May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6499 

or nuclear weapons technology. These 

countries, India, Pakistan, and Israel, 

are not parties to the Treaty. Even if 

these countries signed the NPT as nonnuclear weapons states, there is no way 

to ensure that these countries will ever 

stop development of, or destroy, their 

nuclear arsenals. 

Mr. President, in the 26 years of its 

existence, the NPT did not free the 

world from the threat of nuclear weapons, and it will not do so in the future. 

It did, however, establish a global norm 

for nations to limit the proliferation of 

nuclear weapons and it has enjoyed the 

widest adherence of any arms control 

agreement. It is for this reason, that I 

rise today in support of extending the 

NPT. Let me qualify my statement of 

support of the Treaty by saying that I 

take no position on whether the Treaty 

should be indefinitely extended, or, extended only for a fixed period of time. 

I am concerned that the United States 

did not make any efforts to improve 

the NPT and make it a more viable 

agreement by strengthening its enforcement and inspection mechanisms. 

I went back and reviewed the Senate 

floor debate on the ratification of the 

NPT. Mr. President, despite wide adherence to the NPT, the world still 

faces the potential horrors of a nuclear 

exchange between regional states. The 

risk of the use of nuclear weapons by 

countries to suppress governmental 

factions, or settle old ethnic and religious disputes still exists today, as it 

did 26 years ago. 

Representatives of the international 

community have been gathered in New 

York City at the United Nations for 

the past month to determine the future 

of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Clinton administration supports indefinite and unconditional extension of the Treaty, while representatives from the non-aligned member 

states, led by Indonesia, Iran and 

Egypt, oppose indefinite extension. 

On March 16, a majority of Members 

of the Senate expressed their support 

for the administration’s position of indefinite and unconditional extension of 

the NPT. They also expressed concerns 

that the NPT would be seriously undercut if it is not indefinitely extended, 

dealing a major below to global nuclear 

nonproliferation regimes. Mr. President, the treaty can be undermined at 

any time regardless of its duration because there are no enforcement mechanisms or automatic sanctions. 

I remind my colleagues that as a 

non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT 

and member in good standing, Iraq, developed an illegal nuclear weapons program under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program, and it has been determined that Iran, under the guise of 

peaceful use of nuclear technology is 

pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons 

program. Likewise, North Korea, a 

non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT 

was determined to have violated the 

NPT. Of course, it was never determined to be a member in good standing 

of the treaty. Lastly, even though not 

members of the NPT, India, Pakistan, 

and Israel, were able to secretly develop nuclear weapons programs. 

Representatives and leaders of a 

number of developing countries, or 

nonaligned member states, do not support indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty. They cite as reasons for their lack of support for the 

U.S. position, the lack of progress in 

concluding a comprehensive test ban. 

They claim that the nuclear weapons 

states have not fulfilled their nuclear 

disarmament obligations. They believe 

that the Treaty is discriminatory and 

that it sanctions the five nuclear powers’ rights to hold on to their nuclear 

weapons and keep the non-nuclear 

weapon states as nuclear weapons 

‘‘have-nots’’. 

Mr. President, I reject the rationale 

offered by the non-aligned states for 

not supporting extension of the Treaty. 

For the past decade, the United States 

and Russia have made unprecedented 

reductions in their nuclear forces—beginning in 1985 with the Intermediate 

Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and more 

recently reducing strategic forces 

under START. Both President Clinton 

and President Yeltsin have agreed to 

discuss even further reductions to their 

nuclear weapons programs once 

START II is implemented. Prior to 

START entering into force, President 

Bush and President Gorbachev implemented unilateral reductions of United 

States and Russian tactical weapons. 

Since 1992, a testing moratorium has 

been in place in the United States, and 

the United States along with the other 

nuclear weapons states and members of 

the Conference on Disarmament have 

been negotiating a comprehensive test 

ban treaty. 

Last month, the United States and 

the other four nuclear weapons states 

restated their support of negative security assurances in the United Nations. 

Additionally, negotiations will begin 

soon on a global ban on the production 

of fissile material for military purposes 

in the Conference on Disarmament. If 

these steps do not indicate a good faith 

effort on the part of the United States 

and other nuclear weapons states toward nuclear disarmament, I am not 

sure what else can be done. 

Representatives of the non-nuclear 

weapons states who want to poke the 

United States in the eye by not supporting indefinite extension of the 

Treaty, because they believe we have 

not reduced our nuclear arsenals to 

zero, or completed the negotiations on 

a comprehensive test ban, would do 

well to focus attention on their own efforts at reducing the threat posed by 

nuclear weapons. How have they 

worked with their neighbors, and other 

countries, to build more positive relationships and confidence so that threat 

of attack and annihilation are reduced 

and countries do not feel compelled to 

acquire nuclear weapons for protection? 

The Clinton administration and 

other NPT signatories should stop 

wringing their hands over the period of 

time for which the Treaty should be extended. Instead they should be focused 

on using this month-long conference to 

enhance the viability of the NPT by 

making it a living document which enables and ensures multilateral enforcement of the Treaty’s provisions. Parties to the NPT should have confidence 

that its members will comply with the 

provisions of the Treaty, be supportive 

of its goals and that the proliferation 

of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology is eliminated. And, when a determination of a violation has been 

made by the international monitoring 

agency through its inspections and the 

United Nations Security Council has 

been notified, meaningful and appropriate actions or sanctions should be 

undertaken immediately. 

Mr President, once again, I rise to 

say that I support extension of the 

NPT. I only regret that the administration did not believe the NPT was important enough to strengthen it to 

make it a more viable and effective 

arms control agreement. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANTORUM). 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 (Mr. 

GRAMS). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a vote 

has been scheduled at 6 o’clock by the 

managers on an amendment which has 

been offered by Senator CRAIG, Senator 

GRASSLEY, Senator BROWN, Senator 

KEMPTHORNE, and myself which would 

establish a sense of the Senate that 

hearings should be held on Ruby Ridge, 

ID, and Waco, TX, on or before June 30. 

The purpose of the amendment is to 

set a date where there may be an inquiry by the full Judiciary Committee 

on those events because of the widespread reports of public unrest as to 

what occurred there. 

I have attempted to get a hearing on 

the Waco incident since mid-1993. The 

incident there happened on April 19, 

1993. It has always seemed to me that it 

is not sufficient to have the executive 

branch investigate itself when there is 

so much concern as to the propriety of 

the action which was taken there, with 

the assaults and with the rush and with 

the gases which were used. 

There have been numerous reports 

and there is very substantial evidence 

of public unrest on what has happened 

there. It is speculative to an extent, or 

it may not be speculative, as to a connection between the Oklahoma City 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

bombing on April 19, which is 2 years 

to the day after the events at Waco, 

TX. The subcommittee has held a series of hearings and had planned to 

have an inquiry scheduled for April 18, 

and the full committee did convene on 

the first date which was set back on 

April 26. And I think it is entirely appropriate for the full committee to 

handle the matter as opposed to the 

terrorism subcommittee. 

But after having a series of hearings—we had our third hearing today—

I am more convinced than ever that 

there is real public tension as to the 

events in Waco, TX, and Ruby Ridge, 

ID. I think it is just inappropriate for 

the Senate to wait an indefinite period 

of time. 

Senator HATCH has proposed that 

there be hearings in the near future, as 

he categorizes it, and has further articulated the near future to mean 

sometime in the current session, which 

would be at the end of the year. If 

there is unrest, and if there is a causal 

connection, or if there is any connection, however slight or however tenuous, between the incident at Waco and 

the Oklahoma City bombing, I suggest 

it is our duty to proceed to clear the 

air to the maximum extent possible 

and to demonstrate that ranking public officials at whatever level will be 

held accountable. It seems to me this is 

something which is very important to 

do. 

In establishing the date of June 30, I 

would be prepared to be flexible until 

the August recess, to extend the time 

for another period until August 4, 

which would be acceptable from my 

point of view. There has been an issue 

raised as to the completion of the FBI 

investigation, and that certainly could 

be done by August 4. 

Mr. President, I think I will relax the 

language and ask unanimous consent 

that the amendment be modified so 

that the date August 4 would be inserted in place of the date June 30. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

The amendment (No. 754), as modified, 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, Texas, 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 August 4, 

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

Waco, Texas. 

Mr. SPECTER. I do that, Mr. President, so that there may be a little 

more lead time as to the completion of 

the investigation by the FBI. I make 

that modification because of my discussion with the FBI Director that, as 

he put it, 8 to 10 weeks would give 

ample latitude for that to be completed. So I am prepared to move at 

that time. I think that it is important 

that a specific date be set so that there 

is an acknowledgement by the Senate 

that we do plan to move forward on a 

date and the date has been established. 

I understand we are to vote at 6 

o’clock, 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 (Mr. 

ASHCROFT). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the pending 

amendment, which is the Jeffords 

amendment, be set aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 754

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move 

to table the Specter amendment and 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 754, 

offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER]. The yeas and 

nays have been ordered. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D’AMATO], 

the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE], 

and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

WARNER] are necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 74, 

nays 23, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.] 

YEAS—74 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Grams 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Snowe 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

NAYS—23 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Brown 

Cohen 

Craig 

Faircloth 

Gramm 

Grassley 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Jeffords 

Kempthorne 

McCain 

McConnell 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Santorum 

Smith 

Specter 

Stevens 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—3 

D’Amato Dole Warner 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 754) was agreed to. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6501 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just 

want to inform all my colleagues—I do 

not need to take much time on this 

bill, but just a few minutes—that I 

called for hearings last year. I have 

only been chairman for a little over 4 

months. 

Every Member knows the Judiciary 

Committee has had a lot on its plate, 

and we have a lot more on our plate. 

However, there are very few things 

that I feel more deeply about than 

what happened at Waco and at Ruby 

Ridge. 

These are people in States that I admire and love. Many of the people I 

know—at least in Idaho. I admire and 

love them. I have said that we will hold 

hearings on these important issues, 

and I will do so as expeditiously as I 

can. 

Everybody does know that to do it 

properly, we are going to have to spend 

some time investigating this. We are 

already in the process of that. Recently, I lost my chief investigator who 

moved to another office. 

We will do this as expeditiously as we 

can. We will do it in the best interests 

of the Senate. I want to tell my dear 

friend from Pennsylvania that his desires here are not going to go ignored. 

It is just that I want to do it the right 

way. I want to make sure that all of 

the issues are aired and that they are 

aired fairly and in front of the full 

committee, because no hearings could 

be held unless they are Department of 

Justice oversight hearings. That is 

what they will have to be. 

I certainly committed the other day, 

and I will again reaffirm my commitment that these hearings will be held. 

Therefore, there was no reason to have 

a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I understand the sincerity of my colleagues. I hope that they will not feel 

badly with this vote. 

I also want to say that I am very concerned about making sure that every 

available agent, every available leader 

of the FBI, every person in law enforcement that we can bring to bear on the 

Oklahoma situation, is out there doing 

that, rather than up here testifying on 

Capitol Hill. 

We want to get that solved, and I 

want it solved. I speak almost daily 

with members of the Justice Department, including the FBI. We are on top 

of this. We will do what has to be done 

here. I want to reaffirm that to the 

Senate. 

I think when we do it, it will be done 

right, and I think people will be 

pleased with it in the end. I hope my 

colleague from Pennsylvania will be 

particularly pleased with it and, as a 

distinguished member of the committee, will have every opportunity to 

participate. And I expect him to do so. 

In fact, I invite him to do so and will 

work with him to see what we can do 

to bring this to a fruition that is satisfactory to everybody. 

Having said that, I can say more. 

There are some things that have been 

very irritating to some of us with regard to what has gone on here, but we 

will forget all that and just go forward 

and make the commitment to do this 

as expeditiously as we can, in good 

faith and in a good manner that hopefully will please everybody. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had, 

frankly, hoped to avoid the necessity of 

a rollcall vote to spare my colleagues a 

vote on the matter. But I felt, and continue to feel very, very strongly, that 

it is incumbent upon the U.S. Senate 

and the Congress to have oversight 

hearings in order to show the American 

people—a lot of people think there has 

been a coverup on Ruby Ridge, ID, and 

Waco, TX—and to show those people we 

are willing to air all of the matters, let 

the chips fall where they may, and 

demonstrate that people at the highest 

ranks of Government will be held accountable. 

No one is second to ARLEN SPECTER

in concern that the FBI have a full opportunity to complete its investigation. I talked to Director Freeh, who 

said if he had 8 to 10 weeks more there 

would be ample time and the FBI 

would be in a position to cooperate. 

And this is more than the 8 to 10 weeks 

that Director Freeh asked for when the 

amendment was modified beyond the 

June 30 date, to provide for a date of 

August 4. 

I believe that the potential for violence is enormous. We have had a number of wake-up calls. And it is no coincidence that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 2 years to the 

day after the incident at Waco, TX. If 

anything happens in the interim, if we 

have not had the ventilation, the safety valve, then there is a real issue as to 

whether the U.S. Senate is doing its 

job. 

We have a lot of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We have a lot of 

hearings in other committees. And 

there is not a single hearing being held 

which is more important than to air 

the public concern about Waco and 

about Ruby Ridge. I have been conducting hearings in the Subcommittee 

on Terrorism; I finished the third one 

today. It is an overwhelming problem. 

The first hearing which was scheduled became a full committee hearing, 

which I thought was entirely appropriate, to allow more Senators to participate. But what I intend to do is to 

continue my own inquiry and my own 

speaking out on the facts as to what 

happened. I talked at length with Director Louis Freeh, and I have talked 

at length with Mr. Spencer, who is the 

attorney for the Weavers, and I intend 

to talk to the Weavers and I intend to 

review all the facts and to make periodic reports to the American people 

about what I find. Because I think it is 

totally inadequate to have an inquiry—

a hearing sometime in the near future. 

I felt strongly enough about it to 

bring the matter to the floor and I respect the conclusion of my fellow colleagues. But I intend to carry on this 

inquiry myself and to make these periodic reports. 

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the 

Senator from Pennsylvania is on the 

floor I want my colleagues to know 

that in the good old days, when I was 

chairman of the committee and the 

Democrats were in charge, the Senator 

from Pennsylvania shared the same 

view. I want the record to show that 

this is nothing new the Senator from 

Pennsylvania is suggesting. I have read 

some accounts that suggest that because the Senator from Pennsylvania 

may have other aspirations, this is propelling his interests. I want to vouch 

for the fact that I know that not to be 

true. 

The fact of the matter is that when 

Waco occurred, shortly after Waco, the 

Senator did repeatedly talk to me 

about it and thought that, although I 

believe that we did have oversight 

hearings and everybody had an opportunity to ask about Waco—and a few 

did—that the Senator thought then, 

thinks now, and is totally consistent, 

whether he is seeking another office or 

not, in his view that this issue should 

be ventilated. 

For those of us on this side of the 

aisle, this has been a little like watching a family quarrel. Both the Senators 

are my friends but I do not think I 

have a closer friend in the Senate than 

the Senator from Pennsylvania, and 

because a number of press people have 

come to me, and my colleagues have 

come to me, to ask me about issues relating to motivation—I can assert with 

absolute certainty, without any 

equivocation, that there has been absolutely no change in the intensity of the 

interest of the Senator from the time 

the matter occurred when I was chairman of that committee to the time I 

am the ranking member of that committee. 

I just want that to be made clear, 

notwithstanding the fact I voted the 

other way. I voted to table the Specter 

amendment because of my consistent 

view as to how this should be handled. 

The Senator may be right in terms of 

the value of the ventilation and when, 

and sooner than later. I have a slight 

disagreement with him on when. But I 

do not have any—any—any doubt, and 

I can confirm for my colleagues and 

anyone who is listening, that there is 

an absolute, total, unequivocal consistency to his position on this from the 

moment the tragedy in Waco occurred 

through this day. 

I just want the record to reflect that. 

Not that anyone in particular has suggested otherwise, but I get a number of 

inquiries because people are looking to 

make press outside this institution. I 

just want the record to reflect it. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just 

want to bring this to a head. I would 

like to put into the RECORD, just so everybody understands, a letter we received today from Louis J. Freeh, Director of the FBI, to me. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your 

inquiry concerning my views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I 

have no hesitancy about testifying on the 

issue. 

And that is the position he has always taken with me. 

I have often stated that a full and open 

hearing will provide an excellent forum for 

the Department of Justice and the FBI to 

bring all the facts before the American public. It undoubtedly would serve to debunk 

some of the ‘‘conspiracy’’ theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in 

these incidents as well as provide our views 

concerning the proper role of federal law enforcement. 

It is Congress’ prerogative as to timing. It 

would be helpful, however, to remove any 

hearing from such close proximity to the 

Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is 

focused on this heinous crime as we continue 

to investigate and prepare for prosecution. 

While I am looking forward to the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in 

the immediate future will distract from our 

Oklahoma efforts and could preclude us from 

discussion of issues relevant both to Oklahoma and Waco. 

Sincerely yours, 

LOUIS J. FREEH, 

Director. 

I just want to put that in the RECORD

because that is one of the things that 

has caused me great concern. We will 

hold hearings and we will do it in an 

expeditious and good way and hopefully to the satisfaction of all concerned, including my friend from Pennsylvania. 

I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the letter 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD as follows: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 1995. 

Hon. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your 

inquiry concerning my views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I 

have no hesitancy about testifying on the 

issue. 

I have often stated that a full and open 

hearing will provide an excellent forum for 

the Department of Justice and the FBI to 

bring all the facts before the American public. It undoubtedly would serve to debunk 

some of the ‘‘conspiracy’’ theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in 

these incidents as well as provide our views 

concerning the proper role of federal law enforcement. 

It is Congress’ prerogative as to timing. It 

would be helpful, however, to remove any 

hearing from such close proximity to the 

Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is 

focused on this heinous crime as we continue 

to investigate and prepare for prosecution. 

While I am looking forward to the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in 

the immediate future will distract from our 

Oklahoma efforts and could preclude us from 

discussion of issues relevant both to Oklahoma and Waco. 

Sincerely yours, 

LOUIS J. FREEH, 

Director. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a 

word or two. The letter which Senator 

HATCH has just read is entirely consistent with the representation I made 

earlier that I had talked to Director 

Louis Freeh this afternoon, who told 

me, as I said earlier, that if he had 8 to 

10 weeks that would be ample time. 

And that is why, as I had said earlier, 

I modified the amendment from the 

date of June 30 to August 4, which 

would give more than the 8 to 10 weeks. 

So, when Senator HATCH cites a letter about the immediate future, the 8 

to 10 weeks was accorded to the Director and the hearings could have been 

held within the timeframe of the resolution as framed. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for my 

colleagues I will just outline what in 

my judgment will take place this 

evening. 

We will have a vote on the Jeffords 

amendment and I do not know how 

long that will take. If the Senator 

could give us some indication, that will 

be helpful. 

But following the Jeffords amendment there will be no more rollcall 

votes. However, tomorrow it is my belief we will have a series of rollcall 

votes. There will be a cloture vote at 10 

o’clock and there will be some other 

votes after that. 

I would very much hope we could finish this bill tomorrow. I hope, with the 

negotiations that take place tonight, 

we will be able to do so. But there will 

be no votes after the Jeffords vote. 

AMENDMENT NO. 867, AS MODIFIED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I 

have a modification of my amendment 

at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his amendment. 

The amendment is modified. 

The amendment (No. 867), as modified, is as follows: 

On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert 

the following: 

‘‘(f) STATE SOLID WASTE DISTRICT AUTHORITY.—A solid waste district or a political 

subdivision of a State may exercise flow control authority for municipal solid waste and 

for recyclable material voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator of the material that is generated within its jurisdiction if—

‘‘(1) the solid waste district political subdivision or municipality within said district 

is currently required to initiate a recyclable 

materials recycling program in order to 

meet a municipal solid waste reduction goal 

of at least 30 percent by the year 2005, and 

uses revenues generated by the exercise of 

flow control authority strictly to implement 

programs to manage municipal solid waste, 

other than development of incineration; and 

‘‘(2) prior to May 15, 1994, the solid waste 

district political subdivision or municipality 

within said district—

‘‘(A) was responsible under State law for 

the management and regulation of the storage, collection, processing, and disposal of 

solid wastes within its jurisdiction; 

‘‘(B) was authorized by State statute (enacted prior to January 1, 1992) to exercise 

flow control authority, and subsequently 

adopted or sought to exercise the authority 

through a law, ordinance, regulation, regulatory proceeding, contract, franchise, or 

other legally binding provision; and 

‘‘(C) was required by State statute (enacted prior to January 1, 1992) to develop and 

implement a solid waste management plan 

consistent with the State solid waste management plan, and the district solid waste 

management plan was approved by the appropriate State agency prior to September 

15, 1994. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could 

enter into a time agreement? 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I had several people 

who asked to speak. I do not see them 

present, but I think we could finish in 

15 minutes on our side. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Would the Senator be 

willing to agree to 10 minutes on that 

side and no more than 10 minutes on 

this side? 

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is agreeable to 

me. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Is there any objection 

to that agreement? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I 

hope this amendment will not take 

very long. I think it is a very sensible 

one. I will explain to my colleagues 

what the amendment does, and I believe they will find it acceptable. 

I understand the position of the 

chairman of the committee, who is reluctant to grant any exceptions to the 

bill because there would be two other 

exceptions. But to my knowledge the 

exceptions are that the State of 

Vermont and some municipalities in 

two other States have a situation 

which I think this body would agree deserves an exception. Let me review 

very briefly what we are talking about 

here. 

The U.S. Supreme Court handed 

down a decision which said the States 

themselves had no right to be able to 

control the flow of solid waste, that 

this has to be approved by the Federal 

Government because it was an interference with interstate commerce. 

That decision by the Supreme Court 

created a serious problem for the State 

of Vermont and some political subdivisions in West Virginia and Michigan. 

The purpose, and what we are trying 

to accomplish in this Nation with respect to solid waste, is to do three 

things, basically. First of all, we are 

trying to reduce the amount of solid 

waste that we have. Second, we are 

trying to improve the ability to recycle 

and to build a system in this Nation 

which will recycle and, therefore, reduce the demand on resources and reduce costs. Third, to find an equitable 

way to do it looking toward those that 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6503 

create the problem to have to pay for 

it; that is, those who create the trash 

ought to pay for it. 

So Vermont, in view of these national purposes—and I was a member of 

the Environment and Public Works 

Committee, and I know we were trying 

very desperately to set standards for 

recycling to try to get this country to 

move up gradually. Vermont, in pursuant of that, passed a plan and program 

statewide that sets up districts for 

solid waste. In these districts, the system is set up which allows for haulers 

to get a tipping fee in order to take 

care of the additional costs of recycling the materials that were delivered 

to them. The only way it will work is 

if we have that ability. There is no 

other way they can do it other than to 

require the State of Vermont to provide the tipping fees and to take care 

of those people that are in those districts, and not others. And it would be 

very cumbersome. There are districts 

in West Virginia and Michigan that 

have a similar problem. 

So all we are trying to do here is to 

make sure that this national goal, 

which everyone agrees ought to be 

reached, can be reached by the State of 

Vermont, which is leading the way in 

this. Right now we have a system 

which is recycling 25 percent of our 

waste. This amendment is limited and 

says that we might continue forward in 

pursuance of that goal, and we may 

continue with our present system, and, 

if we reach the goal, that we be permitted to do so. We have established a 

goal of 30 percent, which was the national goal which was in RCRA which 

was never passed. 

Why should a State be penalized 

which has done what everyone in the 

Nation believes should be done, and 

then to turn around in an amendment 

by the committee to try to help those 

who have made investments but limit 

it to those on a temporary basis? In 

Vermont there are only two areas 

which qualify when the whole State is 

doing it. It makes no sense at all. I can 

understand the committee saying, if we 

give you an exception, then somebody 

else is going to come in for an exception. 

I say if other communities have an 

exception like we do and like we are 

talking about which furthers the national goal, reduces waste, takes care 

and improves recycling, then sure, 

maybe they ought to have that. However, I do not know of any in that category. 

So I would like to say that I hope the 

body will recognize that people who are 

trying to do what is right in this country should not be forced to buy onto a 

bill which is attempting to help in this 

area but just by the nature of things 

makes it impossible for those who are 

really leading out front doing what is 

in the national interest, and who would 

be foreclosed, destroys their system, 

and makes it impossible for the States 

to continue to pursue those goals. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish 

to commend the Senators from 

Vermont for the amendment that they 

have offered and to suggest, just as the 

junior Senator from Vermont has said, 

that this is an example of federalism at 

its best. Vermont has some special concerns. It is a State with a very high 

level of environmental consciousness. 

It wants to be able to meet those needs 

in a manner that is appropriate to the 

specific circumstances of that beautiful State. 

Yesterday, I spoke at some length 

about some of the special concerns that 

we have in our State of Florida, which 

are quite different from Vermont. 

Vermont is a mountainous State. We 

are a State where anything above 20 or 

30 feet is considered to be a mountain. 

We have the very serious problem of 

our ground water supply and its vulnerability to contamination and have used 

the mechanisms which require flow 

control in order to be able to support 

effective and appropriate landfills and 

other technologies to dispose of our 

solid waste while also diverting a substantial amount of our solid waste into 

a recycling stream. 

My basic concern with this legislation is that it goes beyond what is required to meet the Supreme Court’s directive. The Supreme Court, as quoted 

on page 8 of the committee report, in 

the words of Justice O’Connor, who 

stated: 

It is within Congress’ power to authorize 

local imposition of flow control. Should Congress revisit this area and enact legislation 

providing a clear indication that it 

intends*** States and localities to implement flow control, we will, of course, defer 

to that legislative judgment. 

So, clearly, the decision is within our 

hands. It reminds me of the old story of 

the callow youth who held a bird behind his back and asked the wise, older 

man, ‘‘Is the bird dead or alive?’’ The 

wise man, with solemn wisdom, opined, 

‘‘It is in your control.’’ That is, the 

young man had the ability to open his 

hand and allow the bird to fly free or to 

crush the bird. 

Well, we are somewhat in that same 

situation with the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is in our control to do, 

allowing States to have a wide range of 

options as to how to deal with this 

issue, or to narrowly constrain. 

This is particularly focused on the 

question of whether there should be 

prospective operations for States. 

Should States be allowed in the future 

to utilize this important technique as a 

means of achieving the broader end result of public health and environmental sensitivity as that State and 

its local communities find to be most 

appropriate for their particular set of 

circumstances? 

In an era in which we are applauding 

federalism, or seriously considering reversing a half century of the consolidation of power by allowing States and 

local communities to have more control over issues such as health care financing, welfare, child care programs, 

it seems peculiar and strange in an 

area that has been as historically local 

as any in our Nation’s history, the disposition of garbage, that we would now 

be nationalizing that issue. 

So I join the Senator from Vermont. 

I applaud his creativity in crafting this 

amendment and hope that we will be 

wise enough to allow Vermont to take 

this initiative for the protection of 

that beautiful State and as a statement of our own sensitivity to the tremendous diversity in America and its 

desire to let the creativity of the local 

communities operate to the benefit of 

their local citizens. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, why are 

we here? We are here because of a Supreme Court decision a year ago, just a 

year ago, in the so-called Carbone case. 

So currently, the law of the land is 

that there cannot be these restrictive 

agreements that limit the delivery of 

municipal solid waste to one specific 

point. In other words, there cannot be 

what is known as flow control. 

Now in our committee, we recognized 

that many communities across the 

States had made very, very substantial 

financial contributions or commitments to incinerators and to landfills, 

and they would be placed in a very difficult position if so-called flow control 

did not exist, if they were not able to 

tie up the entire waste from the community to go to a central point. 

But we said we are going to limit 

this. We are going to limit it to the situations where they have problems arising from debt commitment, from bonded indebtedness, or that they already 

had flow control on their books and 

were used to functioning in that fashion. 

In the Vermont situation, we have 

taken care of those communities where 

there is a commitment into a solid 

waste facility or—and they do not have 

incinerators for Vermont—to a landfill. 

They are taken care of. 

But the Senator is stressing that, absent us giving an exception to the situation that exists in Vermont, Vermont 

will not be able to continue the excellent record it has had in connection 

with recycling. But, Mr. President, I do 

not think that necessarily follows. Who 

knows that recycling will fail because 

they do not have flow control? 

Indeed, here is a report from the Office of Solid Waste in the EPA. The report is dated March 1995, 2 months ago. 

This is what the report says. There was 

a question. 

Identify the impact of flow control on the 

development of State and local waste management capacity and on the achievement of 

State and local goals for source reduction, 

reuse, and recycling. 

In other words, what flow control 

does for recycling. We are all for recycling. The conclusion is as follows, on 

page ES–5. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

There is no data showing that flow controls are essential either for the development of new solid waste capacity or for the 

long term achievement of State and local 

goals for source reduction, reuse and recycling. 

So the Senator’s point, it seems to 

me from the study that has taken place 

here, just is not valid. He may feel 

strongly about it, and they have had 

considerable success in Vermont—although I suspect there are other communities across the Nation in States 

that have done extremely well likewise—but, at least from the data we 

have here, there is not a connection between having flow control and having a 

better recycling record. 

But then we get back to the other 

point. Why did the Supreme Court decide the way it did? The Supreme Court 

decided the way it did because of the 

commerce clause. 

And what does the commerce clause 

do? It says that it is good for the Nation to have competition, to permit 

commerce to flow. And that is exactly 

what flow control does not do. 

Now, you might say, well, I argued 

earlier today for a situation where we 

had flow control. That is right. We did 

it, as I say, in those instances where a 

community made a commitment and 

was still involved with that commitment. But the overall thrust of this 

legislation is to take care of those specific situations that arose where the 

communities were harmed, financially 

harmed, as a result of the Carbone decision. 

But we said, enough is enough. No 

matter how long the indebtedness is, 

no matter what the particular situation as far as bonded indebtedness, at 

the end of 30 years this privilege that 

we have given these communities to go 

against the commerce clause ends. 

And so, Mr. President, for that reason, I strongly believe that the proposition from the State of Vermont, as 

advanced so ably by the junior Senator, is not valid in this particular situation 

Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let 

me answer the arguments that have 

been put forth by my good friend from 

Rhode Island. I think if you examine 

our situation, it does not in any way 

fly in the face or raise any concerns. 

The question is: Is our system working? It is. It is reducing waste, it is 

bringing about recycling, and most importantly, it does allow competition. 

There is competition among the haulers. The only thing is, every hauler has 

to pay the tipping fee. But there is no 

problem. We have haulers that are bidding on it. We have put contracts out 

for bid. There is no problem with any 

interference with competition. 

Now, what the Supreme Court said 

was that the Federal Government can 

allow this, they just have to do it because a State cannot do it under the 

commerce clause without the authority of the Federal Government. 

All we are asking for is a simple exception for a system that is working 

well. And there is no way it will work 

in rural areas unless you can have tipping fees; that is, getting the people in 

the areas sharing the cost of this to 

have a way to participate, in other 

words, in order to get the haulers to 

come in. 

So I think this is a perfect example 

of what happens when Congress gets to 

look at a problem and gets carried 

away with some study done by EPA 

which is irrelevant to the situation and 

tramples on States rights to do what is 

right for the Nation and right for 

Vermont. 

I understand—and this is the basic 

problem—that my colleagues are afraid 

of opening this bill up for exceptions. 

Well, if anybody can come with an exception as we have, fine. But I do not 

think you will find anybody. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator 

yield? 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield 

to my good friend from South Dakota. 

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator 

for yielding. 

I just ask for a moment to associate 

myself with the remarks of the Senator 

from Vermont, as well as the other 

Senator from Vermont, Senator LEAHY. 

Obviously, Vermont has had a very 

good experience with flow control. It 

has been able to promote programs for 

recycling and disposal of household 

hazardous waste. This amendment recognizes that fact and address the issue 

of flow control as it pertains to these 

Vermont programs. It recognizes that 

Vermont may be unique in this regard 

and gives that state the opportunity to 

continue to make those programs 

work. 

That is all we are saying with this 

amendment. Let us give Vermont a little more flexibility. Let us defer to 

that State with regard to flow control, 

if it is going to be able to respond to 

this issue effectively. 

So I applaud the Senator’s amendment. I certainly hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 

support it. 

I thank the Senator for yielding. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? 

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield to the Senator 

whatever time I have remaining. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I encourage Senators to not support this 

amendment, very simply because the 

committee has worked long and hard 

to try to find a balance here, to balance out interests of those communities on the one hand that want to 

have the right to control the flow of 

trash, garbage, dedicated facilities in 

their communities, and, on the other 

hand, the rights of companies, entrepreneurs, to ship trash to whatever location seems to make the most sense 

to let the free market work. It is a 

classic battle between those who want 

to control by statute and law in the 

market on the one hand, and those, on 

the other hand, who want total free 

market. 

As is always the case, the right answer is somewhere in between. The solution crafted by the committee, we 

think, is a good solution in between. 

Frankly, Mr. President, if the amendment offered by the Senator from 

Vermont were to pass, I believe we are 

going to start to find this compromise 

begin to unravel, and it would, therefore, very strongly jeopardize this bill. 

If this bill does not pass, then we are 

not going to be able to have any kind 

of flow control because of the Carbone 

decision. At the same time, States will 

not be able to limit out-of-State trash 

coming into their State because of another Supreme Court decision. 

So I urge Senators to vote against 

the Jeffords amendment. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is the 

Senator ready to conclude debate on 

this? 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator LEAHY

wishes to speak. 

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope 

that my colleagues will support the 

Jeffords-Leahy amendment. If you defeat this amendment, you help nobody 

in the country, but you hurt one State, 

the State of Vermont. This simply says 

that Vermont, provided we want to operate beyond what may be required 

under Federal laws, would be allowed 

to do so; that if we want to set up a 

procedure that fulfills everything that 

the Federal law might require but does 

even better but fits our small very special State, that we be allowed to do so. 

Basically, we are saying to every 

Member of the Senate who has given 

speeches over the last year that States 

can design programs better, we agree 

and let us do that. We are making sure 

that we violate no Federal law, that we 

have followed every Federal rule, but 

we be allowed to design something that 

fits our State. 

Every single Senator, I am willing to 

wager, Mr. President, in this body, has 

given a speech saying, ‘‘If we can do it 

better, allow us to do it, allow us to design it.’’

Basically what the Senator from 

Vermont [Mr. JEFFORDS] and I are saying is that is what we want to do. So 

let us adopt this. This is no different 

than taking care of a unique situation 

for Alabama yesterday in the product 

liability bill. This takes care of 

Vermont. It hurts nobody, but it helps 

us. 

Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

DEWINE). The Senator from Vermont. 

Let me advise the Senator, time has 

expired. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6505 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I have some time remaining; is that correct? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct, the Senator has 3 minutes 7 

seconds. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I will just use a couple 

minutes of that. 

Mr. President, there are a couple of 

points I briefly want to make. The 

present situation is that it is against 

the Constitution of the United States 

to do what Vermont is suggesting. So 

what we have done is we have crafted 

an amendment which will help 

Vermont and all the other States in 

the Nation that have made these financial commitments, but it still says 

when all is said and done, that they 

cannot go against the Constitution in 

these other areas. 

It is not correct to say that this is 

just a little something for Vermont. If 

this is adopted, there is no way in the 

world that we could keep flow control 

from being adopted universally across 

the Nation, because the Vermont case 

is what you might call a weak case. 

So, Mr. President, if this amendment 

is adopted, then, I suspect, the whole 

effort to deal with this goes down the 

tube and then there will be no exceptions to the Constitution as provided. 

So I am going to move to table the 

amendment, and I very much hope my 

colleagues will join with me. 

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and move to table 

the amendment and ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 867, 

as modified. The yeas and nays have 

been ordered. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D’AMATO], 

the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE], 

and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

WARNER] are necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 46, 

nays 51, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.] 

YEAS—46 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Chafee 

Coats 

Coverdell 

Craig 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Smith 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

NAYS—51 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Leahy 

Levin 

Mack 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Simpson 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—3 

D’Amato Dole Warner 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 867), as modified, was 

rejected. 

Mr. FORD. Regular order, Mr. President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on the amendment. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent we vitiate the request for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

If there be no further debate, the 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 867), as modified, was agreed to. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I request now that we proceed to morning 

business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

RUSSIA SUMMIT 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, President 

Clinton is now in Ukraine. I support 

his decision to visit Kiev. Economic 

and political reform in Ukraine are 

proceeding very well. There is strong 

bipartisan support for United States 

assistance to Ukraine. It is in the 

American national interest to 

strengthen our relations with Ukraine. 

I hope the President has a successful 

and productive summit with President 

Kuchman. 

The report cards are now being filed 

on the Moscow Summit. As I said yesterday, I was disappointed at the lack 

of progress on the two key summit 

issues: Nuclear sales to Iran and the 

conflict in Chechnya. It seems pretty 

clear the American agenda at this summit did not fare well. My staff spoke to 

State Department and National Security Council officials yesterday afternoon. The White House provided my office with copies of all the joint statements from the Moscow Summit. To 

conclude that the summit made little 

progress in advancing American interests is not politics, and it is not partisan. It is simply a review of the facts. 

On Iran, Russia did not agree to cancel its sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. 

If President Yeltsin cannot make the 

decision to stop the sale, I do not have 

great confidence that it will be made 

later at a lower level. With respect to 

the much-publicized concession on not 

selling advanced gas centrifuge technology, it seems clear this was floated 

as a bargaining chip. As recently as 

last Friday, I note the Washington 

Post headline: ‘‘Russia denies plan to 

sell gas centrifuge to Iran.’’ It seems 

this was a plan designed to be a concession from the start. 

Just last week, when asked if a halt 

in the gas centrifuge sale would be 

enough, Secretary of State Christopher 

said, ‘‘not at all. We would not be satisfied with that’’. I agree with the Secretary’s assessment. We should not be 

satisfied. The bottom line is Russia 

still intends to proceed with a sale of 

nuclear technology to the outlaw regime in Tehran. This flies in the face of 

the summit’s joint statement on proliferation which pledges ‘‘To work together closely to promote broad nonproliferation goals.’’

On Chechnya, President Yeltsin rejected any effort to address the legitimate concerns of the international 

community over human rights violations. In President Yeltsin’s statement 

about Chechnya, there is an unfortunate ring of former soviet leaders rejecting western concerns over human 

rights as meddling. And whatever the 

political leaders were saying in Moscow, the Russian army kept attacking. 

Literally within minutes of yesterday’s 

press conference, Russian helicopters 

attacked Chechen civilian targets. 

The situation in Chechnya also raises 

the issue of the flank limits in the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty. In the fall, if Russian forces are 

still in Chechnya, the Russian Government will be in violation of these flank 

limits. The Moscow summit did not result in any assurances of Russian compliance with the CFE limits. 

On missile defenses, the administration continued down the same path of 

seeking Russian permission on the deployment of theater missile defenses—

despite the fact that Russian insistence 

on providing nuclear technology to 

Iran increases the proliferation threat. 

The fact is that theater missile defenses are not prohibited by the coldwar era ABM Treaty. Moreover, the 

United States must not allow Russia to 

have a veto over matters of national 

security. 

The summit also failed in what was 

not on the agenda—namely, Bosnia. As 

the two Presidents were meeting, Sarajevo was being heavily shelled. There 

was no U.N. response, no NATO response, and no summit response. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS