in local technology, the local data

collection, and retrieval, this just will

not happen.

When I was in Cleveland recently, I

saw the future of law enforcement. I

saw police officers punch a name into a

laptop computer, no bigger than this.

The computer then gave them a picture

of the individual and a lot of other information, including outstanding warrants and a complete criminal record.

We have the technology today to give

this ability to every law enforcement

officer in the country. For a system

like this to work, Mr. President, we

need local police all over America to be

putting in this information. It is the

kind of system we have to grow locally

so that it can work nationally. Only

the Federal Government can do the national coordination that is necessary

for this kind of a system. There is an

important and legitimate Federal role

in crime technology, and my bill reflects this fact. My bill gives direct assistance to local authorities so that

they can contribute their knowledge,

their information to a national crime

fighting system.

Anyone who visits the laboratories of

the FBI, as I have, here in Washington

cannot help being impressed by the tremendous capabilities and capacity that

they have. Our challenge, though, is to

ensure that the hub, the FBI’s data

base, is both expanded by and is useful

to local authorities.

While I was at the FBI headquarters

recently, the agents looked me directly

in the eye and told me that the awesome technology we have really will

not be fully utilized, will not live up to

the great potential it has unless the

local authorities can collect the information and put it into the system.

They expressed to me quite bluntly a

skepticism as to whether or not there

are the funds available today in jurisdictions across this country to achieve

this type of a national system. They

have it here in Washington. The FBI

has it. But local law enforcement does

not today have the resources.

Talk to the police officers of Lucas

County, OH. They will tell you how

crucially important access to this technology really is. Let me take one example, something we have heard a lot

about in the law the last few months

on television— DNA. Let us take DNA

in a rape case. The police in Lucas

County have the technology to collect

blood and semen in a rape scene.

Today, however, the Lucas County police, sheriff’s office, Toledo Police Department, if they have no suspect,

there is no quick way to match the

DNA samples from the crime scene

against the DNA samples of past offenders because Lucas County is not on

line with an existing national DNA

data base that might help them determine who the predator really was. And

even if they already have a suspect in

Lucas County, proving that the DNA

matches that of the suspect is a very

slow process. It is slow because of the

great backlog that exists today in getting these samples fully analyzed by a

competent individual, an expert who

later on can come into court and testify.

If we give Lucas County or the Toledo Police Department immediate access to a national DNA data base, they

could know pretty swiftly who committed that crime.

The same problem exists in regard to

fingerprints. Now, when a suspect is

booked, generally, his fingers get

rolled in ink onto three or four separate cards which then get headings like

name, address, et cetera, which are

typed by the county sheriff’s department onto the cards. These fingerprints are then mailed—mailed, Mr.

President—in 1995, still mailed—to the

FBI and into BCI in Ohio, which is our

Bureau of Criminal Identification.

The technology, though, Mr. President, already exists for the computerized fingerprinting of suspects. All they

have to do now is place their hands

onto a computer imager—the technology is available today—and the fingerprints go then directly into a data

base, what could be a national data

base.

That would be a tremendous improvement. But, you know, the folks in

Lucas County tell me that what they

and other police officers nationwide

really need is a national computer

linkup for fingerprints.

I think that is absolutely correct. If

you look at the technology they are

trying, let us say, in Cleveland

Heights, laptop computers in a squad

car, and if you look at the incredible

technology already available for

fingerprinting, for matching bullet

fragments and other physical evidence,

the conclusion is really inescapable.

We need to make technology a truly

national priority.

This is something that we in the U.S.

Senate can do and, frankly, something

that we must do. The time is now. This

is our opportunity.

The situation today is almost like a

system of stereo components. We have

a great receiver; we have a great set of

speakers; we even have a world-class

selection of CD’s. But we have not

hooked the system up and we have not

plugged it in.

Mr. President, make no mistake:

America’s police men and women are

already the best in the world. If we

give them this equipment, they will

solve the crimes; they will get the job

done.

The U.S. Senate needs to give these

local police officers the tools they really need. The bill that I will introduce

in the next several days will accelerate

the process of setting up this system of

21st century technology. We really will

be going from 19th century technology,

which is how many police carry out

their functions today, to 21st century

technology.

Only if we do this can the State and

local authorities make their crime information readily available to the FBI,

the national data base, the Federal Bureau of Investigation here in Washington and, frankly, more importantly,

vice versa.

My bill makes it possible for States

without technology to come on line.

And if a State is already on line with

the FBI, that State can use the funds

to make further improvements to its

data collection system.

Let me give you another example.

The combined DNA index system,

called CODIS, a data base, includes

DNA information on criminals convicted of rape, murder, and other violent crimes. Under my legislation, participation in CODIS will be truly national for the first time, and it will be

supported by Federal dollars.

In another area that I think is very

important, my bill would require convicted sex offenders and other violent

criminals to give blood samples as they

enter or as they leave prison so that we

can develop a truly national sex offender DNA data base.

Mr. President, there exists in this

country a class of individuals who I

will call, for want of a better term, sexual predators. A predator, as we know,

is an animal that preys on other animals, and typically on the weak—sexual predators.

A recent study, Mr. President, found

that 28 percent—28 percent—of convicted sex offenders were later convicted of a second sex offense. I will

say, Mr. President, based upon my own

experience when I was a county prosecutor in Greene County, that that percentage probably is even higher than 28

percent. That is a very high recidivism

rate and it shows how serious a problem we are really up against.

And so it makes eminent sense to develop a nationwide system where we

can collect systematically the blood,

then the DNA, and develop this national DNA data base for sexual predators. If we do this, we will solve crimes;

we will prevent crimes; we will prevent

tragedies.

I think, Mr. President, we clearly

need to do everything in our power to

stop these predators. That is why we

need to give police access to this national data base.

Mr. President, fingerprints and

criminal histories would also be included in this integrated Federal data

base.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6437

In addition, my legislation would allocate some of the crime money to fund

the FBI’s DRUGFIRE program. This is

an existing program that, quite frankly, needs to be expanded. We need to

help the FBI develop and install computer equipment that would match bullet evidence to information in the

FBI’s bullet data base.

Today, for example, law enforcement

officers in my home county of Greene

County, OH, have a filing cabinet full

of bullets. These bullets are arranged

by caliber—9 mm, .38 slugs, and so on.

Every gun, of course, as we know

from watching TV shows, leaves a telltale print on a bullet, so police officers

in Greene County or any county can

take a bullet from the crime scene and

compare it to the bullets they have in

their bullet file. They take the bullets

that look similar and put them under a

microscope, quite frankly, in the very

distant hope they might get a match.

Tragically, there is absolutely no

hope of matching the bullet with bullets from other police departments.

That is one reason there are a lot of

unsolved gun crimes in this country

today.

DRUGFIRE changes this dramatically. DRUGFIRE connects each bullet

microscope to a computer, which takes

a picture of the bullet and stores an

image in its memory. It can then be

matched with millions of other bullets

from all around the country.

Today, about eight jurisdictions between Baltimore and Washington, DC,

are linked up through DRUGFIRE.

They have already connected Baltimore crimes to D.C. crimes—the same

gun, the same criminals.

Thanks to DRUGFIRE, a search

through 10,000 bullets takes about a

minute. Without DRUGFIRE, no one

knows how long it will take because no

one, of course, would even try to do

that.

Mr. President, if everyone in local

law enforcement were hooked up to

each other nationwide, and to the FBI,

through DRUGFIRE, they would have a

huge new advantage in the fight

against criminals with guns. Gun

criminals do not respect State borders—very obvious.

Mr. President, a key criterion on

which any crime bill should be judged

is: Does it do any permanent good? Not

just immediately, but does it do permanent good? Does it just spend

money, or does it invest in something

that has consistent, long-term benefits?

Mr. President, I maintain that the

criminal justice records we are talking

about—indeed, all the technology we

are talking about—are a crucial longterm investment for this country.

We are not really just talking about

the next 5 years. We are talking about

a cumulative effect, building, building

far out into the future. The efficiency

of this system will continue to increase

each year. It will have truly a cumulative effect.

We want to do for law enforcement, if

I could use this analogy, what the

interstate highway system did for U.S.

transportation back in the 1950’s.

Now, I must admit to my colleagues

that this is not a glitzy nor a glamorous issue. The first thing I learned,

now almost 20 years ago, as a young assistant county prosecuting attorney,

was that law enforcement is very seldom glamorous. It is hard work. What

we generally see on TV is not an accurate depiction of police investigations.

It is not an accurate depiction of criminal prosecutions.

In fact, Mr. President, what we are

seeing or we are hearing about, day

after day after day, as the FBI and

other law enforcement agencies investigate the horrible tragedy in Oklahoma, what we are seeing unfold is typical law enforcement work, just magnified as they go about their business—

their hard, tough, sometimes very boring business—of looking for the lead

that will take them to the next lead,

the piece of evidence, the shred of evidence that will take them to something else, and on and on until the

crime is solved.

Good police work is, if I could use

this term, Mr. President, largely grunt

work. It can be downright boring hitting the pavement day after day to

track down leads. The police in Lucas

County, OH, spent a good 8 years trying to track down a grandfather who

abducted his granddaughter. They followed his trail from State to State.

They finally found him, after 8 years,

in California.

Mr. President, a national, easily accessible database would have made

that capture probably a lot easier and

maybe, just maybe, that little girl

would have been reunited with her parents a lot sooner than 8 years after her

disappearance.

The Oklahoma City bombing case, as

I mentioned a moment ago, demonstrates the real value of a usable national database. A scrap of metal that

was blown 2 blocks away from the

crime scene by the bomb blast had a

vehicle identification number on it.

The FBI fed the number into the computerized rapid start system. The vehicle identification number then led the

FBI to the rental company in Junction

City, and that is where they got the description of the suspect.

Then it took more legwork around

Junction City to match a name to the

suspect. When the suspect’s name was

fed into the FBI’s national computer

database, that is how the FBI found

that the terrorism suspect actually had

been arrested earlier in Perry, OH, that

he was actually in custody.

Mr. President, local law enforcement

officers really need access to that kind

of technology. The measures I am talking about will help provide them with

these tools. This technology may not

be glamorous—it is not glamorous—but

believe me, it matters, it makes a difference. It will make a huge difference

in our national fight against crime.

Every single time a police officer pulls

someone over, we need that police officer to know that America is with him

or with her, not just our encouragement, not just our moral support, but

we need to back up that by giving that

police officer all the relevant facts we

as a nation have compiled about that

person, that individual that the police

officer has just pulled over.

Last year, we started down the right

path. Last year’s crime bill did provide

some money for this important work.

But now we have to concentrate on

helping the local—the local—law enforcement community to participate.

That is what this year’s crime bill absolutely must do, because, Mr. President, if we do not do this, we will be

missing a major component of our

crimefighting arsenal.

It is no use to have a gold-plated

database system in Washington if local

crimefighters cannot, do not contribute to it and if they cannot draw out

the information, if they cannot use it.

Again, back to the statistic that I

started this speech with and that is

that well over 90 percent of all criminal

prosecution is, in fact, local. And so,

you have to judge the system you are

establishing not just by what it does

for the FBI, although that is important, you have to judge what it does for

its component parts, what it does for

the tens of thousands of police officers

and law enforcement agencies around

this country.

Our challenge, Mr. President, is to

prepare America’s law enforcement for

the 21st century, and we are falling behind in this task. We have the technology, we have the ability to prevent

many of the crimes that are being committed today. Think of it, that is in

and of itself a crime, that we have the

technology to give law enforcement the

tools they need to solve crime and to,

more importantly, catch criminals and

put them behind bars and keep them

locked up, criminals who, but for that

technology, will continue to go on and

continue to commit crimes and continue to prey upon our citizens. We

need to get that technology to where it

is needed the most, and that is the

local law enforcement.

The improvements I am proposing in

America’s crime information system

constitute a basic investment in the security of American families well into

the next century. It is time to move

out of the stone age on law enforcement. That is the principle behind my

crime technology proposals.

I look forward to working on this in

our Judiciary Committee process and

on the floor of this Senate in the next

few weeks. I think the work we do on

this truly has the potential to make a

major difference in the lives of ordinary Americans for decades to come. I

am proud to be a part of this effort.

I yield the floor

Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.