Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to respond to our distinguished colleague from North Dakota. First of all, I was struck by a speech we heard the other day, one of the most illuminating and interesting speeches on the floor when the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, stood up and talked about his 14,000th vote, about two votes that he regretted. One of major magnitude was a vote that he made against the civil rights legislation in 1964. And he is a man whose knowledge is unchallengeable here. And the other was when he voted for airline deregulation. Frankly, if I was here at the time, I would not have voted to deregulate, and I am very interested in all forms of transportation, particularly aviation. In a State like New Jersey, a critical part of our structure, our culture, our economy is the airport we have at Newark. That does not mean that we have cheap fares, I say to my friend from North Dakota. As a matter of fact, if you want to fly from New Jersey to Washington, you often will pay more than you might to fly to Chicago or some further place. So we wound up with higher fares and worse service. At the same time airlines reduced their costs because they do not pay the wages they used to pay, and they do not have the services available that they used to. Now everybody crowds their luggage onto the airplanes, and if you ever traveled with a bunch of high school students and get hit in the head with backpacks as they walk up the aisle like a ball down bowling alley, you realize that is not something you are really fond of. I would not be surprised if somebody tried to bring a pet elephant or a donkey. But the crowding that you get on airplanes is almost insufferable. I share the Senator's interests in having a study done. But, I think a study ought to be committed that would be a little more comprehensive. It should be the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee and have a full review of what happened with airfares and with service. And some of the more rural places are just not going to get a lot of jet service because of the fact that it is so expensive to offer. But I believe that service to communities is an essential part of their survival. We had this debate over essential air service. For a lot of communities, if you get rid of the airline availability, you almost destroy the economic well-being of those communities. So I would like to share with the Senator from North Dakota the request for getting a study done. But I hope that we can do it with another committee, a committee that has authorizing jurisdiction and so forth. I will defer to my chairman here to see what his views are.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, not coincidentally relatively new Members, who frankly, to use the expression, have changed the complexion of the place. And by that I do not mean the exterior. I do not mean the facial makeup. I am talking about integrity, I am talking about honesty, and I am talking about understanding that they represent the majority of people in this country. And, yet, there is a move afoot to tell them how to behave. I rise in support of the committee amendment and to support a woman's right to choose. Mr. President, the opponents of this committee amendment are trying to take away the right to choose from our Federal employees and their families. The current Federal employees health system allows women to choose the type of health plan that suits them best. They can select a plan that includes abortion coverage. Or they can select a plan that does not. It is their choice. But the opponents of the committee amendment want to take away the right under a legitimate Federal health plan from getting abortion coverage. The opponents of those rights for Federal employees, citizens, like any other, want to effectively take away the right to choose for 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on a Federal health plan for health coverage. In doing so, they are proposing to discriminate against a certain class of women. They are saying that if you work for the private sector you can get complete reproductive health care coverage. But if you work for the Federal Government you cannot. We forget that they have the same rights as any other citizen. Mr. President, many people around here are deeply committed to eliminating a woman's right to choose. And we have already seen how far they will go to pursue their agenda. In June of this year, a minority of Republicans blocked a vote on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General. They brought down a man who had spent 38 years delivering health care to poor people, delivering babies by the thousands. But a minority defeated him just because he had performed other legal and obligatory procedures for his patients as long as it was not against his conscience, and obviously he was a forthright physician who knew that he had a responsibility first to the health and well-being of his patients. Dr. Foster's nomination became the first of the Republican primaries way in advance of New Hampshire or Iowa. The cloture votes were not about Dr. Foster's qualifications; they were about who could pander most to groups who want to outlaw a woman's right to choose in this country--nothing more, nothing less. Mr. President, about 70 percent of the American people believe a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body. Yet many in Congress listen only to a narrow segment of the population whose views are radically outside the mainstream. And they seem intent on imposing their views on everybody else. In that light, I would just like to remind my colleagues of what the Republican Party platform says about a woman's right to choose. It is pretty bold, and it was not a hidden statement: a ``constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.'' That is the mission. The Republican Party platform calls for a constitutional amendment to take away a woman's right to choose. A constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, that has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, Republicans in Congress are trying to do just what their party platform states. They are trying to take away a woman's right to choose. And they are trying to do it by chipping away at that right, bit by bit. Now, to be fair, Mr. President, I do want to say that not all members of the Republican Party share this view. We heard from the distinguished Senators from Maine and Pennsylvania. But that group is a small minority. They are prochoice. They speak out. But they are not part of the party's leadership, and they are not driving the Republican agenda. They are shut out. I want to let my colleagues know that I will join the fight against the Republican leadership and the antichoice legislative agenda at every turn. And I am delighted to be serving in the ranks of those who oppose taking away women's right to choose, led particularly by the distinguished Senator from Maryland and from California and others. Like the majority of Americans, I support the law and support Roe versus Wade and the constitutional right for American women to choose. Mr. President, the women of this country should be concerned about their reproductive rights because the Republican Party can put its antichoice views into action in this Congress. They are not going to stop with Federal employees. They have bigger targets. They plan to do everything in their power to restrict a woman's right to choose. We hear it all the time. They have a lot of antichoice legislation on the drawing board. For example, they plan to reinstate the gag rule and its overseas equivalent, the Mexico City policy. These proposals seek to intrude on the doctor-patient relationship. They also plan to restrict a woman's right to choose if that woman happens to serve overseas in the military. Mind you, someone who has agreed to join our military to protect this country has an immediate disadvantage, if she chooses to have an abortion, or if a member of her family has, or if she is a victim of rape and is on Medicaid, or if she is poor and she lives in the District of Columbia, they plan to take away reproductive health care coverage for these women. It is, indeed, an extremist agenda. Why are they doing this? Because doing this is a means to an end. They want to outlaw abortion, and they are trying to do it step by step. Mr. President, this is a buildup to ultimately passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the right to choose, plain and simple. The American women must also be afraid of what might happen in future Presidential elections. If another antichoice President is elected, women could face another barrage of Federal regulations designed to restrict a woman's right to choose. They could face another round of antichoice nominees to the Supreme Court. And this would be a replay of what happened back in the Reagan-Bush administrations when we got Clarence Thomas and the infamous gag rule. I hope it will not happen, Mr. President, but those of us who care about a woman's right to choose owe a need to keep the broader antichoice agenda in view. Whenever the right of some women to choose is threatened, whether they be Federal employees, rape victims, or residents of DC, every woman's rights are threatened, and that is why we need to fight back every step of the way. I was astounded this week when I heard over the radio a distinguished Congressman, well-known senior Congressman from the State of Illinois, state on the radio that abortion is a worse crime than rape. He alone is making decisions as to what the law ought to say, not respecting what is in the Constitution, not respecting what is in the statutes but deciding--he deciding--that abortion is a crime worse than rape. That is a foul thought. What is being said by so many of the proponents of individual rights, the ability to own guns, the ability to resist taxes, is that, yes, an individual's rights overcome all other things. Mr. President, we sometimes forget we are a nation of laws, not of men. That is the cardinal principle--laws that apply to everybody. And the law is firm that the woman, in the right of privacy, has a right to choose. But there are those same people who will insist that they know best what is best for a woman. I find it shocking that a legislator would suggest that abortion is a worse crime than rape. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support the committee and protect a woman's right to choose, fight hard to preserve that right because therein I think is the precursor of what happens to the rights of all of us across this country. The greatness of our society is the application of law and the obedience to law. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank you. I yield the floor. This is an indication of where we are going here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? It is common courtesy around here. If he chooses not----

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the 1994 Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act Public Law 103-421, signed into law October 25, 1994, applied not only to bases that would thereafter be designated for closure, but also to bases previously designated under the 1990 and 1988 Base Closure Acts, so long as the recognized redevelopment authority for the base elected within 60 days after enactment to proceed under the 1994 Act. The 1994 Act then set out a schedule for preparation, review, and approval of redevelopment plans and the ultimate disposal of property by the Government pursuant to such plans. This process will unavoidably extend beyond the end of the current fiscal year. Indeed, regulations to guide the implementing agencies and local redevelopment authorities under the 1994 Act will be published on Monday, August 7, 1995. In order to fulfill the intent and purpose of the 1994 Act, the Department of Defense must retain authority to dispose of bases closed in the 1988 and 1990 Acts, beyond the end of the current fiscal year. Unfortunately, the General Services Administration's original delegation of its authority to dispose of surplus property to the DOD was by its own terms set to expire October 1, 1995. Particularly in light of later amendments to the base closure laws which clarified that DOD's disposal authority was to extend beyond that date, GSA should renew--indeed, it is required--to extend its delegation of authority. This matter is of great interest to the local redevelopment authority in East Hanover Township, NJ, which is working within the 1994 Act to prepare a redevelopment plan for a small base closed under the 1988 Act. I understand that there are one or more bases around the country similarly situated. I had intended to offer an amendment to make it absolutely clear that DOD's disposal authority continues beyond the current fiscal year, and mandate the appropriate delegation of authority by GSA. However, I have received assurances from the GSA that it fully intends to extend its delegation of authority. I have also received a copy of a memorandum from DOD's general counsel's office expressing its view that DOD retains its disposal authority. In reliance on these statements, I will withhold my amendment. However, I would like to seek the commitment from the chairman and ranking member that they will seek an appropriate legislative solution in conference, should it appear before conference is completed that, for some reason, the delegation will not be renewed by the agencies.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my distinguished colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a letter to me from the General Services Administration be placed in the Record, along with a memorandum from the general counsel's office of DOD.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this legislation includes a provision that Senator Simon and I requested that would block funding for a program that allows convicted felons to regain their ability to possess firearms. As a general matter, Mr. President, Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from possessing firearms. However, under what I call a guns for felons loophole, convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to get a waiver. After receiving an application, ATF performs a broad-based field investigation and background check. If the Bureau believes that the applicant does not pose a threat to public safety, it can grant an exemption from the Federal ban. Mr. President, Senator Simon and I have been able to block funding for this program for the past few years. However, between 1981 and 1991, ATF granted 5,600 waivers. Many of these required a substantial amount of scarce time and resources. ATF investigations often lasted weeks, and included interviews with family, friends, and the police. In the late 1980's, the cost of processing and investigating these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted. What happened when convicted felons got their firearms rights back? Well, some apparently went back to their violent ways. Those granted relief subsequently were rearrested for crimes ranging from attempted murder to rape, kidnaping, and child molestation. Mr. President, the ATF guns for felons loophole is an outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars. It also is a poor use of scarce ATF resources. ATF agents have better things to do than conduct background investigations so that felons can get a gun. Mr. President, we ought to eliminate this ridiculous program permanently. Senator Simon and I have introduced legislation to do so. Meanwhile, though, we at least should block funding for the program in appropriations bills. I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee agreed with us this year. Mr. President, there is broad support for closing the guns for felons loophole. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers all have testified in favor of terminating the ATF program. In conclusion, Mr. President, firearm violence has reached epidemic proportions. We have a responsibility to the victims and prospective victims to take all reasonable steps to keep this violence to a minimum. Keeping firearms away from convicted felons is the least these innocent Americans should be able to expect. federal property management

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, over a period of years, one comes to know a great many people, some of whom make an impression, some of whom fade from memory. It was some years ago that I met Ted Bonda. He made an impression. And over a period of years, we have remained in touch. Ted has had an unusual career. World War II interrupted his education and he never graduated from college, until recently when Cleveland State University awarded him an honorary degree. My hat's off to them. Although Ted was not a college graduate, he was a member of the Cleveland Board of Education for 5 years and president for 3 of those 5, an extremely challenging position. He also served as a member of the Ohio State Board of Regents for 9 years, 4 of which he served as its chairman, as well as 4 years as chairman of the Board of Fellows at Brandeis University, and a member of its board for more than 20 years. But his community involvement was far greater than his educational involvement. Ted was a great lover of baseball who saved the Cleveland Indians from leaving the Cleveland community. He personally took over the leadership and the financial commitment to save the Indians who, as of today, are leading the American League Central Division by 18\1/2\ games. His baseball exploits were recently described in the Cleveland Plain Dealer in an article by Russell Schneider called, ``The Man Who Saved the Tribe.'' His generosity, compassion and old-fashioned goodness have been beautifully described in the same paper by Herb Kamm, former editor of the Cleveland Press. And the warm feeling of the Ohio Board of Regents for him is aptly described in a Plain Dealer article by Lou Mio in which the Board of Regents ``called upon its accomplished and learned former chairman to deliver on his longstanding promise'' to provide tickets the next time the Cleveland Indians play in the World Series. Bonda told them that at a time when a World Series for the Indians looked possible. Ted Bonda has indeed made an impact. He is the kind of human being that every city in this country would be proud to have as a part of its leadership. Mr. President, I ask that each of the articles be printed in the Record. The articles follow: Time to Collect--Regents Tell Ted Bonda To Cough Up Promised Tribe World Series Tickets (By Lou Mio) Alva ``Ted'' Bonda had a running joke during his nine years on the Ohio Board of Regents. It went like this: ``The next time the Cleveland Indians play in the World Series, you are all invited.'' Ha, ha. Fat chance. ``He probably invited several thousand people during his nine years here,'' said William Napier, the board's vice chancellor. ``Some people thought he was serious. Some did not.'' Bonda, a former president of the Cleveland school board, had more than a hometown fan's interest in the Tribe. He owned the club in 1977 and 1978. But no matter. The Indians hadn't been close to the World Series since 1954. Seen the American League standings lately? The regents have. That's why they unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday concerning Bonda. He had served four years as regents chairman, leaving the board in 1993. First, they congratulated Bonda for his honorary degree from Cleveland State University and for his ``irrepressible faith in his beloved city, its people and its baseball team.'' Then they got to the serious stuff. ``The Ohio Board of Regents hereby calls upon its accomplished and learned former chairman to deliver on his longstanding promise; and . . . expresses its deep appreciation to Professor Bonda for the tickets--and for the instructive lesson . . . that good things do indeed come to those who wait.'' Napier said he has Indians home and away baseball caps. ``I'm ready as soon as I hear from him.'' Bonda enjoyed a hearty laugh when he learned of the resolution. ``I told them every year for nine years because it was safe,'' Bonda said. ``But this year I told them I can't do it. This year they really are going to win.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. President, just very briefly, because we are out of time, but the time that remains is the time during which we ought to think very carefully about what we are doing. When most people talk about budget cuts, they talk about the cuts contained in programs, frankly, that are going to hurt middle- and lower-income Americans, cuts in taxes which will benefit the richest among us. But while most areas of spending have been cut, one has been increased, and that is, of course, the defense bill, the defense bill designed to be $7 billion over that which was originally requested, $25 billion more over the period of time, $25 billion that could go to fix Medicare or fund education or protect the environment or build needed housing--$25 billion, a lot of money. But apparently it was not enough. The House version of the budget resolution boosted defense spending by another $7 billion in fiscal 1996, and this was such an overreaching case that even the Republicans in the Senate repudiated it when we considered our budget resolution. The Senate rejected an amendment that raised defense spending to the House level, and yet during the conference the House number survived-- no compromise by splitting the difference, just a total victory for the House position. The amendment by Senators Kohl and Grassley would take us back to a sensible level. Mr. President, I hope that we will do that and reduce this bill by $7 billion. The one thing that we do know is that if we are going to build strength, strength that survives, strength that endures, you have to build it internally. No matter how much you build externally, you will never be a safe, strong country unless you invest in the society domestically. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That Senator Boxer's resolution goes through and that we have public hearings on this matter.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California for her willingness to give me just a couple minutes. I first wish to commend her for bringing the issue to the point that we have, where it is being discussed openly. And that ought to be the focus, because the public as well as the Senate has been working very hard on opening the process. In the last 2 weeks we have had a couple of very serious votes on whether or not lobbyists have to be open in their dealings. We have openness questions on whether or not gifts are acceptable. We have tried to illuminate the process for the public. We all know that the public trust is no longer with us and they will not be with us if this process continues to be hidden, secretive. Even though our friends on the other side of the aisle say that we ought not to interfere with the committee process, this is far above the committee process. This is a matter of human rights, of individual rights of a woman to work and to not be harassed during her job hours. This is a question of whether or not someone has violated the basic rules of the Senate, and we should have an open hearing. I know that Senator Packwood loves this institution. He has worked very hard on many good issues and has delivered positively on those issues. But we are not judging Senator Packwood's past record. What we are making a judgment about is whether or not the public is entitled to know what is taking place. And in my view there is no doubt about it. The Senator from Connecticut, when he spoke, suggested that even for Senators it would be worthwhile to be able to gain the knowledge that would come as a result of a public hearing. Mr. President, I think we are at a crossroads, and whether or not the hearings are secret or public will determine what the public thinks about Senator Packwood's guilt. They will condemn him absolutely if the process continues to be hidden. And I hope that our Members will take heed for the good of the body to insist----

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senator Simon and I are introducing legislation, the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act, to reduce interstate gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of handguns. The bill generally would prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun during any 30-day period. Mr. President, the United States is suffering from an epidemic of gun violence. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because of guns, and no communities are safe. Reducing the violence must be a top national priority, Mr. President, my State of New Jersey has adopted strict controls on guns. We have banned assault weapons, and we have established strict permitting requirements for handgun purchases. Yet the effectiveness of these restrictions is substantially reduced because the controls in other States are far less strict. Unfortunately, many criminals are making bulk purchases of handguns in States with weak firearm laws and transporting them to other States with tougher laws, like New Jersey. This has helped spread the plague of gun violence nationwide, and there is little that any one State can do about it. A few years ago, the State of Virginia enacted legislation that was designed to prevent gunrunners from buying large quantities of handguns in Virginia for export to other States. Under the legislation, handgun purchases were limited to one per month. The Virginia statute has proved very effective in controlling gun trafficking from Virginia. A study by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence found that for guns purchased after the law's effective date, there was a 65-percent reduction in the likelihood that a gun traced back to the Southeast from the Northeast corridor would have originated in Virginia. Mr. President, Virginia's experience suggests that a ban on bulk purchases can substantially reduce gunrunning. However, to truly be effective, such a limit must be enacted nationwide. Otherwise, gunrunners simply will move their operations to other States. The legislation I am introducing today proposes such a nationwide limit. Under the legislation, an individual other than a licensed firearms dealer generally would be prohibited from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Similarly, the bill would make it unlawful for any dealer, importer, or manufacturer to transfer a handgun to any individual who has received a handgun within the last 30 days. Violators would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison sentence of up to 1 year. The legislation would provide an exception in the rare case where a second handgun purchase is necessary because of a threat to the life of the individual or of any member of the individual's household. Mr. President, I do not claim that this bill will end all handgun violence. However, it is a reasonable and modest step in the right direction. I also would note that President Clinton has endorsed the adoption of a once-a-month handgun purchase limit. I hope my colleagues will support the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record along with other related materials.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose consolidating the U.S. Information Agency. We need to ask two questions about this proposal to abolish USIA and merge its functions and personnel into an expanded State Department. First, will it result in a less costly set of information, cultural and exchange, and broadcasting programs in support of American foreign policy objectives? Second, will it enhance the effectiveness of these programs as we continue to readjust and redirect our foreign policy interests? Mr. President, the answer to both questions is ``no.'' Let us look initially at the purported cost-savings of merging USIA into the State Department. There is a seductive logic to the argument that merging USIA into the State Department would result in substantial administrative cost- savings. But the facts reveal otherwise. Managerially, USIA's overseas operations currently are well- integrated with State's. USIA--like all departments and agencies operating from our Embassies and consulates--already reimburses the State Department for administrative support services, such as housing, computers, motor pools, and the like. Consolidation will not save any money overseas. Would there be savings in U.S. operations by merging USIA into the State Department? I do not believe so. Aside from its foreign press centers, the Agency by law has no domestic charter, no domestic presence. And we would not be able to eliminate the need for some sort of separate office space to house USIA's personnel and functions, since the State Department has none to spare. In fact, USIA on its own and in response to the President's and Vice president's reinventing Government initiatives has already achieved major and substantial cost-savings. In this regard, I believe that it is important to remember that the Agency constitutes only 6 percent of the total function 150 budget but accounts for 58 percent of the total savings wrung from the 150 account in the past 2 years. USIA has accomplished these savings by consolidating and restructuring its own activities. USIA now has RIF authority and is in fact closing overseas posts and bringing officers home, as well as cutting overseas and domestic positions and staff. By bringing together all of the U.S. Government's international broadcasting activities, USIA will save more than $400 million by fiscal year 1997 and eliminate 1,250 staff positions. By creating a new Information Bureau, USIA has reduced its policy and program staff by 30 percent for an annual savings of $10 million. And by streamlining and downsizing its educational, cultural, and management functions, USIA has wrought savings of almost $15 million and eliminated 186 positions this year alone. The fact is, Mr. President, significant, real cuts are being made by USIA right now without consolidation. We cannot extract more savings by merging USIA into the State Department without sacrificing the very programs that support our foreign policy worldwide in the new information age. Will consolidation enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. Government's information, broadcasting, and cultural and exchange programs? I do not think so for at least two reasons. First, the budget cuts raised by this bill for USIA--$118.6 million in fiscal year 1996 and an additional $81 million in fiscal year 1997-- are general reductions. In fact, they have nothing to do with consolidation and cannot be achieved by merging USIA into the State Department. To meet these spending levels, the Agency will have to make deep cuts in its overseas presence and its core programs. Second, USIA was carved out of the State Department in 1953 to fulfill a function--that of public diplomacy--that the State Department is inherently unable to perform. USIA was expanded in 1978--when State's Bureau of Cultural Affairs was abolished and its functions given to the Agency--when the State Department could not give high priority to programs that promote unofficial contacts between U.S. public opinion leaders and their foreign counterparts overseas. In other words, Mr. President, merging USIA back into the State Department flies in the face our historical experience. It is being proposed at precisely the time when the benefits of our cold war labors--democracy-building world wide--are just beginning to be realized in such far-flung places as Haiti, Angola, and Cambodia and require active, effective public diplomacy from USIA. Finally, I note that--at a time when businesses across America are creating more flexible, less centralized organizational structures, and we are seeking to emulate this move in the Federal Government--it is hard to understand why any of my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would advocate creating a mega-bureaucracy in the State Department. I urge my colleagues to oppose consolidating USIA.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose abolishing the Agency for International Development and merging its programs and personnel into the State Department. This proposal will do more than simply move some boxes around on an organizational chart; it will make fundamental changes in the ability of AID to perform its mission. As a result, it threatens our ability to protect and advance important American interests. Let me begin by identifying three primary elements of AID's mission. First, there is a clear and compelling humanitarian interest. AID's programs tells others, and reminds us, that the United States is a caring and compassionate Nation. That compassion and caring reflect both our character as a country and our recognition that we have the resources and the responsibility to do what we can to help those in need. Compassion has a place in foreign policy and our main instrument in this regard--in feeding children, providing housing and medical care, building roads and sewers, and so much more--is AID. Second, AID is the instrument through which we get on with the task of building functional democracies around the world. What we sought to preserve throughout the cold war, we can now expand. Country after country, on continent after continent, want to establish representative governments, democratically elected and based on the rule of law and a respect for human rights and liberties. The development assistance and expertise developed by AID is the way to get them the resources they need to achieve a result we all want. While there is an element of altruism in such programs, there is also a cold calculation that it serves our national interest. Wherever we are successful in ensuring that democratic principles take root, we are less likely to face the prospect of intervention in a political crisis, with it the high costs of peacekeeping and emergency relief operations. Third, AID's overseas assistance efforts provide for both immediate and long-term economic benefits to the United States. In the short run, nearly 80 percent of AID's grants and contracts go directly to American firms and private organizations. This creates American jobs, encourages American exports, and expands domestic prosperity. Over the longer run, our current and prospective foreign assistance efforts help to create future overseas markets for American goods and services in developing countries. A built-in, long-term preference for American exports bodes well for continued employment and prosperity here as well. So, Mr. President, the functions that AID preforms are important. And the question now is whether we can continue that work in a new organizational structure. I do not think we can or need to for three reasons. First, AID is already reorganizing. The Agency is reinventing itself in order to become both more efficient and effective. Under the leadership of its Administrator, Brian Atwood, AID has already cut its costs. Overseas, AID will have closed 21 missions between 1994 and 1996. In its domestic operations, AID has eliminated 90 offices in Washington. Overall, AID has cut 70 senior positions and reduced total staff by over 1,200. Moreover, AID is adopting a new development strategy. Recognizing that its limited resources make it impossible to be all things to all people, it is targeting fewer countries for more intensive assistance. While some may criticize this almost triage-like approach, it certainly reflects a willingness to adopt a leaner focus to the problems it confronts. Second, the suggestion that the savings will come out of ``administrative reforms'' is simply not credible. As I have indicated, AID has already scaled back. I do not believe there will be significant additional administrative savings from this consolidation. The reality is that AID's overseas operations, like all U.S. Government agencies and departments operations in our embassies and consulates, already are fully integrated into State Department administrative services on a reimbursable basis. So, the proposed consolidation would not save any money abroad. And domestically, there is no room in the State Department to house AID's employees and functions, so we will not save on building costs here in Washington, either. The net result, I fear, is a further reduction in our developmental programs. Some may say ``well its about time.'' But that kind of response is usually based on a profound misunderstanding of just how much we spend on foreign aid. While many believe that such programs account for 8 to 10 percent of all Federal spending, in reality they now constitute only \1/2\ of 1 percent of all spending by the U.S. Government. This level of spending already places us in the lowest ranks of the developed world in terms of per capita spending on foreign aid and assistance programs. Indeed, from 1956 to 1993, our share of official development assistance worldwide has dropped from 63 to 17 percent. Our current effort, then, is inadequate. This bill makes it even worse. And, as a result, it threatens our ability to protect the national interests I identified at the beginning of these remarks. Finally, Mr. President, I have to note the major irony involved in this proposal. This proposal to augment and centralize the State Department is made by precisely the same people who profess to believe that ``big government'' should be decentralized and made more flexible. Let me conclude, Mr. President, with this simple observation. Destroying AID is not the way to accomplish our foreign policy objectives. It would not be efficient or effective, and we should not do it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1875

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the Senate passes the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization bill, my colleague Senator Bradley and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Senator Bradley and I would like to thank the chairperson and ranking member. Since we have received assurances that [[Page S 10760]] they will strive to decrease the amount of funding reductions which New Jersey will receive as a result of the formula revisions, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of S. 641.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I recognize that States such as Minnesota and Nevada have more residents with AIDS now than they did when this bill was originally passed. But at the same time that the AIDS epidemic has been spreading across the country, it has continued to worsen in New Jersey. Between 1993 and 1994, the total number of AIDS cases reported in New Jersey increased by 53 percent. New Jersey currently has the fifth-highest number of AIDS cases in the United States, and the third-highest number of pediatric AIDS cases. Cutting New Jersey's funding so deeply at a time when the epidemic is growing so rapidly in the State is not fair to the thousand of New Jersey residents who are HIV-positive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for being so gracious because I do, I think, take a slightly different view. But I thank him for giving me the time. First, Mr. President, I want to say I am pleased to be joining Senators McCain and Levin on this substitute amendment. I think it reflects a sincere desire to get the job done that we have the kind of bipartisan support that we are seeing. Because at a point in time not too long ago, Senator Wellstone and Senator Feingold, Senator Levin and I were working on gift legislation. I will discuss that in just a minute. So, Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining in this bipartisan compromise amendment that will substantially restrict the acceptance of gifts, meals, and travel by Members of Congress from lobbyists and others. Mr. President, on May 4, 1993, I introduced the original gift ban legislation, S. 885. At the time, frankly, it was considered a pretty radical idea. It is hard to remember how much things have changed in the last 2 years. But until that bill was introduced, nobody around here was even thinking about banning gifts from lobbyists. At the time, there was a tremendous fight about a proposal by Senator Wellstone to merely disclose such gifts. And when I first raised the possibility of simply banning gifts altogether, a prominent public interest group dismissed the idea: Completely unrealistic, they said--it would never happen. Mr. President, I am hopeful that we are about to prove that common wisdom wrong. And I think this substitute amendment may well be the vehicle to get it done. The amendment before us is remarkably similar to the very first gift ban bill I introduced in May 1993. Like that bill, this amendment essentially adopts the rules that already apply to the executive branch. Under those rules, no official may accept a gift worth more than $20. Nor may any official accept a total of more than $50 in gifts from any one source in any year. This amendment adopts these same limits for Members of Congress and their staffs. It also would ban all vacation trips, such as the charity golf, tennis, and ski trips that have been subject to so much adverse publicity. In many ways, this amendment is stronger than the gift ban in the underlying bill, S. 1061, which I also have cosponsored. For example, the underlying bill would allow the Rules Committee to set very high limits for meals and entertainment in a Member's home State. By contrast, the amendment subjects all meals and entertainment to the same $20 and $50 limits, regardless of where they are provided. That is an important improvement. The substitute amendment also strengthens the underlying bill by prohibiting lobbyists from providing personal hospitality to Members. That should help prevent abuses. Mr. President, I do not agree with every dot and comma of the substitute. For example, if it were up to me, I would simply ban all meals from lobbists, no matter how small. But I realize that to get a rule adopted, we have to attract broad support, and that is not easy. So, yes, we have had to make some compromises. But the bottom line is that this substitute puts us within striking distance of one of the most important political reforms in many years. I am very proud to have played an active role in this effort. And I want to thank the handful of Senators who have worked so hard on this, often at great personal cost. These include the three other Democrats who have been leaders on this for some time, Senators Levin, Wellstone, and Feingold. Each of them has made a major contribution, and I appreciate it. I also want to extend a special word of thanks to Senator McCain, who has played a critical role in recent days by pulling together proreform Members from both parties. I know that Senator McCain, like many of us, has taken some heat for his leadership, and I just want to thank him publicly for his commitment. As a result of the work of these and other Senators, Mr. President, we are [[Page S 10803]] on the brink of a major reform that will really change the way we do business here in Washington. The vacation trips to the Caribbean are soon going to be a relic of the past. The lavish dinners at fancy restaurants are going by the wayside. Is it going to be as much fun to be a Senator, Mr. President? Perhaps not. But maybe this body will get just a little more respect in the process. And that is a tradeoff I will take any day. Mr. President, it appears that we are going to face some amendments that would weaken the proposal substantially. For example, we confront an amendment that would again allow the lobbyist-paid vacation trips that have caused so much controversy. I hope my colleagues will resist these efforts. But if we can hold this together, we will have produced a change of which we can all truly be proud. This is serious reform. It really will change the culture around here. In fact, I predict that if we succeed, it will not be long before people around here will look back at the current rules in amazement. New staffers hired a few years from now probably will be amazed that Members ever were allowed to accept special favors from lobbyists. It will seem archaic, perhaps even absurd. That will be a different Washington, Mr. President. A very different Washington. It also will be a better Washington. So I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment, and to place strict limits on gifts, meals, and travel from lobbyists and others. Let us change the way we do business in Washington. And let us do it now. Mr. President, when I introduced the gift bill a couple of years ago, I know that there was deduced a suggestion that perhaps I was talking about corruption in the body or something of that nature, or some impropriety. Mr. President, I want to correct that record because that was never the suggestion. I want to clear the record because it was an irritant over some period of time. Everybody knows I took a ski trip and enjoyed it, and some wondered why I had a change of mind. I will not get into that now. But it seems to me that the focus ought to be on charity and not on the recreation. So, Mr. President, I want to make sure that everybody clearly understands. I have never, never thought that anyone in this body was corrupt or that was acting improperly in terms of the law or even the rule. So I want to clear that up. My concern was and is, Mr. President, access. And when a meal is purchased by a lobbyist, it is not just the meal. It is access. And when one rides in the golf carts at a golf game sponsored by a lobbyist, it is not just a golf game. It is access. Or when one goes in a chair lift and rides 20 minutes up a mountain, it is not just a ride up to the mountaintop. It is access. Mr. President, we have had so many problems of late that we have lost public trust, and that makes it very difficult because it is almost impossible to govern. But also the association of special interests dominating this place is not a good image that we want to have. It is not one that I enjoy, I must tell, because implicit in public criticism is an accusation. So I support this reform measure so that we at least suggest to the public that no voice is more important than their voice, and no view is more important than their view. And if they even do not have the ability to knock on the door and say, ``I am here from Roanoke'' or ``I am here from Trenton, NJ,'' or what have you, that we have to let them know that we respect so much the value of their view, their judgment and continue to work to recover the trust and the faith of the American public. Mr. President, I think this is a good start. And for any of my colleagues who may have misinterpreted that which I intended when I wrote the first gift ban amendment 2 years ago, please let the record clearly reflect that I have nothing but respect--differs, albeit; that is the way we function around here--but respect for all of my colleagues, and never a suggestion that one is corrupt or improper.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank our colleague from Virginia for his graciousness in permitting me these 5 minutes. I know everybody is pulling at him, and I do not want to use any more time except to thank him for that. Mr. President, if any of us were fence sitting or had doubts about what it was that we were witnessing, I think each day that has gone by in recent weeks has further confirmed that we no longer can stand idly by, that we must take action as befits our status as an international leader in terms of morality and humanity, a country that supports human rights almost above all else. Our very Constitution is based on law. And when we stand by idly, which we are being forced to do by the cowardice of our allies, then I think we become coconspirators, whether we like it or not. Mr. President, as recently as this morning, we saw something that kind of confirms what the distinguished Senator from New York just said. In a report from Brussels, the New York Times writes that: The allies agreed to make what one NATO official called a ``strong recommendation'' to Mr. Boutros-Ghali to leave it to his military field commanders on the ground in Gorazde and elsewhere to decide when the time has come to start bombing the Serbs if they attack. But since Mr. Boutros-Ghali has been extremely cautious about approval of airstrikes in the past, what was meant to sound like a roar in London 4 days ago appeared to have been throttled down to something more like a growl by the NATO Ambassadors. That is the situation. But the killing does not stop. The attacks do not stop. The barbarism does not stop. And if one had at all any sense of rights, when you read the stories about what happened in Zepa and what happened before that in Srebrenica, where a woman was forced to drink the blood of her 16-year-old son after his throat was cut, barbarism of the most primitive and cruel fashion, we cannot stand by and permit that to happen. Mr. President, last year, we gave a deadline of November 15 for our allies to get themselves together so that we could move multilaterally. What happened? Since then hundreds, thousands more have been killed, thousands abused, and more territory taken by the rogue government of the Bosnian Serbs--total disdain for world organization, for rules, for humanitarian conduct among people. It is shocking to see, and we ought not to permit it to go on any longer. Now, I know, Mr. President, that we are embarking on a shaky course, but not to do anything is a far shakier course. And certainly coconspiring with the Bosnian Serbs to say that we will talk ourselves into the ground while you kill the Bosnian people, separating men from women, families, brothers from sisters, is terrible. It is terrible. And there is not a person here who could witness a crime like that taking place and not intervene at one's own peril--no one. No decent human being could walk by and permit that to happen. Mr. President, yesterday I had a conversation with the Prime Minister of Bosnia, and I asked him the perennial question that seems to exist now, and that is: Are you not afraid that larger forces will come in and bring even more devastation? And he said, ``Ask the 5,000 missing in Srebrenica whether or not they were afraid of more power coming against them.'' Mr. President, he is not asking for much. He is asking for us to give them a chance to fight back, to untie the hands from behind their backs and give them the weapons necessary to defend themselves, as the Senator from New York so articulately stated just a couple of minutes ago. It pains me to make this kind of a decision because we are going down a path we are not sure about. There is one thing I am sure about. I for one cannot permit the killing to take place, the barbarism to continue, without speaking out against it in a way that has significance. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I interrupt the quorum call simply to make certain that we are ordering the yeas and nays. I ask the distinguished manager of the bill on the Republican side whether he will join me in calling for the yeas and nays. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the case was made, I hope clearly and sufficiently. I therefore will yield all time and just have the vote occur as planned at 12 o'clock.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining in the sponsorship of the legislation that is being considered, one that would prohibit the lobbyists from providing gifts and meals and travel for Members of Congress. Mr. President, it is quite apparent that the American people--and who knows it better than Members of this body as we have seen the onslaught of change take over--are unhappy with the political system and want change. The American people want Congress to respond first and foremost to the needs of ordinary Americans, not just the special interests, not just the wealthy, and not just to the lobbyists. When I first introduced the proposal for a gift ban in the last Congress, many here on Capitol Hill did not understand or appreciate the depth of the public's distaste for the status quo. Today, I hope we all do. It is way past time, frankly, to finally translate that rage into a positive action. Mr. President, this is a deeply emotional issue. It is an emotional issue for millions of ordinary citizens who feel that their Government has been taken away from them, who feel that they do not have the same voice as the powerhouses in Washington and State capitals around the country. But it is also an emotional issue here in the U.S. Senate. Just as our constituents are angry about being shut out of the process, many Senators are angry because they think somehow or other this bill implies that Members are corrupt. That is not the point at all. I do not think of any of my colleagues, no matter how much I may disagree with them, as being corrupt. I may be angry at their point of view. I may think that they are hardhearted. I may think that they are disengaged through the process. But corrupt? Not at all. So that is not the issue. And I think we ought to make that clear. We have all kinds of references, adjectives that describe how things are and what constitutes various conditions of honesty or hypocrisy. Mr. President, I do not think that Members of Congress, of the Senate, are selling their votes for a cup of coffee or a trip to the Caribbean or to some glamorous event. To the contrary. The Members of this body are dedicated public servants who make enormous sacrifices to serve the public. That is true across the board. Some of my colleagues may be asking themselves. ``Well, if that is true, then what do we need this piece of legislation for? Why the bill?'' There are a couple of answers to that. The first answer is that the bill can begin the process of restoring public trust in the Congress. That does not solve the problem by itself. But it is a good place to start. This bill can make it happen. That is important because, until we restore public trust, Congress will never be able to have public confidence that we are, in fact, addressing the serious problems facing our Nation. But, Mr. President, the need for a gift ban goes well beyond the need to change public perception. There is also a substantive issue involved. The issue is not corruption. It is access. And perhaps more fundamentally it is an issue of fairness to ordinary Americans. When lobbyists take a Senator to dinner, they are not just buying a meal for a nice person. The meal involves time, and time means access. When a lobbyist buys a Senator a meal, they do not usually sit at separate tables. He does not say typically, ``Well, why don't you and your friends go out to dinner and I'll pay for it,'' because the dinner includes a tete-a-tete, face to face, a discussion. Nothing surreptitious, nothing immoral, nothing illegal, but access. It is a chance to get a Senator's ear, a Senator's eyes, a Senator's attention for an hour or two or three, and if the wine flows generously then it may even last longer. Mr. President, ordinary citizens do not have that access. They cannot just take their Senator to a quiet dinner at a fancy restaurant and explain what it is like to be unemployed, explain what it is like to be worried about a child's education, explain what it is like to worry about the loss of health care insurance, explain what it is like to be up against the wall and not know which way to turn. Those calls do not even get through, much less to have the ability to sit with the Senator. And there are millions of people who would like to do it, even if it was just to tell us off, millions of people who would love to sit there and say, ``Senator, do you know what it is like to lose your job, to come home to your family that [[Page S 10594]] is dependent upon you for their food, shelter, clothing, and leadership, and to say I have been fired, my job is out?'' Let them have a chance to explain it to a Senator. I would ask anybody here how many times have they have sat down with an ordinary, hard-working citizen for an hour or a half-hour or for 2 or 3 hours and let that person explain to them the real conditions of life, not what it is like to make sure that company A, company B, or company C has an appropriate tax deduction for their particular interest or that they can expand their power to communicate because they think it is good for the public. They certainly cannot take Members to a beach resort in the Caribbean to discuss a problem that they individually are having with the Tax Code or how far behind they have fallen on their mortgage payments. Lobbyists have lots of time under the present structure to do just those things. And it certainly gives them an edge over John Q. Public, whether a lobbyist goes on a trip with an individual and you sit on the deck of a boat fishing for 3 days, or you go to a tennis tournament where the pro fakes his inability to beat the Senator just to win a couple of points, or you are out on a golf trip where you get a golf bag as part of the trip, or you go to a ski tournament--and I have seen them first hand--where it is a uniform, a jacket that could be expensive, maybe a pair of skis, free lessons from one of the top pros in the ski business, sitting in a chair lift going up the side of the mountain that can be a 20 or 25 minute ride in some places, and the lobbyist is sitting alongside of you, and it is Joe and Harry and they talk 20 minutes at a clip riding up and down the mountain. What do you think the lobbyist talks about, horticulture or the latest way to make a healthy salad? He has a mission, a mission for which he or she is paid, and the mission is to try to develop an attitude within that Senator that has to be favorable to my company, my course of action, my industry, my association. The average citizen does not have a chance to do that. And when they see Members of Congress at the fanciest restaurants getting wined, getting dined, they resent it. They think the deck is stacked against them. They think it is wrong. And I agree. They do not respect a system that operates that way. Mr. President, I said it before. I do not stand before my colleagues to criticize anyone or to question anyone's motives. I am not claiming to be the holy one around here; I am not. But I do think we all need to change the way we do business. The public certainly thinks so, and it is about time we get it done. The bill before us is a strong piece of legislation, with tough new rules on gifts. It would ban all gifts--all gifts--from lobbyists. It would prohibit lobbyists from taking Members on recreational trips. Unfortunately, the purpose of this legislation is being either misunderstood or misrepresented because I, like the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who spoke just a few minutes ago, believe that wherever possible we ought to support voluntary groups that have a humanitarian or social mission. But if the organizations sponsoring the trip spend more on feeding and hosting Senators and their travel to get to an event than the ultimate beneficiary gets, there is something in that arithmetic that does not sound particularly honest. And as a consequence what we have said is any trip that is substantially recreational is prohibited. There is no prohibition to participating in charitable events as long as the focus is on the charity. So, Mr. President, we are at a point in time when we have to step up to the plate. Under the Republican proposal, Members of Congress would be able to accept an unlimited number of gifts so long as each gift is worth less than $100. That means it can be lunch; it can be theater tickets; it can be dinner the next day; it can be a tennis racket, if they still cost less than $100; it can be anything as often as a lobbyist likes as long as it costs less than $100. The $99.95 special is OK, and it can continue forever. Well, it does not take long for a few of those to convince someone that this lobbyist is more than a good friend who just wants to be a nice guy. Lobbyists under the proposal that our Republican friends are putting up could give Senators tickets to the opera one day, tickets to the Super Bowl the next day, tickets to a fancy restaurant the next day, as long as they are buying tickets that cost less than $100, and so on and so on. Mr. President, that is not reform. It is a sad joke, and it is just not going to wash with the American people. Before I conclude, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Levin and Senator Wellstone and Senator Feingold, all of whom have played critical roles in the development of this legislation. We have been close allies in what has been a long and difficult battle. I appreciate their effort, their skill, and their cooperation. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to reject the Republican alternative. Let us finally ban gifts from lobbyists. Let us try to win the confidence of the American people up front, and let us do it the right way. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.