May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6675 

the west coast, making it uneconomic 

for domestic oil producers to invest in 

marginal operations. 

Mr. President, a Department of Energy study confirms that lifting the 

ban on Alaskan crude oil would improve domestic energy security by encouraging domestic exploration activities. DOE estimates that domestic production will increase between 100,000 

and 110,000 barrels a day if the ban is 

lifted. 

In addition to increasing domestic 

production, this bill will also help to 

stabilize the decline in the size and vitality of the domestic merchant marine. 

By authorizing the exports of Alaskan oil on U.S.-flag vessels, we can 

help preserve a vital element of our domestic merchant marine, and we can 

do so without subsidies from the American taxpayer and without measurably 

increasing any risk to the environment. 

Mr. President, in 1990, Congress overwhelmingly supported enactment of 

the Oil Pollution Act. That legislation 

ultimately will require all oceangoing 

tankers plying our waters to be built 

or rebuilt with a double hull. It already 

ensures that American flag and foreign 

flag tankers will continue to be subject 

to the same strict safety requirements. 

And since December 28 of last year, it 

has imposed substantial financial responsibility requirements for all tankers entering U.S. waters. 

Last year, the Department of Energy 

conducted an extensive study of the 

likely effects, including likely environmental implications, of changing the 

current law. The Department, and I 

quote: 

Found no plausible evidence of any direct 

negative environmental impact from lifting 

the ANS export ban. 

By and large, Mr. President, the 

same U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.- 

crewed vessels that carry Alaskan oil 

to market today will continue to carry 

the crude to market tomorrow with a 

change in policy. The same skilled 

merchant mariners will continue to 

man the vessels. Current Department 

of Defense and Department of Transportation projections indicate that we 

are facing a critical shortage of trained 

mariners capable of manning the ready 

reserve force. This bill will help ensure 

that we will continue to have a reservoir of capably trained mariners sufficient to man our reserve fleet in time 

of national emergency. And our Nation 

will continue to have access to a fleet 

of environmentally safe and militarily 

useful vessels that otherwise are destined to be converted into razor blades. 

By enacting this bipartisan legislation, we can help ensure the continued 

existence of the largest segment of our 

domestic merchant marine. Let us 

demonstrate again that we can work 

together to help promote our energy 

security, our national security, and at 

the same time preserve jobs. 

Mr. President and my colleagues, I 

will just add a couple of remarks and 

point out that again this ban was enacted at a time when this country literally was on its knees from the standpoint of energy requirements. The Middle Eastern oil nations had banded together to form cartels which restricted 

amounts of oil being exported to the 

United States in particular. 

We all remember the long lines that 

occurred in the 1970’s when people had 

to wait in line to buy gasoline for their 

automobiles and vehicles. Everyone in 

America wanted Congress to do something about it. One of the things that 

we did was to say, all right, we are not 

going to allow any of the Alaska North 

Slope oil exported to other countries. 

We are going to keep it right here. 

Mr. President, I think we probably 

acted with some degree of haste in taking that action and in thinking that by 

doing so we were somehow going to increase the domestic production. I think 

in reality we should all understand 

that oil is a commodity which can be 

traded all over the world; that, indeed, 

many ships that are plying the oceans 

filled with oil are sent to different 

ports in the middle of a voyage depending on the need because the price is 

better in one area or the need is greater in another area or for whatever economic determination that is made. 

So the point is that oil is traded on 

the world market according to need 

and price. If we can, indeed, take some 

of the crude oil in Alaska and sell it at 

a better price in overseas markets, we 

should be allowed to do that. The price 

return will allow greater domestic production in areas of the United States 

where that production can occur. 

I am a Senator from the State of 

Louisiana. I have nothing to do with 

oil, of course, that is produced in Alaska. But I think this is good policy for 

my State, for the State of Alaska, and 

indeed for all of the States in the 

United States. I think it will increase 

production, and it will not do damage 

to any part of our Nation. It is good 

economic energy policy for the future 

of our country. 

Mr. President and my colleagues, I 

hope we would move on this. It should 

be relatively noncontroversial. I know 

some Members have legitimate concerns, and they will be heard, but I 

think we should move forward, debate 

the issue, vote on this legislation, and 

ultimately we should adopt it as good 

energy policy. 

Having said that, Mr. President, seeing no one else seeking recognition at 

the moment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum. 

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

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. DEWINE. 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. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further 

ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 

in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORE POLICE ON THE STREETS 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I rise 

this afternoon to continue my discussion of the crime bill that I intend to 

introduce this Wednesday. 

As I previously pointed out, there are 

really two basic questions that we need 

to address in the area of crime whenever we try to determine whether a 

crime bill is good or whether it is not 

good, whether it does the job or whether it does not do the job. 

The first question is: What is the 

proper role of the Federal Government 

in fighting crime in this country? The 

second is: What really works in law enforcement? What matters? What does 

not matter? 

Last Wednesday, I discussed these 

issues with specific reference to 

crimefighting technology. The conclusion I reached was that we have an outstanding technology base in this country that does a great deal and will continue to do a great deal to help us 

catch criminals. 

Technology, Mr. President, does in 

fact matter. But we need the Federal 

Government to be more proactive, 

more proactive in getting the States on 

line with this technology. Having a terrific national criminal record system 

or a huge DNA database or an automated fingerprint system or huge DNA 

database for convicted sex offenders in 

Washington, DC, is great; it is nice. 

But it will not do much good if the police officer in Hamilton, OH, or Middletown, OH, or Cleveland, OH, cannot tap 

into it, cannot put the information in, 

and cannot get the information back 

out. 

My legislation would bring these 

local police departments on line. It 

would help them to contribute to and 

benefit from the emerging nationwide 

crimefighting database. 

On this past Thursday, I discussed 

what we have to do to get armed career 

criminals off the streets, those who 

terrorize us, terrorize their fellow citizens with a gun. I talked about a program called Project Triggerlock that 

targeted gun criminals for Federal 

prosecution. My legislation would 

bring back Project Triggerlock and 

toughen the laws on gun crimes in 

many other significant ways. We have 

to get these armed criminals off the 

streets. 

On Friday, I talked about the long 

neglected needs of crime victims. In 

too many ways, our legal system treats 

criminals like victims and victims like 

criminals. We have to stop that. My 

legislation contains a number of provisions that would make the system 

much more receptive to the rights and 

the needs of crime victims. 

Today, I would like to turn to another item. I would like to talk about 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

what we can do to put more police officers on the street, and to put more police officers into our highest crime 

areas. Make no mistake, the evidence 

is clear, putting a police officer on a 

street corner in a dangerous neighborhood will reduce crime. We are looking 

for what really works, and putting police officers on the streets is a proven 

strategy that works. It is a plain fact, 

if you put a police officer on the street, 

crime will go down. 

The President is right in this respect, 

and he is to be commended for understanding that there is, in fact, a direct 

or actually inverse relationship between the number of law enforcement 

officers who are deployed correctly in 

the neighborhood and the amount of 

crime that exists in that neighborhood. 

That is why the President last year 

asked for $8.8 billion in Federal funding 

for police officers. We do need more police; he is correct. Police officers deployed correctly matter. They do make 

a difference. 

But, Mr. President, I believe that we 

can improve on President Clinton’s 

plan, and there are three major shortcomings I believe that exist in the 

President’s plan that we ought to address in the Senate. Let me list them: 

First, the administration’s plan 

spreads the $8.8 billion far too thin. It 

does not target the funding for police 

officers to the most crime-ridden areas 

where the funding is most needed. Instead, it spends money on extra police 

officers even—even—in extremely lowcrime areas. That just does not make 

sense. 

Second, the administration is not 

paying for the full cost of the extra police officers. The Clinton proposal pays 

for only 75 percent of the police officers 

and asks local communities to come up 

with the remaining 25 percent. 

Third, the Clinton plan provides the 

money for only—only, Mr. President—3 

years. 

I think that these problems I have 

just listed with the Clinton administration proposal can be fixed fairly easily. 

As part of the comprehensive crime 

legislation I intend to introduce on 

Wednesday, I will be including my proposals on how we should fix these problems, and here is what I propose: 

First, I propose to pay for the police 

officers and to pay for them in full, 100 

percent. Under my proposal, we will 

send $5 billion over a period of time to 

the local communities for new police 

officers. Those police officers will be 

fully funded 100 percent, not just 75 

percent, as envisioned in the Clinton 

plan. 

Second, we will fund these police officers for 5 years; 5 years, not 3 years, as 

envisioned by the Clinton proposal. 

Third, and probably most significant, 

my proposal will target these funds 

where they are needed the most. Under 

the Clinton plan, really crime-threatened communities are deprived of the 

full contingent of police officers they 

really need. For example, under the administration proposal, a high-crime 

community, such as Chicago, has received 300 police officers so far, and 

those 300 are not even fully funded. 

They are funded at 75 percent. My legislation would put 2,100 new police officers on the streets of Chicago and 

would pay for them in full. 

I can cite example after example. Let 

me just give one from my home State. 

Youngstown, OH, is another city with a 

very serious crime problem. Under the 

Clinton plan, it has received a total of 

10 new police officers. I think, however, 

to make a real difference in a crime 

area, we need to do better than that. 

Under the formula that is contained in 

the bill that I will introduce on 

Wednesday, there would be a total of 58 

new police officers on the streets of 

Youngstown. We would go from 10 

under the Clinton plan to 58 under my 

plan, and the way we are able to do 

that is because we are targeting the 

money to go to the areas where the 

crime is the worst. It only makes sense 

that when we are dealing with scarce 

Federal dollars, those Federal dollars 

should be targeted specifically to the 

areas where our citizens are most in 

danger. 

My proposal would put the dollars for 

police officers where police officers are 

needed the most. We are targeting the 

250 most crime-infested cities in America. We will succeed in getting those 

police officers on the street. In a community brutalized by rampant crime, 

the police officer is truly an ambassador of law and order. The police officer is a living, breathing confirmation 

of America’s resolve to defend civilization from those who want to turn our 

country into a wasteland of stealing, 

raping, and killing. 

The police officer is a soldier of justice, and like any other soldier, the police officer, to be most effective, needs 

to be sent where the enemy is. The 

enemy is anyone who does a drive-by 

shooting or rapes someone or commits 

any other kind of brutal act. 

Mr. President, anyone who watches 

TV or reads the papers knows where 

the enemy really is. My bill would 

make sure that the police officers are 

deployed where they are needed the 

most. My bill would pay for them in 

full. 

This is what it will take. This is what 

it will take if we are serious about taking back our streets. 

The American people are, quite 

frankly, losing patience with violent 

crime. They are losing patience with 

the syndrome that my distinguished 

colleague, the senior Senator from New 

York, calls defining deviancy down. 

There is a consensus out here, Mr. 

President, that we will not allow our 

country to become a place where violent crime is considered normal. I 

think that putting these police officers 

on the street—and paying for them in 

full—will be a major symbol of our national resolve. 

My legislation, Mr. President, would 

spend $5 billion on these police officers, 

target them where they are needed the 

most, and pay for these police officers 

in full. 

The Clinton administration plan included $8.8 billion as partial payment 

for police officers, with their deployment of police officers being spread 

throughout the country and spread 

among many, many areas where crime 

is not that serious. 

Tomorrow, Mr. President, I will discuss what we can do with this extra 

$3.8 billion, and specifically how we can 

use block grants to give local communities the flexibility they need to use 

that $3.8 billion as effectively as possible. And then on Wednesday of this 

week, Mr. President, I will be introducing my comprehensive crime bill. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

f 

TERMINATION OF THE HELIUM 

AND OTHER PROGRAMS 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I 

want to take a few moments to praise 

both the House and Senate Budget 

Committees for including in their 

budget assumptions termination of a 

relatively small program, the helium 

reserve program. The Budget Committee materials assume a $27 million 

savings over 5 years from termination 

of the helium reserve program. 

As the budget debate unfolds in the 

House and Senate in the coming week, 

there will certainly be considerable debate over programs of enormous magnitude—programs with budget outlays 

in the billions, not millions. Although 

the Budget Committee materials assume a $27 million savings from termination of the helium reserve program, 

the actual savings will be significantly 

higher as the Federal Government sells 

off the existing helium reserve over a 

period of time that will not disrupt the 

private helium market, as well as terminates the program itself. The Federal Government is currently stockpiling enough helium to meet its needs 

for the next 80 to 100 years. In order to 

make sure that the taxpayers get a fair 

price for this helium, the reserve needs 

to be sold over a period of time to 

make sure that we do not inadvertently cause the entire market price for 

helium to fall needlessly. CBO has estimated that we can, at current market 

prices, eventually recover between $1 

and $1.6 billion by this sale. 

It is not just the current $27 million 

in savings but a long-term savings by 

in effect privatizing this area of our 

Government. 

I introduced legislation, S. 45, to terminate this program on the first day of 

the 104th Congress. I am pleased to report that this legislation has gained bipartisan support and that it has been 

cosponsored by the Senator from Iowa 

[Mr. HARKIN], the Senator from New 

Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG], the Senator 

from Vermont [Mr. LEAHY], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. KYL], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BUMPERS], the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS