Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Simon from Illinois for his remarks. I think he clarified the situation pretty effectively, that this is almost like a shock when you consider what could be done with the $76 million, what ought to be done with these weapons. The policy of the country in the past has been to destroy them. This goes back to Biblical recommendations: turn the weapons into plowshares, get rid of them. These are no longer valuable for the military, they are passe. I said earlier that I carried one of these in World War II, and I see our distinguished colleague and friend from Ohio on the floor, and I know that he, too, carried one of the weapons of this type in the military service of this country, which was, indeed, distinguished. Mr. President, I want to point out a couple of things here that I think ought to be in the Record. First, there are several documents, including a Washington Post article, a GSA news release going back to 1984 reporting on their view of what should happen with these weapons, which I am going to ask be printed in the Record. The regulations, which I will just paraphrase, state: Firearms no longer needed by an agency may be transferred to those Federal agencies authorized to acquire firearms for official use. However, it also prohibits the donation, sale or exchange of firearms and states they may be sold only for scrap after destruction. I particularly want to note, because some of the questions that are asked are: ``Well, you're accusing the NRA, blaming the NRA for these things, pointing a finger at them.'' I am looking at an article that is issued by the NRA. They say in this article, dated May 10, 1996: Remember a few weeks ago when the antigunners were criticizing NRA for working to repeal the misguided Clinton gun ban. You may recall they were imploring-- Again, my unanimous consent request will include the document I am reading, as well as others to be submitted for the Record. However, they talk about these antigun votes. They say: They showed their true colors this week. This is May 10, 1996, just a few weeks ago. The antigunners are now focusing their sights on the creation of the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearm Safety which was established to replace the DCM. This program seeks to provide surplus firearms and ammunition to law-abiding Americans to enhance firearms safety and marksmanship. They criticize me and they say: Even more ridiculous, Senator Lautenberg thinks that the distribution of surplus Government funds to groups amounts to aiding and abetting the rising tide of gun violence. This is just yet another example of the enemies of our firearms freedom putting aside common sense for the sake of politics. I do not want to go through chapter and verse now of people in my State who lost loved ones to gun violence or to recall the stories that we read almost every day about guns in the schools, shots across the street in random shootings. That is not the subject. This subject is one about whether or not the Federal Government gives $76 million worth of guns and ammunition to organizations, the primary sponsor of which is the NRA. I think not. I hope, when we have a chance to have our vote, that this body will stand up and say, ``No, we're not going to give away those weapons, we're not going to give away the Nation's assets, we're going to destroy them just as they should be,'' and that we will have good support in that effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the several documents I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would prevent the Government from providing a $76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs. Senators Simon, Bumpers, Feinstein, and Kennedy are original cosponsors of this amendment. The amendment addresses what I view as a fatal flaw in the new version of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which was established by the Congress in the fiscal 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill--last year's bill. Before I explain why this amendment is necessary, I think it is important to understand the history of the old Civilian Marksmanship Program. The CMP was first begun in 1903, soon after the Spanish- American War, and at a time when civilian marksmanship training was believed to be important for military preparedness. Back then, some Federal officials were concerned that recruits often were unable literally to shoot straight. The officials believed that a trained corps of civilians with marksmanship skills would be useful to prepare for future military conflicts. Mr. President, that may have made sense in 1903, but we are in 1996. The Spanish-American War ended more than 90 years ago, and, not to surprise people, but things have changed. So has the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Over the years, the program has been transferred from the training program for military personnel to a plain old shooting program for gun enthusiasts. Tax dollars have been used for nothing more than promoting rifle training for civilians through over 1,100 private gun clubs and organizations. Through the program, the Federal Government has joined forces with the National Rifle Association to sponsor annual summertime shooting competitions for civilians. The program has included donations, loans, and the sale of weapons, ammunition, and other shooting supplies. It has purchased bullets for Boy Scouts, taught them how to shoot guns. Mr. President, the Defense Department concluded long ago that the Army-run Civilian Marksmanship Program does not serve any military purpose. It concluded that there is no ``discernible link'' between the program and our Nation's military readiness. Even so, until recently, the program was sustained by an annual $2.5 million Federal subsidy. In the face of growing criticism about the program's dubious benefit to our Nation's military readiness, concerns of links between the program and anti-Government militia groups, and the Army's interest in extricating itself from responsibility for managing the program, Congress drastically changed the program last year. Keep in mind, this was to accommodate the problems that existed before. Once again, to repeat, there were concerns of links between the anti-Government militia groups and the Army's interest in getting out of the game, so Congress made a change. Under title I of the 1996 Department of Defense Authorization Act, Congress established a so- called ``private, nonprofit'' Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. In fact, the corporation is private and nonprofit in name only. According to the U.S. Department of the Army, when the corporation becomes fully operational in October of this year, October 1996, it will take control of--hear this--176,000 Army rifles worth more than $53 million. It will receive at least $4.4 million in cash. It will be given Federal property, vehicles, and computers worth $8.8 million, and, even more remarkable, the U.S. Government is going to give 146 million rounds of ammunition estimated to be worth $9.7 million, with all of these totaling $76 million, taxpayer money, all free: Here, take it; have a good time. Imagine, in these days of spartan budgets, inadequate programs, when need is desperate there, we are giving away $76 million of Government assets, and worse is that we are giving them bullets and rifles, the kind of rifle I carried when I was a soldier in World War II. The total tab to the American taxpayer for this gift is over $76 million. Even more, this private group of citizens will be able to sell the federally purchased rifles without returning any profits to the Federal Government. The nonprofit corporation will reap 100 percent of the benefit of the profit from the Federal weapons and ammunition sales. Not one penny will be returned to the taxpayers of this country. Not a dime will be used to reduce the Federal deficit or to pay for other meritorious Federal programs. From 1985 to 1995, the Federal Government spent roughly $38 million on this Civilian Marksmanship Program. A healthy $76 million Federal endowment ought to keep the so-called private corporation afloat for the next 20 years even if it never solicits one dime from private corporations. Mr. President, the old Civilian Marksmanship Program was a bad program, an example of waste in Government. The new version of the program makes even less sense than the old, which at least maintained a measure of Defense Department control over the weapons and ammunition. In 1994, the General Services Administration reconfirmed the longstanding Government policy when it convened a Federal weapons task force to review the Government's policy for the disposal of firearms. General Services brought together a group, a weapons task force, to try to understand the Government's policy for the disposal of firearms. Under that policy, the Federal Government does not sell federally owned weapons to the public. Excess weapons are not sold or transferred out of Government channels. Excess weapons, those that we no longer need, are not supposed to be out there being distributed. The Federal regulations are clear. They say that ``surplus firearms and firearms ammunition shall not be donated'' to the public. That is what the policy says. 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.'' That is what this Federal weapons task force recommended to the General Services Administration, and that was the policy. Simply put, they say the Federal Government has made the decision that it should not be an arms merchant. I could not agree more. There are many of my colleagues who feel similarly. Those are sound regulations. There is no compelling public policy reason to exempt Army guns and ammunition in order to turn control of enough guns and ammunition to start a small war over to the private nonprofit Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. Given the abundance of weapons readily available through the private sector, guns for which the Federal Government no longer has a use ought to be, as planned, destroyed--put it away, get rid of the requirement to guard it, keep records, et cetera. The federally subsidized corporation ought to be abolished. Our amendment would do just that. It would abolish the so-called private corporation, block the transfer of this $76 million endowment and end the federally run Civilian Marksmanship Program once and for all. Importantly, it would bring the Army into conformity with the Government-wide policy of not transferring Federal guns and ammunition outside Government channels. Our amendment only addresses federally owned guns and ammunition. It would not prohibit private gun clubs from existing and it would not prohibit the annual national shooting matches that are held in Camp Perry, OH, from taking place as long as the guns and the ammunition and the staff are funded through the private sector. Camp Perry is a State- owned facility. The State of Ohio can let the national matches go forward if it chooses to do so. The NRA, the National Rifle Association, has been funding these shooting matches for years, and it can continue to do so under our amendment, but it sure should not receive Federal financial backing. I expect some who oppose our effort will argue that shooting is an Olympic sport and that the program provides important training for future Olympians. Those attempting to make this argument should remember one thing: Ping-Pong is also an Olympic sport, but we do not provide Ping-Pong paddles or Ping-Pong balls or Ping-Pong training by the Federal Government. They should be reminded also the Government does not provide Federal subsidies for our Olympic swimming, tennis, volleyball, or other sports. Likewise, the Federal Government should not be supporting shooting. Supporters of this $76 million boondoggle will argue that promoting gun safety is a laudable goal. We can debate that question. But I do not think it is the role of the Federal Government to give away $76 million worth of guns and ammunition in the name of gun safety. Frankly, when I look at the numbers, we see 140 million rounds of ammunition are going to be put out there by the Federal Government. We have seen enough of the gun influence in our society. I just think the Federal Government ought not to be a coconspirator. It is not our job to give away guns and ammunition. The private sector should promote gun safety, if it chooses to, for recreational shooters, not the Federal Government. The NRA and others already do this. If they choose to continue, they may. When the 1996 Defense Department authorization bill was approved, the implications of the provision that established the private, nonprofit corporation were not clear, but now they are quite clear. We have a duty to act and to stop this boondoggle dead in its tracks. The giveaway of $76 million worth of weapons and ammunition is terrible public policy. In fact, it is outrageous. The Government must not work to add to the proliferation of guns in the country. We have enough without adding to the supply with this big freebie. Once again, I think it adds insult to injury when we think of the critical need that we have for programs in this country, whether it be breast cancer research, whether it be education, whether it be housing, whether it be nutrition, whether it be health care. How can we, in good conscience, say to the American people we are now going to give $76 million to those who like guns and who want the Federal Government to subsidize their activity. I think it is recognized there are gun clubs. There are people who belong to them. They are OK. But we ought not to add to the confusion about this, nor perhaps the occasional violent eruption that can come from having this excessive supply of guns and ammunition available in the public. Mr. President our amendment would prevent the Government from providing a $76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs. If this amendment is not adopted, a private, nonprofit corporation established by the Congress last year will take control of 176,218 Army rifles worth more than $53 million. It will receive at lest $4.4 million in cash from the Army, and it will be given Federal property, such as vehicles and computers, valued at $8.8 million. Even more remarkable, the corporation will be given control of 146 million rounds of ammunition worth $9.7 million. I did not make these numbers up. They came directly from the Army. If this amendment is adopted, it will cost the Army less than $2 million to demilitarize all of the M-1's currently slated to be turned over to the private corporation. If the amendment is adopted, it will bring the Army in line with Government-wide policy prohibiting the public sale of Federal weapons. According to GSA regulations, reconfirmed by a Federal weapons task force in 1994, ``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.'' The regulations say ``surplus firearms, and firearms ammunition shall not be donated'' to the public. If the amendment is adopted, the national matches will still go forward. They just will have to be privately financed. If the amendment is adopted, Americans will still be able to take courses in firearms safety. They just will have to be privately financed. If the amendment is adopted, there will still be a well-trained U.S. Olympic shooting team. Mr. President, the Department of Defense has opposed the Civilian Marksmanship Program. According to Army Under Secretary Reeder: ``DOD repeatedly has conveyed to Congress that while it will continue to administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue to support legislation ending this program.'' This giveaway of $76 million worth of weapons it terrible public policy. In fact it is outrageous. The Government must not add to the proliferation of guns in this country. We have enough without adding to the supply through this giveaway. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss an amendment that is pending, as I understand it, and has been reviewed in some conversations on the floor. I want to make sure the record is clear, because I think in the process of comments, I have been accused of holding up an amendment. I want to make sure that everyone clearly understands my position. I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia which would help address the problem of the stalking of military personnel and their families. Although limited in scope, this amendment builds on the stalking legislation in the Violence Against Women Act, enacted as part of the 1994 Anticrime Act, which I strongly supported. That act represented an important national commitment to eliminate domestic violence, a plague that undermines the security, health, and future of millions of American women and their families. Currently, all 50 States have stalking laws on the books, and these are primary legal tools for addressing the problem of stalking, but the Federal statute also is important in addressing certain types of interstate stalking. Yet, the current Federal statute is drawn narrowly and applies only to a spouse or someone who can be described as an intimate partner. This amendment would expand the statute to include anyone, including a stranger, who travels across State lines with the intent to injure or harass or coerce or verbally abuse any member of the Armed Forces or their immediate family. I think it makes sense to include strangers in the scope of the Federal statute, Mr. President, because not all stalkers are related to their victims, and anyone victimized by this crime deserves protection, no matter who is doing the stalking. I also think it should not matter who is being stalked, so I support covering all stalking victims, not just those who are in the Armed Forces. Still, Mr. President, I support this amendment as a limited, but positive, step forward, even though I would like it to go further. Some of my colleagues may wonder why we are considering an amendment on stalking on a Defense Department authorization bill. In fact, the House of Representatives has already approved a bill similar to this amendment, but that applies to all stalking victims, not just military personnel. That bill is ready for floor action here in the Senate. I have written to the majority leader to urge that the legislation be taken up as soon as possible. I also indicated in my letter that I would like an opportunity to amend the bill in order to strengthen the protections that it fundamentally is recommending. My amendment is very simple. It would prohibit any person who has been convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. The amendment says, pretty simply, that those who beat their wives, who abuse their children ought not to have a gun, period. That is the way I see it. Mr. President, in my view, that would greatly strengthen the antistalking law, and it is a logical complement to it. I have been hoping that both my proposal and the antistalking proposal could be enacted together. Mr. President, we have heard about the appropriateness of my amendment on this and why it should not be. Mr. President, I would ask why an antistalking amendment of this general nature belongs on a defense bill anyway. I can understand it and would support it because I think whatever we do to protect the health and well-being of our citizens ought to be considered top priority and injected wherever it can be. So, Mr. President, the thing that I find confusing is, why is it OK to protect people from stalking but not to protect those abused wives and children from a man, husband, or intimate who flies into a rage, rage enough to beat up a woman, beat up a child, and say, ``Well, perhaps that wouldn't be acceptable here.'' Let us find out. Let us find out. Let us have a vote instead of these kinds of personal accusations, ``He's holding it up.'' Senator Lautenberg is not holding up this legislation. I want the record to be perfectly clear. Those accusations do nothing to further the cause of protection of women and their families. Let us face it, the majority has declined to give me an opportunity to have this amendment heard. Why? Is it because people on that side of the aisle, maybe even some on this side, are afraid to say no, that someone ought to have a gun even though they are a wife beater and can fly into a rage at any time, rage enough to beat up a woman. You see scars and abuse, physically, on women constantly. Courts have an inclination, we unfortunately find, to dismiss charges against wife beaters, saying, ``Well, he's really not a criminal. You know, he just lost his temper.'' As a matter of fact, in Baltimore, not far from here, a man who murdered his wife was sentenced to weekends in jail and not a long time on probation. Why? Because the judge said, ``How can you give a noncriminal a criminal conviction?'' So, Mr. President, what we are looking at here is process, not protection. In my view, this antistalking legislation is important, and so is the ``no guns for wife beaters and child abusers.'' It ought to be enacted together. The junior Senator from Texas has been opposed to that. As a matter of fact, in conversations that we have had, she suggested, well, it will not pass. Let us find out. You know what I would like to do? I would like to have the public find out. I would like them to see who is going to vote to continue gun possession by wife beaters, by child abusers. That is what I want the public to see. But the junior Senator from Texas said, no, we will keep that little secret among us. We do not want that on this bill. It is time to fish or cut bait, I think, Mr. President. The concern is, it is too controversial, apparently, to take guns out of the hands of wife beaters and child abusers. That concept is just too controversial. It is hard for me to believe that many of my colleagues, even those who generally oppose gun control, really believe that wife beaters and child abusers should have guns. At least until now no Senator--no Senator--has been willing to stand on the floor and explain to me why they disagree with my proposal. I would like to hear the Senator from Texas explain why it is a bad idea besides, ``It's a process, and perhaps we'll never get it through.'' Let us find out. Are we interested in politics, or are we interested in protection? Mr. President, my amendment does not propose broad controls on firearms. At its heart it is a proposal to reduce domestic violence. That is why it is so strongly supported by people like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and many others who are concerned about the problem of domestic violence. So, Mr. President, I continue to hope that we can enact both the broad antistalking proposal and my legislation to keep guns away from wife beaters and child abusers. I hope that the majority will permit the full Senate to take up these proposals without delay. With that, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern and outrage about the rash of church burnings in our Nation and to urge support of H.R. 3525. Mr. President, the great German playwright Goethe once remarked, ``There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.'' Unfortunately, we are currently witnessing the fires of ignorance and prejudice engulfing African-American churches throughout the South. As of June 24, there were 37 suspicious fires at these churches in the last 18 months. The smoldering ruins are the tangible evidence of a smoldering racism in our country. Mr. President, just 30 years ago, the Night Riders cut a swath of fear across the South, torching churches and homes. Hopefully, it is not the faint sound of similar hoofbeats which we again hear galloping toward us. But unlike three decades ago, those responsible for these heinous actions do not appear to be organized groups, and those who have been apprehended have revealed various motives. Also, there are roughly an equal number of suspicious fires at white churches and those of other races which are currently being investigated by the ATF. Mr. President, it is critically important that we loudly repudiate the purposeful destruction of any house of worship. This is not just a religious issue; it is an American issue, because it destroys an individual's right to worship according to his or her conscience, free from fear and violence. Yet the destruction of small, often isolated and rural, black churches in the South is especially chilling; it is being done to promote a climate of fear and intolerance. Which is why every American, whether black, white, Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist, must denounce these fires of hatred which are burning across the landscape of our Nation. I hope, Mr. President, that perhaps we can salvage something good from these horrible incidents. The phoenix, the fabled mythological bird, is said to be able to rise from the ashes to a new and better life. Thirty years ago, the flames of the Night Riders helped to galvanize American opinion against the policies of segregation and to start our Nation along what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King called a superhighway to freedom. Perhaps today's flames will vividly remind us how of far we must still journey down that road. At a time when America seems to be splitting along class and racial and ethnic lines, perhaps these deplorable actions will force us to finally stop and look down the road on which we now seem headed. Those who are setting the blazes hope they can fan the fires of prejudice and ignite a conflagration of violence. When in actuality, the flames may help illuminate the dangers of intolerance, and how it affects all of us. Recently, the Senate adopted a resolution, Senate Resolution 265, condemning the desecration of churches. But words must be backed by action. The pending legislation, which I have cosponsored, would make it easier to investigate and prosecute these crimes and would establish tougher penalties for those convicted of setting fire to houses of worship. The bill would authorize additional resources for ATF investigations, and it would facilitate rebuilding efforts in affected communities. A provision in this legislation would also permanently reauthorize the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This bill needs to be signed into law without delay. Mr. President, I am confident that this legislation can make a real difference. However, by itself no law can wipe away the problem; all of us must work together to end hate crimes and the bigotry which spawns them. We need to follow the example of Reverend William Watley, pastor of St. James' African Methodist Episcopal Church in Newark, the largest AME church in New Jersey. Last week, Reverend Watley brought together over 500 people, including pastors and representatives from the burned churches, for a special service to denounce the violence. He also pledged help from New Jersey's religious community for the affected parishes. Mr. President, I urge every American to join me in condemning these terrible acts of violence, of prejudice, of cowardliness. Because if we do not loudly condemn them, then we silently condone them.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it had been my expectation that the Senate would have already taken up and passed a resolution to express the sense of the Senate about the summit of Arab heads of state, which began in Cairo today. It is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman and Brown. The resolution is straightforward. It urges heads of state and representatives of Arab countries attending the Cairo summit and those which may not attend the summit to reaffirm their commitment to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It urges them to express their willingness to work with the democratically elected Government of Israel in the pursuit of a meaningful peace. Finally, it urges them to refrain from statements directed against the new Israeli Government that might create an atmosphere in the region unfavorable to a continuation of the peace process. The resolution had been cleared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all Democratic Senators, the Democratic leadership, and Members on both sides of the aisle. It was poised for approval by full Senate. However, at the last minute, the junior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, objected to the Senate taking up the resolution because of an entirely unrelated matter. As a result, Mr. President, this resolution on the Middle East was blocked. And that is very unfortunate because many of the nations meeting in Cairo are countries intent on destroying Israel. Many are avowed enemies of Israel. Apart from Senator Hutchison's objection--which, again, is over an unrelated issue--there appears to be virtually unanimous support in the Senate for my resolution, and the message it sends. Mr. President, on May 29, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected the new Prime Minister of Israel. Shortly after his election, and before he established his new government, the Government of Egypt decided to convene a meeting of most members of the Arab League. At the invitation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, heads of state from 19 Arab countries were invited to meet in Cairo. Representatives from Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were invited to attend the summit. While I have no objection to meetings by members of the Arab League, heads of state and government representatives attending the meeting in Cairo have nothing to be gained by limiting options for peace discussions with the newly elected Government of Israel before its policies have even been officially formulated. They have nothing to gain by issuing provocative statements and attempting to back the democratically elected Government into a corner. Restraint--not harsh rhetoric directed against the new Israeli Government that might create an atmosphere in the region unfavorable to a continuation of the peace process--should prevail. President Clinton has stated his hope that Arab leaders who attend this summit will give Mr. Netanyahu an opportunity to constitute his government and set a policy and not presume that we can't pursue peace. That is sage advice. While the Arab countries may be experiencing some anxiety in light of the change of the Israeli Government, it would be a mistake to let extremist countries like the Sudan, Libya, and Syria dominate the agenda of this meeting. It would be a mistake to close doors, shut off options, and establish preconditions for the continued pursuit of peace. Mr. President, the world will be watching this meeting very carefully in the hope that the Arab countries will remain partners with Israel in the pursuit of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The road to a comprehensive peace is never easy, and all must conduct themselves with care and diplomacy to avoid potential misunderstandings. Mr. President, the United States is not prejudging the new Israeli Government. The Arab leaders meeting in Cairo should not either. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an outstanding editorial called ``The Arabs and Mr. Netanyahu'' which appeared in the New York Times last week be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to first say that few here have more of my respect and friendship than the distinguished Senator from Iowa. We rarely disagree. When we do, sometimes it is a fairly forceful disagreement. This is not in any way to challenge some of the observations that the Senator from Iowa has made about growth. I believe that more growth would be advisable, would be very helpful right now. But I support the nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve in his next term because I think what we have is pretty darned good when you look at the results, and we see indications of it every day, about how good this economy is relative to where we might have been in terms of measuring the economic growth and inflation at the same time. Inflation is under control. It does not take much, in this former businessman's view, to trigger off a round of inflationary growth that we would not like to see in this country of ours. When I see in today's papers, the Washington Post: Labor shortage may be slowing economy, not enough people applying for jobs, bonuses being offered to get people to apply for jobs. It does not say that we are overburdened by unemployment. Any unemployment is terrible in a society. But when you compare what is happening in the United States to, now, the European market, we are almost less than half of where they are. And inflation is very carefully controlled. Look at the response of what I may say are the knowledgeables, the stock markets. The market keeps growing. Investors think there is value there yet to be realized. We have a very comfortable view, in terms of mortgages, in terms of money. If there is a shortage, it is because much of the money supply that is out there is being absorbed by Federal debt, and we are all determined to work to reduce that. But I know Alan Greenspan on a personal basis, which has little to do, frankly, with whether or not I would recommend him, except to say I know him well. He served on the board of my company, ADP, until he came to his position as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. I used to hear Alan Greenspan's opinions about things. We had other very distinguished business people on our board--by the way, Republicans more than Democrats; that is just a coincidence; I wanted it the other way, but it did not work that way--distinguished business people who would listen carefully to Alan Greenspan's views on things, to his analysis. My ex-company--I hate to say that--my company sold the Greenspan database. We used to deliver it. I was in the computer business, and we would deliver that database throughout the country. It was such a desirable piece of information that company after company, institution after institution would be there, ready to buy the services. The fact of the matter is, Alan Greenspan, by all measures on the record, has done a distinguished job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. He deserves to be continued. For these reasons, Mr. President, I support the nomination of Alan Greenspan to serve his third term as Chairman, and of Alice Rivlin to serve her first term as Vice Chairman, of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In fact, it is hard to meet Alan Greenspan without being impressed with him. He is a very serious man who takes his work seriously, and who understands the critical importance of the office he holds. Alan Greenspan has ably served our country as Chairman of the Fed since 1987. And in that time he has compiled a record that, by recent historical standards, is impressive. Mr. President, as I said, I have known Alan Greenspan for many years, and have always had a tremendous amount of respect for him. Before I came to the Senate, I ran a data processing company known as ADP. Alan Greenspan was on our board of directors. And it was in that capacity that I came to appreciate his intellect, his extensive knowledge of business and economics, and his integrity. Inflation today is at 2.9 percent. Unemployment is at 5.6 percent. Not long ago, many respected economists would have scoffed at the likelihood that both these figures could be held down to these levels. Many assumed that unemployment and inflation fluctuated in an inverse relationship. Yet that has not been true in recent years, and Alan Greenspan probably deserves some credit for that. Mr. President, steering monetary policy is an extremely difficult job that involves a delicate balancing of competing economic considerations. I cannot stand here and say that Chairman Greenspan has never made a mistake. And I understand the views of some of my colleagues that the Federal Reserve ought to adopt a looser, more aggressive monetary policy. But when you compare the economy's performance with the expectations of the pre-Greenspan era, it is hard to argue against Chairman Greenspan's record. It is also hard to dispute that Chairman Greenspan's work has won him broad respect and support in the financial community. Mr. President, Alan Greenspan is one of the most thoughtful and deliberate people I have ever met. He does not speak glibly. He knows what he is talking about, and he chooses his words carefully. This deliberate approach has served him well as Chairman. And it has contributed to a greater sense of stability and predictability in our financial markets. That predictability is important if our economy is to function effectively. So I hope my colleagues will support his nomination. And I trust they will, by a very strong margin. I end up asking unanimous consent that the piece in the Washington Post yesterday, an op-ed piece by Robert Samuelson, and the article related to employment in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the nomination of Alice Rivlin, our current Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. President, Alice Rivlin also has enjoyed a long and distinguished career in public service. She played a major role in building the Congressional Budget Office, and establishing CBO as a highly respected institution in this city. She has had a distinguished career as an economist and policy analyst. And she has served admirably as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. President, few objective observers would question the commitment of Alice Rivlin to fiscal responsibility. Her reputation as an advocate for fiscal integrity has been well established for many years. She also has a reputation as someone who tells the truth. Alice Rivlin is not afraid to tell truth to power. And she is more than willing to ruffle a few feathers in the process. She has done so in the past. And I'm sure she would continue to do so at the Federal Reserve. Mr. President, Alice Rivlin is a public servant, not a politician. That's the kind of person I would think all Americans should want at the Federal Reserve. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Alice Rivlin's nomination to the Federal Reserve Board. And I hope she can be confirmed by a strong, bipartisan vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Tobacco Medicaid Recovery Act, along with Senator Wellstone. This bill will create a new Federal/State partnership to help recover Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use. Mr. President, for years, the tobacco industry has hooked Americans on products that cause death and disease. They've made billions of dollars in the process. But they've never been held accountable. When big tobacco sells it's deadly products, all Americans pay the price. Not only through the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are lost to lung cancer and other diseases. But through the higher taxes that must be paid to support programs like Medicaid. Mr. President, 10 courageous states are suing the tobacco industry for the large Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use. There are two other states, including New Jersey, that will soon file suit and 10 others that may file before the summer is out. These suits enjoy bipartisan support from Democratic and Republican governors and Democratic and Republican state attorney generals. In fact, I was pleased to be joined this morning in unveiling this legislation with Mike Moore, attorney general from Mississippi, Hubert ``Skip'' Humphrey, attorney general from Minnesota, and Bob Butterworth, attorney general from Florida. They are all leaders in suing the tobacco industry for Medicaid costs and strongly support this legislation. The Minnesota suit is being supported by its Republican Governor, Arne Carlson, and the Florida suit is being supported by its Democratic Governor, our former colleague Lawton Chiles. Mr. President, the tobacco industry is fighting hard to avoid being held accountable. It doesn't just use every hardball legal tactic in the book. It has even sent its hired guns into state attorney generals' offices to intimidate them. In one case, a state official was warned not to sue the industry--and if the state did, the industry would force the state to pay enormous sums--including the possible deposition of every single Medicaid recipient in that state. Mr. President, the courageous states, like Mississippi, Minnesota and Florida, who have taken on the tobacco companies deserve more Federal support--because they are doing the Federal taxpayers' bidding. If they are successful in their litigation, they must return the Federal portion of Medicaid funds to Washington. The Federal government should be helping them get this money, not sitting on its hands. This legislation would allow the states to keep a third of the Federal portion to better serve the needs of their Medicaid recipients--their seniors, disabled, poor children and pregnant women. Another third of the Federal share would go to the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on the diseases caused by tobacco products, like lung cancer and heart disease. Finally, the balance would go into the Federal Treasury to help reduce the deficit. Currently, many states are sitting on the fence, thinking how difficult and expensive it will be to sue the tobacco industry. This bill may get them off the fence, and into battle with the industry. Mr. President, it is time for the Federal government to help states get the taxpayers' money back. It is time to reward the states for trying to hold the tobacco companies accountable, and provide an incentive for those considering entering the fray. This bill could provide states with millions in much needed Medicaid funds. It could increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. And it will not increase the deficit. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense legislation that will help our state taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation and a summary of it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What happens if the woman wants to have the procedure done--the Senator has agreed that under present law she can request that--in a country that has a prohibition within their population? That eliminates medical service there. The Senator further says that you cannot use the military medical facility because of the fungibility of funds. Would the Senator be willing to say to the military, that you must guarantee that a flight be made available within a 3-day period, a 5-day period, to a U.S. military medical facility that will accommodate her need and to make sure that that trip can be arranged within a 5-day period? Would the Senator be willing to guarantee, since the Senator says he has no interest in stopping the procedure--his concern is about the fungibility of the funds--that we would guarantee that this individual would have access to an abortion, respecting the rights, by the way, of any conscientious objection by a physician who might not want to do it or medical personnel?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Washington for giving me some portion of the time to support the Murray-Snowe amendment. This amendment is so basic that it, frankly, kind of surprises me that we say to people who we have recruited to serve in our military that you leave your constitutional rights on the doorstep; that if you need medical services you are willing to pay for, we are not going to give them to you. This amendment, as it is presented, will overturn the unreasonable, harsh Republican policy that prohibits servicewomen from obtaining abortion services in overseas military facilities, once again, even if they are willing out of their own pockets to pay for these health services. Essentially, the current law that was passed by the Republican Congress forces servicewomen to leave their constitutional rights behind, at the water's edge. I am familiar, Mr. President, with the struggle to protect constitutional rights of servicewomen. In 1991 and 1992, I led the fight to overturn this policy. I had an amendment pass the Senate twice to overturn this unfair restriction. Unfortunately, President Bush threatened to veto the entire defense appropriations bill over this provision and thus it was dropped in conference. But the 1992 election changed all of this. On the second day of the Clinton administration, President Clinton restored servicewomen's constitutional rights by executive authority. Tragically, the Republican Congress reversed the Clinton policy. But they are not just reversing a Clinton policy. What they are saying to those individuals, who have every right under the law to make a choice about whether or not they continue a pregnancy, is that they will not be able, practically, to do it; they will not be able to have an abortion if they choose. I am not promoting abortion. I am saying every woman has a right under our law to make that decision. What they are saying is if you happen to be stationed in a country that prohibits abortion and you want, nevertheless, to have quality service, you are restricted. You can choose to go to a back alley someplace and take the terrible chance that involves, or else you can sometimes be standby on a flight out of that country to a friendlier place. The problem is these flights are often filled and you could wait for months--months that would, perhaps, put a pregnancy into a stage of development that no one would want to see terminated. So this is a terrible imposition, I think. We are asking people to serve. We are telling them they will be rewarded for their loyal service. We tell them they may undergo danger, they may in fact lose their lives, but they do so on behalf of their country. I salute their bravery and their courage. But I think it would be terrible at the same time to say, if you need a medical service that is available, that you are not going to be able to get it because you are in the military. So I hope our colleagues in the Senate will look at this realistically and say we are not encouraging any choice for anyone to make that is not totally their own. But we are also saying if you enlist, if you raise your hand, take the oath, promise to serve your country faithfully under virtually any condition, that you do not lose your rights as a woman to make a decision that is available to every other woman in this country. I yield the floor and hope the Murray-Snowe amendment, a very thoughtful piece of legislation, will be agreed to and will amend what I think is an egregious violation of a right that belongs to every woman in this country, particularly those who join the service.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on a warm spring afternoon, on June 19, 1846, the seeds of modern baseball were planted in the fertile soil of New Jersey. On that day, one of baseball's first teams, the Knickerbockers, invited a group known as the New York City Club to join them for a game of ball. They met on the Elysian Fields of Hoboken, NJ, and played under a unique set of rules, which the Knickerbockers had recently devised. With the first pitch, the modern game of baseball was born. The new pastime quickly captured the young Nation's interest and fired its imagination. Clubs were soon modeling themselves upon the Knickerbockers, and Hoboken's Elysian Fields became one of the first great centers of baseball activity in the United States. Over the last 150 years, the seed first planted in New Jersey became firmly rooted in the American landscape and then spread around the globe. But although baseball is enjoyed throughout the world, it is a uniquely American game. It both mirrors and molds our national character. It has been said that ``Whoever wants to know the hearts and minds of America had better learn baseball.'' This is undeniably true, because baseball is one of the world's most democratic games. Each team has equal opportunity to win, since no timeclock decides when the game is done. Only hard work and teamwork determine a winner. What could better reflect our national philosophy? But baseball not only mirrors our character, it also molds it. For generations of immigrant children, their first American experience often came on the baseball diamond. During World War II, when our male baseball players joined the war effort, all-female teams were formed. Displaying exceptional talent and tenacity, these ballplayers vividly demonstrated that a woman could fill a man's shoes. In 1947, baseball set a powerful example for the Nation; when Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers, professional baseball became one of the standard bearers of the desegregation movement. For all that baseball has done, perhaps its greatest contribution is simply the bond that it forms between one generation of Americans and the next. It is a bond forged between children and parents who have spent long days together at the ballpark or on the ballfield. As Americans, we come from diverse cultures, often with very different customs and beliefs. It is only our common experiences that bind us together as a nation. Whether playing it or watching it, baseball has been one of the few shared experiences enjoyed by all of us, a common thread which has helped stitch together the tapestry of America. So, it is no exaggeration to say that baseball is, and will always be, a part of our national identity, our national heritage, and our national greatness. I am pleased to recognize the important role which New Jersey played in baseball's history. Too few people realize that baseball's first match game was played in Hoboken. Hopefully, the events taking place today in Hoboken, to celebrate that first game, will help spread the word. Congratulations Hoboken, and happy 150th anniversary to America's national pastime, the sport of baseball. Mr. President, I ask that a letter from President Clinton be printed in the Record. The letter follows: The White House, Washington, June 19, 1996. Warm greetings to everyone gathered in Hoboken, New Jersey, to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the celebrated baseball game on Elysian Fields between the Knickerbockers and the New York Club. Throughout its long and storied history, baseball has stirred the hearts and captured the imagination of the American people. From hot summer days on the sandlot to cool autumn nights at the World Series, baseball has passed from generation to generation as new stars rise to replace the legends of the past and new fans learn to root for the home team. Through wars and depression, good times and bad, we have been beguiled by the sights and sounds of this graceful and timeless game. The crack of the bat on a hard-hit ball; the slap of a fastball into a catcher's mitt; the smooth precision of a well-turned double play; the thrill of a stolen base; the sight of a home run as it clears the center field fence--these are the things that have imprinted baseball in the soul of America. I join you in celebrating this cherished national pastime and the players, managers, coaches, and fans who have made it a permanent part of American culture. Best wishes for a memorable day. Bill Clinton.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Tobacco Medicaid Recovery Act, along with Senator Wellstone. This bill will create a new Federal/State partnership to help recover Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use. Mr. President, for years, the tobacco industry has hooked Americans on products that cause death and disease. They've made billions of dollars in the process. But they've never been held accountable. When big tobacco sells it's deadly products, all Americans pay the price. Not only through the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are lost to lung cancer and other diseases. But through the higher taxes that must be paid to support programs like Medicaid. Mr. President, 10 courageous states are suing the tobacco industry for the large Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use. There are two other states, including New Jersey, that will soon file suit and 10 others that may file before the summer is out. These suits enjoy bipartisan support from Democratic and Republican governors and Democratic and Republican state attorney generals. In fact, I was pleased to be joined this morning in unveiling this legislation with Mike Moore, attorney general from Mississippi, Hubert ``Skip'' Humphrey, attorney general from Minnesota, and Bob Butterworth, attorney general from Florida. They are all leaders in suing the tobacco industry for Medicaid costs and strongly support this legislation. The Minnesota suit is being supported by its Republican Governor, Arne Carlson, and the Florida suit is being supported by its Democratic Governor, our former colleague Lawton Chiles. Mr. President, the tobacco industry is fighting hard to avoid being held accountable. It doesn't just use every hardball legal tactic in the book. It has even sent its hired guns into state attorney generals' offices to intimidate them. In one case, a state official was warned not to sue the industry--and if the state did, the industry would force the state to pay enormous sums--including the possible deposition of every single Medicaid recipient in that state. Mr. President, the courageous states, like Mississippi, Minnesota and Florida, who have taken on the tobacco companies deserve more Federal support--because they are doing the Federal taxpayers' bidding. If they are successful in their litigation, they must return the Federal portion of Medicaid funds to Washington. The Federal government should be helping them get this money, not sitting on its hands. This legislation would allow the states to keep a third of the Federal portion to better serve the needs of their Medicaid recipients--their seniors, disabled, poor children and pregnant women. Another third of the Federal share would go to the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on the diseases caused by tobacco products, like lung cancer and heart disease. Finally, the balance would go into the Federal Treasury to help reduce the deficit. Currently, many states are sitting on the fence, thinking how difficult and expensive it will be to sue the tobacco industry. This bill may get them off the fence, and into battle with the industry. Mr. President, it is time for the Federal government to help states get the taxpayers' money back. It is time to reward the states for trying to hold the tobacco companies accountable, and provide an incentive for those considering entering the fray. This bill could provide states with millions in much needed Medicaid funds. It could increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. And it will not increase the deficit. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense legislation that will help our state taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation and a summary of it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am willing to lend my encouragement to end this debate. But I do not want to close it without a brief statement. I have an amendment that I was about to send to the desk that said, if we think that we can expose the White House with the infrastructure and the President of the United States and the people who work in the facility to passersby, then I think we should do the same thing out here on the Capitol Grounds. I think we ought to say that no life here is worth more than a life there and nothing that goes on here is more important than what goes on in the White House in the executive offices of this country. I am willing to forgo it. But, Mr. President, I want to make the point, before we close the debate as far as this Senator is concerned, that ``do unto others'' is not an admonition that ought to pass by here. I think we ought to treat this facility no differently than we treat the White House. If we are going to open up that street, I assure you that I will be here with an amendment that says open up the whole plaza here. Let of the traffic come through. Let them park cars, vans, whatever they choose. Let them park at the Hart, Dirksen and the Russell Buildings. I love this picture that says for the American people we are going to protect the Capitol, protect the Senators, and protect the Congressmen, but the President, let him beware. That is the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Nevada for his amendment to this proposition. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank you, Madam President, for recognizing me for some comments on the budget reconciliation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I will take just a couple of minutes beyond that which was allocated to me by the Senator from Nebraska to say that I, too, listened very intently to Senator Dole's remarks today. I was touched and moved by them. I will not go into his record, and I will not go to any length, but I want to say that Bob Dole is someone whom I have admired over the years, with whom I have worked very smoothly. When he said it, he meant it. When he meant it, he said it. That is the way he operated. He is part of a generation, of which I also am, and that is the generation of World War II veterans, a dwindling group, I regret to say. This year we will see several leave because, in addition to Senator Bob Dole, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Heflin will leave, and the group tightens and shrinks. It is not a very pleasant prospect to contemplate. But, nevertheless, it is a decided loss to take away the experience, the knowledge, the reflection of those who served in World War II at a time when America was a much different place, at a time when the values were established by tightly knit families, by those who worried about the loss of a loved one or the injury of a family member in the war. It was a huge war with somewhere around 14, 15 million people from our country in uniform. It touched every family in America. There was not a family that did not have close contact with that war. We were also the generation that benefited enormously--enormously-- from an educational program called the GI bill that was afforded to people like me and many others who serve here, where it changed our lives. The military experience was one thing. I served in World War II, not under the same level of danger that Senator Dole or Senator Inouye served, but people in my unit were killed. It changed our lives because of the experience of the war, the fear, the danger, the detachment from family. When I enlisted in World War II, my father was already on his death bed, a man of just 43 years of age. And a family of four became a family of two virtually overnight. But the experience of serving my country, the opportunity to do so, the opportunity to get an education, is something that ought to be firmly implanted in everybody's mind in this place and in this country, where an education can change one's life, as it did, I know for so many of my colleagues. Certainly, it did for me. Without giving a personal biography, that is not my intent, just to say that we will miss Bob Dole. We will miss his experience and we will miss his wisdom. I wish him well--not quite as well as the Senator from New Hampshire, but that is in terms of the upcoming Presidential election--I wish him, personally, well and I wish him and his family many good years of enjoyment and good health.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, if I may now take the time allotted to me by the Senator from Nebraska, I want to talk about the conference report on the budget resolution, this budget that makes such deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. My view is we ought to reject it and start over. Before I make specific comments about the budget, I want to frame it in terms of the historical perspective. The Federal budget over the last 15 years, what has happened with it? The fiscal records of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Reagan could not be more different. Over a 12-year-period, the Reagan and Bush administrations incurred $2.3 trillion of debt. In fact, if we did not have to pay the interest on the debt racked up in these 12 years, the budget would be in balance this year. Not once did President Reagan or President Bush propose a balanced budget. Fortunately, President Clinton's 4-year record is much different. President Clinton promised change in 1992 and he has produced it. Consider the following: The deficit has gone down for 4 straight years. The revised deficit figure for the fiscal 1996 year is now $130 billion--by no means a modest figure, but substantially down from where it was 4 years ago. It is 1.8 percent of our gross domestic product. That is the lowest percentage of any industrialized country. For example, Japan's deficit is more than 3 percent of its GDP; Britain, the U.K., is 7 percent of its GDP; Italy's percentage of debt is 9 percent of GDP. Finally, President Clinton is the first President to put forward a balanced budget proposal in a full generation. Madam President, budgets are more than just numbers. A budget is a statement of values. We are not accountants sent to Washington to only crunch numbers. We are here to respond to our people's needs for health security, for seniors on Medicare, and Medicaid for those who have only that program to provide for their health needs. We are here to encourage educational opportunities for our young people. We are here to be stewards of the environment so that the next generation can enjoy clean water, clean air, my grandchildren will know about fish in the water, and not be afraid to go to a tap to take a drink of water, or will not have to be told to stay out of the air when playing games or exercising. We are here to provide help and vision for our people in the next century. Simply, we are here to protect our citizens' life quality, to protect our economy, to protect our Nation, to protect our society. This budget does not accomplish those objectives. It will hurt those aspirations. Madam President, unfortunately, some in the other party believe Government is evil. I say this because a very distinguished Republican, a Republican House Member told a very distinguished Congressman, Congressman Henry Hyde, as I read from the report, ``I trust Hamas,'' this person said, ``more than I trust my own Government.'' Hamas--a terrorist organization with programs designed to kill innocent people, men, women, and children. What an odious comparison. Madam President, what government is this person talking about? Could it be the American Government? Our democratically elected Government? Excluding net interest, two-thirds of the Federal Government is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, and national defense. These are the major programs of our Federal Government. I repeat, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, national defense. Are these evil programs? Are they equivalent to Hamas terrorist attacks? I do not get the connection, but I resent, terribly, the words that are used. Whatever one thinks about mistakes or poor performance of our Government, this Government and this country can never be compared to a terrorist organization. Madam President, the question is no longer whether we will balance the budget. The question is, how? Who will win in programs that are in place? Who will lose if programs are canceled? Finally, whose side is Government on? President Clinton has laid out the right way to balance the budget. His budget reaches balance within 6 years, as documented by CBO, but unlike the Republican version the President's budget, protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, and it does not increase taxes on working families. The President's budget not only protects 37 million senior citizens from deep Medicare cuts contained in this budget, but it will also, despite reports to the contrary in recent days, it will also make the Medicare trust fund solvent until the year 2005. It preserves the guarantee of Medicaid for 36 million seniors and disabled persons who rely on those programs. It protects our Nation's environment by ensuring full funding for the implementation of the major environmental programs like clean air, clean water, and toxic waste cleanups. It makes critical investments in education and training, it provides increased funding for programs like Head Start, title I, and safe and drug-free schools. Finally, the President's budget maintains the earned-income tax credit, which provides tax relief for working families who earn less than $28,000 a year. It allows them to maintain their family needs for basic essentials, for sustenance. The Republican budget is much different. It is punitive to working families and senior citizens. In reality, this budget resolution ought to be entitled ``Extremist Budget, Part II.'' The huge Medicare cuts in this budget, combined with the proposed structural changes will truly make Medicare wither on the vine. If the Republican budget is enacted, Medicare will become a second-class health care system. The Republican budget also eliminates the guarantees of Medicaid coverage for seniors, disabled, children, and pregnant women. This budget contains a Republican assault on education. Over 7 years this budget cuts $60 billion in education and training, compared to the President's budget. This budget continues the Republican tragedy of the environment. The budget will cut environmental programs by 19 percent in the year 2002 and it will slow down toxic waste cleanups. Finally, this budget continues the Republican war on working families. At the same time the GOP leadership is opposing an increase in the minimum wage, they are proposing to increase taxes on working families who earn under $28,000 a year--harsh and unfair. That is why this budget resolution ought to be called the extremist budget part II. Last year, the President vetoed the Republican budget because it contained huge cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. This budget does very much the same, and President Clinton will veto this budget as well. So as soon as our Republican friends show that they can put forth a balanced budget like the President's, one that protects our priorities, we will have a balanced budget--but not until then. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, which I call the Lame Ducks Can't Fly Act, to prevent Federal officials who are about to leave office from traveling abroad courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. The bill would prohibit any Member of Congress who is leaving office from traveling to another country at taxpayer expense in the last 6 months of the Member's term. This prohibition could be waived by the Speaker of the House or by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. If a waiver is granted, a detailed statement must be printed in the Congressional Record indicating the purposes and costs of the travel. Similarly, the bill would prohibit any political appointee in the executive branch from traveling overseas at taxpayer expense following an election in which the President is not returned to office. The prohibition for executive branch appointees could be waived if the President determines that such travel cannot reasonably be postponed until the new President takes office, and that the travel is essential to protect or promote vital national security interests. Mr. President, after the general election in 1992, many Americans were outraged when they saw Governmental officials traveling abroad on seemingly nonessential trips, even though they were about to lose their jobs. One delegation, for example, traveled to China and Hong Kong aboard a military jet that reportedly cost about $12,000 per hour to fly. Another trip was planned for Moscow before it was abruptly canceled when the plans were reported in the press. In recent months, press reports have highlighted the serious concerns of many Foreign Service officers about abuses of official travel privileges by U.S. officials from all branches of government. The problem has grown to such an extent that the American Foreign Service Association has issued a policy statement calling for 14 changes in Government official foreign travel policy. The Association's first recommendation is to prohibit travel abroad by officials within 6 months of the end of their term. Mr. President, it can be tempting for elected or appointed officials to have one last junket before losing their jobs. But it is wrong. And it is not fair to taxpayers--many of whom have a hard time making ends meet. These costs may be small compared to the budget deficit. Yet these kinds of abuses are outrageous, and they sap the trust of Americans in their Government. Mr. President, there are times when travel abroad by lame duck officials is necessary to protect important national interests. However, there is no excuse for wasting taxpayer dollars on nonessential travel. I hope my colleagues will support the legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to observe Mark Himebaugh's 16th birthday. For those who do not know Mark, he is one of America's many missing children. In November 1991, when he was 11 years old, Mark left his home in Cape May County, NJ, to play. He was never seen again. His parents have not seen him in 4\1/2\ years. Despite the efforts of his parents, law enforcement, and an outstanding group of volunteers, his parents say they are no closer to recovering Mark than in November 1991. Mr. President, it is difficult to imagine the heartache and suffering of a parent who has a missing child. With each passing day, there is continuing concern, continuing fear, and continuing prayers for a safe return. Unfortunately, each year, thousands of people across the country disappear. Most of these are children. Despite the increased awareness and the additional tools law enforcement has acquired, the problem continues to be serious. Our children are our most precious resource. They are our future. I hope with all my heart that the Himebaugh family is reunited with their son in the near future. And I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing them strength to continue their search for Mark.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes off the amendment. Mr. President, as we begin consideration of the fiscal 1997 budget resolution, we ought to take a good look at the history of what has happened to the Federal budget in the last 15 years. The fiscal records of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Reagan could not be more different. For 12 years the Reagan and Bush administrations racked up $2.3 trillion a day. In fact, if we did not have to pay the interest on the debt that was chalked up in these 12 years, the budget would be balanced in fiscal 1996. Just to be sure there was not too much confusion to make the point, let me repeat that, if we did not have to pay the interest on the debt that was stacked up in these 12 years, the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations, $2.3 trillion worth of debt, the budget would be balanced in fiscal year 1996. Not once did President Reagan or President Bush propose a balanced budget. Fortunately, President Clinton's 3-year record is much different. President Clinton promised a change in 1992, and he has produced one. If you would consider the following, it makes the point very clearly. The deficit has gone down for 4 straight years. The deficit for the year that we are in now is expected to be only $144 billion which is 1.9 percent of our gross domestic product. This is the lowest annual percentage of any industrialized country. For example, Japan's deficit is over 3 percent of its GDP. Great Britain's is 7 percent, and Italy is 9 percent budget to GDP. Finally, President Clinton is the first President to put forward a balanced budget proposal since the 1974 Budget Act created the Budget Committees. So the question is no longer whether we will balance the budget. The question is how we will balance the budget. President Clinton has laid out the right way to balance the budget. He did exactly what the Republicans demanded last year. He put forward a 7-year balanced budget scored by the Congressional Budget Office. President Clinton once again has put forward a 7-year balanced budget scored by the Congressional Budget Office. His budget is much different than the Republican budget. His budget protects Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment, and does not increase taxes on working families. The President's budget not only protects 37 million senior citizens from deep Medicare cuts contained in this budget but would also make the Medicare trust fund solvent until the year 2006. It preserves the guarantee of Medicaid for 37 million seniors and disabled persons. It protects our Nation's environment by ensuring full funding for implementation of the major environmental programs that so many support like clean air, clean water, and toxic waste cleanups. It makes critical investments in education and training. It provides increased funding for programs like Head Start, title I, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Finally, the President's budget maintains the EITC, the earned-income tax credit, which provides tax relief for working families who earn less than $28,000 a year. This allows them to maintain their family needs for basic essentials for sustenance. The Republican budget is much different. It is punitive to working families and senior citizens. In reality, the underlying budget resolution should be dubbed ``extremist budget, part 2.'' For example, they claim that they have lowered their Medicare care cuts. But have they? The answer is no. They claim that their cuts have come down to the President's level. But they have not. In January the final Republican offer in the budget negotiations included a $226 billion cut in Medicare over 7 years. This budget resolution calls for $228 million in Medicare cuts over 7 years. The number is virtually the same. These large cuts combined with their structural changes will truly make Medicare, as it is said, ``wither on the vine.'' I think that quote comes from the Speaker of the House. If the Republican budget is enacted Medicare will become a second-class health care system. The Republican budget also eliminates the guarantee of Medicaid coverage for seniors, for the disabled, for children, and for pregnant women. This budget continues the Republican assault on education. Over 7 years the budget cuts $70 billion in education and training compared to the President's budget. This budget contains the Republican trashing of the environment. It will cut environmental programs by 19 percent in the year 2002. It will slow down toxic waste cleanups. I am not going to stand idly by, and neither are many, and watch this pillaging of the environment go unchallenged. Senator John Kerry and I will offer an amendment to restore these deep cuts in the environmental protection programs. Finally, their budget contains the Republican war on working families. At the same time the Republican leadership is opposing an increase in the minimum wage, they are also proposing a tax increase on working families who earn under $28,000 a year. It is hard. It is unfair. And that is why this resolution should be called ``extremist budget, part 2.'' Mr. President, as we heard the debate here, I have heard references to moral fiber; to the fact that the President lacks the moral fiber to produce a budget that truly answers the question as to balance in 7 years. Mr. President, when we talk about moral fiber I cannot help but think about the moral fiber that is necessary to say to 12 million Americans that you ought to make more than $4.25 an hour, that on $180 you are still way below the poverty level, and when you go, if we finally can get there, to $5.15 an hour, you are still being asked to get by on less than the poverty level. Where is the morality of that issue? I cannot see it. We can talk about the accountants' version of morality. That is what we are discussing. We are discussing whether or not this budget is balanced in 7 years. The President, President Clinton, has delivered on his promise, and the budget deficit has come down 4 years in a row. It is the first time since President Truman that has happened. And we question the moral fiber of the proposal? It is an outrage. Part of the proposal put into the underlying budget resolution is a reduction, or the elimination, of much of the earned income tax credit. That is the payroll tax portion of the incomes less than $28,000. Give it back--$28,000. The poverty level for an individual today is $8,000 worth of income, and $11,000 for a family of three. But we are saying that even though the average income is substantially above the $28,000 that we ought to raise taxes on those people. Does anybody have an idea how well you can support a family in the high-cost areas of the country on $28,000 a year? At the same time, Mr. President, it is proposed that we furnish a tax break for those in the higher income levels. Under the original proposal, if someone earned $350,000, they would have gotten an $8,500 tax deduction, but we do not want to give a 90-cent raise to people making $4.25 an hour. It is outrageous. We ought not to loosely talk about morality when we discuss these. If we want to discuss them as numbers, if we want to challenge the figures, everyone has a right to do that. But when we get into the subjective evaluations of what is moral and what is right, it is more hokum than a serious evaluation of morality. Mr. President, I have had the good fortune to have spent a lot of my years in the corporate sector, and I ran a fairly successful company. The company today employees 29,000 people, the company that I started with two other fellows, all of us from poor families in the working community of Patterson, NJ. So I know something about the corporate world, and I know something about how one conducts business. When I hear about how we have to achieve this balance in our budget, eliminate the deficit in 7 years, I think it is a worthwhile target, but I think we have to include in that evaluation which part of the budget is important and which part of it is simply paying attention and fulfilling obligations to special interests. There are few companies worth their salt in this country that do not brag about their creditworthiness, about their ability to borrow to make investments in the future. Unfortunately, the accounting technique that we use in Government does not permit us to take capital investments and amortize them over a period of years. They are treated like cash investments. So we have a skewed view of what national accounting is about. I announce here and now that I, too, want to achieve a budget balance, but I do not want to do it on the backs of poor working-class families. I do not want to do it on the backs of citizens who have been promised as they paid into the Medicare trust fund that they would get particular benefits, that they had a contract with their Government. I do not want to balance the budget on their backs. I do not want to balance the budget on the backs of young people who desire and have the ability to get an education who are not going to be able to get it if we continue to cut into college loan funds. So it is a question of not when we are ready to balance the budget-- the President has laid down a budget that will balance in 7 years; CBO says they agree with him; they are the objective voice that we are using here--it is only a question of how we get that budget balanced. I think if we all work at it, we all try our best, we can achieve something that is fairer to all of the members of our society. So I hope my colleagues will support the President's balanced budget and oppose the extremist Republican budget. Last year, we stopped the extremist Republican budget that gutted Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the rich. They want to do it again. At this point, Mr. President, I ask how much time we have on the amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of that time to the distinguished Senator from Oregon to use as he sees fit. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Self Financing Civilian Marksmanship Program Act of 1996. I'm pleased that Senator Bumpers is joining me in introducing this legislation. The goal of this legislation is simple: to block the transfer of a $76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs. The Defense Department concluded long ago that the Army-run Civilian Marksmanship Program does not serve any military purpose. Even so, until recently the program was sustained by an annual $2.5 million Federal subsidy. To extricate the Army from this program, while ensuring a steady stream of firearms to gun enthusiasts, pro-gun Members of Congress established a so-called private nonprofit version of the program in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill. In reality, the new corporation is private in name only. In fact, Congress blessed it with a multimillion-dollar endowment. When the corporation becomes fully operational in October 1996, it will take control of 176,218 rifles worth more than $53 million. It will receive $4.4 million in cash and be given property valued at $8.8 million. Even more remarkable, the corporation will be given control of 146 million rounds of ammunition worth $9.7 million. The old program was a flagrant example of government waste. The new version makes even less sense, since it relinquishes government control over the program. In 1993, the General Services Administration reconfirmed a long- standing government policy. Under that policy, the Federal Government does not sell federally owned weapons to the public. The Congress should not make an exception for the private, nonprofit Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. The U.S. Government shouldn't be an arms merchant. Given the plethora of weapons readily available through the private sector, guns for which the federal government no longer has a use should be destroyed, and the corporation should be abolished. Our bill would do just that. It would abolish the so-called private corporation, block the transfer of this $76 million endowment, and end the federally run Civilian Marksmanship Program once and for all. It would not prohibit gun clubs from operation, but it would not subsidize them with federally owned weapons, ammunition, property, and cash. This gift of millions of dollars' worth of weapons and ammunition is terrible public policy. In fact, it's outrageous. The Government must work, to stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country, not aid and abet it. I hope the Congress will approve this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post article on this program and a copy of the legislation be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Self Financing Civilian Marksmanship Program Act of 1996. I'm pleased that Senator Bumpers is joining me in introducing this legislation. The goal of this legislation is simple: to block the transfer of a $76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs. The Defense Department concluded long ago that the Army-run Civilian Marksmanship Program does not serve any military purpose. Even so, until recently the program was sustained by an annual $2.5 million Federal subsidy. To extricate the Army from this program, while ensuring a steady stream of firearms to gun enthusiasts, pro-gun Members of Congress established a so-called private nonprofit version of the program in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill. In reality, the new corporation is private in name only. In fact, Congress blessed it with a multimillion-dollar endowment. When the corporation becomes fully operational in October 1996, it will take control of 176,218 rifles worth more than $53 million. It will receive $4.4 million in cash and be given property valued at $8.8 million. Even more remarkable, the corporation will be given control of 146 million rounds of ammunition worth $9.7 million. The old program was a flagrant example of government waste. The new version makes even less sense, since it relinquishes government control over the program. In 1993, the General Services Administration reconfirmed a long- standing government policy. Under that policy, the Federal Government does not sell federally owned weapons to the public. The Congress should not make an exception for the private, nonprofit Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. The U.S. Government shouldn't be an arms merchant. Given the plethora of weapons readily available through the private sector, guns for which the federal government no longer has a use should be destroyed, and the corporation should be abolished. Our bill would do just that. It would abolish the so-called private corporation, block the transfer of this $76 million endowment, and end the federally run Civilian Marksmanship Program once and for all. It would not prohibit gun clubs from operation, but it would not subsidize them with federally owned weapons, ammunition, property, and cash. This gift of millions of dollars' worth of weapons and ammunition is terrible public policy. In fact, it's outrageous. The Government must work, to stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country, not aid and abet it. I hope the Congress will approve this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post article on this program and a copy of the legislation be inserted in the Record.