Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have reason to believe there are about a half a dozen presently listed. We will confirm that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I start by issuing the plea also that Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, started with; that is, to our fellow Senators, get your amendments down here. Do not cause a jam up at the end when you may not be able to get the floor. You may not be able to have a full explanation of that which you are interested in. We want to move the process. This is no longer a time for delay and bickering among ourselves. We are obliged to move it because it is the right thing for America. First, let me say that I am pleased to join my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in urging support for this budget resolution. For the past several weeks, Senator Domenici and I, along with representatives of the administration and the House Budget Committee, have been working long hours and arduously to reach a budget agreement. It has been a long, difficult and occasionally a painful process. But in the end I am pleased to say that we succeeded in our mission. Today, for the first time in many, many years, we will be considering a budget resolution that is truly bipartisan. This resolution, Mr. President, is historic. It will lead to the first balanced budget since 1969. It calls for the largest investment in education and training since the Johnson administration. It combines tough fiscal discipline with a strong commitment to Medicare, the environment, transportation, and other national priorities. Beyond its substance, Mr. President, I am hopeful that this agreement represents a turning point in contemporary American politics. For many years, Congress has been dominated by partisanship and immobilized by gridlock. This constant infighting has undermined our standing around the country. It has made it more difficult to solve our Nation's problems. And we all hope that a sense of comity that now seems to be here during these budget discussions will prevail here in Washington. This agreement marks a major step in that direction. The agreement shows Democrats and Republicans are ready to put aside partisan differences, rise above petty bickering, and make the hard decisions that our people across the country want us to do. That is what we are delivering. Mr. President, this agreement comes before us at a time when our economy is remarkably strong. Over the past 2\1/2\ years the stock market has skyrocketed by more than 80 percent; unemployment is at its lowest point in 24 years; inflation is at the slowest pace in 31 years; new investment has soared at a 9 percent annual rate over the last 4 years, a welcome change from the performance over the preceding 8 years; and real wages have started to rise again after years of stagnation. The tremendous strength of our economy is a tribute to President Clinton and the Democratic Party. When President Clinton came into office, the budget deficit was $290 billion and it was expected to explode to more than $500 billion by 2002. Since then, just the contrary has happened. The deficit has been cut by 63 percent, falling 4 years in a row to $107 billion in 1996. This year, the deficit is estimated to be falling to $67 billion. This, Mr. President, is remarkable progress. We want to continue that progress, and this budget agreement will get it done. People tend to think of budgeting as a zero sum game in which one person's win is another's loss. But this budget agreement is a win-win- win all around. It is a win for our economy. It is a win for ordinary Americans who are working hard to raise their families and keep their heads above water. It is a win for the future of our country. Mr. President, both parties should be pleased with this bipartisan achievement. But I want to take a few minutes to explain why I think Democrats deserve to be especially proud. Throughout this process, we Democrats have insisted on an agreement that imposes real fiscal discipline that builds on President Clinton's tremendous success in reducing the deficit, and that balances the budget in a real, credible way. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted that we make education a top national priority. We have demanded that middle-class families get tax relief to help pay for college, and that all Americans get assistance in affording further education and job training. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted that Medicare be protected. We have demanded that the solvency of the Medicare trust fund be extended, that senior citizens not be asked to bear unfair burdens, that the quality of their health care not be put at risk, and that new preventative benefits be added. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted on targeting tax relief to the middle class. We have demanded that when Congress cuts taxes, much of the relief must go to struggling families who need help the most. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted that uninsured children be provided with health insurance. We have demanded that millions of kids get the health care they need and deserve. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted on fairness for people who come into this country legally, who have obeyed the law, and paid their taxes and who then suffer from a disability. We have demanded the elimination of extreme laws that punish people because they get hit by a bus or lose their eyesight. And the American people have won. Democrats have insisted on maintaining our commitment to environmental protection. We have demanded more funding to clean up hazardous waste sites while resisting schemes to gut the Environmental Protection Agency. And the American people have won. Democrats have also insisted on investing in transportation. We have demanded that transportation be made a priority and that funding be increased substantially over the levels originally proposed earlier this year. And the American people have won. Mr. President, my point is not that Democrats are the sole winners here. That of course is not true. This is a fair and balanced agreement. The Republicans have won on many of their most cherished priorities. Some of those wins have been bitter pills for me and for many Democrats, but I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, the fact is that we do not control either Houses of the Congress. And we have to respect the will of the American people. So there is no way to solve our Nation's problems without compromise. It is the only way, and painful though it may be for some, it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, let me turn to some of the specifics in the budget agreement, some of which have been mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, but I think are worthy of repetition. First, and perhaps most fundamentally, this agreement will balance the budget by the year 2002. Beginning next year, when the agreement first goes into effect, the deficit will decline every year until we reach balance. Balancing the budget will require real fiscal discipline. This agreement calls for $320 billion in savings over the next 5 years. More than half of those savings will come from entitlement programs and other mandatory spending. More than $75 billion will come out of the military budget. While important domestic priorities will be spared the meat cleaver, nondefense discretionary spending, which encompasses many of the programs that the people across the country are interested in, will be reduced in real terms by $61 billion, or about 4 percent. As I said, some pain comes. Will all of these savings really balance the budget? Mr. President, any budget projection must rely on economic assumptions. But the assumptions in this budget are on the conservative side. They are based on economic projections of the Congressional Budget Office which have proven to be far from reality for the past 4 years. They have missed the targets. They have overestimated some poor results. Consider that just a few months ago, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimated this year's budget deficit would be $124 billion. That was only in January. In March, CBO, 2 months later, revised its estimate down to $115 billion from $124 billion. Now, in May, there are reports that the deficit could be as low as $67 billion. Think about that, Mr. President. We are talking about the current fiscal year which ends in less than 5 months, and in just that same length of time, the projected deficit has shrunk by 45 percent from $124 billion to $67 billion. At this rate, some have suggested the best way to balance the budget would be for Congress to sit down, keep quiet, and go home. Who knows, they may be right. If they are, this agreement will produce significant budget surpluses, a result unimaginable not long ago. My point, though, is simply that in using CBO's economic assumptions, we are using projections that have consistently proven to be too pessimistic. This budget does not rest on unrealistic rosy scenarios, as have past budget agreements, so it is very likely that we will actually reach balance or a surplus before the next 5 years is out if we can get this agreement enacted into law. Mr. President, this budget resolution establishes without question that both political parties are now firmly committed to fiscal discipline. For years, Republicans have run for office by accusing the Democrats of being tax-and-spend liberals, unconcerned about fiscal responsibility. This agreement puts these charges to rest once and for all. It is now clear that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to a balanced budget. We disagree only about the means to that end and how the burden of the deficit reduction will be distributed. Fortunately, this budget agreement is more than an accounting exercise. It will set our country on a firm course into the 21st century by empowering our people, by investing in them and ensuring they are ready to compete in the years and decades ahead. As I noted earlier, this agreement includes the largest investment in education and training since the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson. The agreement moves us toward a day when every 8-year-old child can read, every 12-year-old child can log in on the Internet, and every 18-year-old can go to college. Those are the goals that President Clinton committed to when he addressed us earlier this year, and they are the right goals for America. Mr. President, I grew up the son of working-class immigrants, but was able, because of my service in World War II, to attend Columbia University, thanks to the GI bill. I want all Americans to have the same opportunities I had, because education is the key to prosperity and security and because, like I, not only will they learn important subjects, but maybe their horizons will be less limiting. My horizons were developed because I saw my parents standing behind the counter making sandwiches, washing dishes, working from 6 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night, typically, 7 days a week, just to grind out a living to take care of my sister and me. They could not give us much more than the comfort of interested parents, and goals to which they wanted us to aspire. That is the way it ought to be, Mr. President. The opportunity came along for me to have an education that never would have come my way. It changed my perspective totally, and enabled me, without being too immodest, to start a company that started an industry--the computing industry--that is today larger than the hardware industry. That is on the service side, software--everybody now is familiar with software--outsourcing services. The company has 29,000 employees. I am a member of something called the ``Information Processing Hall of Fame,'' all of that because I got a boost from my Government, from my fellow citizens, for something that I did. All Americans, no matter how rich or poor, should have access to that American dream. My parents never thought that I would have the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Senate, to be given the honor of serving the American people, but, again, it happened because a start was given to me at just the right time in my life. Toward that end, Mr. President, toward access to the American dream, this agreement includes the largest Pell grant increases in two decades. Four million students will receive a grant of up to $3,000 for higher education. These grants, we hope, will open the doors of opportunity and help lead our country in the next century. Our entire Nation will reap the reward. The agreement also will provide significant tax relief to those who want to attend college. It endorses the objectives of President Clinton's HOPE scholarship proposal, which would provide a $1,500 annual tax credit for higher education. This extra money would encourage millions of young people to go to college. The agreement also endorses the objectives of the President's proposal to give a $10,000 tax deduction to help cover education and job training costs for young people in the family. This proposal is critical to ensure that Americans are able to train and retrain themselves throughout their lives, not just upper level managers, but each and every American. There are several other education initiatives that are guaranteed by this agreement. For example, it guarantees funding for a child literacy initiative such as the President's America Reads proposal. This program would provide individualized after-school and summer help for more than 3 million children in kindergarten through the third grade. More than a million tutors would be involved. The budget agreement also will fund a technological literacy initiative. The President has proposed to connect every American classroom to the Internet and to ensure that all teachers are trained to work with this latest in technology. His proposal would help schools integrate the technology into their programs so that no American child is burdened with computer illiteracy. The budget agreement also calls for significant expansion of Head Start. This widely praised program has had tremendous success in preparing very young children for their education and for their futures. This agreement will help move us toward President Clinton's goal of increasing Head Start enrollments to 1 million children by the year 2002. Mr. President, the combination of increased Pell grants, the tuition tax credit, the education training deduction, the children literacy initiative, the technological literacy program, Head Start, and many other educational initiatives, make this agreement a truly historic commitment to education, and it is reason enough for Democrats and Republicans alike to support this agreement. I want to move on to some other important features of the budget resolution. It will ensure that up to 5 million uninsured children are provided with health coverage. The resolution includes $16 billion toward that end, and it will be up to the committees of responsibility to decide whether to use Medicaid expansion or a grant program to States or another approach, but the commitment and the resources are there to get the job done. In the end, that will mean that more children of working families will have health insurance. This budget agreement also will strengthen and modernize our Medicare Program. The agreement first would extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for at least 10 years. Senator Domenici made mention of the fact that during that time we will have to look to the longer term problems often associated with Medicare while carrying on the wonderful, very positive benefits that have resulted. It makes positive structural reforms which will bring Medicare more into line with the private sector while preparing it for the baby-boom generation. The agreement extends the trust fund solvency in part by reforming payment systems for hospitals and doctors. In addition, it gives the seniors more choices. It increases the number of health plan options such as preferred provider organizations and provider-sponsored organizations. It also gives beneficiaries comparative information about their options such as now provided Federal employees of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Additionally, the agreement provides funding for several very significant new preventive benefits. These include expanded mammography coverage, coverage for colorectal screening, coverage for diabetes self-examination, and vaccinations. Beyond investing in education and protecting and improving Medicare, this agreement will provide significant tax relief to millions of American families. In addition to the education tax cuts that I mentioned earlier, the agreement includes a $500-per-child tax credit. This will be of real assistance to many Americans who are working hard and struggling to make ends meet. The agreement also will allow the Finance Committee to cut capital gains and estate taxes, as well as expand IRA's and make other changes to the Tax Code. These changes will benefit many small businesses and farmers, goals which Republicans and Democrats strongly agree upon. However, there is real concern, Mr. President, among many Democrats that these tax breaks will go disproportionately to the wealthy and will explode the deficit in the long term. Frankly, I share those concerns. In a time of scarce resources, it seems wrong to be handing out huge tax breaks to people who do not need them. The bottom line is we would not have a budget agreement if Democrats were not willing to accept some of these tax breaks. This was the main win that the Republicans demanded. Though it is a bitter pill for some, in my view, it is a pill we have to swallow for the benefits of a balanced budget, education investment, health coverage for 5 million children, restoration of disability benefits for desperate legal immigrants, and other positive parts of this agreement. I do want to assure my colleagues, however, that the agreement includes significant constraints in the tax area that will help prevent a redo of the kind of economics that created the deficit problem in the first place. First, there are firm limits on the size of the tax cuts--the agreement states that the net tax cuts shall be $85 billion in the first 5 years, and no more than $250 billion through 2007. Second, Leader Lott and Speaker Gingrich have given their firm commitment--in writing--that tax cuts, and I quote ``shall not cause costs to explode in the outyears.'' For those who are not satisfied with that commitment, I would point out that President Clinton has made it clear that he will not tolerate a tax bill that imposes huge costs in the future. And while he has agreed to a significant capital gains and estate tax cut, he has not signed away his right to veto extreme legislation that violates our basic understanding. I also want to assure my colleagues that the size of the tax cuts in this agreement are very small compared to the enormous breaks that were approved in the early 1980's. The tax cut of 1981 cost $2.8 trillion over 10 years, in today's dollars. By contrast, this agreement would allow tax cuts of $250 billion--less than 10 percent of those that were proposed 17 years ago. Mr. President, Republicans may have won in their insistence on tax breaks for wealthier Americans, but they did abandon radical plans to completely gut domestic priorities, and undermine the basic functions of Government. Over the next 5 years, this agreement calls for $355 billion more in domestic discretionary spending than Newt Gingrich demanded in the infamous Contract With America. And it includes $189 billion more than in last year's Republican budget resolution. Mr. President, lest anyone has the impression that Government is going to be growing over the next 5 years because of these increases in some of the discretionary funds, it won't be. Nondefense discretionary spending will be cut from baseline by 4 percent overall, and by 10 percent in real terms in 2002. And when you consider that priority programs will be spared, the real cuts in other programs will be significant. Still, in nominal terms, available resources for basic Government functions will increase overall, if only modestly. And we will trim Government with a scalpel, not a meat axe cleaver. Under the circumstances, that's a major victory. Let me now move on to another part of the budget agreement, which deals with Medicaid. Mr. President, this agreement preserves the Medicaid Program in two major respects. First, it preserves the guarantee of health coverage for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Second, it rejects the administration's proposal to establish a per capita cap on Medicaid payments. I want to publicly thank my fellow negotiators for both of these decisions. I think it would have been a poor way to administer the Medicaid Program. We shouldn't be adopting a scheme that jeopardizes the quality of health care for millions of children, seniors, and other vulnerable Americans. At one point, I was in a distinct minority in the negotiating room in my opposition to the per capita cap, and I am very pleased that the proposal was rejected in the end. In my view, at a time when the growth in Medicaid spending has dropped dramatically, we should not be adopting risky schemes that could jeopardize the quality of health care for millions of children, seniors, and other vulnerable Americans. Mr. President, the agreement does include a cut in payments for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid and uninsured patients. I have real concerns about this. Clearly, some States have abused the program, and we should be able to find savings by reforming the program. But we must be very careful not to hurt children's hospitals and others who are very reliant on this funding. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to ensure that this does not happen. Mr. President, let me turn now to another important element of this agreement, the provisions that will roll back some of the more extreme provisions in last year's welfare reform bill. First, this agreement will restore Medicaid and disability benefits for many disabled legal immigrants. These are people who have come to this country legally, who have worked and paid their taxes, and who suffer from a serious disability. Mr. President, it is wrong to punish these people for getting hit by a bus, or losing their eyesight. Many of them are desperately poor to begin with. Now they may be confined to bed or a wheelchair, with nowhere to go and nobody to turn to. They can't work. And they need help to survive. Providing basic assistance is the right thing to do. This agreement also will provide relief to some individuals who would lose food stamps because they are unable to find work. This was another provision of the welfare reform bill that simply went too far. The agreement will permit States to exempt 15 percent of those who would lose benefits because of the law's very strict time limits, and would fund additional work slots for individuals subject to those limits. In addition, the agreement includes $3 billion to help people move from welfare to work, something that all of us want to see happen. Mr. President, let me now turn to an area of special interest to me, transportation. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I believe strongly in the value of investing in transportation, because I'm convinced that it yields tremendous benefits for our people and our economy. For years, our Nation has underinvested in transportation. And we are paying the price for that--in deteriorating roads, in snarling traffic, and in crumbling bridges and deteriorating rail systems. Mr. President, when you compare transportation to other functions within the Government, this agreement treats transportation relatively well. I pushed hard in the negotiations for additional resources, and we were able to find over $8 billion more than the President's request over the next 5 years. That was a major increase from where we began. Is it enough? No, it's not. But the bottom line is that there just aren't enough resources to balance the budget while doing everything we'd like. Compared with most parts of the Government, transportation does very well in this budget. And I'm hopeful we can identify even more resources as the legislative process moves forward. Let me turn briefly to another area of particular interest to me, the environment. This budget agreement confirms that the environment is a priority. It commits the congressional leadership to fully fund environmental protection and natural resources. And it specifically protects the President's funding requests for operations of the EPA and the National Park Service's operation of the National Park System and the Everglades. In addition, the agreement reserves funds for cleaning up hazardous waste sites, assuming we can reach an agreement on policy issues concerning Superfund, which I expect will happen. Finally, the agreement provides an additional $700 million for priority land acqusitiions and exchanges. Mr. President, before I close, let me once again say how much a privilege it has been for me to work with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. We have spent many, many hours together over the past several weeks. And the more I have gotten to know him, the more I have come to respect and like him. He is an honorable man who genuinely cares about our country, even if we often disagree. And he is a strong negotiator. I also want to take this opportunity to publicly thank the other negotiators who have worked so hard to make this agreement a reality. First, Congressmen John Kasich and John Spratt, men of totally different styles who share a common commitment to hard work and serious policymaking. And Frank Raines, John Hilley, and Gene Sperling of the administration, all of whom did a tremendous job in pulling this agreement together. The President has put together a very impressive team. I also want to acknowledge the many contributions of Democratic Senators on the Budget Committee who have worked with us on this agreement. Senators Hollings, Conrad, Feingold and Johnson have all been vocal and effective advocates for truth in budgeting, and for a plan that makes real progress in addressing our long-term deficit problems. They have held our feet to the fire, and deserve real credit for that. Senator Sarbanes has taken the lead to ensure that the burdens of deficit reduction are distributed fairly. I know he still has some concerns about the resolution, but I want to thank him for his input as the process has moved forward. Senators Boxer and Murray have been outspoken advocates for our children. They have demanded that we do a better job of covering our uninsured young people, and that we not make dangerous changes in the Medicaid Program that could jeopardize health care for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Their efforts will touch the lives of millions of Americans. Senator Wyden has been unrelenting in his demand that we modernize Medicare, that we provide additional health care choices for senior citizens, and that we protect the long-term solvency of the Medicare trust fund. No Senator has been more devoted to the future of this critical program, or more determined to make it work. Last but not least, Senator Durbin has in many ways been the conscience of our efforts in recent weeks. He has demanded that ordinary Americans, especially those with modest incomes, be treated fairly as we reduce the deficit. And he has helped lead the fight to restore critically needed protections for legal immigrants and children. Mr. President, I know that many of my fellow Democrats have been frustrated with the process that led to this agreement. And I share that frustration. This was not the process that I wanted. But we have done our best under the circumstances to maximize consultation with committee members, and with all Senate Democrats. And I am optimistic that, in the end, most of my colleagues will be pleased with the end product. Finally, I want to congratulate President Clinton for his leadership in this effort. We are here today on a bipartisan basis only because the President decided to make it happen. He deserves enormous credit for that. And I think his commitment will be appreciated and acknowledged for many years to come. Mr. President, let me close this way. I don't think there's anyone who is entirely happy with this agreement. But while nobody sees it as perfect , everyone should see it as a good compromise. It's fair and it's balanced. And it will serve America well. It will balance the budget. It will invest in education and training. It will provide tax relief to the middle class. It will protect Medicare and Medicaid. It will provide health care coverage to millions of children. It will throw a life vest to disabled legal immigrants. It will invest in transportation, and in environmental protection. And it will make life better for millions of ordinary, working Americans. I close, Mr. President, with saying my thanks and appreciation to my staff who worked so hard on the Budget Committee--Bruce King, Sander Lurie, and Sue Nelson--and all of the members of the staff of the Budget Committee for their effort. We all did what we thought was right for America. I am proud to have been a part of it. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think we have established in the beginning that we would go from side to side in recognition. If it is all right with my colleagues, I would like to give Senator Byrd the 20 minutes that he has asked for and permit him to speak as he wishes at this juncture.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for the way in which cooperation has taken place. Both of us and our staffs have worked cooperatively together to get this done, and we now arrive at the point before giving our formal statements where we are about to begin the debate that counts the most, going beyond the discussions we have had within the committee. I have had several requests for people who would like to make opening statements. I think I probably need 20 to 25 minutes on my own. I do not know how long the distinguished chairman of the committee is going to take for his statement, but I would think that an hour might be on the short side of things. So, Mr. President, I hope that we could give enough of our colleagues a chance to air their views. It is my fervent hope we will be able to conclude our business before the full 50 hours are used. I also hope that we can get this budget agreement passed. We have a historic opportunity to work together on something that I think the American people want to see, a bipartisan effort to reduce our annual deficit to zero. I think we accomplished that, and I hope the amendments will be those we can discuss honestly, having votes where required and move on with the business of the country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield so much time as the Senator from Maryland wants to use to make a statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, it was my understanding that this amendment was going to be offered and dealt with on a voice vote. As far as I know, there is no further debate required. If that is the case, then I suggest that we move in that direction.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To my colleague, the manager at the moment, we will accept this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not want to cut off the debate, but I wonder, because I deferred to my colleague from Connecticut to present his comments on the amendment, whether there is--can we ask the people who want to speak, I ask the Senator, whether the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Washington would be able to conclude their remarks in 5 minutes. Would that be asking too much?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Washington has requested 5 minutes. And we will take the rest of the time as needed. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, now that that is resolved, this amendment would force a cut in discretionary programs, if I read the amendment correctly, if projected revenues fall. That means that we would be putting national security at risk as well, because we would be taking it from defense as well as from discretionary accounts. That hardly seems the way, in my view, that the country ought to be doing business. There may be circumstances that we cannot possibly imagine at this juncture, and apart from the basic rule of saying, look, this falls outside the understanding that, again, was negotiated at length, this means that if the economy falters, critical programs, in addition to defense, would be cut. It might be a time when, if things suddenly start turning tough, you might want to make other decisions. This would tie our hands and not enable us to consider these things as expected, and there are many other conditions that might be considered. Would the Senator from Colorado suggest, if revenues fall short, that taxes ought to be increased? I hardly think so. I will not bother the Senator for a response to that; I will answer for him, taking that liberty. I just want to make the point that an agreement has, again, been negotiated, considering all prospects--revenues, expenditures, firewalls, protection of defense, development of discretionary accounts--again, through long, arduous discussions. While I think there are probably a number of people who would like to change the agreement, the fact is this represents a consensus point of view, and we are going to oppose the Senator's amendment and hope that the manager will agree with us that the amendment is going to be opposed. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know that the manager, the chairman of the Budget Committee, wants to say something. I would like to make a quick comment, if I might. Few have the knowledge of the budget that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has. He understands it thoroughly, and he has been a consistent purveyor of the alarm to be aware and to make sure that we do the right thing. It would be an ideal situation if we had the trust funds off budget, if we could deal with that in a quick moment like this. But the reality is that we just can't do it, Mr. President. We have hammered out a budget. I used the term before. ``Hammer'' suggests the arduous effort that the budget agreement took to get 5 million children covered under health care, to make sure that impoverished seniors aren't further burdened by additional premiums because we have moved the home health care from part A to part B. There are a whole series of things. There are tax cuts for the middle class. There are tax cuts for education. This bill was put together with a lot of work and a lot of giving by many people, people who do not like every part of this budget. I am one of them, I must tell you, but I am determined that we see that we pass this budget. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, a dear friend to many of us here, that we ought to take a couple of these issues and work on them. I agree with him on the trust funds on Social Security. I really do. I think we ought to take the time now--because we will be dealing with a more solvent situation in several of the trust funds--to deal with that. But it is not going to happen, I say here and now. I will, unfortunately, be forced to vote against what the distinguished Senator from South Carolina is proposing. I intend to do just that, to vote against it. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, I certainly trust the Senator from Iowa. He is not going to cut taxes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, in supporting the Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997. This bill is a bipartisan effort to support investment in our Nation's mass transit systems and industry. But more important, this bill will ensure that a critical part our Nation's transportation infrastructure--transit--will receive adequate investments into the 21st century. A healthy transit system will go a long way toward reducing congestion and increasing mobility even when vehicle miles traveled is increasing. Good public transit increases the efficiency of existing roadways, especially in congested regions where many people live. Transit is essential to rural, suburban, and urban residents, it is a cost- effective solution to healthcare access, a key to successful welfare reform, and an environmentally sensible way to meet the commuting needs. It is an increasingly important service for the elderly, for persons with disabilities, for students, and for those who cannot afford a car. Mr. President, anybody who questions the necessity for transit services only has to visit my home State of New Jersey. The most densely populated State in the Nation, it also has the most vehicle density on its roads. Located between two heavily populated metropolitan areas, New Jersey is known as the Corridor State. Over 60 billion vehicle miles are traveled on New Jersey's roads annually. The ability of trucks and cars to move freely on New Jersey's roads directly affects New Jersey's economy--congestion has dramatic effects on the economy. New Jersey is also a commuter State. Millions of New Jerseyans face serious commuter problems every day. In many areas in New Jersey, there is nowhere else to lay new roads. We simply cannot build ourselves out of congestion. That's why New Jersey is heavily reliant on mass transit. The Midtown Direct, an Urban core project, was inaugurated 1 year ago. Within weeks, the ridership doubled in its projections. Transit in New Jersey is well used and well supported. Nationally, transit has also proven to reduce congestion, and transit saves dollars. A 1996 report conducted by the Federal Transit Administration found that the annual economic loss to U.S. business caused by traffic congestion is $40 billion, and the additional annual economic loss if all U.S. transit commuters drove instead would be $15 billion. It's also good for the environment. According to the FTA, transit use saves 1.5 billion gallons of U.S. auto fuel consumption every year. Transit is energy efficient, and the less gasoline used, the less the United States is dependent on foreign oil. Mr. President, Americans also see direct public health benefits from transit use. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, up to 110 million Americans breathe air that is unhealthful. The American Lung Association estimates the national health care bill for air pollution-related illness is $40 billion a year. Transportation sources cause 40-60 percent of pollution that produces ozone, and 70-80 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Nearly one-third of carbon dioxide--the most significant greenhouse gas--comes from transportation sources. The fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions is the transportation sector. Mr. President, transit produces real environmental benefits. On average, riding transit instead of driving cuts hydrocarbon emissions that produce smog by 90 percent and carbon monoxide by more than 75 percent. One person using mass transit for a year instead of driving to work saves our environment 9 pounds of hydrocarbons, 62 pounds of carbon monoxide and 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides. It doesn't stop there. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. transit industry and its riders have prevented the emission of 1.6 million tons of hydrocarbons, 10 million tons of carbon monoxide, and 275,000 tons of nitrogen oxides into the air; the importation of 20 billion gallons of gasoline; and the construction and maintenance of 20,000 lane-miles of freeways and arterial roads and 5 million parking spaces to meet demands, saving at least $220 billion. Transit is an important part of our Nation's transportation system, and we ought to ensure that it is afforded the same priority as other modes of transportation. Mr. President, this bill does just that. It increases the authorization level for transit programs to provide $34.4 billion over 5 years. It increases discretionary capital grants and formula capital grants. It preserves operating assistance within formula programs for all areas and it continues funding for transit planning and research. It also makes a number of technical changes in the program to ensure better flexibility and streamlining, allowing transit managers to administer the program more effectively. Mr. President, this bill does a few more things. It includes a provision which shifts the 4.3 cents of gas taxes per gallon currently allocated to deficit reduction, into transportation trust funds. One- half cent of the 4.3 cents is allocated into a new intercity passenger rail trust fund to fund Amtrak capital expenses; the rest--the 3.8 cents--is divided along the traditional 80 percent/20 percent split of highways/mass transit, respectively. Thus, 3.04 cents will go into the highway account of the highway trust fund, and 0.76 cents will go into the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. This is the fair, equitable way to divide any new trust fund revenue that would be allocated for transportation. However, Mr. President, until a mechanism is provided to actually permit the expenditure of that additional funding, we will not see the investment we seek. Instead, the trust fund balances will only grow. As party to the budget negotiations just completed, I know as well as any Senator how hard it will be to make the necessary investments as we move to a balanced budget by 2002. However, I think it is important to lay out this principle and do our best to work toward it. Mr. President, unfortunately, the balanced budget agreement reached last week will make it difficult to fund mass transit at the levels provided in this bill. As ranking Democratic member of the Budget Committee, I fought hard to ensure that we will be making an adequate investment within the context of the balanced budget agreement. I must say, it will be difficult to fund transportation at the levels I support over the next few years. However, as ranking Democratic member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I will work to ensure continued, adequate funding over these years. Mr. President, the Mass Transit Act Amendments of 1997 represent what I believe, and what transit advocates believe, is necessary to provide for transit's growing needs into the 21st century. As Congress considers funding for transportation, I look forward to discussing ways that transit, and other modes of transportation, can benefit. Mr. President, this bill also includes a Reverse Commute Pilot Program which intends to assist individuals in both urban and rural areas receive employment and job training. This annual $250 million discretionary program reflects the growing needs of the work force, particularly those in urban and rural areas who do not have access to suburban jobs. A 1996 report conducted by the Eno Transportation Foundation, ``Commuting in America II,'' found that ``today, the dominant commuting flow pattern is suburban, with 50% of the Nation's commuters living in the suburbs and over 41% of all jobs located there, up from 37% in 1980.'' Suburban areas are now the main destination of work trips. The report also found that there was a substantial increase in reverse commuting--the central city-to-suburb commuting rose from a 9-percent share of growth over the decade from 1970 to 1980, to 12 percent from 1980 to 1990. Mr. President, reinvesting in our cities is important. However, if jobs are in the suburbs, we should provide mechanisms for employers, local and State employment and transportation agencies to assist those potential employees to simply get to where the work is. For those of us who are concerned about the effects of the Welfare Reform Act signed into law last year, we need to do all we can to ensure that the unemployed can move from welfare to work quickly and easily. The Reverse Commute Pilot Program makes sense. Mr. President, we all know that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--ISTEA--will expire on September 30. That law was far- reaching and visionary. It recognized that good transportation policy does not mean simply pouring more concrete and asphalt. Instead, it focused on moving goods and people--in a way that makes the most sense for our Nation, our States, our communities, and our economy. Its very title acknowledged a simple, yet important, aspect of transportation which had been previously overlooked--intermodalism. During this year's debate over reauthorization of ISTEA, it is imperative that we continue this tradition of intermodalism. We must continue the strong investments in transit and the flexibility provided in the first ISTEA. Mr. President, this bill continues that tradition. I support it and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to honor Dr. Allan Strand, who is retiring after 18 years of distinguished service as headmaster of Newark Academy in New Jersey. During his tenure, Dr. Strand's scholarship and leadership set a magnificent example for his students, including two of my own children. Although all four of my children received an outstanding education at Newark Academy, my two youngest had the added good fortune of attending while Dr. Strand was headmaster. He was an educator, mentor, and friend. Mr. President, I know that my children benefited from Dr. Strand's vision, integrity, energy, and academic excellence. But more than that, the entire Newark Academy community benefited from his presence. His list of accomplishments while headmaster is impressive. During his tenure, the academy's educational mission was affirmed. The traditional college preparatory course was continued, but the program was enhanced by bold developments in computer science and the arts. Dr. Strand also worked to revitalize the board of trustees and to strengthen an already superb faculty. Committed to the principles of respect and integrity, he introduced the Honor Code and Honor Council. Even the physical plant was not neglected; it was so expanded that only the front foyer remains unchanged. The McGraw Arts Center was added to accommodate the burgeoning arts program, and the Morris Interactive Learning Center brought the latest in technology to the school's instructional program. But through all the changes, one thing remained unchanged, Dr. Strand's commitment to his students and their education. It has been said that the only lasting legacy that any of us can have is to make a difference in the life of a child. If that is true, than Dr. Strand's legacy is definitely assured. Mr. President, when Thomas Jefferson presented his credentials as United States minister to France, the French premier remarked, ``I see that you have come to replace Benjamin Franklin.'' Jefferson corrected him. ``No one can replace Dr. Franklin. I am only succeeding him.'' In much the same way, Allan Strand is also irreplaceable. Others may fill his position at Newark Academy, but no one will ever be able to fill his shoes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Ten minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Warner amendment. While I have great respect for the author of the amendment, frankly, I find this amendment to be a rather stunning proposition. If this amendment passes, a majority of the States--yes, a majority of the States--will find that their highway formula funds have been cut below the 1996 levels, even though we have added $1.4 billion to the program over the 1996 level. Mr. President, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee and on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have heard lots of my colleagues call for increased infrastructure funding-- increased funding for their States' highway needs to replace deficient bridges or to ease the choking congestion that plagues their cities. And I think when the Members ask that they know this Senator will support increases in infrastructure funding as he always has. So I was pleased to work with Senators Stevens and Shelby to provide more than $993 million in increased highway funding in this bill. These funds are sorely needed in every State of the Union. So I think it would be a terrible way to proceed for us to amend this bill in a way to require a majority of States to endure cuts below the 1996 level. Let me emphasize one basic fact. Under the underlying bill as approved by the Appropriations Committee, 27 States will see the exact same amount of Federal funds for highways this year that they received in 1996. The entire $1.4 billion increase provided between the regular Transportation Appropriations bill and this supplemental bill will go to 23 States. If we adopt the Warner amendment, these 27 States will endure cuts below the 1996 level while the other 23 States get even larger increases above the 1996 level. I want to talk about the basic premise that underlies these recommendations by our friend from Virginia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Now Senator Warner comes along and argues that is not enough. He not only wants the donor States to get the $457 million provided to them in this bill. He wants them to get an additional $400 million beyond that--taken away from the donee States. He wants to cut highway funds for 27 States below last year's level. Members might appropriately ask ``how is it that the highway program is growing, but my State is getting cut?'' The answer lies in a provision of the Highway bill that was established 6 years ago. That bill included many different formula calculations, but one of them--the so-called 90 percent of payments calculation--requires that donor states receive back at least 90 percent of the gas tax receipts they contribute to the highway trust fund. Mr. President, that kind of entitlement to donor States inevitably will mean a decrease to other States when gas tax receipts are increasing at a rapid rate. That is true because they will rise at a rate faster than highway spending. So, if donor States are guaranteed a 90 percent return on the gas tax dollar, they will be taking that money from the rest of us. It's a zero sum game. This is exactly what has happened this year. As a result, when the Appropriations Committee increased the highway program roughly half a billion dollars last year, the so-called donor States, not only absorbed every penny of that $500 million increase, they also took a billion dollars away from the other States in order to pay for it. In this fiscal year, that provision had the effect of siphoning off $1.5 billion in funding from 27 States and transferring it to 23 donee States. I hope Senators and their staff are listening to this debate, because I doubt very much that a majority of my colleagues--54 Senators from 27 States--are fully aware of the fact that funding for the Federal highway program is growing but that funding for their State are being cut. And I can tell all my colleagues, as a Senator who has carefully monitored the highway program for more than 14 years, it is unprecedented for us to have a situation where States, much less a majority of States, endure substantial cuts while overall highway spending is increasing. I can also tell my colleagues, as a very active conferee on the original ISTEA legislation, that no one envisioned a situation where States would take significant cuts in a given year, even while the appropriation increased. Mr. President, it is ridiculous to suggest that ISTEA envisioned a scenario whereby 23 States would absorb every additional penny added to this program in 1997. But it's even more outrageous to suggest, as the Warner amendment does, that a majority of States should have their transportation funding cut to increase spending for a minority of the States. Therefore, Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Stevens' forthcoming motion to table the Warner amendment and ask my colleagues to join us in defeating the amendment of the Senator from Virgina. This debate is very illustrative of what will be at stake later this year. Senators should be aware that when we guarantee a certain percentage return of gas tax receipts in the law, the funding needed to honor those guarantees will come from the rest of the States. Mr. President, in a way, the Warner amendment is a wakeup call for the majority of Senators. We should not adopt a highway bill that incorporates such guarantees in the law. No other Federal program works that way. My State of New Jersey receives the second lowest return on the Federal dollar of every other State but Connecticut. We get 63 cents back on the Federal tax dollar. So, while I understand the posture of donee States, I am not particularly sympathetic. It would be as if I demanded that New Jersey get 90 percent of all agricultural funds disbursed, or defense contractor funds disbursed or food stamps disbursed, regardless of need. Mr. President, that is not what a national government is about. We are a nation, not a collection of States. National programs are designed to meet national goals. That's how benefits go out under Medicaid, housing programs, for agricultural subsidies, and the like. As the second most affluent State in the country, which sends a huge surplus of tax dollars to Washington, New Jersey would be blessed indeed if we were guaranteed a 90 percent return on the Federal dollar. So, Mr. President, I can't agree with donor State Senators unless they are willing to step back and look at the picture across the board. I hope Members will think about what it means when it is proposed we guarantee each State a percentage of what it contributes to a national program. I have never come to the Senate Chamber and offered amendments to guarantee my State taxpayers 90 percent of what they contribute toward the Department of Defense. While the Department of Defense serves to protect us all, the Department of Defense has not chosen to have a very large presence in the State of New Jersey. I have not come to the floor and asked that my taxpayers in New Jersey be guaranteed 90 percent return on their contributions to agricultural price supports, or 90 percent return on what they contribute toward the maintenance of freshwater fisheries, or 90 percent return on what they contribute toward the maintenance of our national parks, or 90 percent return of what they contribute toward massive water projects in the West. All of these programs reflect national needs. They cannot be subjected to a formula based on tax contributions. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I look forward to participating actively in the development of ISTEA 2, including its highway component. I know that my friend from Virginia, the sponsor of this amendment, and the chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, will be active in developing it as well. I want to work with Senator Warner to develop a bill that will meet our Nation's transportation needs and be equitable to all States. But, I must say to the Senator from Virginia that I will not be able to endorse an approach that dictates that a majority of States--including my own--will lose highway funding, even as appropriations increase, in order to increase funding for a minority of States, regardless of their needs. I believe that will be the position of the majority of Senators, whom I hope have been listening to this debate and will look closely at the table I have here at the podium before they cast their vote. I urge them to take a look at that table and then vote to table the Warner amendment. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that if we are going to start examining formulas, we are going to revise all of the formulas that disburse money or send money back to States. I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to give the Senator a list when I am finished speaking. I would appreciate it if the Senator--I will provide the Senator with a list the moment I am finished speaking. This debate is very illustrative of what will be at stake later this year. Senators should be aware that when we guarantee a certain percentage return of gas tax receipts in the law, the need to honor these guarantees will come from other States. If there is one pot and it goes to a group of States, it means the others are left out. Mr. President, this formula for distribution of highway funds in this supplemental appropriations bill was not developed willy-nilly. Frankly, this is, I think, the preamble to what we are going to be talking about later in the session. And I would say this, that my State, which sends down so much money that we are 49th on the list of return of the Federal dollar, will not stand by idly while we debate those things that advantage some and disadvantage others. This formula for the supplemental was constructed as an attempt to honor the obligations that these States incur as a result of the incredible traffic that goes through them. No State has more highway mileage consumed--more highway congestion-- than the State of New Jersey, not because all of us have cars and lots of room to drive--we do not--but we are a corridor State and the highways that take people north and south go through our State, and a lot of the highways that go east and west go through our State because they terminate in the New York or Northeast region. Mr. President, we get 63 cents back on the Federal tax dollar now, so while I understand the posture of donor States, I am not sympathetic. It would be as if I demanded that New Jersey get 90 percent of all agricultural funds disbursed or defense contractor funds disbursed or food stamps disbursed regardless of need. That is not what a national government is about. We are a nation, not a collection of States. I would like to take a minute to explain the three components of the make up the $933 million contained in this bill. First, the bill includes $318 million in funding requested by the President that will go solely to the donor States. This funding is not called for under ISTEA. This funding would be granted to only those States that lost funding last year when the DOT corrected an error in the calculation of gas tax receipts. Second, there is $139 million included in the bill that was championed by Senator Shelby. This funding will go only to 10 donor States. It is intended to grant these States the amount of funding they would have received in 1996 had the tax receipt error been corrected in that year. Finally, there is $475 million included in the bill--hold harmless money--for the purpose of ensuring that no State receives less highway funding in fiscal year 1997 than it received in fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, the Warner amendment strips the hold harmless funding in the bill and distributes it in a manner that will result in a majority of States actually experiencing a cut in their highway funding below the current year's levels. In combination with earlier appropriations, Senator Warner would provide a $1.8 billion increase to donor States in 1997. He would cut $400 million in funds from 29 States--almost three/fifths of the Nation--to do it. Now, Mr. President, I was dissatisfied with the distribution of funding in the committee bill, but at least there was an element of fairness to it. In developing this bill, it was important to me that highway funding increases were structured in a balanced way. But, I want to make sure all Senators from the 27 donee States understand that while the funds in this bill and regular appropriations add a total of $1.4 billion to the highway program this year, this entire increase goes to 23 States, while the 27 donee States are held harmless, so to speak. We are level funded. We do not see a penny in 1997 above what we got in 1996. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table that displays how the $1.4 billion increase in the highway program would be distributed under the committee bill currently before the Senate and how that increase would be distributed under the Warner amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, there are 27 States that will endure funding cuts below the 1996 level if the Warner-Graham amendment is adopted.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senators Boxer and Kerry and I are introducing legislation to ensure that millions of lethal American-manufactured military weapons will not be imported into this country. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Maloney are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill we are introducing repeals a loophole in the law that could allow U.S. military weapons that were provided to foreign countries to be sold back to gun dealers in this country. The loophole permits the import of so-called ``curios or relics'' --weapons considered to have historic value or which are more than 50 years old. About 2.5 million American-manufactured military weapons that the U.S. Government gave away, sold, or were taken as spoils of war by foreign governments are at issue. This includes 1.2 million M-1 carbines, which are easily converted to fully automatic weapons. Though these weapons are older, they are lethal. I don't want them flooding America's streets. And I don't want foreign governments making a windfall by selling them to commercial gun dealers. As some of my colleagues may know, the term ``curios or relics'' was originally used in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to make it easier for licensed collectors to buy curios or relics weapons from outside his or her State of residence. The Treasury Department came up with a definition and list of ``curios or relics'' for this purpose. At that time, importation of surplus military weapons--whether of United States or foreign origin--was prohibited, and the curios or relics list had nothing to do with importing weapons. Nearly 20 years later, in 1984, a law was passed that expanded the scope of the curios or relics list in ways never foreseen at the time the list was first created. The modified law said that guns that were on the curios or relics list could not just be sold interstate within this country, but could be imported as well. However, the Arms Export Control Act still prohibited the importation of U.S. military weapons that had been furnished to foreign governments. Although a 1987 amendment to that Act authorized the importation of U.S.-origin military weapons on the curios or relics list as well, only one import license has been granted under the curios or relics exception. Since that isolated incident, every administration--Reagan, Bush, and Clinton--has adopted a policy established by the Reagan administration and based on the Arms Export Control Act of denying these kinds of import licenses. Though the Clinton administration and the past two Republican administrations have opposed importing these lethal weapons, the NRA supports importing them and it has allies on the Hill. Last year, an effort was made in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill to force the State Department to allow these weapons to be imported for any reason. That effort was killed as part of the negotiations on the catchall appropriations bill that was signed into law on September 30. The provision included in the Senate version of the C, J, S appropriations bill last year, section 621, would have prohibited any agency of the Government--notwithstanding any other provision of law-- from using appropriated funds to deny an application for a permit to import previously exported United States-origin military firearms, parts, or ammunition that are considered to be curios or relics. The provision would have forced the State Department to allow large numbers of U.S. military firearms that are currently in the possession of foreign governments to enter the United States commercially. Because so many of those firearms can be easily converted to automatic weapons, it would have undermined efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. In addition, it could have provided a windfall for foreign governments at the expense of the taxpayer. Certainly the dangers posed by many guns on the curios or relics list--in particular the M-1 carbine, which is easily converted into an automatic weapon--are an important reason for preventing imports of those guns. It is the main reason I am proposing legislation to clarify the law to prevent imports in the future. But the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act that limit the imports are not merely technical. They support a principle, included in the Arms Export Control Act, that is basic to the integrity of our foreign military assistance program: No foreign government should be allowed to do anything with weapons we have given them that we ourselves would not do with them. For example, the Department of Defense does not transfer weapons to a country that is our enemy; no foreign government should be allowed to use U.S.-supplied weapons in that way. The Department of Defense does not sell its excess guns directly to commercial dealers in the United States, and foreign governments should not be able to do so either. As recently as 1994, the General Services Administration Federal weapons task force reviewed U.S. policy for the disposal of firearms and confirmed a longstanding Government policy against selling or transferring excess weapons out of Government channels. The Federal Government has made a decision that it should not be an arms merchant. The Federal regulations that emerged from that task force review are clear. They say surplus firearms may be sold only for scrap after total destruction by crushing, cutting, breaking, or deforming to be performed in a manner to ensure that the firearms are rendered completely inoperative and to preclude their being made operative. These are sound regulations. The Department of Defense does not sell its guns to private arms dealers. Under the Arms Export Control Act, we should not allow foreign governments to sell 2.5 million U.S. military weapons to private arms dealers either. Flooding the market with these curios and relics would only make it harder for law enforcement to do its job. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has already seen an increase in M-1 carbines that have been converted to fully automatic machine guns due to the availability and relatively low cost of the weapons. The more military weapons there are in this country, the more likely they are to fall into criminal hands. Surplus military weapons are usually cheap, and, if a government sells its whole stockpile, plentiful. A sudden increase in supply of M-1 garands and carbines and M-1911 pistols would drive down the price, making them less attractive to the collector and more attractive to the criminal. In fact, the administration opposed last year's provision, in part, because of the increased availability of low-cost weapons for criminals that invariably would have resulted. According to the administration, ``The criminal element thrives on low-cost firearms that are concealable, or capable of accepting large-capacity magazines, or capable of being easily converted to fully automatic fire. Thus, such weapons would be particularly enticing to the criminal element. In short, the net effect of the proposal would be to thwart the administration's efforts to deny criminals the availability of inexpensive, but highly-lethal, imported firearms.'' We know that the M-1 carbine has already been used to kill at least 6 police officers. Another 3 were killed with M-1911 pistols. As recently as this January, two sheriff's deputies, James Lehmann, Jr. and Michael P. Haugen, were killed with an M-1 carbine while responding to a domestic violence call in Cabazon, CA. In October 1994, in Gilford, NH, Sgt. James Noyes of the State Police Special Weapons and Tactics Unit was killed in the line of duty with an M-1 carbine. In December 1992, two Richmond, CA police officers were killed with an M-1 carbine. In just one State, Pennsylvania, at least 10 people were killed using U.S.-origin military weapons during a recent 5-year period. To those who would argue that ``curios and relics'' are not used in crimes, I would say talk to the families of these victims. American-manufactured weapons were sold to foreign governments--often at a discount rate subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer--because we believed it was in our foreign policy interest to strengthen and assist our allies. We did not intend to enable foreign governments to make a profit by turning around and selling them back to commercial gun dealers in the U.S. We certainly did not help our allies so they could turn around and flood America's streets with lethal guns. We also did not provide weapons to foreign governments so they could reap a financial windfall at the expense of the taxpayer. Although the law could allow the United States Government to receive the net proceeds of any sales made by foreign governments of defense articles it received on a grant basis, the provision in the appropriations bill last year would have forced the administration--notwithstanding any other law --to approve the import license, even if a foreign government would not agree to provide proceeds of the sale. As such, it would undermine our government's ability to require foreign governments to return proceeds to the United States and could result in a windfall for foreign governments. Even more, some countries like Vietnam, which hold a significant quantity of spoils of war weapons, including ``curios or relics,'' could sell those ``spoils of war'' to U.S. importers at a financial gain. And, the Government of Iran, which received more than 25,000 M- 1911 pistols from the United States Government in the early 1970's, could qualify to export weapons to the United States at a financial gain as well. Allowing more than 2 million U.S.-origin military weapons to enter the United States would profit a limited number of arms importers. But it is not in the interest of the American people. I don't believe private gun dealers should have the ability to import these weapons from foreign governments. These weapons are not designed for hunting or shooting competitions. They are designed for war. Our own Department of Defense does not sell these weapons on the commercial market for profit. Why should we allow foreign countries to do so? Mr. President, this bill would confirm the policy against importing these lethal weapons by removing the ``curios or relics" exception from the Arms Export Control Act. Under this legislation, U.S. military weapons that the U.S. Government has provided to foreign countries could not be imported to the United States for sale in the United States by gun dealers. If a foreign government had no use for surplus American military weapons, those weapons could be returned to the Armed Forces of the United States or its allies, transferred to State or local law enforcement agencies in the United States, or destroyed. The legislation also asks the Treasury Department to provide a study on the importation of foreign-manufactured surplus military weapons. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation appear in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.