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

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6677 

Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAMPBELL], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE]. On May 1, 1995, the 

Senator from Wyoming [Mr. THOMAS], 

introduced similar legislation to terminate the program, joined by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CRAIG], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. GRAMS], the 

Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 

HELMS], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

WARNER], and the Senator from Alaska 

[Mr. MURKOWSKI]. Thus, 15 Members of 

the Senate, 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats have sponsored legislation to terminate the program. Moreover, President Clinton on January 24, highlighted termination of the helium program in his State of the Union Address 

as an example of the kind of Federal 

spending that could no longer be justified. 

Mr. President, I have previously spoken on the Senate floor about why termination of the helium reserve program is particularly appropriate today 

in light of the growth of a private helium industry which can more than 

adequately supply the needs of the Federal Government for this product. 

The helium reserve program, like 

many programs which are the target of 

today’s deficit reduction efforts, began 

decades ago when there was a reason 

for the Federal Government to become 

involved in this area. In the case of helium, the program dates back to the 

time of President Woodrow Wilson. The 

Helium Act of 1925 was enacted at a 

time when observation balloons were 

thought to have strategic merit. It was 

expanded under the Eisenhower administration when blimps were being used 

to spot enemy submarines in the Atlantic and to meet the needs of the 

fledgling space program. Since that 

time, however, a private domestic helium industry has developed and as of 

1995, 90 percent of the helium produced 

in this country does come from private 

operations. 

Now, Mr. President, it is time to terminate the Federal helium program. 

With the kind of bipartisan support 

that is now behind this effort, this 

would seem like a relatively easy task 

to accomplish during this budget cycle. 

I hope it will be, but I am not overly 

confident, given the history of this program and similar programs. Even with 

the endorsement of both Budget Committees, bipartisan support in Congress, and the backing of the administration, terminating any Federal program, large or small, is never easy. 

The helium reserve program was targeted for termination by the Reagan 

administration, by the Bush administration, and now the Clinton administration. Nonetheless, it survived. The 

Washington Post, in an article published February 7, 1995, entitled ‘‘Odorless, Colorless—and Hard To Kill’’ outlined the history of efforts to terminate the helium program and describe 

it as a ‘‘tale of yet another federal government program that has had more 

than nine lives.’’ Perhaps 1995 will be 

the year that these efforts succeed. I 

certainly intend to work to see that 

happens. 

But I think we need to look at the 

survival of these kinds of programs in 

a broader context. 

In the last Congress, we terminated 

another program, the wool and mohair 

subsidy program, that was started in 

1954 when wool was considered to be a 

strategic material. The program lived 

on and on long after the original purpose had ended. 

Unfortunately, even though this was 

a relatively small but important piece 

in the President’s overall $500 billion 

deficit reduction plan, I have just 

learned that there may be yet another 

attempt to try and revive this program 

now that we finally finished it off. I 

certainly hope that does not happen. 

I have 2,000–3,000 sheep growers in 

Wisconsin who did not like it when I 

introduced legislation in the last Congress to terminate this program, but I 

also know that many of them recognized that it was difficult to continue 

that subsidy in light of our deficit 

problems. I also worked with this industry to get legislation enacted during the 103d Congress to enable them, 

working together, to set up a producerfunded promotion board to help increase sales in the marketplace for 

their product. I believe that it is very 

important as we terminate Federal 

spending programs that we do it in a 

way that is sensitive to the needs of 

the communities and individuals who 

have been dependent to some degree on 

continuation of these programs. 

So that process appeared to have 

worked. We cut the subsidy, but we 

worked together to find a way to, 

through producer supported programs, 

promote the product. They made them 

less dependent on the Federal Government and yet we were able to move forward for their product. But we have to 

end many of these programs if we are 

going to make meaningful progress in 

reducing the deficit and achieving a 

balanced budget. 

Mr. President, as one former President once said, ‘‘Not all spending initiatives were designed to be immortal.’’ At least I hope they were not. 

Yet, we have all learned in one way or 

another how difficult it is to terminate 

a Federal spending program. 

I recall during the last Congress a debate over whether a NASA program 

originally entitled SETI—Search for 

Extraterrestrial Intelligence—which 

had been terminated had been revived 

under a new name. That is another 

demonstration of how difficult it is to 

actually end any Federal program. I recently had an interesting experience in 

attempting to terminate a program in 

my own State—Project ELF, a cold 

war relic that I believe no longer serves 

any significant strategic purpose. 

The Senate recently voted unanimously to terminate Project ELF as 

part of the DOD rescission bill. The 

program survived, somehow, in conference, however, on the grounds that 

some new purpose justified its continuation. I am not satisfied that there is a 

meaningful reason for continuing to 

spend millions of dollars each year—in 

this case, about $16 million each year—

on this program. 

I am just going to have to continue 

my efforts to try to eliminate that, although I thought we finally had it in 

the Senate. 

During the debate over the balanced 

budget amendment, I discovered that 

another program that is high on many 

deficit-reduction lists, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority, was going to receive 

special protection. 

The Senate committee report on the 

balanced budget amendment created 

what could be called constitutional 

pork by singling out TVA as a program 

that would somehow not be affected by 

the proposed amendment, while everything else would be. I add that the 

House Budget Committee has assumed 

termination of TVA as part of its budget resolution. 

I believe this is the direction we 

should be headed with regard to the 

program which has a long and significant history, going back to 1933 when it 

was first created. Mr. President, 60 

years later we have to question whether the Federal Government should continue to operate and fund this particular program. 

In this regard, I have introduced legislation, S. 43, to phase out funding for 

TVA and thereby reduce the deficit by 

about $600 million over 5 years. I know 

that this legislation and termination of 

Federal funding for TVA will again be 

strongly opposed by those who benefit 

from the program, and this, too, will be 

a hard fight. 

Mr. President, I mention these various programs that in total amount 

come to millions—not billions—each 

year because I think they illustrate 

one of the problems that confronts 

Congress as we attempt to reduce the 

Federal deficit. The cumulative total 

spending on so many of these smaller 

programs does add up to significant 

budget cost. Each one standing alone 

may not be an overwhelming burden on 

the taxpayers, but taken together, 

they are a major part of the problem. 

Yet, Mr. President, my experience in 

the past 2 years has indicated that it 

takes almost as much effort to rein in 

spending on these relatively small programs as it does to tackle the big-ticket programs. The advocates for the 

smaller programs work just as hard to 

preserve them, and they are often quite 

effective in those efforts. 

Mr. President, I think we all know 

that reducing the Federal deficit and 

achieving a balanced budget will take a 

great deal of discipline and hard work. 

I am delighted that both of the Budget 

Committees have identified the Helium 

Reserve Program as being appropriate 

for termination in this budget cycle, 

and I am prepared to work with other 

Members of the Senate again on a bipartisan basis to enact legislation that 

closes down this outdated program in a 

manner that will help reduce the Federal deficit. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

Mr. President, I realize there is a lot 

of partisan rhetoric that goes with any 

budget resolution. This one is no exception. I want to again take this opportunity, as I did Friday with regard to 

appropriate Medicare cuts, to signal 

my desire to work with the majority 

party to find the cuts that will actually lead to that balanced budget by 

the year 2002 and to make sure as we do 

it that we look at both the small and 

the big programs so we balance the 

budget not only for the year 2002, but 

that we can achieve a virtually permanent practice that is not existent here, 

which is to have a permanent commitment to have a balanced Federal budget into the future. I yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a 

cloture motion to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators in accordance 

with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on Calendar 

No. 101, S. 395, Alaska Power Administration 

bill. 

Frank H. Murkowski, Hank Brown, Jon 

Kyl, Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran, 

Larry Pressler, Pete V. Domenici, 

Strom Thurmond, Ted Stevens, Trent 

Lott, Rod Grams, Dirk Kempthorne, 

Craig Thomas, Bill Frist, Dan Coats, 

Orrin Hatch. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

(During today’s session of the Senate, the following morning business 

was transacted.) 

f 

NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

OFFICERS MEMORIAL, 1995 

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I rise 

today to honor the men and women 

who gave their lives so that we may be 

protected. 

Aware of the dangers that face them 

everyday, law enforcement officers 

carry out their duties to protect the 

lives of others. Too often, their own 

lives are lost. Unfortunately, this year, 

298 additional names will be carved 

into the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, here in Washington, 

DC. It is only fitting that on this day 

I pay tribute to several New York law 

enforcement officers who died in the 

line of duty. 

On March 15, 1994, Officer Sean 

McDonald was brutally slain while on 

duty in the 44th Precinct in New York. 

His murder occurred as he attempted 

to save two people from a robbery attempt. In a few short moments, while a 

series of gunshots, these ruthless cowards stole the life of a dedicated police 

officer, husband and father. 

In a similar incident on May 20 of 

1994, a perpetrator fatally shot Investigator Ricky J. Parisian, a devoted officer in Oneonta, NY. Investigator 

Parisian’s life was abruptly ended when 

the robber he was struggling with shot 

him. He was 34 years old. 

Several other names will also be 

added to the memorial. The names to 

be added include law enforcement officers who were also killed in the line of 

duty in 1994. These officers include: Police Officer Nicholas DeMutis of the 

New York City Police Department who 

was killed on January 25th, Police Officer Jose Perez of the New York City 

Police Department who was killed on 

April 27, Police Officer John J. Venus 

of the Suffolk County Police Department who was killed on November 20, 

and Police Officer Raymond R. Cannon, 

Jr., of the New York City Police Department who was killed in December 

1994. 

The memorial will also hold the 

names of officers who died in the line 

of duty before 1994 but were not listed 

until this year, including: Police Officer John Cahill of the Haverstraw Village Police Department, Police Officer 

Francis J. Donato, Jr., of the New York 

State Park Police, Police Officer John 

Bauer of the Cheektowaga Police Department, and Sgt. David C. Pettigrew 

of the Freeport Police Department. 

On this day of remembrance, I would 

like to recognize the heroic service of 

officers across the United States who 

risk their lives each and every day, in 

every city, county, and State in this 

country, so that we may live in safety. 

The National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial was dedicated in 1991 and 

presently holds 1,293 names. This memorial is a way to express our Nation’s 

appreciation of law enforcement officers and their efforts to fight crime 

and protect our families. 

This year’s memorial observation is 

also an opportunity for this Congress 

to renew our pledge to make our communities safer. By passing legislation 

that will require tougher sentences for 

convicted criminals, this Congress can 

do its part. If law enforcement officers 

can patrol our streets, risking their 

lives, then the least we can do is make 

sure that these criminals are not back 

on the streets before they have fully 

served their time. 

f 

HONORING DANIEL S. MOHAN, 

HERO OF THE YEAR 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, 

today I rise to honor a Missourian who 

has distinguished himself through his 

bravery beyond the call of duty and 

earned the National Association of Letter Carriers’ Central Region Hero of 

the Year Award. Daniel S. Mohan is a 

letter carrier from St. Claire, MO, who 

took actions well beyond trudging 

through rain, sleet, snow, and dark of 

night to complete his appointed 

rounds. 

Daniel Mohan was driving on his 

postal route in St. Claire when he 

heard shots. Soon after, a woman ran 

screaming from her house and fell 

wounded on her driveway, the victim of 

three gunshot wounds, including one to 

the face. Mr. Mohan raced from his 

truck and pulled the victim to safety 

behind his postal vehicle located across 

the street as her assailant was coming 

out of the house in pursuit. Daniel’s 

presence at the scene discouraged the 

gunman who returned to the house and 

surrendered to authorities soon after. 

The victim of the shooting was later 

treated at a local hospital’s intensive 

care unit, and continues to undergo reconstructive surgery. But as Tom 

Yoder, Police Chief of Saint Claire acknowledged, this women would not be 

alive if not for the valiant efforts of 

Daniel Mohan. 

For his efforts, Daniel Mohan has 

been honored by the National Association of Letter Carriers as its Central 

Region Hero of the Year. In a time 

when we hear of events of violence 

going on in public view without a single person acting to stop egregious actions, Daniel Mohan’s bravery and selfsacrifice is truly a model to be followed. 

Edmund Burke said, ‘‘The only thing 

necessary for the triumph of evil is for 

good men to do nothing.’’ Mr. President, it is my hope that the heroic actions of this Missourian would become 

the norm, not the exception when we 

speak of how we as Americans should 

act toward our neighbors. 

f 

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? 

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more 

than 3 years ago I began making daily 

reports to the Senate making a matter 

of record the exact Federal debt as of 

close of business the previous day. In 

the instances of my Monday reports, 

the information related to the close of 

business the previous Friday. 

As of the close of business Friday, 

May 12, the exact Federal debt stood at 

$4,859,130,274.89, meaning that on a per 

capita basis, every man, woman, and 

child in America owes $18,445.34 as his 

or her share of the Federal debt. 

It is important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a balanced 

budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate 

did not succeed in its first opportunity 

to control this debt—but there will be 

another chance during the 104th Congress. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS