Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with this resolution, we begin a new phase in the debate over the Federal budget. I am sorry that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is not on the floor, because I want the Record to reflect not only my admiration but my respect for that leadership that he has provided in the Budget Committee and, in fact, though we may disagree with several parts of the budget resolution that was produced, it was the intention of the Budget Committee chairman to do as efficient a job as he could, and I commend him for it. The debate about whether we should move toward a balanced budget is over. There is a consensus that we should do just that. It crosses the aisle that divides us. We Democrats are committed to a deficit-reduced balanced budget in the interest of the financial stability of our country. And we have no less credentials to do that than our friends on the other side of the aisle. I hope that, during my comments, we will be able to make a clear distinction about how we get to that point. There are differences about whether we balance the operating budget or whether we include Social Security in the budget calculation, which, astoundingly, on the Republican side it has been part of a structure to include the balances from Social Security, the surplus--and I talk to senior citizens across this country--to use their trust funds, sacrosanct, committed, reserved for the time they need it. No, we are going to do some funny accounting to get to the point that we want to. I come from the corporate side of the business world, as do many of my colleagues. I know one thing: If I were to project sales and earnings for my company over the next 5 to 7 years and I said, ``We are going to make lots of money and here is how much we are going to make, we are doing this in revenues and here is how much we are going to do,'' and I failed to tell the public that I am going to include the employees' pension fund that my company does not own--it is the employees'--in the figures--and I said this in the Budget Committee-- you would be led out with a raincoat over your head and hands tied behind your back, escorted by U.S. marshals. So, first of all, we get to a balanced budget using some smoke, some mirrors, and some significant gimmicks. We try to remove the Social Security balance and say, let us fight for a balanced budget without that. Oh, no, [[Page S6871]] that could not happen. So there are some differences. Americans, however, want to reduce wasteful spending in both parties, Democrat and Republican, have got the message. So, as we work on this resolution, the budget issue has changed. Now the issue is not whether we reduce spending and move toward a balanced budget. The issue is: How do we do it? Whose benefits will be cut? Who will win? Who will lose? Because this is somewhat of a seesaw. As long as we stay within the parameters of balance, when one side goes down, the other side goes up. And, most fundamentally--and I put this board up--the question is: Whose side are we on? Whose side is the Government on? This is the issue that, unfortunately, continues to divide our two parties. We Democrats believe that Government must stand on the side of ordinary, middle-class families, on the side of senior citizens who worked to build this country, who presented us with perhaps the best half century or four decades that this country has ever seen, not by just their participation in World War II, Korea, the other wars that have come by, but at the same time building this country's fundamental structure. The other part is children. Two sides: One is to take care of the future, invest with and in our children, but at the same time not forgetting our obligations to the senior citizens; and on the side of those who really must struggle to survive. But the new majority has a very different philosophy, and a different constituency. The Contract With America, as it is commonly called, is a contract with the most powerful, wealthy members of our society. It would provide huge benefits to millionaires and special interests, and it would force the ordinary American to foot the bill. Perhaps nothing illustrates the differences between our two parties more than the Republican proposal for massive Medicare reductions to pay for tax cuts for the rich. I think it is outrageous. And I intend to fight it as hard as I can, just as I did during the Budget Committee's deliberations. Mr. President, the average Medicare beneficiary has a rather modest income and, conversely, at that stage in life, typically, they have very high medical expenses. Seventy-five percent of those folks have incomes under $25,000--75 percent, incomes under $25,000. Not much to live on, especially if you live in higher cost areas. Thirty-five percent have incomes under $10,000. These folks cannot afford massive cost increases. And they should not be forced to give up their own doctor or to sacrifice the quality of their care. Over the past 2 weeks, Republican leaders have tried desperately to justify huge Medicare cuts by pointing to projected shortfalls in the HI trust fund. But the argument is bogus. If we need to shore up the trust fund, that does not mean that we need to take a whack at Medicare recipients. There are other places in the budget to find savings. It is only a question of priorities. These are my priorities. Before we burden more of our struggling seniors, we ought to go after special interest tax breaks, we ought to eliminate funding for the space station, we ought to terminate unnecessary weapons systems, we ought to abolish special subsidies for the timber industry, the oil industry and the gas industry and the ranching interests, and we ought to eliminate an array of other wasteful or low-priority spending. Of course, Mr. President, there can be debate about the specifics, but there should be no disagreement about this priority, this principle. I enunciate, we should not be cutting Medicare just to fund tax cuts for the rich. In the Budget Committee, I offered an amendment to shift funds from tax cuts for the wealthy to restore funding for Medicare and Medicaid. My amendment was defeated when every Republican opposed it, without exception. We just heard from our distinguished colleague from Washington who said that there was not a Democrat that joined the Republican majority when the Budget Committee denied amendments and passed this budget resolution. But I ask, if the same speech that is made on the floor of this Senate would be made in a town meeting back home in whatever the town and whatever the State, and look in the faces of the senior citizens and say, ``Listen, we're going to make it easy for you by adding more expense to your already burdened budgets in hopes that if we give a tax cut to the rich, if we give a guy earning $350,000 a year a $20,000 tax reduction that he is going to invest it in some way that will stimulate our economy.'' We just have to hope he does not put it in some dormant tax-exempt bonds, or something like that, because that is not going to help. To justify their opposition to some of these things, the Republicans, once again, said, ``Oh, no, not us, that's not what we want to do.'' So I pointed out that the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate did support such cuts and did support the House bill that essentially was in the works. This was no secret. The House had passed the bill giving a $20,000 tax break to those earning $350,000 in a year. I went a step further. I said, ``OK, if you're really not going to cut Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich, let's put it in writing and make it enforceable.'' So I offered an amendment that would have made it out of order to consider any bill that cut Medicare or Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Under the amendment, I suggested it would have taken a supermajority, 60 votes, to take up that kind of a proposal. Simple enough to say that if you wanted to offer tax cuts and decided to cut Medicare or Medicaid, that it would take this supermajority 60 votes to do so. What do you think? Every Republican on the committee voted against that, too. Why? I do not know. Obviously, they think tax cuts for the rich are more important than other priorities, the thing we were discussing on the floor here. Mr. President, it should be obvious to everyone that the Republican Party really does plan to cut Medicare, to cut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich. But they go out of their way to obscure what is really going on. So we have developed a nomenclature for the reserve that CBO is likely to put up once this budget is believed to be balanced. It is called an economic dividend. It is called a fiscal dividend. They do not say that it is for tax cuts. Just a wink of the eye. Everybody knows it. We have heard some of our colleagues from the Republican side who have declared their intention to run for President demand that tax cuts be included. One suggested that a filibuster would be in order on the floor of the Senate to make sure that tax cuts are in place. Our distinguished majority leader did say in a speech that he made that tax cuts are in order in terms of a budget resolution. So we ought to call it like it is. Make no mistake, the fiscal dividend is really disguised, but down deep it is simply a tax cut for the rich. There should be little confusion about this. We know that CBO will score the indirect benefits to the Government of reconciliation. We know that these benefits can only be used under this resolution for a tax cut, and we know that the House already has passed a bill giving a $20,000 tax break for wealthy individuals in a year. This is what it looks like. The Republican budget. The winners: The rich--$20,000 tax break, corporate subsidies protected and tax loopholes saved. The fix is in. There is a tax cut for the rich in this resolution. It is a huge tax cut financed by drastic reductions in Medicare, or increases in Medicare costs and Medicaid subsidies. Do not let anybody fool us. Mr. President, I go back now to the larger question posed by this budget resolution. This debate, like few others, is about to force each of us to make a very fundamental decision, a decision about what we stand for, a decision about whose side we are on. I want to take a look for a minute at who wins and who loses under the Republican proposed budget. The winners: The rich--$20,000 tax break, corporate subsidies are protected, tax loopholes are saved. The winners are clear: Rich, corporate interests and their lobbyists. Meanwhile, let us see who loses under this resolution. First, there are the Medicare cuts. It will cost an average couple over the 7 years proposed to get us to a balanced budget $6,400, and in the last year of the 7-year cycle, we are looking at an $1,800 cost for that couple. These, by the way, are people who [[Page S6872]] already pay a substantial out-of-pocket sum for health care. It is estimated that it runs about 21 percent. So if the average beneficiary is getting $16,000 a year, it costs them $3,000 more for medical care, for health care. On top of that, there are education cuts proposed. On top of that, there are tax increases scheduled for hard-working American families. That is a substantial one, too. By eliminating the earned income tax credit, the Republicans not only will increase taxes on working Americans, but they will reduce needed incentives for people to move from welfare to work. It does not make sense. It really makes one wonder, Mr. President, how can the Republicans cut taxes for the rich, on one hand, and with the other hand turn around and increase taxes for working Americans, people making $28,000 or less? That may be the Republicans' perspective of fairness, but it is not mine. It is just plain wrong. But one thing is becoming quite clear, and that is the sharp difference between the two parties' perspectives. The Republican Party is willing to lay down for high-income special interests, while we stand up for the working people in this country. So, yes, Mr. President, we are going to do a lot of fighting about this budget resolution. In most of these fights, we Democrats are going to be joined together in the fight, because while we disagree with each other about a lot of things, there is one thing that unites us; that is, our commitment to serving ordinary people, middle-class families who work hard, who struggle to keep their homes together, who struggle to keep opportunity available for their children, who struggle to take care of the elderly and the disabled--the people without lobbyists, the people without the big bank accounts and without the connections. Most of us came to the Democratic Party because we believe that Government should stand with these people. I point out, Mr. President, immodestly perhaps, that I came out of the business sector and helped create an industry as well as a company. I am one of the people who was fortunate to be perhaps in some of the higher income brackets. But I believe that my security as a citizen, that my family's security, my daughters', my son's, my grandchildren's, that my security depends on the stability of our country, not on how much more money I give or leave my children. It depends on whether or not we have a society that believes we are all together and does not feel like the largest part is left out of the loop. So I would rather invest in our people, invest in the children who are going to lead this country tomorrow, provide the skilled work force that we need to have in order to complete; that is why I came to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps our party has lost its way in recent years, and we can admit that up front. We were reminded about that very sharply last November. But now the chips are down. We know where the public stands. We know what people are concerned about. We know they are worried. The battle is now beginning in earnest. And there is no question--I said it earlier--about whose side we are on. That is what this debate is really about. I wish it were not so. But when you get right down to it, this budget is designed to decide who is going to be on the side of the working people and who is going to take care of those who already have a lot. It is a direct assault on ordinary Americans and a sop to the most wealthy and powerful interests in our Nation. That is not what I stand for, it is not what the Democratic Party stands for, and it is not what America needs now. In conclusion, we Democrats may not have the votes to win in this battle. We probably do not. But we are going to try and we are going to insist that the votes that take place here will reflect how each one of our friends on the other side, as well as on our side, feels about whose side they are on, and whether it is the veterans, or the disabled, or the women concerned about breast cancer, about research for Alzheimer's, or AIDS, we are going to be deciding now whether or not those funds that are freed up as a result of the schedule to balance the budget go to tax cuts for the rich, or whether we continue to serve the interests of the ordinary people. At least since the debate will be conducted here, the American people will have a chance to see us discuss it, to look at the Record after the votes are cast, to be able to say to their Senators and their Congress people when they go back home, ``What did you vote for?'' ``Why did you do it?'' and ``Whose side were you on?" I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that staff people, two fellows, Danielle Rose and Lauren Ewers be granted privileges of the floor during the debate on the budget resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for one unanimous-consent request?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that would make our Nation's Generalized System of Preferences Development Program conform with out foreign aid program when it comes to eliminating benefits for countries that sponsor terrorism. I am pleased that Senators Helms and Bradley are original cosponsors of this legislation. Under this bill, a country would automatically lose its GSP benefits once the Secretary of State makes a determination under the Export Administration Act of 1979 that ``the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.'' Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, once the Secretary makes this determination and a country is added to the State Department's so- called ``terrorism list,'' it is no longer eligible to receive foreign assistance from the United States. Likewise, state sponsors of terrorism should be precluded from importing products into this country duty free under the GSP Program. But they are not. Syria is a case in point. Syria was designated by the State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism on December 29, 1979, which made it ineligible to receive foreign assistance. Nonetheless, Syria continued to import products into the U.S. duty free under the GSP Program until August 16, 1992. At that time, Syria's eligibility was suspended due to concerns about workers' rights--not a concern about terrorism. Technically, the GSP law prohibits the President from designating a country GSP eligible ``if such country aids or abets, by granting sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or group which has committed an act of international terrorism.'' But the law did nothing to prohibit Syria, a country our Government already recognized as a state-sponsor of terrorism, from benefiting from the United States Government's GSP Development Program. That is why I am proposing a change in the law. Mr. President, once the Secretary of State determines that a country sponsors terrorism it ought to automatically lose its GSP benefits, just as it loses its foreign assistance. There is no sensible rationale for barring foreign assistance for state sponsors of terrorism while providing GSP benefits to those same state sponsors of terrorism. Like foreign aid, GSP is a benefit, not a right. It is development program with goals that are similar to those of the foreign aid program. Both programs ought to be governed by the same terrorism standard. When it comes to fighting terrorism, our Government needs to speak with one voice. We need to make it crystal clear that the benefits of American friendship are not provided to countries that, by their presence on the terrorist list, have been found to have a consistent pattern of state support for terrorism. Mr. President, by making the GSP Program conform with the foreign aid program when it comes to providing benefits to countries that support terrorism, this bill would add an important element of consistency to our antiterrorism foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to bring to my colleague's attention a copy of a letter I recently received from the Department of Defense regarding the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The letter from Under Secretary of the Army Joe Reeder responds to a letter I sent recently to Defense Secretary Perry about the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It confirms my longstanding belief that the time has come for the Congress to terminate this program once and for all. The letter says ``* * * the Army gets no direct benefit from the program'' and that there is ``* * * no discernible link'' between the program and our Nation's military readiness. It goes on to say, ``Last year and again last week, 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 the program.'' This letter, Mr. President, is not a plea to the Congress to save a program that enhances our military readiness and national security. To the contrary. It is an invitation to terminate the program. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Congressional Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, recent press reports indicate that members of extremist militia groups in this country, which may pose a threat to public safety, may be gaining access to military bases and receiving weapons, ammunition, and training at Army facilities under the auspices of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In one article, I learned that the leader of the Michigan-based militia group told ABC's ``Prime Time Live'' that he had access to U.S. military bases in Michigan for the purpose of training through this program. In another article, I learned that members of the Competitive Sportsman club were asked to leave Camp Grayling base when they showed up wearing Southern Michigan Militia patches. The American people have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being used to train people who may pose a threat to law abiding citizens and to peace and order in this country. The Defense Department should either investigate these allegations or call on another branch of the U.S. Government to do so. In the meantime, Mr. President, the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be terminated. My colleagues know that I have long believed the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a low-priority program and is an egregious example of waste in Government. The program promotes rifle training for civilians through a system of affiliated clubs and other organizations, and sponsors shooting competitions. As part of these activities, the program donates, loans, and sells weapons, ammunition, and other shooting supplies. The Department of Defense has provided me with a State-by-State breakdown listing of 1,146 member clubs that participate in this program, which I will make available to any of my colleagues who wish to read it. The program was first established in 1903, at a time when civilian marksmanship training was believed to be important for military preparedness. Yet the Pentagon says it supports legislation to terminate it and that there is ``no discernible link'' between military readiness and the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As Army officials told the GAO, no Army requirements exist for civilians trained in marksmanship, and no system is in place to track program-trained personnel. In a March 15, 1994, hearing in the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Army Secretary West stated that national security objectives will be met with or without the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In essence, the Civilian Marksmanship Program has provided a taxpayer subsidy for recreational shooting. In light of the budget deficit we face and the military needs we ought to address, this simply is not a justifiable use of scarce resources. After all, defense dollars are not used to subsidize other sports. They ought not be used to subsidize a shooting program which has no relationship to military needs and requirements. Additionally, the program puts the U.S. Government in the role of selling weapons and ammunition to civilians. There is no shortage of guns and ammunition available in this country through the private sector. I do not believe the U.S. Government needs to be involved in putting more guns on the street in this country. Mr. President, Senators Feinstein, Levin, Simon, and I recently introduced a bill, S. 757, to terminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I urge my colleagues to read the letter from Under Secretary Reeder and approve that bill without delay. Exhibit 1 Under Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC, May 11, 1995. Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Secretary of Defense, the Honorable William J. Perry, has asked me on behalf of the Army, which serves as the executive agent for the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), to respond to your letter regarding your concerns about the CMP. The CMP was established by Congress in 1903 to develop marksmanship skills throughout our nation from which the armed forces could draw when needed for rapid mobilization. To this end, the CMP supported creation of rifle clubs throughout the country. There are 1,146 member clubs (the current listing at Tab A is an update from all previous reports on clubs). Over time the mission of the CMP changed. Now, the current focus of the CMP is weapons safety, familiarization and the sport of marksmanship. The CMP is apolitical, and provides no instruction in military skills. In FY 1994, the CMP spent $2.483 million of appropriated funds; $2.544 million are budgeted for FY 1995. The Army has requested no appropriated funding for the CMP in FY 1996, because the Army gets no direct benefit from the program. The FY 1996/1997 Biennial Budget Estimates submitted to Congress documents the request for no funds in FY 96. Last year and again last week, 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. I have enclosed a copy of the recent OSD, General Counsel, response (Tab B) to The Honorable Floyd Spence, Chairman, House National Security Committee, and Ranking Minority Member Ron Dellums reiterating, ``. . . no discernible link'' between military readiness and the CMP. DOD shares your concern that the CMP not inadvertently become involved with groups or individuals who may intend to harm federal or non-federal employees. To my knowledge the CMP has never endorsed the involvement of militia groups or extremists in any context. Before club status is granted, three adults responsible for the formation of the club must submit a DD Form 398-2 (Personnel Security Questionnaire) and pass a background investigation performed by the National Agency Check and Investigative Center. If Congress continues to direct that this program be implemented, we will continue to follow these procedures. Section 4309, Title 10, United States Code, provides that all ranges built in whole or in part with Federal funds may be used by persons capable of bearing arms. Under this legislation, the CMP and other organizations may request the use of military ranges and are generally granted such use provided they comply with range and installation rules. They must not interfere with scheduled military training and their intended use must not pose a safety hazard. If we have any indication of misuse, we will take appropriate corrective action. Thank you for your interest in this program. I hope this information addresses your concerns. Sincerely, Joe R. Reeder.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment before the Senate be set aside for such length of time as it takes me to offer an amendment which has been accepted by the other side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment follows the construct of this bill by protecting flow control authority that was in effect before May 15, 1994. Its provisions will sunset in 30 years. With these limitations or restrictions, the amendment is narrowly crafted to respond to a very special situation in New Jersey, about which I spoke on the floor yesterday. I appreciate the willingness of the committee chairman, Senator Chafee, and the subcommittee chairman, Senator Smith, to accept this narrowly crafted amendment, which will avoid the need for New Jersey to export increasing volumes of waste and will permit the State to meet its self-sufficiency goals by the year 2000. While I cannot say that I share the enthusiasm that some have for the structure created by this bill, I, nevertheless, accept it. At present, I intend to support the bill and vote for it. I say at present, obviously, because if there are any amendments that are new and adopted, I reserve the right at that point to reexamine my decision. At present, as I say, I intend to support the bill. I hope and trust that the bill itself will quickly be adopted in the Senate, in conference, and sent to the President to be signed into law. Otherwise, New Jersey and many other States face a potential waste disposal crisis and serious financial disruption of the plans and the indebtedness that exists out there. As I earlier said, it has been my understanding that the chairman of the subcommittee, who I worked very closely with on several environmental matters, Senator Smith, has accepted this amendment. I ask him for any comments he wants to make.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the subcommittee chairman. Mr. President, this amendment recognizes the unique situation in New Jersey. New Jersey is the only State in our Nation in which all municipal solid waste is now flow controlled and has been flow controlled for over a decade. This extensive use of flow control was necessary in order to reduce our exports of garbage to other States. And it has worked. New Jersey has decreased exports by 50 percent since 1988 and we are on target to be self-sufficient by the year 2000. However, we do face some problems in terms of our existing facilities. Although New Jersey already recycles 53 percent of its waste stream, New Jersey exports 2 million tons of waste. There is not sufficient capacity in my State today to handle that volume. Facilities will be needed if we are to further reduce exports and become self- sufficient. Therefore, New Jersey will need to build new facilities. Without flow control, however, it will be impossible to provide the needed capacity. Lenders will not finance new facilities when it appears waste can easily and cheaply be exported. Without this amendment, therefore, it will be impossible to handle the waste volumes that we do export and we will continue to export more waste. That is not what Senators from other neighboring States want. And it is not what New Jersey wants. New Jersey has attempted, probably more than any other State, to limit its exports. Title I, to restrict exports of solid waste, and further restrictions discussed by Mr. Coats, will make it harder to send waste across State lines. Under my amendment, New Jersey will be able to live with some interstate restrictions because the amendment will protect the system New Jersey has worked so hard to develop. Under this amendment, title I restrictions on interstate shipments will not be a problem to my State. And the title II flow control provisions will allow facilities to be built so that New Jersey can control and dispose of its waste. This amendment follows the construct of the bill in that it protects flow control authority that was in effect before May 15, 1994. It will sunset in 30 years. With these limitations and restrictions, this amendment is narrowly crafted to respond to the very special situation in New Jersey that I spoke of yesterday on the floor. I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Chafee and Subcommittee Chairman Smith to accept this narrowly crafted amendment which will avoid the need for New Jersey to export increasing volumes of waste and will allow the State to meet its self-sufficiency goals by 2000. While I cannot say that I share the enthusiasm that some have for the structure created by this bill, I do accept it. I intend to support the bill and vote for it. And I hope and trust it will quickly be adopted in the Senate, conferenced, and sent to the President to be signed into law.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I find this a rather distressing moment because the amendment that is proposed, frankly, will do much to undo a lot of hard work that was done in a consensus fashion in trying to arrive at a way to accommodate the need for States to dispose of their trash in a sensible way. When you say ``trash, garbage,'' et cetera, immediately it sounds like the subject is on the trivial side of things. It is hardly that because there are a few States that do not have a problem. As a matter of fact, this country of ours, and this world of ours is filled with problems created by the excess creation of trash by its citizens. It is a serious problem when you come from a State like mine, the most crowded State in the country. We still value the quality of life that we can develop. We like our hills. Some call them mountains. It depends on whether you have seen mountains or not. But they are our hills and they are our forests, they are our woodlands, and our streams. And we try to make as good use of those as we can. We want for our children nothing different than those who live in Montana or Wyoming or in the other places, the wide open places. As a matter of fact, population growth in this country is much more toward the crowded areas because young people like to be where other young people are, and as a consequence there has to be a national cooperation on efforts like this to help us deal sensibly with the problem. Now, this bill is carefully crafted--the bill itself; I am not talking about the amendment of the Senator from Arizona--to give States the power to restrict in some form or fashion the amount of trash that comes to their States from other States. This is not a simple calculation because within States there is often enormous disputes between those who govern the local community--mayors, councils--those sometimes who are responsible for county government and State government because the mayor in a town may very well be able to find a way to get rid of their trash from the community by shipping it to the nearest, cheapest out-of-State facility. To give you an example, in my own State we have created some waste disposal facilities, and in order to build financing, indebtedness, and that indebtedness, like any other business, was calculated on a particular revenue or financial stream that was going to permit them to pay their bills and also to pay off their indebtedness. So lots of communities across this country developed something called a flow control program that says a State may regulate where the trash is going to go, not simply permit a mayor, even though it looks on its surface to be in the best interests of the residents of the community, to simply say OK, tipping fees, which are the fees associated with the disposal of garbage, to send it to State X nearby are one-third or 40 percent of what it might cost to send it to a nearby waste processing facility. That can be true on a particular day at a particular moment. However, Mr. President, what happens if suddenly the opportunity to ship to State X, Y, or Z is terminated by laws that are pending in this body that say look, we are not going to take your garbage. We are not going to permit our communities to take it even though it is a revenue- producing source, even though it is clean, even though it has met all of the standards under RCRA for being a sanitary landfill where there is no possibility of leaching into the water supply, there is no danger to the community, even though we know it is great politics to keep the garbage out of the contract State. The fact is we have a contract and the Supreme Court says you cannot interfere with interstate commerce-- unless, of course, laws are drawn to permit obstructing it in an ingenious way so that it gets around the constitutional question. Well, what happens is those of us who live in exporting States are very nervous about the future, of what happens if suddenly the export possibility is cut off. And I repeat, though I have said it on this floor several times, the New Jersey story. When we were an importing State for garbage--Philadelphia used to ship its trash to my State--we tried through the courts to stop it. We went as far as the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said no, you cannot stop it. Well, we learned something. We were a net importer, and now as fate would have it we are an exporter. And in order to protect the solvency of our State, it was determined that my State would have a flow control structure, and they tried to direct the trash to the facilities that can accommodate it not just now, not just next year but in much of the next century as well. That is the thought that went into this bill. Do not cut us off at the border and at the same time not permit us to control the flow within our States. My State of New Jersey wants to be independent. We do not want to depend on anybody else, to be gracious and fair and all that kind of stuff. We know that we have to take care of ourselves, so as a consequence we wrote the law to permit us to do that. Well, now, after all of the deliberations that have gone on--and the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee from Rhode Island is in the Chamber. He worked very hard to get a consensus. He supports the flow control notion because he knows how important it is to the States that are concerned. Forty States in this country of ours have flow control authority, and they will be adversely affected by this amendment. The amendment makes it difficult to expand landfills. For example, there are many landfills that need to be improved. If a 10-year bond was taken out for the original landfill 8 years ago, then that landfill operator will have little incentive to make improvements because he does not know how much waste will be coming in after 20 years. How good business is going to be he does not know because we are liable to cut off the opportunity for him to continue financing. So we have an amendment now which I frankly believe would be very disruptive, and I want all the Senators from all the States that have flow control authority to pay attention because they could be losing a valuable asset, the sensible management of their trash problems. We are going to have a vote on this amendment, I understand, at 2:30, and I would caution those offices where there is any interest at all in what happens with flow control to make sure that those Senators are alerted to the problems that might be created for them. This amendment, by the way, is opposed by the National Association of Counties. They know what the problems are. It would be difficult to finance equipment, to finance new facilities because the amendment limits very specifically the financing of facilities to those that are presently in operation; would limit them to 30 years of life even if 25 have gone by. That means only 5 more. And the State may not have any other solution to its problems. So I hope our colleagues will listen very carefully to what is being discussed, to note that the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, under whose jurisdiction this is, will be opposing this amendment and that others will take leave from them. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I promise there will not be a second speech similar to the one I just delivered. This is a simple request, Mr. President. And that is, I ask unanimous consent that Douglas Johnson, of Senator Wellstone's office, and Jill Schneiderman, of Senator Daschle's office, be given the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 534.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take to the floor to discuss the provisions of S. 534, the legislation to address the issue of interstate transportation waste and flow control authority. Very often when one mentions flow control authority, I sense that heads a very important one. If I can just take a moment to say that flow control--and perhaps it has been discussed on the floor and I missed it but I think the importance of the issue will bear some repetition--gives the States the ability to control the flow of household trash, particularly trash within State borders. And while that does not sound like very much to ask, the fact is that demands are being placed on external facilities' availability so that it can simply be trucked, often out-of-State to other States, where in many cases there is an objection to receiving volumes of trash. Though there was a Supreme Court case decision not too long ago that dealt with this and said you cannot stop this, it directs the Congress to resolve the problem and allowed the parameters under which they were to operate to do just that. So if it begins to inhibit the trucking or the transportation of waste outside the State, then within a State, they have to have some way of controlling where it goes. Again, though the subject seems a bit arcane, the fact is that it has enormous influence on States like my own who are trying to resolve the need, the ability to deal with their waste in an orderly fashion. Without significant changes to S. 534, my State is going to experience a severe financial crisis precipitated by the Senate's failure to delegate waste management decisions to the States. I am hoping through the amendment process that we can improve the bill so that States can continue to handle their waste the way they deem appropriate. Title I of the legislation, which addresses interstate restrictions, which I was talking about earlier, is essentially identical. Title I of S. 2345, which was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year, overturns the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New Jersey versus Philadelphia. The Supreme Court's decision said that interstate restrictions are unconstitutional because a State cannot discriminate against a commodity--in this case out-of-State trash--from being transported. The court said that States cannot give unfair competitive disadvantage against out-of-State haulers, those who are trucking the material from one State to the other who are out of State, for example, Pennsylvania to New Jersey, who want to dispose of trash where it makes the most economic sense. So the first title will allow the Governors in each State to restrict imports of trash into their States. I have supported this title in the past and will support it in the future if States are given the authority to find an alternative to this obstructive commerce to find in State solutions that now out-of-State exports would restrict. Unfortunately, S. 534, while giving States new power over interstate shipment of waste, actually reduces the authority that they have enjoyed within a State to properly handle their waste. That is a principal problem that I have with title II of S. 534, the title that deals with flow control authority within the State. Once again, I will take a moment to explain why States use flow control. Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. The acronym is RCRA. RCRA made standards and improved solid waste disposal methods and practices. Under subtitle (d) of that law, State and local governments developed comprehensive waste management plans that meet minimum standards that are set by EPA. Although the law created national standards imposed through the solid waste management plans, Congress recognized that solid waste was a problem traditionally managed at the local level. Under the philosophy of local control, subtitle (d) gave State and local governments the flexibility they needed to determine the best way to meet the national standards. In response to the Federal mandate that waste should be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner, it is hard to disagree with that. Many local governments constructed modern, state-of-the-art recycling systems, waste-to-energy facilities, and sanitary landfills. Integrated waste management systems were implemented to promote recycling, consumer education and proper management and disposal of household hazardous waste. While necessary and desirable, these facilities were also very costly. The Federal Government does not share the cost of municipal solid waste management disposal at the State and local level. States and local governments, therefore, adopted various means to finance municipal solid waste management services and facilities. The general approach taken by State and local government was to issue revenue bonds. These bonds were secured by long-term contractual promises which rely on a steady, dependable, and consistent quantity of waste for disposal in new facilities. It was their revenue streams, necessary to pay off the bonds and to meet the financial obligations, that were incurred in financing these facilities. To ensure guaranteed quantities of waste, cities and towns enact laws requiring that trash generated within their borders be disposed of in these recently financed facilities. Those laws are the ones we commonly call flow control laws. Now, these flow control laws were consistent with Congress' instruction in subtitle D that State and local governments endeavor to secure long-term contracts for supplying resource recovery facilities and other environmentally responsible waste disposal facilities. It is also consistent with several courts of appeal and State supreme court decisions. However, on May 16, 1994, the legal basis for flow control was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Carbone versus Clarkstown. In the 6-to-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York municipality could not require that garbage generated in the locality be sent to a designated waste management facility. And again, though the language is common, I think it is important to understand what the outcome was, that is, if a community suddenly elected to abandon its responsibility to provide trash for a disposal facility, then it left that facility, already financed, with insufficient resources, insufficient revenues to continue to meet the financial obligations, as well as keeping the facility operating. They had a choice in many cases. They could ship it out of State. But interstate commerce, as we now know it, looks as if it is going to be obstructed by the first part of the law being proposed here, the bill that is before the Senate. The Court held that the Clarkstown, NY, flow control ordinance interfered with interstate commerce and deprived out-of-State firms access to the local trash market. Again, out-of-State firms are those that cart the material to landfills that are licensed in other States. As in the New Jersey versus Philadelphia case, States could not discriminate against out-of-State haulers. In other words, if New Jersey did not want that garbage, that trash brought into their State, it would have been a violation of law, so said the Court in the case of New Jersey versus Philadelphia. The Court held that since Congress had not specifically delegated this power to the States, these flow control laws violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The May 1994 decision in Carbone invalidated the historic right of local and State governments to manage solid waste. The case overturned almost 20 years of sound solid waste management policy and is jeopardizing the solid waste management systems of the over 40 States that rely on flow control authority to manage their solid waste. The Carbone decision makes it difficult for cities to guarantee a steady stream of waste to disposal and processing facilities. Without this guaranteed steady stream of revenues, it will be virtually impossible for the communities to get financing to build solid waste management facilities. Second, this decision could result in localities losing the revenue generated by having garbage sent to municipal disposal facilities. This would eliminate their ability to subsidize nonprofitable waste management activities such as recycling and household hazardous waste programs, which have been very effective in many communities, especially in New Jersey. As we have seen in the District of Columbia, the loss of flow control authority threatens existing recycling programs. This article, entitled ``District to Suspend Curbside Recycling,'' from the Washington Post of April 12, about a month ago, clearly makes the case locations to avoid the recycling fees led to this financial crisis. Finally, the Supreme Court decision puts existing bonds used to finance waste management facilities at risk. If localities cannot send an adequate level of garbage to a facility to generate the revenue needed to pay off the bonds, those communities face default. Citizens in the affected communities could find the possibility of extraordinarily high taxes and the inability to go to the financial markets for any of their needs. The Public Securities Association estimates that $23 billion of bonds are in jeopardy because of the Carbone decision and every citizen, every taxpayer in almost every State, has to worry about this because suddenly they could be faced with having to make up the revenue that is lost as a result of the decision to ship the material out of State because there is no flow control on this. In last year's bill, in difficult negotiations with importing States, exporting States, and the waste industry, accommodation was reached. S. 2345 overturned both the Philadelphia case and the Carbone case. It recognized that trash was a local issue and one where States should make the rules, not the Supreme Court and not the Congress. Some amendments were made to assure the maximum amount of competition was included in any flow control program, competition between simply shipping it out of State and the need to furnish the local facility with appropriate revenue opportunities. Certain restrictions were placed on Governors' ability to overturn existing contractual relationships. Because of concerns of the waste industry, flow control could not be expanded to States that had not used it before the Carbone decision. Unfortunately, at the last minute, the bill failed to win unanimous support. Instead of starting from last year's compromise, this year's bill goes in two different directions. Almost identical to last year's bill, Governors are given the power to shop interstate shipment of waste. However, the bill goes in the other direction as far as waste within States. Title II, the flow control title, only allows existing flow control where default is likely. The title is based on the philosophy that flow control is wrong and anticompetitive, and that protection should be provided for only those communities that are in immediate financial jeopardy because of the Supreme Court decision in Carbone. Title I, the interstate title, discriminates against free market solutions by allowing States to say no to economically viable interstate shipments. Title II, however, attempts to enshrine the free market by preventing States from considering long-term social goals in addition to short-term economic benefits. Indeed, in its present form, I find the bill internally inconsistent. Without flow control authority denied to them in title II, States will find it more difficult to meet the self-sufficiency goal that is virtually required by title I. Title II says turn waste control over to free enterprise. It sounds like a good idea. However, title I says if you do allow free enterprise to take over, other States can close the market to you. It is a catch-22 situation. It is interesting to note that additional amendments are expected to further limit the free flow of trash over State lines. Title I, the interstate restriction title, gives new powers that conflict with the interstate commerce clause to Governors that they have not enjoyed since the Philadelphia case was decided in 1972. Title II takes powers away from the States and municipalities that they enjoyed since the 1970's, powers that they have used to keep the trash flowing within their States to local facilities. My colleague from New Hampshire, the chairman of the subcommittee on Superfund, philosophically believes that flow control is wrong, and I understand his position. But his position conflicts with a concern of my Governor and many Governors who believe that, after the last election, more authority would be put in their hands rather than in the hands of Congress. Limiting the bill as the sponsors have intended has not been easy. Since flow control has been a tool to solve the waste disposal problems, the States and towns across America have been a laboratory of unique and creative solutions to their waste problems. These non Federal solutions to the waste problem have led to nonuniform statutes and nonuniform problems that were inadvertently not fixed by S. 534. At subcommittee markup, over 50 amendments were filed. Changes were accepted to respond to specific problems in five States. Two of those States need additional clarifying language. A colloquy was entered into for another State and one other State was promised consideration before floor action. These seven State-specific amendments have one thing in common--each of these States are represented by Senators who sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is a complicated issue. I wish we had been able to resolve these issues before we got to the floor here. But it was necessary to get this bill on the agenda for all kinds of reasons and, as a consequence, we are where we are. But we still have a lot of work to do. Because many States have delegated waste control authorities to lower levels of government that do not employ Washington counsel, many communities are still reviewing the committee's reported product, still looking at what is being offered. And we always have that from the States when they have an interest or when they have a particular problem with a piece of legislation. They have not had time enough yet to deal with it. New situations that seem consistent with the intent of the authors but not exactly fitting the language of the bill, are still being discovered. Mr. President, flow control is not necessary or even preferable for every State. Each State is different. It has its own unique needs. But this bill, as written, is not acceptable by my Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, and neither is it acceptable to many others. As those who have been involved in the flow control discussions over the years, New Jersey has the most sweeping and encompassing system and it has been a success. In the 1980's, New Jersey's environmental initiatives to close substandard landfills drastically reduced the State's disposal capacity. New Jersey's waste quickly became a burden for other States as the need to export our waste grew. The high cost and market volatility associated with exporting waste triggered a garbage crisis and strained municipal resources. It was at this time that elected officials of both parties in New Jersey accepted the responsibility to develop a solid waste management system that would provide long-term stability and ultimately, self-sufficiency. ``Self-sufficiency'' simply meaning that we could take care of all of our waste disposal needs within our State's borders. It could not happen overnight. We tried to stop it when it came from other places, and we were turned down by the courts. As I have said now several times, we could not stand to have our shifting of material suddenly cut off from other States when now we are an exporter. It was clear to the State that other States would not accept New Jersey's waste forever and Federal legislation to eliminate waste exports was inevitable. To meet the goal of self-sufficiency, flow control laws have been in place in New Jersey since 1979 and control all of the nonhazardous solid waste in the State. Flow control has been a significant part of New Jersey's ability to build an infrastructure, mostly landfills, to handle the 14 million tons of solid waste requiring disposal annually. Since 1988, exports of municipal solid waste from New Jersey have decreased 50 percent. If the flow control authority from last year's bill is included in legislation that passes this body, New Jersey will be self-sufficient by the year 2000, only 5 years away. New Jersey's recycling programs are also dependent on revenues received from use of New Jersey waste management facilities. Today, New Jersey recycles over 53 percent of its waste. Despite New Jersey's system, it is not a system that leaves out the private sector. The private sector has built and operates most of the waste facilities in the State. Through competitive bidding, the authorities within lowest cost. The collection, transportation, construction of disposal facilities, and their operations, are all services for which bids are sought. Governor Whitman testified that ``every major waste management firm in America, and a laundry list of smaller waste companies, operate in New Jersey today, and we are in the 17th year of a flow control system. That is not a Government monopoly.'' Because of New Jersey's unique system where all the wastes are now flow controlled, without additional amendments, a waste crisis will inevitably occur. Once part of our system is no longer flow controlled, wastes will flow out of State. New, in-state replacement facilities will be impossible to finance or justify economically although the supply of trash will be there, the trash will flow out-of-state. Even BFI, the company leading the fight against flow control, acknowledges that new private facilities in the State would not be practical without flow control, without the ability to direct where this trash flows. Even without the recycling fees, it is and will continue to be cheaper to dump garbage in a landfill in Pennsylvania or other States than to handle it anywhere in New Jersey. This is appealing, in the short term, for some of the mayors and some of the communities and towns in New Jersey. But the free market available over the border is subject to governmental closure by title I of this very bill. Without flow control, what is now a decreasing waste problem will again become a garbage crisis. Without flow control, communities will again give their garbage to low-cost haulers and hope it ends up in certified RCRA facilities, as opposed to being dumped casually someplace in an unlicensed facility that they do not have control over. Without flow control, communities will select haulers on the basis of only one factor, and that is price. But all of us know that the cheapest alternative is not always the best or the legal one. Without flow control, we will see more illegal midnight dumping. Mr. President, to protect my State, I will be offering an amendment to protect the flow control system in existence in New Jersey. With this amendment, I can state that New Jersey will not be sending garbage out-of-state after the year 2000. We just need that window of time to deal with it. Another alternative is to not fix State problems one by one, but to have a generic fix that was the essence of S. 2345 last year. Depending on the amendment process we are going to be using in this debate, I will be considering offering such amendment based on that agreement and which I introduced in this Congress as S. 398. Mr. President, the Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, testified before the committee on this important issue. She said: It has been argued by some, and may be said again, that flow control legislation is at odds with the goals and philosophy of the new Congress. The contrary is true. A flow control bill that ensures private sector competition while allowing local governments to make long-term waste management plans is entirely consistent with the goals of this Congress. If Congress denies flow control authority to New Jersey, it essentially mandates that States like Pennsylvania and Ohio take trash from my State, only because land cost in those States are lower than in New Jersey. Mr. President, the interests of the exporting States and importing States are not in conflict. New Jersey does not want to send its waste out-of-State. It wants to be self-sufficient. But to be self- sufficient, it needs to protect its flow control system and it needs several years to be totally self-sufficient. Without that protection, the fears of the proponents of interstate restrictions, will be realized and wastes will again flow out of states looking for cheap places to send their garbage. In March of this year, the National Governors unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming a mutual commitment to each State's management of waste within its borders and endorsed the use of flow control in the pursuit of self-sufficiency. Because title II is so much more restrictive that last year's bill, it will be necessary for New Jersey to send more of its waste out-of- State. Unless title II is corrected, I must strongly oppose the existing title I and any amendments that further limit the State's options of going out of State. Mr. President, I know that my dissertation just now does not compare with some of the most important declarations delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate nor in this great city of Washington. However, without trivializing the problem, I just want to make the case once more that it cannot exist both ways: We cannot say to the States you are not allowed to control the flow of trash within your State and, on the other hand, face the very high risk of having a law created that says, ``Uh-uh, you can't ship it to my State or any other State that now or in the future may import trash.'' So we have to arrive at a balance. That is what I have been saying through that flood of words that I have been issuing for the last 25 minutes or so. The subject is not an easy one. It is not a pleasant one. Garbage never is. But the fact of the matter is that it is our garbage and it is our problem and there is not a State exempt from the problem. Today's importer may be tomorrow's exporter, which we bitterly discovered in the State of New Jersey over 23 years ago. So I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will comply with our request to give the States the authority that they need to handle their garbage within the State with the same authority they will have to keep waste out of their States. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be extended for 5 minutes so that my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, can also make her remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business. Unless specified, the time permitted for debate is 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning I rise to introduce a bill to terminate a program that I think has long outlived its usefulness. It is called the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. It is no secret that I do not like this program. In fact, I offered an amendment to terminate it in the last Congress. It got 30 votes. The arguments then may not have been persuasive. But perhaps recent events will change that. Like everyone else, I read the reports that come out about the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City. And they are shocked by the scope of that tragedy. Every day we hear more and more news about confirmed dead and the fact that the search may in fact have to be abandoned. It is a tragedy that will live on forever in the minds of our democratic society and throughout the world. But in one of these stories, Mr. President, I found information that members of extremist militia groups in this country may have received weapons, ammunition, and training at Army facilities under the auspices of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Indeed, Mark Koerneke, the leader of the Michigan-based militia group, told ABC's ``Prime Time Live'' that he had access to U.S. military bases in Michigan for the purpose of training through this program. We all know that one of the individuals accused of masterminding the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh, was associated with the Michigan-based militia group. I do not know, Mr. President, whether Timothy McVeigh received training and ammunition under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. But I know it is possible that he did. A few days ago, Mr. President, I wrote to Secretary Perry and urged him to conduct an investigation to determine the veracity of the reports linking members of extremist militia groups to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I also called on the Pentagon to immediately suspend the Civilian Marksmanship Program and propose terminating it in the long run. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I sent to Secretary Perry, along with a press report related to Mark Koerneke's comments, be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have long believed the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a low priority program and an egregious example of waste in government. The program promotes rifle training for civilians through a system of affiliated clubs and other organizations, and sponsors shooting competitions. As part of these activities, the program donates, loans, and sells weapons, ammunition, and other shooting supplies. The program was first established in 1903, soon after the Spanish- American War, 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 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 this is 1995. The Spanish-American War ended more than 90 years ago, and things have changed. According to a report by the General Accounting Office, the program now has limited military value. As Army officials told the GAO, no Army requirements exist for civilians trained in marksmanship. In a March 15, 1994, hearing in the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Army Secretary West stated that national security objectives will be met with or without the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Unlike the situation in 1903 and the Spanish-American War, today we have well-trained Reserves and National Guard Forces, and we have advanced, high-technology weapons systems. The military does not need a ready supply of ordinary civilians who know how to shoot a rifle. Even if we did need such a corps, the program does not give us one. No system is in place that tracks the program-trained personnel, and the program is not part of the Army plan for mobilizing forces in an emergency. In essence, the Civilian Marksmanship Program provides a taxpayer subsidy for recreational shooting. In light of the budget deficit we face and the military needs we ought to address, this simply is not a justifiable use of scarce resources. After all, defense dollars are not used to subsidize other sports. They ought not be used to subsidize a shooting program which has no relationship to military needs and requirements. Training young people to play baseball is a nice thing to do, but the Government does not subsidize Little League. We do not give children free baseballs? Why should we give them bullets? Mr. President, Americans are deeply cynical about the Congress. They think we are controlled by narrow special interests and that we are wasting taxpayers' money on useless boondoggles. A program like bucks for bullets only reinforces that image. It also makes people wonder about our priorities. After all, how can we close military bases and lay off thousands of defense workers while spending money on recreational gun clubs? How can we fail to fully fund Head Start if we can pass out free bullets to school kids? How can we omit funds for people unable to afford a college education if we can find millions to teach kids how to shoot? Where is our sense of priorities? Where is our common sense? Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that it is time to end this program. At a minimum, Mr. President, we ought to ensure the Civilian Marksmanship Program is not being used to train and arm members of extremist militia groups. The American people have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being used to train people who pose a threat to law-abiding citizens and to peace and order in this country. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.