S6728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

for solid waste materials safety training for

workers in Mexico and the United States

within the 100-mile zone specified in the

First Stage Implementation Plan Report for

1992–1994 of the Integrated Environmental

Plan for the Mexico-United States Border, issued by the Administrator in February 1992.

(5) A review of the adequacy of existing

emergency response networks in the border

region involved, including the adequacy of

training, equipment, and personnel.

(6) An analysis of solid waste management

practices in the border region involved, including an examination of methods for promoting source reduction, recycling, and

other alternatives to landfills.

(d) SOURCES OF INFORMATION.—In conducting a study under this section, the Administrator shall, to the extent allowable by law,

solicit, collect, and use the following information:

(1) A demographic profile of border lands

based on census data prepared by the Bureau

of the Census of the Department of Commerce and, in the case of the study described

in subsection (b)(1), census data prepared by

the Government of Mexico.

(2) In the case of the study described in

subsection (b)(1), information from the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury concerning solid waste

transported across the border between the

United States and Mexico, and the method of

transportation of the waste.

(3) In the case of the study described in

subsection (b)(1), information concerning the

type and volume of materials used in

maquiladoras.

(4)(A) Immigration data prepared by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service of

the Department of Justice.

(B) In the case of the study described in

subsection (b)(1), immigration data prepared

by the Government of Mexico.

(5) Information relating to the infrastructure of border land, including an accounting

of the number of landfills, wastewater treatment systems, and solid waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities.

(6) A listing of each site in the border region involved where solid waste is treated,

stored, or disposed of.

(7) In the case of the study described in

subsection (b)(1), a profile of the industries

in the region of the border between the United States and Mexico.

(e) CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION.—In

carrying out this section, the Administrator

shall consult with the following entities in

reviewing study activities:

(1) With respect to reviewing the study described in subsection (b)(1), States and political subdivisions of States (including municipalities and counties) in the region of the

border between the United States and Mexico.

(2) The heads of other Federal agencies (including the Secretary of the Interior, the

Secretary of Housing, the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, the Secretary of

Transportation, and the Secretary of Commerce) and with respect to reviewing the

study described in subsection (b)(1), equivalent officials of the Government of Mexico.

(f) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—On completion

of the studies under this section, the Administrator shall, not later than 2 years after

the date of enactment of this Act, submit to

the appropriate committees of Congress reports that summarize the findings of the

studies and propose methods by which solid

waste border traffic may be tracked, from

source to destination, on an annual basis.

(g) BORDER STUDY DELAY.—The conduct of

the study described in subsection (b)(2) shall

not delay or otherwise affect completion of

the study described in subsection (b)(1).

(h) FUNDING.—If any funding needed to conduct the studies required by this section is

not otherwise available, the President may

transfer to the Administrator, for use in conducting the studies, any funds that have

been appropriated to the President under

section 533 of the North American Free

Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19

U.S.C. 3473) that are in excess of the amount

needed to carry out that section. States that

wish to participate in study will be asked to

contribute to the costs of the study. The

terms of the cost share shall be negotiated

between the Environmental Protection

Agency and the State.’’.

SEC. 502. STUDY OF INTERSTATE HAZARDOUS

WASTE TRANSPORT.

(a) DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE.—In

this section, the term ‘‘hazardous waste’’ has

the meaning provided in section 1004 of the

Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903).

(b) STUDY.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall conduct a study, and report to

Congress on the results of the study, to determine—

(1) the quantity of hazardous waste that is

being transported across State lines; and

(2) the ultimate disposition of the transported waste.

SEC. 503. STUDY OF INTERSTATE SLUDGE TRANSPORT.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) SEWAGE SLUDGE.—The term ‘‘sewage

sludge’’—

(A) means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works; and

(B) includes—

(i) domestic septage;

(ii) scum or a solid removed in a primary,

secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and

(iii) material derived from sewage sludge

(as otherwise defined in this paragraph); but

(C) does not include—

(i) ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge (as otherwise defined in this paragraph) in a sewage sludge incinerator; or

(ii) grit or screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a

treatment works.

(2) SLUDGE.—The term ‘‘sludge’’ has the

meaning provided in section 1004 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903).

(b) STUDY.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall conduct a study, and report to

Congress on the results of the study, to determine—

(1) the quantity of sludge (including sewage sludge) that is being transported across

State lines; and

(2) the ultimate disposition of the transported sludge.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to

reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION

fACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume the pending business, S. 395, which the clerk will report.

A bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the

Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power

Marketing Administration, and for other

purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of

the bill.

Pending:

Murkowski amendment No. 1078, to authorize exports of Alaskan North Slope crude

oil.

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

appreciate the Chair calling up the

pending legislation. I have been in conversations with the Senator from

Washington with regard to concerns

that she has expressed, and I am told

that there are some amendments that

the Senator from Washington is interested in pursuing. I have not had an opportunity to review the amendments,

but I intend to take this opportunity as

soon as possible and have our staffs attempt to resolve the concerns of the

Senator from Washington, and it would

be my intent to attempt to do this

with dispatch.

Mr. President, currently the staffs

are pursuing an evaluation. I want to

ask the Chair the pending business before the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending business is S. 395 and the Senator’s amendment No. 1078.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Have the yeas and

nays been ordered?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not on

the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

I wonder if the Senator from Washington would entertain, for a moment, an

opportunity, so that we may try to accommodate the amendments, and if

there is any objection if I suggest the

absence of a quorum, and after we have

had a chance to talk, ask that the

quorum call be rescinded so that we

may move into the bill.

I think there is one other Senator

who is coming who wishes to speak

with regard to an amendment that is

pending on our side. I do not see that

Senator here at this time. So rather

than to take up this time that could be

used in negotiating the amendments of

the Senator from Washington, if there

is no objection, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will not object. I

want it to be noted that there are several Senators I need to check with, but

we can go ahead and go into a quorum

call and discuss this.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative 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. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further

ask unanimous consent that I be able

to proceed as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator

may proceed.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6729

A CRIME BILL

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I rise

today to continue my discussion of the

crime bill that I intend to introduce tomorrow. As I pointed out, there are

really two basic issues that we always

need to address when we look at a

crime bill. First, what is the proper

role of the Federal Government in

fighting crime in this country, understanding that over 95 percent of all

criminal prosecutions really are done

at the local level? The second question

we always have to ask is, what really

works? What matters? What makes a

difference?

Last Wednesday I discussed these issues with specific reference to crimefighting technology. We have an outstanding technology base in this country, a technology base that will do a

great deal to help us catch criminals.

But, quite frankly and candidly, we

must expand this base. Technology

does in fact matter, but we need the

Federal Government to be more

proactive in getting the States on line

with this technology.

Having a terrific national criminal

record system or huge DNA data base,

or an automated fingerprint data base

in Washington, DC, is good. But it will

not really do the job if the police officer in Henry County, Trumbull County,

Greene County, Clark County, OH, cannot tap into it; if they cannot get into

it, put their own information in and

get the information back out.

What my legislation does is drive the

money down to the local community to

help build this database system from

the ground up. My legislation would

help bring these local police departments on line. It would help them contribute to and benefit from this emerging nationwide crimefighting database.

Mr. President, on Thursday I discussed another aspect of my bill. I discussed what we have to do to get armed

career criminals off our streets, to get

them locked up and away from our

children and our families. I talked

about a program called Project Trigger

Lock that targeted criminals who use

guns and targeted them in the Federal

court and prosecuted them in Federal

court. My legislation would bring back

‘‘Project Trigger Lock.’’ Further, it

would toughen the laws against criminals who use guns.

We have to lock up armed career

criminals. If we are trying to figure out

what works and what does not work, if

we are trying to figure out what is important and what is not important,

what priority the U.S. Attorney General should place on different types of

crime, what the priority of U.S. attorneys scattered throughout this country

should be, I cannot think of anything

more important than going after repeat violent offenders who use a gun in

the commission of a felony.

Mr. President, the third area of the

bill that I talked about on Friday has

to do with crime victims. Quite frankly, in too many ways our criminal justice system has treated criminals like

they are victims and victims like they

are criminals. My legislation contains

a number of provisions that would

make the system more receptive to the

rights and claims of crime victims.

Another area: On Monday I turned to

another provision of my bill. I talked

about what we had to do to get more

police officers on the streets, and particularly how we had to get police officers into crime-infested areas and how

we had to target the finite tax dollars

that we have so that we spend these

dollars and that we put these police officers in areas where it would make the

most difference, because the simple

fact is when you put police officers on

the street, when they are deployed correctly, crime does go down. My legislation reflects this plain fact. My bill

over a 5-year period of time will spend

$5 billion on putting police officers on

the street. But my bill would target

the money to America’s most crimethreatened communities.

Further, my bill, unlike the bill that

passed last year, unlike the President’s

bill, would pay the full cost of these police officers and would pay them for

not just 3 years, not just put them out

for 3 years, but would do that for 5

years. We target the money to the

highest crime areas in the country, the

250 highest crime areas. We pay for the

police officers to go in there, and we

fully pay for them not at 75 percent but

at 100 percent a year and we do it for 5

years instead of 3 years.

Today I would like to discuss another

part of my crime bill. That is the need

for local flexibility in fighting crime.

As I pointed out, 90 to 95 percent of the

criminal prosecutions in this country

do not take place at the Federal level.

Rather, they take place at the State

and local level, in communities

throughout this country. Crime is a

local community problem. The late

Speaker of the House, ‘‘Tip’’ O’Neill,

used to say that all politics is local. It

would not be too much of an exaggeration to say the same is true of crime,

that all crime is local—just about anyway. I think that any Federal crime

legislation to be truly effective has to

take this basic fact into account.

Mr. President, this is a historic year.

From welfare to health care America

today is conducting a fundamental debate on the issue of which level of government is in fact best suited to undertake which responsibilities. What we

are frankly seeing this year is a thorough reexamination of the meaning of

federalism. This historic debate offers

a terrific opportunity to rethink the

role of Government and to make our

Government work better.

Mr. President, I think in this historic

year when we are having this fundamental debate about federalism, the

proper role of the Federal Government,

the State government and the local

government, I think it would be a terrible shame if we did not extend this

debate to the issue of crime. We will

never have a better opportunity than

the present to focus our national attention on crime as a fundamentally local

problem; that is, the problem to be

dealt with at the local level by local

authorities. For this reason my crime

legislation applies to the principle of

local flexibility, local flexibility to this

fight against crime.

Yesterday I talked a little bit about

my objections to some of the provisions of the President’s plan to put police officers on the street. Specifically,

I pointed out that the President’s scattershot approach sent police officers,

frankly, in too many directions. Some

of these places did not need extra police nearly as much as some other communities. The result of this approach,

the Clinton approach, is to put too few

police officers where the police are the

most needed. That is why in my crime

legislation we spend $5 billion for police but we target that money. Whereas

the Clinton administration spends $8.8

billion, we spend only $5 billion, but we

target that money and we target it

into the 250 communities in this country where the crime rate is the highest.

We do it on a statistical basis, and we

do it on a basis that I think makes

eminent common sense.

I am convinced that by targeting the

extra police only to extremely highcrime areas, we can accomplish a lot

more with this $5 billion over 5 years

than the President can accomplish

with his $8.8 billion over a 5-year period.

The $3.8 billion that is left over,

along with an additional $3.2 billion in

uncommitted funds provided under my

legislation, would be turned over to

local communities to use as they see

fit. Let me stop at this point and make

a point that I hope is clear. But I want

to make sure that my colleagues understand this. Our bill does not spend

any more money. Our bill takes the

basic $30 billion that we have been debating now for the last several years

and spends it differently, spends it, I

think, more appropriately.

The dollar figures I am talking about

to my colleagues in the Senate today I

indicate is not one penny more than

was indicated under any of the other

bills that have been introduced or indicated under the President’s plan.

Let me talk a little bit about this

discretionary money that we are talking about.

I have worked at the local level. I

have worked as an assistant county

prosecutor. I have worked as the elected county prosecutor of my home county, worked at the Federal level as a

Member of the House of Representatives and as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I have been in the Ohio State Senate, and I have served as Lieutenant

Governor. I have had occasion to compare the efficiency and effectiveness at

all levels of government. To be honest,

a sheriff or county prosecutor, chief of

police, or county commissioner in my

home county or your home county, Mr.

President, and many of the home counties of our other colleagues know a lot

more about how crime money should be
S6730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

spent than does the President of the

United States, the U.S. Attorney General or this Senator or this body.

Under the proposal contained in my

crime legislation, local government officials will get Federal money, and

what they do with it will be up to

them. They will be able to spend that

money based on local needs, local concerns, local priorities.

Yesterday, I discussed my proposal to

pay for extra police officers in the

highest crime areas in America. The

250 most crime-infested areas in America are eligible under my bill for police

funding. Other areas, areas that are not

included in the list of the 250 worst

crime areas, may decide, if they wish,

that they need extra police officers. If

that is the case, they may choose to

spend the dollars they get from this $7

billion local flexibility fund to pay for

the extra police officers. My bill allows

them that flexibility. They can use the

money to hire, train, and employ these

police officers, maybe put them out on

the street. They can use it to pay overtime for police officers that they already have which, frankly, may, depending on the jurisdiction and the economics involved, be the best use of

the funds. Or they can use it to buy

extra technology that is already covered in this bill. They can use it to beef

up school security, either by deploying

extra police or adding measures like

metal detectors. They can use it to establish and run crime-prevention programs like Neighborhood Watch and

citizen patrol programs and programs

to combat domestic violence and juvenile crime. They can use it to establish

early intervention and prevention programs for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime.

There was a vigorous debate last year

about the issue of crime prevention.

One thing I have learned in my years in

local law enforcement is that even

more than most programs crime prevention programs really have to be

grown locally to be effective.

When you travel Ohio, as I have done,

or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, and you

look at crime prevention programs, I

suspect in other States you find what I

have found in Ohio, and that is the

quality of those programs depends

upon the local people. It depends on

who is running the program, the dedication of that particular individual.

This is not something that Washington

can take a cookie cutter and duplicate,

replicate across the country. They

have to be grown locally.

It is clear that we have to go after

those also who have chosen a life of

crime. We have to apprehend them. We

have to convict them. But we also have

to reach out to the young people who

are at risk in this country. We have to

reach out to them before—before—they

embark on a life of crime.

The best ideas on how to do this are

not in Washington, DC, surprisingly. It

is not with Government bureaucrats, in

Washington. It is, rather, locally. Government bureaucrats in Washington,

Mr. President, do not know the kids in

Greene County, OH. Do you know who

does? The people in Greene County—

Jerry Irwin, our county sheriff; the

county prosecuting attorney, Bill

Schenck. I could go on and on. That is

why I wish to empower people such as

County Sheriff Jerry Irwin, or County

Prosecutor Bill Schenck through this

proposal.

Mr. President, to mandate a prevention program from Washington, DC, is

absurd. Let us trust the people on the

ground, the local law enforcers who

know the young people in their communities.

In conclusion, Mr. President, let me

say there is a basic insight that the

American people imparted to all of us

last November. I hope we heard the

message. That message was fairly simple and basic, that Government is best

which is closest to the people.

I have worked to incorporate this

basic principle into the legislation that

I will be introducing tomorrow.

ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

At this time, I yield the floor.

ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION

fACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

AMENDMENT NO. 1078 WITHDRAWN

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

withdraw my amendment No. 1078 at

this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right and the amendment

is so withdrawn.

The amendment (No. 1078) was withdrawn.

AMENDMENT NO. 1101

(Purpose: To provide for the energy security

of the Nation through encouraging the production of domestic oil and gas resources

in deep water on the Outer Continental

Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other

purposes)

Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

send an amendment to the desk and

ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON], for himself, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr.

BREAUX, proposes an amendment numbered

1101.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). Without objection, it is so

ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert

the following as a new Title III:

‘‘TITLE III: OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

DEEP WATER ROYALTY RELIEF

SEC. 301.—This Title may be referred to as

the ‘‘Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water

Royalty Relief Act’’.

SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.—Section 8(a) of

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, (43

U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)), is amended by striking

paragraph (3) in its entirety and inserting

the following:

‘‘(3)(A) The Secretary may, in order to—

‘‘(i) promote development or increased production on producing or non-producing

leases; or

‘‘(ii) encourage production of marginal resources on producing or non-producing

leases; through primary, secondary, or tertiary recovery means, reduce or eliminate

any royalty or net profit share set forth in

the lease(s). With the lessee’s consent, the

Secretary may make other modifications to

the royalty or net profit share terms of the

lease in order to achieve these purposes.

‘‘(B)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of

this Act other than this subparagraph, with

respect to any lease or unit in existence on

the date of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

meeting the requirements of this subparagraph, no royalty payments shall be due on

new production, as defined in clause (iv) of

this subparagraph, from any lease or unit located in water depths of 200 meters or greater in the Western and Central Planning

Areas of the Gulf of Mexico, including that

portion of the Eastern Planning Area of the

Gulf of Mexico encompassing whole lease

blocks lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes

West longitude, until such volume of production as determined pursuant to clause (ii)

has been produced by the lessee.

‘‘(ii) Upon submission of a complete application by the lessee, the Secretary shall determine within 180 days of such application

whether new production from such lease or

unit would be economic in the absence of the

relief from the requirement to pay royalties

provided for by clause (i) of this subparagraph. In making such determination, the

Secretary shall consider the increased technological and financial risk of deep water development and all costs associated with exploring, developing, and producing from the

lease. The lessee shall provide information

required for a complete application to the

Secretary prior to such determination. The

Secretary shall clearly define the information required for a complete application

under this section. Such application may be

made on the basis of an individual lease or

unit. If the Secretary determines that such

new production would be economic in the absence of the relief from the requirement to

pay royalties provided for by clause (i) of

this subparagraph, the provisions of clause

(i) shall not apply to such production. If the

Secretary determines that such new production would not be economic in the absence of

the relief from the requirement to pay royalties provided for by clause (i), the Secretary

must determine the volume of production

from the lease or unit on which no royalties

would be due in order to make such new production economically viable; except that for

new production as defined in clause (iv) (aa),

in no case will that volume be less than 17.5

million barrels of oil equivalent in water

depths of 200 to 400 meters, 52.5 million barrels of oil equivalent in 400–800 meters of

water, and 87.5 million barrels of oil equivalent in water depths greater than 800 meters.

Redetermination of the applicability of

clause (i) shall be undertaken by the Secretary when requested by the lessee prior to

the commencement of the new production

and upon significant change in the factors

upon which the original determination was

made. The Secretary shall make such redetermination within 120 days of submission of

a complete application. The Secretary may

extend the time period for making any determination or redetermination under this

clause for 30 days, or longer if agreed to by

the applicant, if circumstances so warrant.