May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6487 

necessary to craft legislation that is 

required to make compromises and no 

one argues against that practice. 

But there are certain situations 

where there are fundamental principles 

involved. And where fundamental principles are involved, we need to be very, 

very careful about justifying opposition to principles on the basis of compromise. In other words, Mr. President, 

there are some things that ought not 

to be compromised. One of them is the 

United States Constitution. 

When the Supreme Court says that a 

practice is unconstitutional, we ought 

to be very, very careful how we override that decision. We ought to do it in 

the narrowest possible way. That is 

what my amendment does. It says, 

until the bonds are repaid, we will 

grant these municipalities a monopoly 

power that nobody else can get, that 

the United States Supreme Court says 

is unconstitutional but, recognizing 

that investment decisions were made 

based upon the previous existing law, 

we will acknowledge that that exemption should last at least until the 

bonds are paid off. But my amendment 

says, at that point, no further. We do 

not need to go any further. No one else 

needs protection here. 

All we are doing at that point is creating a monopoly protection which creates higher prices and prevents the free 

market from operating. Now it may be 

true that standing on that principle 

will cause a bill to unravel; that if my 

amendment were to pass, there is insufficient support then for the legislation to get it passed. My response to 

that is that we do much better politically in this body when we do what is 

right and that, if we will stick to principles, in the end we will get the kind 

of legislation that is necessary; that we 

make mistakes when we compromise 

principle for the sake of getting something through rather than for the sake 

of doing what is right. 

This is a constitutional issue. I would 

perhaps suggest an analogy here. 

Mr. President, what if a municipality 

had passed an ordinance declaring that 

certain speech could no longer be engaged in in the community, and everyone rose up in arms and said, ‘‘Why 

that is unconstitutional’’? A lawsuit 

was brought and the Supreme Court 

says, ‘‘That is correct. You cannot impede free speech. Municipality, your 

actions are unconstitutional.’’ And the 

municipality said, ‘‘But we have a real 

need to impede free speech in this particular area.’’

Do you not think that the U.S. Senate would be very, very careful about 

granting an exemption from the Constitution, in effect, here; would be 

very, very careful? Obviously, we could 

not constitutionally do that, but we 

would want to be as limited as possible 

in crafting legislation that would meet 

the constitutional standards the Court 

laid down. 

That is what we should be doing in 

this case, because the Court has already spoken. The Court has said that 

States that have this flow control do so 

in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

So, in trying to figure out a way 

around that, we ought to be as careful 

and as limited as possible, not as expansive as we can think of. And that is 

why my amendment, I submit, is the 

only constitutional, commonsense 

course of action that the Senate can 

take to protect those situations where 

there has been an investment made 

until the investment is paid off. But, 

after that, no more monopoly. 

And if that should cause the compromise to break apart, then it would 

be necessary, as the Senator from New 

Hampshire said, to go back to the 

drawing board and redo it. And I think 

that would be a good thing. But my 

hope would be, Mr. President, that it 

would not cause the compromise to fall 

apart; that we would all recognize that 

a limited exemption is all right to pass, 

we should pass it, but that we should 

not do more than that simply because 

some Senators might want to, in effect, 

overreach beyond what is really necessary or appropriate given the Supreme Court’s decision. 

So with all due respect to my friend 

and colleague from New Hampshire, 

who really helped to make the argument in principle to what I am saying 

but found it necessary to object nonetheless because of the position he finds 

himself in, I suggest the best way to a 

deal with this issue is to adopt my 

amendment, provide full protection for 

all those who need protection, but to 

limit the exemption to that point. 

Mr. President, we are going to be voting on the Kyl amendment at 2:30 and, 

unless our colleagues, who have not 

been here on the floor, are watching 

from wherever they may be, it is going 

to be very confusing what this is all 

about, because this was not part of the 

committee action. I just urge my colleagues to consider this, to ask questions about this, come to the floor to 

engage me in a colloquy if that is their 

desire. I would be happy to answer any 

questions I can. 

No one—no one—has made the case 

why we should extend to the useful life 

of a project a special exemption after 

the bonds have already been paid off; 

how it is that an operator cannot simply add something to the plant and say 

they have extended the useful life, 

thereby going to the full 30-year limit 

of this legislation. No one has made the 

case of why that should be the law. And 

until that case is made, if it can be 

made, we should not accept that proposition in dealing with something as sacred as a constitutional principle here. 

Mr. President, I will ask my colleagues, again, to support the Kyl 

amendment when we vote on it at 2:30. 

At this time, I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, Mr. 

President, I ask unanimous consent to 

proceed as if in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIGGERLOCK 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to begin a discussion about the crime bill that within the next several days I will be introducing. I would like today to continue 

to talk about other provisions of that 

crime bill. 

As I indicated yesterday, I believe 

that there are really two truly fundamental issues that we always need to 

address when we are looking at the validity or the merits of any particular 

crime bill. First, what is the proper 

role of the Federal Government in 

fighting crime in this country? Second, 

despite all the rhetoric, what really 

works in law enforcement; what matters and what does not matter? 

It has been my experience, Mr. President, as someone who does not pretend 

to be an expert in this area but someone who has spent the better part of 20 

years in different capacities dealing 

with this, beginning in the early 1970’s 

as a county prosecuting attorney, it 

has been my experience that many 

times the rhetoric does not square very 

closely with the reality, and that really, if we are serious about dealing with 

crime, the people that we ought to talk 

to are the men and women who are on 

the front lines every single day—the 

police officers, the tens of thousands of 

police officers around this country who 

really are the experts and who know 

what works and what does not work. 

The bill that I will introduce is based 

upon my own experience, but it is also 

based on hundreds and hundreds of discussions that I have had over the years 

with the people who, literally, are on 

the front line. 

Yesterday, I discussed these issues 

with specific reference to crime-fighting technology. The conclusion I have 

reached is that we have an outstanding 

technology base in this country that 

will do a great deal to catch criminals. 

Technology does, in fact, matter, and 

it clearly matters in the area of law enforcement. But we need the Federal 

Government to be more proactive in 

this area, more proactive in helping 

the States get on line with their own 

technology. 

Having a terrific national criminal 

record system or a huge DNA data base 

for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great, but it will not 

really do much good if the police officer in Lucas County, OH, or Greene 

County or Clark County or Hamilton 

County cannot tap into it. It will not 

do any good if we cannot get the information, the primary source of this information, from them and get it into 

the system. 

Crimes occur locally. Ninety-five percent of all criminal prosecution, of all 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

criminal investigations, occurs locally, 

not at the national level. Crime occurs 

locally, so we have to make sure that 

the crime-fighting resources, like this 

high-technology data base that I 

talked about yesterday, are available 

to local law enforcement. 

Mr. President, today I would like to 

continue this discussion, and I would 

like to discuss another component of 

my crime legislation: How do we go 

about protecting America from armed 

career criminals? I am talking about 

repeat violent criminals who use a gun 

in the commission of a felony. In this 

area, too, we need to be asking what 

works, what does not work, and what 

level of Federal Government is most 

appropriate to do what, what level of 

Federal Government is most appropriate to get certain help from. 

Again, experience tells us that we 

really do know what matters, we really 

do know what works. In the area of gun 

crimes, we have a pretty good answer. 

We all know that there is a great 

deal of controversy about guns, controversy over whether general restrictions on gun ownership would help reduce crime. But, Mr. President, there is 

no controversy over whether taking 

guns away from convicted felons will 

reduce crime. Let me guarantee you, if 

we know one thing, it is this: If we 

take guns out of the hands of convicted 

felons, we will reduce crime and we 

will have fewer victims. 

There is legitimate disagreement 

over bills such as the Brady bill, 

whether that will reduce crime. Similarly, reasonable people can disagree 

concerning the question of whether a 

ban on assault weapons will reduce 

crime. I happen to support both of 

these measures, but I recognize that 

many people do not and many people 

think that they are not effective. 

But what I am talking about today is 

something on which there is absolutely 

no controversy, absolutely no dispute. 

There simply is no question that taking the guns away from armed career 

criminals will, in fact, reduce crime, 

and history shows that that works. 

When it comes to armed career 

criminals, we need to disarm them, we 

need to lock them up, we need to get 

them out of society. Let us disarm the 

people who are hurting our victims, 

who are hurting the citizens of this 

country. As I said, history indicates 

that this works. We have a historic 

track record to point to. We actually 

have tried this and it does, in fact, 

work. 

One of the most successful crimefighting initiatives of recent years in 

this country was a project that was 

known as Project Triggerlock. This 

project was very successful, wildly successful, precisely because it addressed 

a problem squarely and it placed the 

resources where they were most needed. 

Let me tell the Members of the Senate a little bit about the history of this 

Project Triggerlock. 

The U.S. Justice Department began 

Project Triggerlock in May of 1991. The 

program targeted for prosecution in 

Federal court armed and violent repeat 

offenders. Under Triggerlock, U.S. attorneys throughout the country turned 

to the local prosecuting attorneys in 

whatever jurisdiction they were located and said: ‘‘If you catch a felon 

with a gun, if you want us to, we, under 

existing Federal statute, we the Federal prosecutors, we the U.S. attorneys 

will take over that prosecution for you. 

We will prosecute that individual, we 

will convict that individual, and we 

will hit that individual with a stiff 

Federal mandatory sentence, and we 

will lock this individual up in a Federal prison at no cost to the local community, to the State.’’

That is true Federal assistance. That 

is Federal assistance that matters. 

That is Federal assistance that makes 

a difference. That is Federal assistance 

and Federal action that will save lives 

by taking these career criminals off 

our streets. 

Mr. President, that is what Project 

Triggerlock did. Triggerlock was an assault on the very worst criminals, the 

worst of the worst in American society. 

And it worked. This program took 

15,000—15,000—career criminals off the 

streets in just an 18-month period of 

time. Incredibly—at least incredibly to 

me as a former prosecutor—the Clinton 

Justice Department abandoned Project 

Triggerlock. It was the most effective 

Federal program in recent history for 

targeting and removing armed career 

criminals from our society. But for 

some reason—for some reason—the 

Justice Department stopped 

Triggerlock dead in its tracks. 

What I propose in my crime legislation is that we resurrect Project 

Triggerlock, and we can do it. My legislation includes a provision requiring 

the U.S. attorneys in every jurisdiction 

in this country to make a monthly report to the Attorney General in Washington on the number of arrests, the 

number of prosecutions and convictions they have gotten within that last 

30-day period of time on gun-related offenses. The Attorney General then 

would report semiannually to the U.S. 

Congress on the success of this program and report on the number of 

these individuals who have been convicted. 

Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys 

have limited resources. In fact, with 

U.S. attorneys, they have more discretion because of the fact that many 

times we have concurrent jurisdiction 

between the local prosecutors under 

State law and Federal prosecutors 

under Federal law. So the Federal prosecutors have a great deal of discretion 

about what type cases to pursue. It 

really is a question of what the priorities are. It is a question of 

prioritization. 

Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys 

do have to exercise discretion about 

whom to prosecute. We all recognize 

that Congress cannot dictate to U.S. 

attorneys, cannot dictate to the Attorney General who should be prosecuted. 

But it is clear that we should go on 

record with the following basic proposition, and that is this: There is nothing more important than getting 

armed career criminals off the streets. 

There is nothing more important that 

the Justice Department can do than to 

set this as a priority. 

Mr. President, I think Project 

Triggerlock was a very important way 

to keep the focus on the prosecution of 

gun crimes. Getting criminals off the 

streets, criminals who use guns, is a 

major national priority and we all 

should behave accordingly. 

Let me turn now to a second portion 

of this bill that deals with the problem 

of criminals using guns in the commission of a felony. The second thing we 

need to do is to change the law. We 

need to toughen the law against those 

who use a gun to commit a crime. My 

bill would say to career criminals: If 

you are a convicted felon and you possess a gun, you will get a mandatory 

sentence. Under current law, a firsttime felon gets a 5-year mandatory 

sentence. A third-time felon gets a 

mandatory minimum of 15 years. But 

there is a gap in current law. There is 

no mandatory minimum for a secondtime felon. 

My legislation, Mr. President, would 

fix that. It would provide a mandatory 

minimum of 10 years for a second-time 

felon with a gun. That would make it a 

lot easier for police to get that gun 

criminal off of our streets. 

Third, bail reform. The third thing 

we need to do is to reform the bail system. Under current law, the Bail Reform Act, certain dangerous, accused 

criminals can be denied bail if they 

have been charged with crimes of violence. But it is unclear under current 

law whether possession of firearms 

should be considered a crime of violence or not. 

Mr. President, let us do a reality 

check here today. If someone who is a 

known convicted felon is walking 

around with a gun in your community 

in Michigan, or in my community in 

Ohio, what is the likelihood that that 

person is carrying the gun for law-abiding purposes? Convicted felon with a 

gun. I think it is perfectly reasonable 

to consider that person prima facie 

dangerous. We should deny bail to keep 

that convicted felon off the streets 

while awaiting trial on the new charge. 

My legislation would eliminate the 

ambiguity in current law. My bill 

would define a crime of violence to specifically include possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon. If you are a convicted felon and you are walking 

around with a gun, you are dangerous 

and you need to be kept off the streets. 

We need to give the prosecutors the 

legal right to protect the community 

from these people while they are awaiting trial. 

Mr. President, a fourth way we can 

crack down on gun crimes is to go after 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6489 

those who knowingly provide—knowingly provide—guns to felons. Under 

current law, you can be prosecuted by 

providing a gun only if you knew for 

certain that it would be used in a 

crime. The revision I propose would 

make it illegal to provide a firearm if 

you have reasonable cause to believe 

that it is going to be used in the commission of a crime. This is the best 

way, I believe, to go after the illegal 

gun trade, those who provide guns to 

those people who are predators in our 

society. We will no longer, under this 

provision, allow these gun providers to 

feign ignorance. They are helping felons and they need to be stopped. 

Mr. President, all of these proposals 

are motivated by a single purpose. I, 

along with the police officers of this 

country, believe that we have to get 

the guns away from the gun criminals. 

Project Triggerlock was one major initiative that we can pursue at the Federal level to help make this happen. 

Imposing stiff mandatory minimums, 

cracking down on illegal gun providers, 

are also good, important measures. 

All of the gun proposals contained in 

my crime legislation, Mr. President, 

really have the same goal. They are designed to assure American families who 

are living in crime-threatened communities that we are going to do what it 

takes to get guns off of their streets. 

We are going to go after the armed career criminals. We are going to prosecute them, convict them, and we are 

going to keep them off of our streets. 

That is why we have a Government in 

the first place, to protect the innocent, 

to keep ordinary citizens safe from violent, predatory crimes. 

Mr. President, I believe that Government needs to do a much better job 

with this fundamental task. That is 

why targeting the armed career criminals is such a major component of the 

crime bill that I will be introducing. 

Mr. President, tomorrow I intend to 

talk briefly about a third major component of my bill, and that is how we 

help the victims of crime, those who 

are victimized by the criminals, those 

who we, many times, forget. 

It has been my experience that, unfortunately, many times society treats 

the criminals as if they are victims and 

the victims as if they are criminals. 

Provisions in the bill that I will be discussing tomorrow deal with that. We 

will reach out to the victims of crime 

to help them and to make the playing 

field more level. 

Mr. President, at this point, I will 

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. 

SANTORUM). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

AMENDMENT NO. 789

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send a 

manager’s amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the pending amendments 

will be set aside, and the clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 

SMITH] for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. 

BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 

789. 

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 38, line 18, strike the phrase ‘‘the 

Administrator has determined’’. 

On page 39, after line 8 insert the following: ‘‘For purposes of developing the list 

required in this Section, the Administrator 

shall be responsible for collating and publishing only that information provided to the 

Administrator by States pursuant to this 

Section. The Administrator shall not be required to gather additional data over and 

above that provided by the States pursuant 

to this Section, nor to verify data provided 

by the States pursuant to this Section, nor 

to arbitrate or otherwise entertain or resolve 

disputes between States or other parties concerning interstate movements of municipal 

solid waste. Any actions by the Administrator under this Section shall be final and 

not subject to judicial review.’’

On page 38, after the ‘‘.’’ on line 16 insert 

the following: ‘‘States making submissions 

referred to in this Section to the Administrator shall notice these submissions for 

public review and comment at the State 

level before submitting them to the Administrator.’’

On page 33, line 20, strike ‘‘(6)(D)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 34, line 13, strike ‘‘determined’’

and insert ‘‘listed’’. 

On page 34, line 13, strike ‘‘(6)(E)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 36, line 16, strike ‘‘(6)(E)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 50, strike line 18 and insert the following: ‘‘in which the generator of the waste 

has an ownership interest.’’. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this 

amendment has been agreed to by both 

sides. It is a managers’ amendment, a 

very technical amendment that has 

been requested by EPA, and it applies 

to tracking interstate waste pursuant 

to title I of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

further debate on the amendment? If 

not, the question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator from New 

Hampshire. 

The amendment (No. 789) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair, in his capacity as a Senator 

from Arizona, moves to table the motion. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 769

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would 

like to address the pending amendment 

which is, indeed, the Kyl amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would 

just like to say a few words about the 

amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. 

In our Environment and Public 

Works Committee, there are 16 members: 9 Republicans and 7 Democrats. 

The bill that is before the Senate today 

that the Senator from Arizona seeks to 

amend was approved in the committee 

by a vote of 16 to 0. Every Democrat 

and every Republican voted for it. 

Now, this bill before the Senate represents a delicate balance. There are 

two sides to this issue. On one side is 

the following: The State and local governments say, why should we not be allowed to designate that all municipal 

solid waste, all solid waste within this 

entity, be it the city of Detroit or be it 

some small town in Michigan or town 

or city in Rhode Island, whether it is in 

the Nation—why should we not be able 

to designate that all of the municipal 

waste within that community go to a 

facility that we designate—we, the 

town fathers; and in that fashion, we, 

the town fathers and the community, 

will be able to afford a proper disposal 

facility, be it an incinerator or be it a 

licensed proper landfill? 

If our citizens do not like this arrangement, if they think they can have 

their solid waste hauled away by some 

private entrepreneur in a different 

fashion, then they can vote Members 

out of office and we will be gone and 

the citizens can have a separate system, if that is what they want. At least 

we ought to have that power. 

Now, on the other side of the equation is the view espoused by Senator 

KYL, which is that flow control is anticompetitive and is against the U.S. 

Constitution, in addition to all that. 

The Constitution has said that flow 

control is against the commerce clause 

and it should not be permitted. 

However, the Senator in his amendment recognizes that there are some 

facilities that have been built pursuant 

to the belief that flow control will be 

there in perpetuity and, therefore, he 

has arranged under his amendment 

that those investments made by those 

communities can be paid off. In other 

words, his amendment is tailored to 

the life of the outstanding bonds. 

Once they are paid off, then that ends 

it regarding flow control existing in 

that community. In other words, he 

has kept the flow control limited to a 

minimal period to provide for the payment of the bonds. Now, he has put a 

lot of thought into that argument, and 

as I say, an argument can be made for 

it, as indeed he has made. 

In crafting this view, we balanced 

these two views. The ones who say on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS