Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent months, the gaming industry has come under considerable attack here in Washington. And as a senator who represents thousands of ordinary people who are employed by the industry, I want to come to their defense. Mr. President, if you believed some of the rhetoric around here, you would think that gaming is the root of all evil. Yet millions of Americans gamble, whether in the form of State lotteries, office pools, race track betting, church bingo, or casino gaming. For these citizens, gaming is fun, it is exciting, and, if pursued in moderation, it need not do any harm. Gaming is also an important part of our economy, and provides jobs and opportunities for thousands of our citizens. Nationwide, casinos provide jobs for over 365,000 Americans. In Atlantic County, NJ, casinos directly supply one out of three jobs. Last year, 33 million people visited Atlantic City, more than any other city in America. Mr. President, in 1976, the voters of New Jersey decided that they wanted Atlantic City to have casinos. That was a democratic decision that reflected the views of our electorate. Nobody forced New Jerseyans to vote that way. They evaluated the benefits of gaming, and they made their choice. As a result of that decision, revenues generated by the gaming industry in New Jersey have provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars for various projects throughout the State. They have financed the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans Memorial. They have built hundreds of homes. They have renovated day care centers, a bus terminal, and a trauma center. They also have helped improve the lives of countless numbers of people living in the area. In Atlantic City, the number of families on Aid to Families with Dependent Children has dropped by about 30 percent since the first casino opened. The more than $1 billion from casino property taxes paid since 1978 have lowered the burden on other property owners and supported schools in Atlantic County. Taxes on casino revenues have supported pharmaceutical assistance to the elderly, nursing and boarding home care and assistance with utility bills for senior citizens and the disabled. Mr. President, in the past, some casinos have been tied to organized crime and other problems. But it is unfair to assume, as some do, that these problems are inevitable. Atlantic City's casinos are the most regulated in the country, perhaps the world. And the history of the last two decades is that, by and large, this regulation works. Mr. President, I met recently with the heads of the New Jersey casinos. And I can tell you that the industry is not concerned about a study, if it is conducted in a fair and impartial manner. But, Mr. President, I have real concerns about the likelihood that the commission to be established by this legislation will not be impartial. The whole impetus for this legislation seems to be coming from the Christian Coalition and others who are on a moral crusade against the industry. Maybe some of my colleagues believe that Ralph Reed and others only want an objective evaluation of this industry. But I doubt it. Instead, Mr. President, this study seems designed to lay the groundwork for a massive attack on the gaming industry. An attack that serves the political goals of a radical fringe. I want to acknowledge that, as with many other products and services, some people who gamble do so to excess. And that can be a very serious problem. Compulsive gamblers can destroy themselves and their families with just a few rolls of the dice, and they need help. We should not ignore their plight. In the case of other addictions, we've encouraged public education efforts which have proven to be the most effective deterrent to excesses. I would encourage States and localities to consider such efforts, if appropriate. However, for the overwhelming majority of people, gaming is a complement to a vacation or the equivalent of going to a movie on Saturday night. It is recreation. And, in the case of Atlantic City, the tourism industry is making great efforts to diversify and provide attractive convention facilities and opportunities for family vacations. I would hate to see these efforts, and the contribution they make to our State's economy and communities, hurt by a political witch hunt. So, Mr. President, I hope that the commission's study will prove to be objective, balanced, and fair. And I hope its conclusions are reasonable and rational. However, if this study simply leads to punitive legislation, which will hurt the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in our casinos and related jobs, I will fight it every step of the way.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer congratulations to Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., President Clinton's nominee for appointment to one of the two vacancies on the District Court of New Jersey, on his confirmation to the Federal bench. I also extend my congratulations to his very proud family--his father Joseph Greenaway, Sr., his wife Veronica, and son Joey Greenaway III. Mr. President, although I have just recently met Mr. Greenaway, I can tell you that he has a strong record as a distinguished attorney, having practiced extensively in Federal court in both civil and criminal cases. He has also expressed to me his honor at being nominated for this appointment and his deep commitment to serving the public and to administering justice fairly for all who appear before him. Joe is very much a product of the American dream. As a young man, he emigrated to this country from England and attended public schools in New York as his parents strove to provide a better future for their children. Joe was selected to attend the esteemed Bronx High School of Science, and he then attended Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1978. Mr. Greenaway received his law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was the recipient of the Earl Warren Legal Scholarship, and where he served as a member of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review. After a year of private practice, Mr. Greenaway secured a prestigious judicial clerkship with the Hon. Vincent Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He then returned to private practice, where he specialized in commercial litigation. His most recent employment with Johnson and Johnson in New Brunswick, NJ has deepened his knowledge of Federal civil law and taught him first hand how corporations function. But, Mr. President, Joe also has a strong grounding in Federal criminal law. One of his strongest credentials as a nominee is his personal familiarity with our criminal justice system. From 1985 to 1990, Mr. Greenaway served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the district of New Jersey. While at the U.S. attorney's office, in his capacity as the chief of the narcotics division, Mr. Greenaway coordinated narcotics investigations by all Federal agencies in New Jersey and supervised all narcotics prosecutions. During his tenure at the U.S. attorney's office, Joe handled, in addition to narcotics prosecutions, bank fraud, hijacking, check kiting, sexual abuse, and mail fraud cases. Since 1990, Mr. Greenaway has served as a corporate counsel with Johnson and Johnson. Mr. President, I want to again congratulate Joe on his appointment, and wish him all the best in his new position. I hope he will serve on our district court for many years. I know he will serve with distinction, dispensing justice to each person who appears before him with compassion, fairness, and wisdom.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health [BEACH] Act of 1996. Mr. President, coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every year for local communities nationwide. Moreover, our coastal areas provide immeasurable benefits for millions of Americans who want to build sand castles, cool off in the water, take a walk with that special someone, or just relax. New Jersey's tourism sector is the second largest revenue-producing industry in the State. Without a doubt, the lure of my State's beaches generates most of this revenue-- over $7 billion annually. Mr. President, alarmingly, this heavily used natural resource can actually pose a threat to human health if it is not properly managed. Studies conducted during the past two decades show a definite relationship between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal waters and the incidence of swimming-associated illnesses. Viruses are believed to be the major cause of swimming-associated diseases--gastroenteritis and hepatitis are the most common ones worldwide. And because an individual afflicted with these diseases is contagious to others in his or her household, the risk of sewage-borne illness does not end with the bather. Additional diseases that can be contracted by swimmers include an infection caused by the toxigenic bacteria E. coli--the bacteria found in Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers which caused an outbreak of illnesses a few years ago. Yet many current, EPA approved techniques to measure marine water quality appear to underestimate the true number of viable pathogens that are entering the marine environment. Existing EPA guidelines allow States to decide whether their beach waters are safe for swimming based on monthly averages. Waters may appear safe in the long term, but short-term violations of the public health standard go unrecognized. The existing EPA guidelines are not useful for decisionmakers, who need to decide whether they should allow people to swim at the beach tomorrow or during the coming weekend. Using monthly water quality averages to determine if the beach is safe for swimming is like taking a patient's temperature average over a week to see if the patient is sick. The patient's average temperature could be just about normal. But in the meantime, the patient could die. EPA must develop new standards because existing EPA guidelines simply fall short. While some States use these inadequate EPA guidelines, others have no programs for regularly monitoring their beachwater for swimmer safety. In a report released today, Testing the Waters: Who Knows What You're Getting Into, the Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC] found that only five States--New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, and Indiana--comprehensively monitor their beaches, and a mere five States consistently close beaches every time bacteria water quality standards are violated. Additionally, NRDC found that a high-bacteria level can cause a beach closure in one State while in another State people may be allowed to swim in the water despite equal health risks. This discrepancy among coastal States threatens public health. The NRDC report also found that high levels of bacteria in coastal waters--primarily from raw human sewage--are responsible for the overwhelming majority of beach closures and advisories in the United States. In 1995, U.S. ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches were closed, or advisories were issued against swimming, on more than 3,522 occasions. New Jersey has been aggressive when it comes to protecting public health at the beach. New Jersey is the only State to have a mandatory beach protection program that includes a bacteria standard, a monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure requirements when the bacteria standard is exceeded. The program is designed to address water quality from both a health and an environmental perspective. Beaches are closed when bacteria levels exceed the standard regardless of the pollution source. Ironically, New Jersey suffers because it does more to protect public health. In some years, annual losses from beach closures in New Jersey have ranged from $800 million to $1 billion. The bill that I am introducing today will address the uneven coastal commitment to protect beach goers by establishing uniform testing and monitoring procedures for pathogens and floatables in marine recreation waters. This bill also requires EPA to establish a nationwide public health standard for determining when States should notify the public of health risks due to pathogen contaminated waters. This bill requires the EPA to establish procedures to monitor coastal waters to detect short-term increases in pathogenicity and to set minimum standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated beach waters. And it will assure that the public is notified when beach waters exceed the standards and public health may be at risk. Whether they're in the Carolinas or in California, in New Jersey or New York, people across the country have a right to know when the water is and is not safe to swim in. Beach goers should be able to wade or swim in the surf without the fear of getting sick. Going to the beach should be a healthy and rejuvenating experience. A day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of protecting public health at our Nation's beaches by cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health [BEACH] Act of 1996. Mr. President, coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every year for local communities nationwide. Moreover, our coastal areas provide immeasurable benefits for millions of Americans who want to build sand castles, cool off in the water, take a walk with that special someone, or just relax. New Jersey's tourism sector is the second largest revenue-producing industry in the State. Without a doubt, the lure of my State's beaches generates most of this revenue-- over $7 billion annually. Mr. President, alarmingly, this heavily used natural resource can actually pose a threat to human health if it is not properly managed. Studies conducted during the past two decades show a definite relationship between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal waters and the incidence of swimming-associated illnesses. Viruses are believed to be the major cause of swimming-associated diseases--gastroenteritis and hepatitis are the most common ones worldwide. And because an individual afflicted with these diseases is contagious to others in his or her household, the risk of sewage-borne illness does not end with the bather. Additional diseases that can be contracted by swimmers include an infection caused by the toxigenic bacteria E. coli--the bacteria found in Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers which caused an outbreak of illnesses a few years ago. Yet many current, EPA approved techniques to measure marine water quality appear to underestimate the true number of viable pathogens that are entering the marine environment. Existing EPA guidelines allow States to decide whether their beach waters are safe for swimming based on monthly averages. Waters may appear safe in the long term, but short-term violations of the public health standard go unrecognized. The existing EPA guidelines are not useful for decisionmakers, who need to decide whether they should allow people to swim at the beach tomorrow or during the coming weekend. Using monthly water quality averages to determine if the beach is safe for swimming is like taking a patient's temperature average over a week to see if the patient is sick. The patient's average temperature could be just about normal. But in the meantime, the patient could die. EPA must develop new standards because existing EPA guidelines simply fall short. While some States use these inadequate EPA guidelines, others have no programs for regularly monitoring their beachwater for swimmer safety. In a report released today, Testing the Waters: Who Knows What You're Getting Into, the Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC] found that only five States--New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, and Indiana--comprehensively monitor their beaches, and a mere five States consistently close beaches every time bacteria water quality standards are violated. Additionally, NRDC found that a high-bacteria level can cause a beach closure in one State while in another State people may be allowed to swim in the water despite equal health risks. This discrepancy among coastal States threatens public health. The NRDC report also found that high levels of bacteria in coastal waters--primarily from raw human sewage--are responsible for the overwhelming majority of beach closures and advisories in the United States. In 1995, U.S. ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches were closed, or advisories were issued against swimming, on more than 3,522 occasions. New Jersey has been aggressive when it comes to protecting public health at the beach. New Jersey is the only State to have a mandatory beach protection program that includes a bacteria standard, a monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure requirements when the bacteria standard is exceeded. The program is designed to address water quality from both a health and an environmental perspective. Beaches are closed when bacteria levels exceed the standard regardless of the pollution source. Ironically, New Jersey suffers because it does more to protect public health. In some years, annual losses from beach closures in New Jersey have ranged from $800 million to $1 billion. The bill that I am introducing today will address the uneven coastal commitment to protect beach goers by establishing uniform testing and monitoring procedures for pathogens and floatables in marine recreation waters. This bill also requires EPA to establish a nationwide public health standard for determining when States should notify the public of health risks due to pathogen contaminated waters. This bill requires the EPA to establish procedures to monitor coastal waters to detect short-term increases in pathogenicity and to set minimum standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated beach waters. And it will assure that the public is notified when beach waters exceed the standards and public health may be at risk. Whether they're in the Carolinas or in California, in New Jersey or New York, people across the country have a right to know when the water is and is not safe to swim in. Beach goers should be able to wade or swim in the surf without the fear of getting sick. Going to the beach should be a healthy and rejuvenating experience. A day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of protecting public health at our Nation's beaches by cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, want to see this bill moved. There has been a lot of hard and very thoughtful work that has gone into it. We are at a time when passage, or at least an attempt at passage, would be the best order of business. Mr. President, this is the defense authorization bill. The effects of this bill begin on October 1 of this year. The results of the authorization that might pass here today will be put into place starting October 1, 1996, 4 months from now. So there is an urgency because of the amount of work that has gone into it. My friend and colleague, the Senator from Georgia, and the floor manager, Senator McCain, have worked very hard to get us to a point in time when action can be taken to resolve some differences. I would like that done. I feel badly that we are in this momentary state of suspension. When I hear from our friends on the other side that they want to work cooperatively, then I am prepared to move things along expeditiously. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Objection. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, lest it be misunderstood, the insinuation that I have just heard that I want to prevent the armed services from doing their job, prevent the authorizing legislation from going through, is hardly the appropriate characterization of the condition we are in. The Senator from New Jersey reserves his right, as a U.S. Senator, to take an action to respond to an action that was begun on the Republican side. Last week we had a resolution developed, enthusiastically supported by both sides of the aisle, to caution the Arab countries surrounding Israel not to gang up on Israel, not to start with bellicose statements, making demands that were unrealistic before the Government could even be formed. But someone on the Republican side chose at the last minute, Friday last, within 10 minutes of the time we were ready to recess for the weekend--chose to put a hold on it. The suggestion was the resolution that I wrote--that my name be dropped and others' substituted. Silly, petty stuff. So, when there is an accusation here--and I think I have served this body well--coming from a distinguished Senator like the Senator from Arizona, no one challenges his right to say what he chooses and to stand up proudly as someone who served his country well. By the same token, in fairness, no one has a right to assail my motives. This is very clear. You have never, never seen Senator Lautenberg on this floor stopping action in the 14 years that I have been here. So it has to be an unusual condition that would occasion this. Mr. President, I want to move this bill along, I want to get it out of the way, but I want someone on the Republican side of the aisle to come up and tell me why there is a problem just because it has a New Jersey attachment. That is hardly the way we do business here. It is a vendetta against the State; it is a vendetta against the Senator. I am not going to put up with it. Unfortunately, we have to call attention to things sometimes. I have seen the Senator from Arizona and others on that side of the aisle take advantage of the process to make sure that their voices and their concerns were heard. And so it is. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I share these concerns. We want to put Federal facilities back into productive use as quickly as we can. But we must make sure that we do so in a way that protects our citizens health and their environment. While the amendment includes a number of assurances that must be made before a transfer can occur, we must make sure that all of the assurances are met so that health and safety are not compromised and cleanup occurs as quickly as possible. One of the most effective tools now being used to expedite cleanups are interagency agreements, including tri-party agreements. Does the Senator agree that triparty agreements are an effective mechanism for ensuring input from States and coordinating cleanup efforts, and should be used where appropriate?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let me restate my interest in expediting the reuse of these properties. But it must be done carefully and cleanups must proceed in a timely manner. In addition, we must make sure that States have all of the tools that they need to be partners in these transfers of Federal lands and in their cleanup. I hope the Senator will work to address my concerns in conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mollie Beattie, who embodied the best of government service--diplomatic, creative, dedicated and thoughtful. Mollie, who recently stepped down as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, passed away last night, after a courageous fight with brain cancer. When Mollie joined the national political fray as Director about 3 years ago, no doubt she knew what she was in for. She knew she was jumping into a portfolio of among the most contentious national issues--administration and reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, the Pacific Northwest forest issue, and wetlands and habitat protection, to name a few. She didn't back down. Instead, she charged ahead, viewing her role as a consensus builder, a communicator, an advocate, and a pioneer towards a new way of doing business. She cared deeply about our Nation's fish, our wildlife, our open spaces, our forests, indeed, all our natural resources. Her depth of feeling and dedication gave her the strength to approach her role as Director with vitality and optimism, even in the face of increased budget cuts and intensified public scrutiny. And, as is rare in public service, she found more admirers and accorded more respect every day she was on the job. She recognized the importance of our ecosystem and the species upon which it depends, including our own. She recognized the importance of jobs and the economy, upon which we depend as well. She sought to work within this structure and needs, with the optimism and faith that it could be done. Mr. President, Mollie said it best when she testified to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee almost 3 years ago, on July 28, 1993: I would ask the Service to deliver this broad message about the conservation of fish and wildlife: that the choice between people and animals is not a real one because nature binds us to a common fate. We must have jobs and development that maintain all species, including our own. The public must be given faith that this is possible given some new ways of thinking and doing business. Perhaps the most telling indication of Mollie's extraordinary ability to bridge the gap is a survey of the laudatory comments that we are hearing today. The Defenders of Wildlife said, ``Whatever success society ultimately achieves in the crucial fight to protect endangered species and conserve our precious but deteriorating biological diversity, it will be due in part to the conservation advances for which she was directly responsible and to the commitment to responsible stewardship she inspired in literally thousands of friends and admirers.'' And, from the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Congressman Don Young: ``She was able to bring all sides of an issue to the table in order to reach common sense agreements. Because of this she was respected by all of those who knew and worked with her.'' These two comments embody Mollie's spirit and effectiveness as a leader. Today the Senate will pass a bill, sponsored by Senators Murkowski, Stevens, Leahy, and Jeffords, to designate 8 million acres of wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area. This bill is a fitting tribute to a respected professional and government servant. Mr. President, Mollie Beattie--conservationist, academic, communicator, and leader--will be missed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I listened carefully to my friends who take an opposite view to mine, who I think are accusing me at this moment of trying to foster gun control. Although that is something I do not shy away from, that happens not to be the motive of this amendment. They suggested that I may not like the Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. They suggested I do not like guns. I carried a gun. I climbed telephone poles with a carbine over my shoulder in Europe during World War II, in the northern tier, Holland and Belgium, that area. I even at one point got a marksman's badge. So I fired these weapons and did what I had to do to learn how to shoot them. The Army program was pretty effective. Now, again I said World War II. Some around here may think I was in the Spanish-American War, but the fact is that that war is what occasioned this development. We had an Army that could not shoot straight so they said, well, let's get a civilian force that can effectively be a kind of premilitia group that can help us at moments of conflict. That was then, 90 years ago. But the program has no value now, and it has been established by the Army as having no value. The Under Secretary of the Army writes in May that the Army gets no direct benefit from the program, that there is no ``discernible link,'' it is quoted, the Honorable Floyd Spence, chairman of the House National Security Committee, and the ranking member, Ron Dellums, reiterating, no discernible link between this and the CMP. Madam President, I think we ought to get to the nub of the problem. Yes, I think that it would be outrageous for the Government of the United States to give away $76 million worth of property to people who want to learn how to shoot a gun and hold a competition. If they want to do that, that is fine with me. We do not provide golf balls, tennis balls, baseballs out of the Federal Government for people who want to learn how to play baseball, basketball, or otherwise. If they happen to be in the military or some branch of Government that does that, fine. But for civilians we do not do that kind of stuff. And since when do we now suddenly see the sanctimonious character of this being almost a moral obligation of the country? I disagree with that totally. We are talking about a giveaway of Government property contrary to policy that says that in fact we ought to be destroying weapons. This was a GSA-inspired program. The General Services Administration convened a Federal weapons task force to review the Government policy of disposing of firearms. It confirmed a longstanding Government policy of not transferring federally owned weapons to the public; excess weapons are not sold or transferred out of Government channels. Federal regs are clear. They say that ``surplus firearms and firearms ammunition shall not be donated'' to the public. ``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.'' So that they cannot be made operative again. Simply put, they said the Federal Government has made a decision. It should not be arms. This has nothing to do with gun control or whether or not Frank Lautenberg is offending the sensibilities of the 4-H Clubs--we have them in New Jersey--or the Boy Scouts. I repeat, I was a Boy Scout. I never got to be an Eagle Scout, but I was OK. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, when it is suggested here these weapons could never be used in a crime, they are too cumbersome, et cetera, we have a transcript of a TV program in which a Mr. Mark Koernke appeared and talked about the militia program, where they had access to an American military base where they could go in and out fire weapons, et cetera. This was Mark Koernke's response to Sam Donaldson. ``As a matter of fact,'' he said, in response to Sam Donaldson, who said: You're telling me, sir, that you did not, in any event, ever advocate an attack on Camp Grayling [military base]--is that what you're telling me? Mark Koernke: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we can access Camp Grayling at our discretion any time that we wish. Sam Donaldson: What do you mean by that? Mark Koernke: We have access to it. . . . This is someone who is a leader in the Michigan Militia: We have access to it . . . for Department of Defense, D.C.M. [a civilian marksmanship basis] shooting on a regular basis. We can enter the facility or any other military facility. So, while this may not be a weapon of choice for criminals, the fact is if it is a weapon of choice for military people to train with-- militia people, I think it is a bad idea. We are down to the nub here, frankly. Whether or not the process is exactly as it should be, yes, Senator Frank Lautenberg wants to eliminate this program. That is what the Army suggested. That is what the GSA suggested. We want to stop paying for it. I want to stop paying for it altogether. I want those weapons destroyed, not given over to a civilian organization where they can sell them and use the profit for their mission. It ought not to be that way. No place else in Government do we do that kind of thing. It was said, by our colleague and friend from Idaho, this was a board appointed by the Army Secretary. That should give it some balance. But this board has the authority to replace itself, replace members that retire or leave for whatever reason, so it can easily become a captive of a particular group. I do not want to stop gun practice, gun safety instruction, none of those things. I do not want my Government, I do not want these taxpayers, to have to pay to give it to the group. I think it is an absolutely unjustified process. We ought to stop the program. We ought to get out of the business. If people want to pay for ammunition and guns and so forth, there is a marketplace out there, they can buy all they want. I hope, Madam President, we will bring this debate to a conclusion and let the Senate speak for itself. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In uniform.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, whenever one has an opportunity to engage in a debate with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, one always knows that the citizens of Alaska have justly deserved the reputation for being focused on their mission and let no holds bar them from their purpose--and with respect and admiration, by the way. I enjoy my moments of conversation, sometimes a tiff, as we might call it, with the Senator from Alaska. I will tell you, he is never at a loss for words and thoughts, and I respect him. In this case, the Senator happens to be wrong. The situation, as the Senator describes it, I think, extends my remarks just a little bit. Yes, I know the President signed the defense bill after having vetoed it once, and, after having another bill put in front of him, he signed it last year. I assume the President carefully studied it, his people studied it, and he signed a bill that, like all pieces of legislation, some are excellent through and through and some have problems with them, but on balance you say, ``OK, this bill is good enough that I have to swallow hard and take some things.'' The Senator from Alaska knows very well that there is rarely a piece of legislation that is exempt from amendment, review, rewriting or otherwise. That is life around here. So simply because it was in the defense bill at one point does not make it right. Now that we have had a chance--one solid year--to examine the weaknesses of that bill, this is one that stands out sharply in my mind. When I talk about access to military bases--the Senator is gone--but Fort Monmouth in my State still exists because one of the things I worked hard to do was to make sure this prime facility continued to operate. Fort Dix in my State has some marginal operations. McGuire Air Force Base. We have military bases that are important in our society and important in our culture. But access to the base does not mean you can run in any time, go anyplace you want without typically some specific purpose. If you are there for rifle practice or target practice, so be it. What I was quoting was a person from the Michigan Militia who said, ``I have access any time I want to Camp Grayling.'' That is the kind of access I do not think ought be available. These are places, after all, that have dangerous materials and information that ought not to be accessible to someone without the right to look at it. Madam President, in short and in long, I think that we have examined this question thoroughly. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talked privately with me about coming to an agreement so we can end the discussion now and take up the vote at a later time. If the Senator from New Hampshire wants to propose it, I certainly would like to hear him and see if we can arrive at a point in this discussion where we can terminate for a moment. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. While not stipulated, I would certainly agree to dividing the 5 minutes that we have as close to evenly as possible if the Senator from Idaho wanted to say a few words, if the Chair would watch the clock. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I hear references here to the fact that this organization will be self- sustaining. That is wonderful. Just give them $76 million worth of goods to start with and then from then on we are self-sustaining. It is taxpayers' money. That is what we are giving away. The Army says it has this kind of value. The value has been disputed, the value being $76 million, which is conservative because as we have heard from the Senator from California and my personal investigation. I called a gun dealer that I know in Colorado. It may surprise some around here to know that I know a gun dealer, but I do not buy guns from him. He confirmed that an M-1 can be anywhere from $400 to $500, and so when we multiply that by 176,000 weapons, we know pretty well what kind of value we have. Very simply, Mr. President, this is not a gun control measure. If people choose to have target practice, learn how to use rifles, practice gun safety, that is fine with me. Let them pay for it. When we send teams to the Olympics or we encourage sports, we do not pay for ping-pong paddles or ping-pong balls or tennis rackets or tennis balls or baseball bats or mitts. That is not the Government's responsibility. This is something that ought to be discontinued. These weapons should be destroyed. They ought not to be out in the population. I hope that we will have support for our amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Harkin in offering an amendment which seeks to relieve the American taxpayer of some of the enormous burden of defending our allies. This amendment is straightforward. It requires the President to seek increased contributions from countries which have cooperative military relations with the United States. It requires the President to negotiate agreements under which our allies will be responsible for bearing a greater share of the common defense burden. The end of the cold war has signaled the need for us to reevaluate our spending priorities. Despite the end of the cold war, the United States continues to pay an unfair share of the costs of defending our allies. American taxpayers should no longer be responsible for the lion's share of the common defense burden. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's data for 1993, we spent 20.1 percent of our budget on military expenditures, while European NATO nations spent only 6.2 percent of their combined budgets. That's $1,153 per capita spent by the United States on military expenditures compared to $419 per capita spent by our European NATO allies. It is simply time for the United States to negotiate a better deal, and this amendment represents a positive step in that direction. The amendment allows the President to negotiate an increase in our allies' contributions in four areas. First, the President may require an ally to gradually increase its contributions to 75 percent of the nonpersonnel costs incurred by our forces stationed on its soil. Second, the President may require a host country to increase its defense spending as a percentage of its GDP by 10 percent or at least to a level equal to that of the United States. Third, the President may negotiate for a foreign country to increase its budgetary outlays for foreign assistance by 10 percent or to a level commensurate with the United States. Finally, the President may choose to require an ally to increase its contributions of military assets to multinational, United Nations, or regional peace operations. Although far from perfect, our agreement with Japan is a good example of what the President would be required to negotiate under this amendment. Currently, Japan pays for 79 percent, of nonpersonnel costs incurred by stationing troops on its soil. The administration recently negotiated an agreement under which Japan will increase its contributions by approximately $30 million a year over the next 5 years. This is an pretty good deal compared to the meager 24 percent that our European NATO allies contribute to the nonpersonnel costs the United States incurs in Europe. Budget estimates for fiscal year 1996-97 reveal that the United States will incur $8 billion in nonpersonnel costs in Europe and that our NATO allies will only contribute $2 billion of that amount. I think this is an outrage. This amendment would remedy this situation by requiring the President to negotiate a better deal. Mr. President, critics of this amendment may argue that it will compromise U.S. troop presence and global national security interests. This just isn't the case. If this amendment is implemented, and I hope it will be, the United States will continue to pay enormous amounts to defend collective security interests. We will still spend billions defending our allies. This amendment provides the flexibility necessary to preserve our commitments to our allies. It allows the President to accommodate each country's unique economic, political, and military situation while creating a more equitable balance of the common defense burden. Each of our allies has different capabilities and limitations to sharing the costs of the common defense. This amendment recognizes these differences and gives the President flexibility needed to secure greater participation by our allies. Mr. President, American taxpayers deserve a better deal. If implemented, this amendment would be a solid starting point for requiring our allies to chip in more for the common defense. It would send a clear message to our citizens that we are committed to relieving them of some of the enormous burden of defending our allies. This initiative is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to call to the Senate's attention the serious problem of illiteracy and its effects on our citizens and our Nation. Despite living in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, far too many Americans are illiterate. Over 27 million of our fellow citizens cannot read, and an additional 35 million read below the level necessary to function in our society. What is particularly alarming is that the ranks of the illiterate are annually swelling by over 2 million adults. In our current age, information is power, but for too many Americans, information is simply inaccessible. The personal costs of adult illiteracy are indeed high; however, the costs are borne not only by these individuals, but by our Nation as a whole. Illiteracy robs an individual of dignity, and it robs a community of their potential contributions. In fact, the cost, in terms of wasted human resources, is estimated at over $225 billion. Mr. President, I want to commend those who are dedicating their lives to eradicating illiteracy. I want to thank the teachers, volunteers, parents, and others across America who are freely giving of their time and talent to help those who cannot read. In my own State of New Jersey, ``Focus on Literacy, Inc.'' is a group that is undertaking heroic efforts in the battle against illiteracy; I extend my thanks to everyone involved. We must focus attention on illiteracy. All of us need to understand the extent of the problem and its far-reaching effects. We must also ensure that our citizens who need help know where services are available. But most importantly, more of us need to enlist in the battle to close the book on illiteracy.