[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7093-S7110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at the hour of 4 p.m. today the Senate lay 
aside any pending amendments to the DOD authorization bill and Senator 
Pryor be recognized to offer his amendment regarding GATT; and 
immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Hatch be 
recognized to offer a relevant perfecting amendment limited to 30 
minutes equally divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 
minutes under the control of Senator Specter and an additional 5 
minutes under the control of Senator Pryor; and following the 
disposition of the second-degree amendment, if agreed to, Senator Pryor 
be recognized to offer a further second-degree amendment and there be 
30 minutes time for debate prior to a motion to table to be equally 
divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 minutes under the 
control of Senator Specter and an additional 5 minutes under the 
control of Senator Pryor; that following the conclusion or yielding 
back of time, Senator Lott be recognized to move to table the second-
degree Pryor amendment, and no other amendments or motions be in order 
prior to the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I further ask that if the Hatch amendment 
is not agreed to, it be in order for the majority leader to make a 
motion to table following 30 minutes of debate to be equally divided in 
the usual form, with 10 additional minutes under the control of Senator 
Specter and 5 additional minutes under the control of Senator Pryor, 
and no further amendments or motions be in order prior to that motion 
to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 4218

  (Purpose: To eliminate taxpayer subsidies for recreational shooting 
   programs, and to prevent the transfer of federally-owned weapons, 
ammunition, funds, and other property to a private Corporation for the 
            Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), for himself, 
     Mr. Simon, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4218.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
hear at least a portion of the amendment read to get some understanding 
of what the amendment is. I do not choose to continue the objection. At 
this point, I want to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       At the end of title X, add the following:

                   Subtitle G--Civilian Marksmanship

     SEC. 1081. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Self Financing Civilian 
     Marksmanship Program Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 1082. PRIVATE SHOOTING COMPETITIONS AND FIREARM SAFETY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Nothing in this subtitle prohibits any private person from 
     establishing a privately financed program to support shooting 
     competitions or firearms safety programs.

       Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
     reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X, add the following:

                   Subtitle G--Civilian Marksmanship

     SEC. 1081. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Self Financing Civilian 
     Marksmanship Program Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 1082. PRIVATE SHOOTING COMPETITIONS AND FIREARM SAFETY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Nothing in this subtitle prohibits any private person from 
     establishing a privately financed program to support shooting 
     competitions or firearms safety programs.

     SEC. 1083. REPEAL OF CHARTER LAW FOR THE CORPORATION FOR THE 
                   PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE AND SAFETY.

       (a) Repeal of Charter.--The Corporation for the Promotion 
     of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act (title XVI of 
     Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 515; 36 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.), 
     except for section 1624 of such Act (110 Stat. 522), is 
     repealed.
       (b) Related Repeals.--Section 1624 of such Act (110 Stat. 
     522) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), by 
     striking out ``and 4311'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``4311, 4312, and 4313'';
       (2) by striking out subsection (b); and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking out ``on the earlier 
     of--'' and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``on October 1, 1996.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would prevent the 
Government from providing a $76 million Federal endowment to American 
gun clubs.
  Senators Simon, Bumpers, Feinstein, and Kennedy are original 
cosponsors of this amendment. The amendment addresses what I view as a 
fatal flaw in the new version of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, 
which was established by the Congress in the fiscal 1996 Department of 
Defense authorization bill--last year's bill.
  Before I explain why this amendment is necessary, I think it is 
important to understand the history of the old Civilian Marksmanship 
Program. The CMP was first begun in 1903, soon after the Spanish-
American War, and at a time when civilian marksmanship training was 
believed to be important for military preparedness. Back then, some 
Federal officials were concerned that recruits often were unable 
literally to shoot straight. The officials believed that a trained 
corps of civilians with marksmanship skills would be useful to prepare 
for future military conflicts.
  Mr. President, that may have made sense in 1903, but we are in 1996. 
The Spanish-American War ended more than 90 years ago, and, not to 
surprise people, but things have changed. So has the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program. Over the years, the program has been transferred 
from the training program for military personnel to a plain old 
shooting program for gun enthusiasts.
  Tax dollars have been used for nothing more than promoting rifle 
training for civilians through over 1,100 private gun clubs and 
organizations. Through the program, the Federal Government has joined 
forces with the National Rifle Association to sponsor annual summertime 
shooting competitions for civilians. The program has included 
donations, loans, and the sale of weapons, ammunition, and other 
shooting supplies. It has purchased bullets for Boy Scouts, taught them 
how to shoot guns.
  Mr. President, the Defense Department concluded long ago that the 
Army-run Civilian Marksmanship Program does not serve any military 
purpose. It concluded that there is no ``discernible link'' between the 
program and our Nation's military readiness.

[[Page S7094]]

 Even so, until recently, the program was sustained by an annual $2.5 
million Federal subsidy.
  In the face of growing criticism about the program's dubious benefit 
to our Nation's military readiness, concerns of links between the 
program and anti-Government militia groups, and the Army's interest in 
extricating itself from responsibility for managing the program, 
Congress drastically changed the program last year.
  Keep in mind, this was to accommodate the problems that existed 
before. Once again, to repeat, there were concerns of links between the 
anti-Government militia groups and the Army's interest in getting out 
of the game, so Congress made a change. Under title I of the 1996 
Department of Defense Authorization Act, Congress established a so-
called ``private, nonprofit'' Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle 
Practice and Firearms Safety. In fact, the corporation is private and 
nonprofit in name only. According to the U.S. Department of the Army, 
when the corporation becomes fully operational in October of this year, 
October 1996, it will take control of--hear this--176,000 Army rifles 
worth more than $53 million. It will receive at least $4.4 million in 
cash. It will be given Federal property, vehicles, and computers worth 
$8.8 million, and, even more remarkable, the U.S. Government is going 
to give 146 million rounds of ammunition estimated to be worth $9.7 
million, with all of these totaling $76 million, taxpayer money, all 
free: Here, take it; have a good time.
  Imagine, in these days of spartan budgets, inadequate programs, when 
need is desperate there, we are giving away $76 million of Government 
assets, and worse is that we are giving them bullets and rifles, the 
kind of rifle I carried when I was a soldier in World War II. The total 
tab to the American taxpayer for this gift is over $76 million.
  Even more, this private group of citizens will be able to sell the 
federally purchased rifles without returning any profits to the Federal 
Government. The nonprofit corporation will reap 100 percent of the 
benefit of the profit from the Federal weapons and ammunition sales. 
Not one penny will be returned to the taxpayers of this country. Not a 
dime will be used to reduce the Federal deficit or to pay for other 
meritorious Federal programs.
  From 1985 to 1995, the Federal Government spent roughly $38 million 
on this Civilian Marksmanship Program. A healthy $76 million Federal 
endowment ought to keep the so-called private corporation afloat for 
the next 20 years even if it never solicits one dime from private 
corporations.
  Mr. President, the old Civilian Marksmanship Program was a bad 
program, an example of waste in Government. The new version of the 
program makes even less sense than the old, which at least maintained a 
measure of Defense Department control over the weapons and ammunition.

  In 1994, the General Services Administration reconfirmed the 
longstanding Government policy when it convened a Federal weapons task 
force to review the Government's policy for the disposal of firearms. 
General Services brought together a group, a weapons task force, to try 
to understand the Government's policy for the disposal of firearms.
  Under that policy, the Federal Government does not sell federally 
owned weapons to the public. Excess weapons are not sold or transferred 
out of Government channels. Excess weapons, those that we no longer 
need, are not supposed to be out there being distributed.
  The Federal regulations are clear. They say that ``surplus firearms 
and firearms ammunition shall not be donated'' to the public. That is 
what the policy says. They say, ``Surplus firearms may be sold only for 
scrap after total destruction by crushing, cutting, breaking or 
deforming to be performed in a manner to ensure that the firearms are 
rendered completely inoperative and to preclude their being made 
operative.'' That is what this Federal weapons task force recommended 
to the General Services Administration, and that was the policy.
  Simply put, they say the Federal Government has made the decision 
that it should not be an arms merchant. I could not agree more. There 
are many of my colleagues who feel similarly. Those are sound 
regulations. There is no compelling public policy reason to exempt Army 
guns and ammunition in order to turn control of enough guns and 
ammunition to start a small war over to the private nonprofit 
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety.
  Given the abundance of weapons readily available through the private 
sector, guns for which the Federal Government no longer has a use ought 
to be, as planned, destroyed--put it away, get rid of the requirement 
to guard it, keep records, et cetera. The federally subsidized 
corporation ought to be abolished. Our amendment would do just that. It 
would abolish the so-called private corporation, block the transfer of 
this $76 million endowment and end the federally run Civilian 
Marksmanship Program once and for all. Importantly, it would bring the 
Army into conformity with the Government-wide policy of not 
transferring Federal guns and ammunition outside Government channels.
  Our amendment only addresses federally owned guns and ammunition. It 
would not prohibit private gun clubs from existing and it would not 
prohibit the annual national shooting matches that are held in Camp 
Perry, OH, from taking place as long as the guns and the ammunition and 
the staff are funded through the private sector. Camp Perry is a State-
owned facility. The State of Ohio can let the national matches go 
forward if it chooses to do so. The NRA, the National Rifle 
Association, has been funding these shooting matches for years, and it 
can continue to do so under our amendment, but it sure should not 
receive Federal financial backing.
  I expect some who oppose our effort will argue that shooting is an 
Olympic sport and that the program provides important training for 
future Olympians. Those attempting to make this argument should 
remember one thing: Ping-Pong is also an Olympic sport, but we do not 
provide Ping-Pong paddles or Ping-Pong balls or Ping-Pong training by 
the Federal Government. They should be reminded also the Government 
does not provide Federal subsidies for our Olympic swimming, tennis, 
volleyball, or other sports. Likewise, the Federal Government should 
not be supporting shooting.
  Supporters of this $76 million boondoggle will argue that promoting 
gun safety is a laudable goal. We can debate that question. But I do 
not think it is the role of the Federal Government to give away $76 
million worth of guns and ammunition in the name of gun safety. 
Frankly, when I look at the numbers, we see 140 million rounds of 
ammunition are going to be put out there by the Federal Government. We 
have seen enough of the gun influence in our society. I just think the 
Federal Government ought not to be a coconspirator. It is not our job 
to give away guns and ammunition. The private sector should promote gun 
safety, if it chooses to, for recreational shooters, not the Federal 
Government. The NRA and others already do this. If they choose to 
continue, they may.
  When the 1996 Defense Department authorization bill was approved, the 
implications of the provision that established the private, nonprofit 
corporation were not clear, but now they are quite clear. We have a 
duty to act and to stop this boondoggle dead in its tracks. The 
giveaway of $76 million worth of weapons and ammunition is terrible 
public policy. In fact, it is outrageous. The Government must not work 
to add to the proliferation of guns in the country. We have enough 
without adding to the supply with this big freebie.
  Once again, I think it adds insult to injury when we think of the 
critical need that we have for programs in this country, whether it be 
breast cancer research, whether it be education, whether it be housing, 
whether it be nutrition, whether it be health care. How can we, in good 
conscience, say to the American people we are now going to give $76 
million to those who like guns and who want the Federal Government to 
subsidize their activity.
  I think it is recognized there are gun clubs. There are people who 
belong to them. They are OK. But we ought not to add to the confusion 
about this, nor perhaps the occasional violent eruption that can come 
from having this excessive supply of guns and ammunition available in 
the public.

[[Page S7095]]

  Mr. President our amendment would prevent the Government from 
providing a $76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs.
  If this amendment is not adopted, a private, nonprofit corporation 
established by the Congress last year will take control of 176,218 Army 
rifles worth more than $53 million. It will receive at lest $4.4 
million in cash from the Army, and it will be given Federal property, 
such as vehicles and computers, valued at $8.8 million. Even more 
remarkable, the corporation will be given control of 146 million rounds 
of ammunition worth $9.7 million.
  I did not make these numbers up. They came directly from the Army.
  If this amendment is adopted, it will cost the Army less than $2 
million to demilitarize all of the M-1's currently slated to be turned 
over to the private corporation.
  If the amendment is adopted, it will bring the Army in line with 
Government-wide policy prohibiting the public sale of Federal weapons. 
According to GSA regulations, reconfirmed by a Federal weapons task 
force in 1994, ``Surplus firearms may be sold only for scrap after 
total destruction by crushing, cutting, breaking, or deforming to be 
performed in a manner to ensure that the firearms are rendered 
completely inoperative and to preclude their being made operative.'' 
The regulations say ``surplus firearms, and firearms ammunition shall 
not be donated'' to the public.
  If the amendment is adopted, the national matches will still go 
forward. They just will have to be privately financed.
  If the amendment is adopted, Americans will still be able to take 
courses in firearms safety. They just will have to be privately 
financed.
  If the amendment is adopted, there will still be a well-trained U.S. 
Olympic shooting team.
  Mr. President, the Department of Defense has opposed the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program. According to Army Under Secretary Reeder: ``DOD 
repeatedly has conveyed to Congress that while it will continue to 
administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue 
to support legislation ending this program.''
  This giveaway of $76 million worth of weapons it terrible public 
policy. In fact it is outrageous. The Government must not add to the 
proliferation of guns in this country. We have enough without adding to 
the supply through this giveaway.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of my colleague from New Jersey, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
this legislation.
  The policy of the Federal Government up to this point has been not to 
sell weapons to the public. Now that policy is going to be reversed. If 
we were just taking $76 million and sending it down the drain, that 
would be bad enough. But, frankly, I would vote for sending it down the 
drain rather than doing what we are doing; 176,218 rifles are going to 
be handed over by the Federal Government. To whom? I do not know. But 
if anyone in here believes, of those 176,000 there are not going to be 
some people who are going to abuse those rifles, you are living in a 
dream world.
  I just had a conversation this morning with my colleague, Senator 
Carol Moseley-Braun, who has been trying to get money for school 
construction. The GAO says we are $15 billion in arrears on elementary 
and secondary school construction. She has been unable, at this point, 
to get one penny of Federal Government money for school construction.
  We say we do not have money for school construction. But here we have 
$76 million we are going to give away as a boondoggle to the National 
Rifle Association and the gun clubs. If we have 176,000 surplus rifles, 
we ought to destroy them. One of the reasons we have made progress in 
this country, in terms of murders in this country, is that a few years 
ago this Congress adopted a change so that you have to go through 
photos and fingerprints and some other things in order to become a gun 
dealer. We had a situation where we had more gun dealers than service 
stations in this country. And three-fourths of the gun dealers were not 
stores as we know them. They were in the kitchens of homes, they were 
in the basements, they were in trunks of cars. We had all kinds of 
illegal activity going on, and the ATF did not have the resources to 
handle it.
  Now, if the Lautenberg amendment is not adopted, do you know who is 
going to be the No. 1 gun dealer in the United States of America, with 
no control on where those guns go? The No. 1 gun dealer in the country, 
if the Lautenberg amendment is not adopted, is Uncle Sam.
  How many people are going to be killed because of what we are doing 
with this sending out to the public 176,000 weapons? I do not know. 
Illinois is 5 percent of the Nation's population. That means we are 
probably going to get 8,500 additional weapons. The State of Illinois 
has a lot of needs. We do not have any need for 8,500 more weapons 
scattered around the State of Illinois, given out by the National Rifle 
Association, or sold by them.

  I heard my friend from New Jersey use the word ``boondoggle.'' That 
is exactly what this is. Why, with the Federal Government short of 
funds, we should have a subsidy to the National Rifle Association and 
these gun clubs is beyond me. We are going to give them $8,800,000 
worth of property and $4,400,000 in cash--let somebody stand up and 
defend that--and 176,000 rifles. I do not know what they are. When I 
was in the Army, M-1's were the rifle. I assume we have moved beyond 
that stage. I see Senator Glenn, who is an expert on the Armed Services 
Committee. But this kind of nonsense, $9.5 million worth of ammunition 
we are going to hand out. I have seen ridiculous things pass this U.S. 
Senate. I have never seen anything as ridiculous as this move ahead. We 
ought to be doing something about it.
  It is interesting, who are the people who are going to take advantage 
of this? In the State of Michigan, the Michigan Militia took advantage 
of even the marksmanship program we have had at the National Guard base 
at Camp Grayling. These are the counterparts to the Freemen out in the 
West.
  But this kind of a giveaway? You can argue for all kinds of subsidies 
in this country, but this is a subsidy that no one can defend with any 
logic.
  I see my friend from North Dakota just walked onto the floor. He has 
been in the Budget Committee and has been a bulldog in trying to see 
our money is spent wisely. Here we have the Federal Government giving 
away $76 million to the National Rifle Association, giving away 176,000 
rifles.
  We are going to be the No. 1 gun dealer in the Nation with this sale, 
and instead of destroying these weapons, we are going to be handing 
them out to people with no control on who gets them.
  It is terrible policy, and the Lautenberg amendment ought to be 
adopted by voice vote. It should be unanimous, but I recognize the 
power that our friends in the National Rifle Association have. They 
have used the democratic process very effectively. But the U.S. Senate 
should stand up to them.
  I say to staff members who may be watching this on television, I do 
not care what your party affiliation, what your background, look at 
this carefully. This is bad news for the country if the Lautenberg 
amendment is not adopted.
  I thank my colleague for his courage and vision in offering it. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation that I hope will pass 
this body, I hope, overwhelmingly, but I know the power that our 
friends in the National Rifle Association have.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Simon from Illinois for his remarks. I think he clarified the situation 
pretty effectively, that this is almost like a shock when you consider 
what could be done with the $76 million, what ought to be done with 
these weapons.
  The policy of the country in the past has been to destroy them. This 
goes back to Biblical recommendations: turn the weapons into 
plowshares, get rid of them. These are no longer valuable for the 
military, they are passe.
  I said earlier that I carried one of these in World War II, and I see 
our distinguished colleague and friend from

[[Page S7096]]

Ohio on the floor, and I know that he, too, carried one of the weapons 
of this type in the military service of this country, which was, 
indeed, distinguished.
  Mr. President, I want to point out a couple of things here that I 
think ought to be in the Record.
  First, there are several documents, including a Washington Post 
article, a GSA news release going back to 1984 reporting on their view 
of what should happen with these weapons, which I am going to ask be 
printed in the Record.
  The regulations, which I will just paraphrase, state:

       Firearms no longer needed by an agency may be transferred 
     to those Federal agencies authorized to acquire firearms for 
     official use.

  However, it also prohibits the donation, sale or exchange of firearms 
and states they may be sold only for scrap after destruction.
  I particularly want to note, because some of the questions that are 
asked are: ``Well, you're accusing the NRA, blaming the NRA for these 
things, pointing a finger at them.'' I am looking at an article that is 
issued by the NRA. They say in this article, dated May 10, 1996:

       Remember a few weeks ago when the antigunners were 
     criticizing NRA for working to repeal the misguided Clinton 
     gun ban. You may recall they were imploring--

  Again, my unanimous consent request will include the document I am 
reading, as well as others to be submitted for the Record.
  However, they talk about these antigun votes. They say:

       They showed their true colors this week.

  This is May 10, 1996, just a few weeks ago.

       The antigunners are now focusing their sights on the 
     creation of the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle 
     Practice and Firearm Safety which was established to replace 
     the DCM. This program seeks to provide surplus firearms and 
     ammunition to law-abiding Americans to enhance firearms 
     safety and marksmanship.

  They criticize me and they say:

       Even more ridiculous, Senator Lautenberg thinks that the 
     distribution of surplus Government funds to groups amounts to 
     aiding and abetting the rising tide of gun violence. This is 
     just yet another example of the enemies of our firearms 
     freedom putting aside common sense for the sake of politics.

  I do not want to go through chapter and verse now of people in my 
State who lost loved ones to gun violence or to recall the stories that 
we read almost every day about guns in the schools, shots across the 
street in random shootings. That is not the subject.
  This subject is one about whether or not the Federal Government gives 
$76 million worth of guns and ammunition to organizations, the primary 
sponsor of which is the NRA. I think not. I hope, when we have a chance 
to have our vote, that this body will stand up and say, ``No, we're not 
going to give away those weapons, we're not going to give away the 
Nation's assets, we're going to destroy them just as they should be,'' 
and that we will have good support in that effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the several documents I 
mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the GSA News Release, Jan. 6, 1994.]

        Gas Administrator Stops Sales of Excess Federal Firearms

       Washington, DC.--In an attempt to curtail the flow of 
     handguns into American communities, the head of the General 
     Services Administration today announced that the agency will 
     no longer issue waivers that have allowed federal agencies to 
     sell excess firearms to dealers in the private sector.
       ``After consulting with Attorney General Janet Reno and 
     other administration officials, I have issued orders today 
     that have revoked all previously issued waivers and 
     determined that the General Services Administration will not 
     in the future grant waivers from existing regulations 
     prohibiting the donation, sale or exchange of firearms,'' GSA 
     Administrator Roger W. Johnson said.
       The prohibition is part of the Federal Property Management 
     Regulation (FPMR) that control various items in the federal 
     government's property inventory, including firearms. The 
     regulations state, in part, that ``firearms no longer needed 
     by an agency may be transferred only to those federal 
     agencies authorized to acquire firearms for official use.'' 
     The FPMR also prohibits the donation, sale or exchange of 
     firearms and states that they may be sold only for scrap 
     after total destruction.
       A waiver, or ``deviation'', from the regulations can be 
     granted by the GSA Administrator upon request by a federal 
     agency, which can then sell its excess firearms to federally 
     licensed gun dealers. The money collected from these 
     transactions has been used to purchase other firearms for 
     federal use or to defray other agency administrative costs.


              surplus firearms exchange policy fact sheet

       The Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR) Parts 
     101-42.1102-10(A-C) state, in part, that firearms no longer 
     needed by an agency may be transferred to those Federal 
     agencies authorized to acquire firearms for officials use. 
     Firearms may not be donated and may be sold only for scrap 
     metal after total destruction. Additionally, FPMR Part 
     101.46.202 states, in part, firearms are ineligible for 
     exchange or sale.
       The Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     has the authority to grant waivers to these prohibitions upon 
     request by an individual agency, thereby allowing an agency 
     to sell its excess or surplus firearm inventory to private 
     sector gun dealers. The money from these sales then go back 
     to the agency to defray costs of upgrading future firearm 
     inventories or other administrative costs.
       Since 1982, a total of 61,901 firearms have been excessed 
     and sold. The agencies that have excessed these firearms most 
     frequently are the Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, 
     U.S. Marshal Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     and Drug Enforcement Agency. A large percentage of these 
     firearms were acquired through confiscations during arrests.
       GSA Administrator Roger W. Johnson started investigating 
     this issue in October, when he was asked to grant a waiver. 
     After consulting with Attorney General Janet Reno and other 
     administration officials, Mr. Johnson issued orders that have 
     ``revoked all previously issued waivers and determined that 
     the General Services Administration will not in the future 
     grant waivers from existing regulations prohibiting the 
     donation, sale or exchange of firearms.''
                                                                    ____


                           NRA-ILA Fax Alert


                    anti-gunners' hypocrisy abounds

       Remember a few weeks ago when the anti-gunners were 
     criticizing NRA for working to repeal the misguided Clinton 
     gun ban? You may recall they were imploring NRA to get back 
     to teaching firearms safety and promoting marksmanship. 
     However, showing their true colors this week, the anti-
     gunners are now focusing their sights on the creation of the 
     Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms 
     Safety, which was established to replace the DCM (see Fax 
     Alert Vol. 3, No. 5). This program seeks to provide surplus 
     firearms and ammunition to law-abiding Americans to enhance 
     firearms safety and marksmanship. The anti-gunners beef--
     since the shooting clubs involved with the program may be 
     NRA-affiliated, they argue this program is ``new funding 
     mechanism'' for the Association! Even more ridiculous, Sen. 
     Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) thinks the distribution of surplus 
     government firearms to groups like Boy Scouts and Future 
     Farmers of America amounts to ``aid[ing] and abett[ing]'' the 
     ``rising tide of gun violence.''! This is just yet another 
     example of the enemies of our firearms freedoms putting aside 
     common sense for sake of politics. For more information on 
     the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and 
     Safety, call 202/761-0810.
       ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT DEFEATED IN U.S. HOUSE: An amendment to 
     a Public Housing bill offered by U.S. Senate candidate Rep. 
     Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), that would have outlawed self-defense 
     in public housing units, was overwhelmingly rejected by a 
     veto-proof majority on Thursday. Durbin's proposal would have 
     criminalized public housing residents who use a firearm in 
     self-defense, thereby federalizing state and local offenses--
     discriminating against people living in public housing. Our 
     thanks to Reps. Harold Volkmer (D-Mo.), Bob Barr (R-Ga.), 
     Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) & Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) for leading 
     the charge against the proposal. Side Note: the anti-gun 
     Durbin will face NRA-endorsed candidate Al Salvi (R) for U.S. 
     Senate seat vacated by this fall.
       U.S. HOUSE TO LOOK AT BAITING ISSUES: On May 15, the House 
     Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the enforcement of 
     baiting regulations that prohibit hunting waterfowl and other 
     migratory game birds, such as doves, ``by the aid of baiting, 
     or on or over any baited area.'' Following passage of the 
     1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, hunting over bait was 
     prohibited by regulations in 1935 to better regulate the 
     harvest of migratory waterfowl. The Interior Department's 
     Fish and Wildlife Service has enforcement responsibility. 
     However, in recent years, these regulations have caused 
     considerable confusion and disagreement over how they're 
     enforced. We'll keep you posted!
       STACK BACKS OUT: Charles ``Bud'' Stack, President Clinton's 
     nominee for a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, 
     withdrew his name from consideration after his nomination was 
     criticized by a number of groups, including NRA. In his 
     writings, Mr. Stack had called for the firearms industry to 
     be held liable when their products are misused by criminals, 
     thereby removing responsibility from criminals and placing it 
     instead on the manufacturers.
       LEADERSHIP TRAINING SET FOR MICHIGAN: Next Sunday, May 19, 
     NRA--in

[[Page S7097]]

     conjunction with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep 
     and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation--will host 
     a FREE Leadership Training Conference in Romulus, Michigan. 
     Don't miss this chance to learn how you can become a more 
     effective citizen-lobbyist! To reserve your seat or for more 
     information, please call (206) 454-4911.
                                                                    ____


              Excerpt From NBC Nightly News, May 16, 1996

       Tom Brokaw. Tonight, The Fleecing of America. If it wanted 
     to, the federal government could have the world's largest 
     yard sale. Think about it for a moment, all that surplus 
     furniture, used vehicles, military equipment; it goes on and 
     on. And in these days of tight cash, why would the government 
     give anything away? Which brings us to this FLEECING question 
     from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
       Andrea Mitchell. Dawn, on the world's largest firing range, 
     Camp Perry, Ohio, an Army base. Civilians issued rifles. The 
     Army will soon give away 76,000 surplus M-1s just like these, 
     free. They're also giving away office space, computers, and 
     $4 million in cash. Grand total: at least 67 million taxpayer 
     dollars. The Army will turn all this over to a new private 
     organization which will sell the firearms to finance gun 
     tournaments around the country.
       Mr. Robert Walker (Handgun Control, Incorporated). It is a 
     recreational program. It is pork, NRA pork.
       Mitchell. In fact, critics say, not only a FLEECING OF 
     AMERICA but a big benefit to the National Rifle Association. 
     How did Congress pass the gun giveaway? Very quietly. Gun 
     opponents though they had killed this program. They didn't 
     count on the powerful gun lobby, the NRA. Its friends in 
     Congress slipped this 12-page amendment into the massive 
     defense spending bill. Its purpose: the promotion of rifle 
     practice and firearms safety among civilians.
       Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat, New Jersey). It 
     irritates the devil out of me that people who work here 
     representing the best interests of our country are so 
     susceptible to narrow special interests like the NRA.
       Mitchell. This summer at this Army base in Ohio, the world 
     series of gun tournaments, financed largely by this 
     government giveaway. So, your tax dollars bought the rifles 
     which sell for up to $600 to pay for programs critics say 
     help the NRA recruit.
       Ms. Shannon McNeily (Age 12). This is my first time 
     shooting here.
       Mitchell. And how did it feel?
       Ms. McNeily. It felt pretty cool.
       Mitchell. Supporters say these programs teach gun safety, 
     important lessons that can be taught to anyone, even someone 
     who's never handled a firearm.
       Mr. Craig Swihart (Volunteer Instructor). Very good. You 
     squeezed that off real nice. Let's do it again.
       Mitchell. They say good, clean fun. But should taxpayers 
     foot the bill, permit the Army to give the surplus guns away?
       Mr. Swihart. Good question. Is this a good use of tax 
     dollars? These guns were paid for in the early '40s and very 
     late '30s when we fought the Second World War.
       Mitchell. Critics say the rifles should be destroyed. The 
     NRA calls that a real waste of tax dollars. Although they co-
     sponsor and run the annual tournament, they say:
       Ms. Tanya Metaksa (National Rifle Association). This is not 
     a program that benefits the NRA at all. It's one we spend 
     millions of dollars and--to support.
       Mitchell. Gun opponents are now trying once again to kill 
     the gun giveaway.
       Senator Lautenberg. The people on the other side very 
     cleverly figured out a way to give away the store, and give 
     away the weapons, and continue the program, and pay for it. 
     It's outrageous.
       Mitchell. But the NRA may have bigger guns in Congress to 
     keep this FLEECING OF AMERICA alive. Andrea Mitchell, NBC 
     News, Camp Perry, OH.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 7, 1996]

                     Up in Arms Over Rifle Giveaway

       A provision of the defense budget that went into effect 
     earlier this year requires the Pentagon to give away 373,000 
     old rifles from World War II and the Korean War, spurring 
     protests from gun-control advocates who believe the 
     government shouldn't add to gun commerce.
       The little-noticed measure was promoted by the National 
     Rifle Association and the congressional delegation in Ohio, 
     home to an annual marksmanship competition that will be 
     financed by the sale of the venerable M-1 rifles and other 
     aged guns with a resale value of about $100 million.
       The heavy, nine-pound M-1s are unlikely to be used in 
     street crimes such as drug killings, the program's advocates 
     say, because the main buyers have been and likely will 
     continue to be gun collectors who must be trained in shooting 
     rifles and pass a stringent background investigation.
       But critics say the recent congressional action is in 
     effect a subsidy to the NRA. It requires the Army to transfer 
     control over the rifles for free to a new nonprofit 
     corporation. The corporation will sell them to benefit 
     marksmanship programs and the yearly target tournament in 
     Camp Perry, Ohio, which is managed by the NRA.
       The old Army-administered program also co-sponsored the 
     annual Ohio tournament with the NRA, and over the years the 
     NRA used its close relationship with the project to market 
     itself, critics of the group said.
       Congress's action marked the death of the Army-administered 
     program, called the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which 
     critics called one of the U.S. government's oddest pork-
     barrel projects. The Pentagon ran it for decades but has 
     sought to disentangle itself in recent years.
       The program harkens to 1903, just after the Spanish-
     American War. U.S. military officials were upset to learn 
     farm boys conscripted for that conflict were not the rustics 
     of romantic American novels who could nail a jack rabbit from 
     200 yards--in fact, they couldn't hit a barn. Congress 
     established the project, supported by U.S. military guns and 
     money, to promote sharpshooting in future wars.
       ``The gift of millions of dollars worth of weapons and 
     ammunition is terrible public policy,'' said Sen. Frank R. 
     Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in a column in USA Today. ``In fact, it's 
     outrageous. The government must work to stem the rising tide 
     of gun violence in this country, not aid and abet it.''
       ``This program historically has been a federal subsidy to 
     the NRA's marketing,'' said Josh Sugarmann, a gun-control 
     activist and author of a 1992 book critical of the NRA. 
     Congress's latest action, he added, is ``a new funding 
     mechanism'' that also helps the NRA.
       The great majority of the gun clubs that take part in the 
     marksmanship program are affiliated with the NRA, he said. 
     For decades, in fact, the guns' buyers had to prove to the 
     Army they were NRA members--until a federal judge stopped the 
     requirement in 1979.
       Promoters of the 93-year-old program say it's no more 
     sinister than the Boy Scouts, the Future Farmers of America 
     and other youth groups that have taken part in its 
     marksmanship training. This M-1s that are sold are not used 
     in crimes, they said, because the strict background probes of 
     the guns' potential buyers cull out criminals. They also 
     point out that nine of the 10 members of America's 1992 
     Olympic shooting team learned marksmanship in the program.
       ``Any link opponents try to draw between this program and 
     urban violence is comparable to linking Olympic boxing 
     competition with hoodlum street fighting,'' said Rep. Paul E. 
     Gillmor (R-Ohio), who sponsored the new measure and whose 
     district draws 7,000 visitors and $10 million in revenue 
     during the summertime rifle competition.
       Gillmor added that it would cost the military $500,000 to 
     destroy the guns, while the cost is nothing if it gives them 
     away.
       Chip Walker, a National Rifle Association spokesman, said 
     Lautenberg and other critics of the program ``don't want to 
     promote firearms safety and responsibility.'' He added that 
     it's ``ironic'' that gun-control advocates for years have 
     criticized the NRA for its harsh rhetoric, urging it to stick 
     to its traditional mission of teaching firearms safety--and 
     now raise questions about its efforts to pursue even that 
     goal.
       Almost all the guns the Army is to give away are M-1s, the 
     bolt-action rifle lugged by GIs onto the beaches at D-Day and 
     Guadalcanal. Replaced in 1958 by the M-14 as standard 
     infantry issue, and later by today's M-16, the M-1 is prized 
     by collectors and war buffs--especially the pristine guns 
     sold in their original boxes by the Army.
       Last year the Army charged $310 each for the M-1s stored at 
     its Anniston Army Depot in Alabama--an increase from its 
     recent price of $250. In any case, those are discounts, 
     because M-1s usually sell for $400 to $500. In recent years 
     the program sold a maximum of 6,000 guns a year.
       The measure recently signed into law by President Clinton 
     in essence privatizes the program and transfers ownership of 
     the 373,000 rifles to the new Corporation for the Promotion 
     of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, whose board is to be 
     named by the Army. It will then sell the weapons for whatever 
     price the market will bear, and at whatever rate it chooses. 
     (the guns will remain at the Anniston facility until they are 
     sold.)
       The law requires the Army to transfer to the new 
     corporation $5 million in cash the Army program has on hand, 
     $8 million in computers and other equipment, about 120 
     million rounds of ammunition and the 373,000 guns. It's 
     estimated that only about 60 percent of the guns--about 
     224,000--are usable, and they could fetch about $100 million.
       The Pentagon has sought to remove itself as administrator 
     of the program, under which it sold 6,000 guns a year and 
     donated $2.5 million annually to the Ohio competition, 
     military officials said. The main reason, they said, is that 
     they concluded that the program years ago stopped 
     contributing to ``military readiness.'' Moreover, Pentagon 
     officials were uncomfortable being involved in an issue as 
     controversial as firearms.
       Finally, last year, military officials were upset by the 
     taint the program suffered when it was learned that members 
     of a Michigan militia had formed a gun club that became 
     officially affiliated with the Army program. Using that 
     affiliation, the militia members had taken target practice at 
     a Michigan military base until they were stopped.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7098]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, regrettably, I must rise today in 
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey. I 
do this reluctantly. I think this whole program is being 
mischaracterized, to a large degree, here. I think that is unfair.
  Civilian marksmanship is an old program. It has been run since way 
back in the early 1900's. It has been, basically, a good program. I 
would like to disabuse anybody of the idea that this is somehow just an 
NRA program. You bring up NRA and you immediately get strong feelings 
on both sides of whether you should support something or not just by 
the fact whether NRA approves it or does not approve it. But this is 
not an NRA program and it is not a giveaway program and it is not a gun 
control issue. I want to address these things.
  Senator Lautenberg's amendment would terminate a program that 
represents a compromise. It was a compromise which was worked out last 
year as a way of changing from Army support with taxpayer money, Army 
support of the Civilian Marksmanship Training Program that is conducted 
at Camp Perry in Ohio, and has been, I do not know, for how many 
decades it has been run there. But it was a way of converting from Army 
control and taxpayer money being used over to a civilian nonprofit 
organization that would run a legitimate sport that is run as a gun 
sport, not hunting or anything like that, but target shooting, 
marksmanship, gun safety, and that has been the focal point of the 
matches that have been held at Camp Perry for a long, long time.
  This way to convert over to a civilian program without just killing 
the whole program outright was the compromise that was worked out last 
year. No. This program, Mr. President, has not even had a chance to go 
into effect yet. So what we are doing is dumping the compromise that we 
thought there was agreement on last year.

  This program's predecessor, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, was 
established by Congress in the very early 1900's. They have promoted 
firearms safety and marksmanship training ever since that time.
  Up until this year, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was run by the 
Army, using appropriated funds, as I said. In addition to providing 
firearms safety training, the Civilian Marksmanship Program conducts a 
national marksmanship competition each year. Quite legitimate; great. 
It is like people shooting bows and arrows get to have their 
competition. People shooting little .22 pistols have their competition. 
And people who want to fire a little heavier fire caliber rifles have 
their competition.
  Indeed, it is an Olympic sport in marksmanship. The training many of 
these people receive at Camp Perry, the competitions they were in in 
these matches, is what leads them into a position where they can even 
participate in the Olympics. So it is a legitimate sport. So, in 
addition to providing firearms safety training, they conduct the 
national marksmanship competition each year.
  The third element of the program has been the sale of World War II 
vintage M-1 rifles out of which some of the costs of the competition 
and the firearms training has been funded.
  Now these are M-1's as my distinguished colleague from New Jersey 
said, M-1's that everybody who was around the military back during 
World War II days certainly and the Korean war are very, very familiar 
with. This is not a weapon of crime. I do not think there is a single 
time on record where an M-1 rifle has been taken in and been used to 
conduct a crime or rob a bank or a 7-11 or anything else.
  Last year's defense authorization legislation simply took the old 
program run by the Army, with appropriated funds, and moved it into a 
federally chartered--federally chartered--not-for-profit corporation 
that would conduct the training, the national matches, and sell 
collector-type rifles to defray the costs of the operations.
  This was a transition program to help them change to this nonprofit 
operation. That was the only purpose of it. The program has not changed 
in the last year, other than to move it out of the Army and stop using 
Army appropriated funds and put it into a self-sustaining corporation 
called the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms 
Safety. The use of appropriated funds was the complaint of the 
program's detractors last year, and that complaint was addressed by 
last year's legislation, Mr. President.
  I regret this issue is being characterized as a gun control issue 
because I believe that characterization is misleading, to say the 
least. Like Senator Lautenberg, I have been a strong supporter of gun 
control, but I do not believe the sale of these 50-year-old 9-pound 
rifles raises a gun control issue. As I said, as far as I know, there 
is not on record a single crime, not a single one, no robbery that 
anybody has on record as I understand it, of an M-1 rifle ever having 
been used.
  What is the attraction of these? The attraction of these rifles is 
nostalgic, quite frankly, for collectors, those who literally lived 
with that rifle back during World War II days and who want one to hang 
above the fireplace or on the wall or someplace or to show their kids. 
It is something they literally lived with in combat and which became an 
important symbol to them. You do not see a picture of World War II with 
the troops going up without the M-1's slung over everybody's back here. 
That is the attraction of them to collectors.
  It is not a matter of gun control at all. These rifles are being 
bought by collectors. They have never been recorded as involved in the 
commission of a single crime. They are heavy weapons and difficult to 
conceal. In addition, before a rifle can be purchased, a background 
check is required. The arguments about the program have never been 
about gun control before. The Army has been selling rifles and 
ammunition to the public under the auspices of the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program since 1924.

  Finally, I note these weapons are obsolete. They are not usable by 
the Army. So this is not a valuable giveaway where you can say these 
cost $400 or $500 to produce. These weapons, if they are stored by the 
Army--it will cost more to store them. I also add, the estimates of 
what it would cost to destroy these as opposed to selling them has been 
running--we do not have an accurate estimate, but the estimates have 
been between $500,000 and $3 million to destroy these things. I do not 
know what the true figure is here, but the lowest estimate we have had 
was $500,000.
  But in any event, these are not usable now. They will be destroyed if 
they are not transferred and sold into this program. So to the 
Government these rifles are not truly assets. Rather, they would be 
reflected on the books as a liability since their destruction would 
cost the Government money.
  So I think that sort of lays out the program, puts it in a little 
different light. It is not a program concerned with crime prevention. 
It is not a gun control issue; never has been. These are not the 
weapons of crime at all. It is not a giveaway because, if the Army does 
not want them, it will cost money to destroy them.
  What it is is a way of getting from the transition of the old Army-
supported, taxpayer-supported matches that the Army used appropriated 
funds for and transferring that over to a nonprofit corporation to 
continue the marksmanship training, safety training, Olympic-hopeful 
training, and so on, that has occurred at Camp Perry for many decades 
now.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my 
colleague from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in this amendment the Senator from New 
Jersey argues that the private, nonprofit, self-sustaining entity 
established by Congress, the CMP, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, is 
neither private nor self-sustaining. The amendment appears to make the 
program self-sustaining, but in fact it terminates the program flat 
out.
  He says that the CMP should be self-sustaining. He states that the 
program is terrible; in fact, it is outrageous, he says. I think the 
goal here is to portray the Civilian Marksmanship Program as dangerous 
and wasteful, perhaps an agenda here which is to terminate the entire 
program.
  Let me just use some phrases that the Senator from New Jersey has 
used

[[Page S7099]]

in debate here. The Senator from New Jersey says, ``Located deep inside 
the massive 1996 Defense Authorization Act, there is a small provision 
that was slipped into the defense bill.''
  Both the House and the Senate bills contained very detailed 
provisions to transition this Civilian Marksmanship Program from the 
Federal Government. This is not something that was deep inside a 
massive bill that was slipped in. It is actually 14 sections in a 
separate title. Title 16, Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle 
Practice and Firearms Safety. It is almost 10 pages. So it is not a 
little, insignificant item that was somehow slipped into this bill. It 
is very clear. It is not a small provision. It certainly is not in any 
way hidden. It is very much a part of the bill and easy to find.
  The Senator from New Jersey also says that, ``The law directs the 
Department of Defense to turn over 176,000 guns and 150 million rounds 
of ammunition in buildings in Washington, DC, and Ohio worth $8.8 
million.''
  The law directs DOD to transition the program to the private sector--
transition the program to the private sector. No transfer of an 
obsolete M-1 Garand rifle can occur by law unless strict criteria are 
met. No buildings or real property are going to be given to the 
corporation. One building at Port Clinton, OH, may be leased back to 
the corporation.
  Ammunition held in this Civilian Marksmanship Program is surplus 
ammunition. Eighty-five percent of it was purchased with revenues 
generated by CMP from fees and dues. There are no U.S. forces or 
allies, for that matter, who have any need for this 30-caliber 
ammunition. So the 287,000 M-1 Garand rifles now being stored by the 
defense logistics agencies are obsolete. They are carried by DOD as 
unserviceable.
  So I do not understand where all this tremendous monetary value comes 
from that somehow we are wasting or giving away. They are obsolete. 
They are not worth anything to the Federal Government. So this 
transition saves the Government, does not cost the Government, saves 
the Government millions--millions of dollars--because you have to 
destroy this inventory. If you did not get rid of it by giving it away, 
you would have to destroy ammunition, you would have to destroy these 
weapons. Plus, in the meantime before you destroyed them, you would 
have to have storage costs. The estimate of that is somewhere around 
$2.5 million annually. In addition to that, you would preserve the 
program and avoid other significant costs.

  M-1's are obsolete and have value only if they are sold. They do not 
have value if they sit. They have value only if they are sold. 
Criticism that the program is a giveaway for selling obsolete rifles 
that have no value unless they are sold does not make any sense. 
Disposals comply with all current law. All current law is complied 
with, and further, require a formal training program and a waiting 
period of 10 to 15 months after the completion of all these 
requirements.
  Now, the Senator from New Jersey, and I will use his language, said, 
``The total tab to the American taxpayer for this boondoggle is over 
$76 million.'' That is simply not true. The value of obsolete M-1 
rifles is zero. How would one put a value of $76 million on obsolete 
items that no one wants to buy? They are a liability. They cost money 
if they are destroyed.
  No real property is here being transferred to the corporation. So the 
$76 million, I do not know where it came from. It has no basis, in 
fact. However, there are some savings. Mr. President, 28 Government 
employees would leave the program, $83,000 in annual rent for a 
commercial building would be saved, and $850,000 in conducting national 
matches would be saved, a cost avoidance by not having to store and 
destroy 287,000 obsolete firearms.
  Another statement that was made here, Mr. President, by the Senator 
from New Jersey is, ``Why should taxpayers be delivering cost free to 
American gun enthusiasts more than 176,000 rifles and enough ammunition 
to start a small war?'' If we could try to look through that kind of 
inflammatory rhetoric, it is fair to ask a public policy matter, I 
think, as to whether the CMP should be transitioned or terminated. That 
is a fair question. No concern was raised while the issue was 
considered in markup nor on the floor nor in conference. This is not a 
gun control issue. That is what the other side is making this into. It 
is not a gun control issue. The program promotes safety and conducts 
matches--national matches. The disposals of these obsolete weapons, the 
M-1's, comply with all current law and further require a formal 
training program and a waiting period of 10 to 15 months after all 
these requirements are complete.
  We have heard today that somehow this is a great benefit to the NRA 
and we are carrying water for the NRA. This is not even about the NRA. 
The NRA does not have a thing to do with this program, nothing, not one 
bit of a role does the NRA have in this program. The essential question 
is whether the program contributes sufficient value to the United 
States to merit its continuation. That is the issue. The program of 
safety education and the contribution to the U.S. Olympic teams alone 
would answer that question in the affirmative.
  Now we have heard to the contrary, but considering the program's 
value as an outreach program, conducted by a large network of 
volunteers, its proven value in military recruitment and the savings to 
taxpayer, all of those items support its continuation. What we are 
hearing is a misrepresentation of the facts, turning this into a gun 
issue. The fact that there is no cost to the taxpayers to continue the 
program as a private entity further supports its continuation.

  Now, let me answer this point about gun enthusiasts. This is a large 
program, a very large program. It has the direct involvement of over 
half a million young adults, maybe some older adults. Nine out of 10 
members of the 1992 U.S. Olympic rifle team participated in this 
program, 9 out of 10, to include female gold and silver medalists. 
Congress considered the issue, recognized the value of the program, and 
developed the transitional aspect of this legislation in close 
cooperation with the Army to enhance those people to use those weapons 
in their training on the U.S. Olympic team.
  CMP, the Civilian Marksman Program, is conducted through 1,100 
formally affiliated clubs in all 50 States, whose volunteers teach 
young people the safe and responsible use of firearms in conjunction 
with competitive sport shooting, competitive sport shooting. Who 
belongs? Clubs in New Jersey, for example, include the Vernon Township 
Police Athletic League, the Queen of Peace High School, the 44th 
infantry Division Historical Reenactment Society, the Boy Scout Troop 
46, and Kearny Police Junior Rifle Club. We forget that when we go to 
see these reenactments of military battles or marchers, that they do 
carry these weapons. Where would they get them? We are providing them 
to them. That is a service. These are not placed in the hands of 
fanatics who are going out shooting people. Yet that is the image that 
is being presented here.
  A typical club secretary, who also is a New Jersey police officer, 
commented to our staff on the committee, ``Our club has 21 young people 
in grades 6 to 8 and 40 on a standby list. We have turned away 
countless others because we do not have instructors. The local schools 
and parents fully support our club.'' I repeat, ``The local parents and 
schools fully support our club. Ours is the only basic firearms safety 
program in the area. We believe that educating kids in safety is the 
best way to demystify guns and achieve responsibility, safety, and 
respect. We teach kids how to handle these situations where a friend 
may try to take out a gun in a house,'' for example. It is a team 
program.
  Another secretary commented, ``We have more than 400 members in our 
club. This is a family program, lots of fathers and daughters. Most 
adults are in the National Guard, the Reserves, or have had military 
experience. We stress the safe handling of firearms and dispel myths. 
We instruct the police auxiliary and active Reservists without the use 
of public funds. Our community has found in 15 years of club 
affiliation this is an excellent program for kids.''
  So, ``The CMP,'' again, using the words of the Senator from New 
Jersey, ``has sponsored summertime shooting competitions for civilians 
and it even purchased bullets for Boy Scouts and taught them how to 
shoot guns.'' Now, that is really an outrageous statement, Mr. 
President. The program conducts

[[Page S7100]]

annual national matches, supports programs like 4-H, Future Farmers of 
America, and, yes, the Boy Scouts. It does furnish .22 caliber ammuni- 
tion--formerly free of charge, soon at a nominal price--for certified 
youth programs paid from revenues that this program generates. Without 
this program, there would be no national matches.
  Again, the Senator from New Jersey says in reality the new 
corporation will be private in name only. That is not true, either. The 
legislation states, ``The corporation shall not be considered a 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government. An 
officer or employee of the corporation shall not be considered to be an 
officer or employee of the Federal Government.''

  The Senator from New Jersey also says, ``There was also evidence of 
links between the program and antigovernment militia groups.'' Of 
course this is a hot button, which is why it is brought up. Again, this 
is simply not true. Now, facts are facts. This comment may refer to a 
group not affiliated with the program that tried to use a military 
installation range and was turned away by the installation commander 
because they were affiliated with the militia. The Army conducted an 
investigation of possible militia involvement in a program and can find 
absolutely no indication of militia involvement.
  This M-1 is not the type of firearm that such a group or a criminal 
would prefer. It cannot be used as a full automatic. It is heavy and it 
is impossible to conceal. This is an old military weapon, Mr. 
President.
  The legislation prohibits explicitly participation in the program by 
anybody who is a convicted felon, firearm violator, and any individual 
who would advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government or any 
overthrow of the U.S. Government. The requirements to purchase an M-1 
through the program are probably the most vigorous in the country.
  An applicant must comply with all existing laws, have a background 
check, be fingerprinted, attend a formal training program, fire 50 
rounds under supervision as part of the training, and wait 10 to 15 
months after completion of all of the requirement to receive a rifle.
  It is regrettable, Mr. President, that this program has come under 
attack and this thing is being made into an NRA issue or a gun issue.
  Again, in summary, these are outmoded weapons that are used in 
competition, or in military reenactments, or hobbyists, or for 
competitive shooting, and that is all. They have no value whatsoever to 
anyone. So to say they are worth $76 million is simply outrageous. They 
have no value.
  So by providing this opportunity for people to get some use out of 
them, some training, I think we enhance the possibility that they would 
be less be apt to have accidents, or go to people who do not understand 
guns. But to say we are putting bullets and guns into the hands of Boy 
Scouts, that is terribly misleading, Mr. President.
  At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold the quorum call?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me just say, the Senator from New 
Hampshire would object to calling off the quorum call, unless the 
Senator from California would agree to be recognized for debate only 
while the managers are working on an agreement with respect to the 
Lautenberg amendment, and that I be recognized when the Senator from 
California yields the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
  Mr. SMITH. Then I object to the calling off of the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator 
Lautenberg's amendment and to both commend him and support him for this 
amendment.
  Prior to making my remarks, I would like to address a comment made by 
the very distinguished Senator from New Hampshire that these guns have 
no value, that the $76 million price tag on them is outrageous.
  Well, we called a number of gun shops around the Nation to determine 
whether the M-1 and the M-1 carbine had a value. I would like to share 
with the Senator what I found. The M-1, which the Army puts a value of 
$310 on, can be purchased at the Old Town Armory in Alexandria, VA for 
$425. It can be purchased at the Old Sacramento Armory in California 
for $549. It can be purchased at Segal Guns in Oakland for $495.
  Remember, the Army's value is $310. The M-1 carbine, which the Army 
puts a value of $76.90 on, can be purchased at the Old Town Armory for 
$389, and the Old Sacramento Armory for $425, at the San Francisco Gun 
Exchange for $278.50 and $325, at the National Shooting Club in Santa 
Clara at $400 and $425.
  As a matter of fact, if you average these prices and say what market 
prices are for these weapons, the M-1 and the M-1 carbine, and the 
other items, actually increase the amount to about $86.5 million rather 
than $76 million.
  So I respectfully submit to this body that it is not true that these 
guns have no value. They are, in many cases, collectors items, and they 
bring a substantial value.
  Nonetheless, I rise in support of what Senator Lautenberg is doing, 
because to me this kind of program is not one in which the Federal 
Government should be involved. It is not one in which we should be 
providing cash and leased space and weapons to a civilian program. My 
view is that the groups who are interested in this are well-funded, 
they have a fee base, and they can handle this program on their own, 
and that is an appropriate thing to do.
  I also have a problem in that I do not believe that military weapons 
should be sold by the U.S. military to civilians. Military weapons may 
be out-of-date weapons, but, nonetheless, they are designed with a 
purpose, and that purpose is combat. Heaven knows we have enough combat 
on our streets.
  I looked at the background of this program. It was actually 
established, interestingly enough, in 1903 as a military program prior 
to the Spanish American War to take young recruits and would-be 
military and teach them how to shoot prior to their coming into the 
military.
  Last year, under title XVI of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, the 
nonprofit, so-called private Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle 
Practice and Firearm Safety was put forward. In effect, this is a 
change in name only. It is the same program. It may have a different 
board of directors, but it will be the same identical program--sort of 
the same program with a different name on it.
  So essentially, when it becomes operational in October of this year--
and it has not yet become operational--it will take control of 176,218 
Army rifles and 146 million rounds of ammunition worth more than $62 
million. Even more remarkable, it will receive at least $4.4 million in 
cash from the Army, and it will be given leased Federal property such 
as vehicles and computers valued at $8.8 million at no cost to the 
corporation but at a cost of $76 million to the taxpayers. So the 
taxpayers are essentially giving to a totally civilian program $76 
million of their funds.
  Is training people to shoot straight a worthy cause? Of course it is. 
But it is not the Government's responsibility.
  I do not know about you, Madam President, but I have not received one 
phone call or letter from a constituent complaining that we are not 
funding enough shooting competition. I have, however, heard from 
constituents about the $11 million that was cut from Healthy Start, a 
program to reduce infant mortality among low-income pregnant women, and 
I have heard about the $384 million that was cut from student financial 
assistance grants, and I have heard about the $12 million cut from the 
school dropout prevention program and the $4 million cut from the 
National Health Service Corporation that sends doctors and nurses into 
underserved areas.
  So what this boils down to--and I recognize there is a firewall 
between

[[Page S7101]]

defense and social programs--is really a sense of priority. Is this 
where we want Army weapons going? Is this how we want Federal dollars 
used?
  My own State of California will have cut $12 million for the Commerce 
Department's Tourism and Travel Administration. This is a big deal in 
California. It is one of our major industries. Local communities feel a 
very real impact from the $35 million lost in impact aid to make up for 
lost tax revenue.
  So this, again, is about priorities. I do not think--well, I know, 
because the military has said they do not need the program. They do not 
really want the program. $76 million--think of what that could do put 
to use.
  I am also very much aware of the fact that there are many guns in 
this Nation. We have 212 million guns in the United States of America 
in private circulation and another 6 million being added every single 
year. Do we really need to use Federal money to add over 175,000 Army 
guns to this street supply? This is not a question of gun control. This 
is not controlling guns. It is a question of adding to the supply with 
taxpayer dollars. I, for one, do not truly believe that the Federal 
Government should do this. I believe, in a sense, that it has as much 
social well-being and purpose as a Federal tea-tasting program.

  In reports such as ABC's Prime Time Live and a Boston Globe article, 
it is true militia members brag that they are adding to their 
stockpiles of weaponry and ammunition and have received training at 
U.S. Army bases from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. What is to stop 
them from receiving training at this program as well?
  As a matter of fact, this group does its own gun checks--not a 
Federal agency, not somebody independent, not somebody trained in it, 
but very progun, antiregulation, antilicensing people would do the 
betting of who would have these weapons.
  So I would say who do we really know? Where do we really think these 
weapons and ammunition will go? The clear answer is we do not really 
know because the new corporation would have the sole responsibility for 
determining who gets the guns and who does not. A group of private 
citizens will determine who gets military weapons and who does not.
  That, to me, is wrong-headed. It is ill-advised. Then when you fund 
it with taxpayer dollars, I think Senator Lautenberg is absolutely 
right on, it becomes a major boondoggle.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the amendment that the Senator from New 
Jersey has brought before us--certainly the Senator from California has 
just spoken in behalf of--in my opinion rests largely on a matter of 
opinion and not as much on fact. I say so because, if you really are 
antigun--and that appears clearly to be the case of the two Senators 
and the votes that they have cast over the last several years, and 
certainly the Senator from New Jersey has made no secret about the fact 
that he has been opposed to the Civilian Marksmanship Program and has 
for many years tried to terminate it--I would not be surprised that 
this amendment would come at this time. What happened last year was a 
recognition of the concern of the Senator from New Jersey.
  But as important as getting it off from the Government role, if you 
will, is the recognition as we have gone down through the decades that 
we really did find it a legitimate and a responsible position for our 
Government to promote firearm safety and, certainly, legitimate 
civilian marksmanship.
  Whereas, the Senator from California stated when this program was 
originally organized we found our need to defend ourselves as a country 
but we found a civilian population who did not know how to handle 
firearms, and the length of time in training them was such that it was 
inadequate for the need for protection. Since that time we have had a 
department of civilian marksmanship, a program that has been 
participated in, yes, by the National Rifle Association, but by a lot 
of other civilian groups, private groups, who have been interested in 
responsible firearm handling and safety and accurate marksmanship.
  As the Senator from Ohio so clearly spoke, this program is 
privatized. It is being moved out of the area of subsidy.
  So if you are against a safety program, a responsibly controlled 
program, and you are just antigun, then my guess is you would want to 
vote for this amendment.
  But if you recognize the need for gun safety, for a well-organized 
program and for our military, the Army in this instance, to be a 
participant in selecting the board of directors of this civilian, 
nonprofit group to handle the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the 
sale of these obsolete firearms, then I would ask you to oppose this 
amendment; to do responsibly what we did in 1996 in the defense 
appropriations bill, and that is to move it out of the Government and 
allow the sale of the M-1 and the ammunition that remains, which is by 
all definition an obsolete military weapon, to fund the program.
  Some would argue that is subsidy. I would argue something different 
than that.
  I suggest that right now the storage of these obsolete military 
weapons is costing us well over $2 million a year. We are paying for 
that on an annualized basis. If we destroy the arms, which the Senator 
from New Jersey is advocating, we do not know its cost--millions of 
dollars to go out and destroy not only the firearms but the ammunition. 
That has a fixed-cost to it. Or we can do as we are suggesting here and 
legitimately fund this program by the controlled sale of the M-1. And I 
hope we would choose to do so. Certainly, I think that remains a 
responsible choice.
  This new program and the director of civilian marksmanship that would 
be created by it have this responsibility: the instruction of 
marksmanship and the conducting of national matches and competition--
and out of those national matches and competition grow our Olympic 
athletes who compete in this legitimate international sport, the sport 
of marksmanship shooting, competition shooting--the awarding of the 
trophies, the prizes, the badges and insignias, the sale of firearms, 
ammunition and equipment.
  That becomes the responsibility of this civilian-based, nonprofit 
corporation, and I think that is what we ought to be doing. That is 
responsible. I think this is an amendment that ought to be tabled, and 
I hope that sometime this afternoon we could get to that and my 
colleagues would join me in such tabling action.
  As the Senator from Ohio, who outspokenly said he was an advocate of 
gun control, has said on this floor minutes ago, the M-1 is not a 
weapon that we find in crime, used on the streets today. It is a 
collector's item in large part, and it is also used for marksmanship. 
Many of our veterans of World War II like to collect them as 
memorabilia. It is a way of raising money from an obsolete item that 
our Federal Government now has.
  I certainly hoped that the words of the Senator from New Hampshire, 
the recognition that we heard the Senator from New Jersey and responded 
by taking this out of the Government role and making it a private 
corporation, would have satisfied him. Apparently, by his presence and 
this amendment in the Chamber this afternoon, that simply is not the 
case. He wants to terminate this program altogether and then withstand 
the expense of the destruction of these firearms and the ammunition 
involved. I hope that is something we would not do.
  Yes, there is value to the weapon. There is no question about that. 
The Senator from California cited statistics from gun shops around the 
country, but only if it is in that shop and only if it is for sale. 
Right now, stored in a warehouse, it is of no value except it costs the 
Government annually over $2 million, about $2.5 million to store and to 
maintain these weapons.
  So I certainly hope that as, once before, the Senate spoke clearly on 
the value of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, we would again concur 
as we did last year. It is time to privatize. That we are doing. We 
have moved in the process to create the nine-member board of directors, 
initially, as I said, appointed by the Secretary of the Army. The 
civilian director, also chosen then by that board, will continue to 
provide services to affiliated organizations and to follow through with 
those items with which I mentioned this director is charged.

[[Page S7102]]

  I hope we could conclude this debate and move on with other issues 
directly affecting certainly the legislation before us, the defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I listened carefully to my friends 
who take an opposite view to mine, who I think are accusing me at this 
moment of trying to foster gun control. Although that is something I do 
not shy away from, that happens not to be the motive of this amendment. 
They suggested that I may not like the Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. 
They suggested I do not like guns. I carried a gun. I climbed telephone 
poles with a carbine over my shoulder in Europe during World War II, in 
the northern tier, Holland and Belgium, that area. I even at one point 
got a marksman's badge. So I fired these weapons and did what I had to 
do to learn how to shoot them. The Army program was pretty effective.
  Now, again I said World War II. Some around here may think I was in 
the Spanish-American War, but the fact is that that war is what 
occasioned this development. We had an Army that could not shoot 
straight so they said, well, let's get a civilian force that can 
effectively be a kind of premilitia group that can help us at moments 
of conflict.
  That was then, 90 years ago. But the program has no value now, and it 
has been established by the Army as having no value. The Under 
Secretary of the Army writes in May that the Army gets no direct 
benefit from the program, that there is no ``discernible link,'' it is 
quoted, the Honorable Floyd Spence, chairman of the House National 
Security Committee, and the ranking member, Ron Dellums, reiterating, 
no discernible link between this and the CMP.
  Madam President, I think we ought to get to the nub of the problem. 
Yes, I think that it would be outrageous for the Government of the 
United States to give away $76 million worth of property to people who 
want to learn how to shoot a gun and hold a competition. If they want 
to do that, that is fine with me. We do not provide golf balls, tennis 
balls, baseballs out of the Federal Government for people who want to 
learn how to play baseball, basketball, or otherwise. If they happen to 
be in the military or some branch of Government that does that, fine. 
But for civilians we do not do that kind of stuff.
  And since when do we now suddenly see the sanctimonious character of 
this being almost a moral obligation of the country? I disagree with 
that totally. We are talking about a giveaway of Government property 
contrary to policy that says that in fact we ought to be destroying 
weapons.
  This was a GSA-inspired program. The General Services Administration 
convened a Federal weapons task force to review the Government policy 
of disposing of firearms. It confirmed a longstanding Government policy 
of not transferring federally owned weapons to the public; excess 
weapons are not sold or transferred out of Government channels.
  Federal regs are clear. They say that ``surplus firearms and firearms 
ammunition shall not be donated'' to the public. ``Surplus firearms may 
be sold only for scrap after total destruction by crushing, cutting, 
breaking, or deforming to be performed in a manner to ensure that the 
firearms are rendered completely inoperative and to preclude their 
being made operative.'' So that they cannot be made operative again.
  Simply put, they said the Federal Government has made a decision. It 
should not be arms. This has nothing to do with gun control or whether 
or not Frank Lautenberg is offending the sensibilities of the 4-H 
Clubs--we have them in New Jersey--or the Boy Scouts. I repeat, I was a 
Boy Scout. I never got to be an Eagle Scout, but I was OK. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  But, when it is suggested here these weapons could never be used in a 
crime, they are too cumbersome, et cetera, we have a transcript of a TV 
program in which a Mr. Mark Koernke appeared and talked about the 
militia program, where they had access to an American military base 
where they could go in and out fire weapons, et cetera. This was Mark 
Koernke's response to Sam Donaldson. ``As a matter of fact,'' he said, 
in response to Sam Donaldson, who said:

       You're telling me, sir, that you did not, in any event, 
     ever advocate an attack on Camp Grayling [military base]--is 
     that what you're telling me?
       Mark Koernke: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we can 
     access Camp Grayling at our discretion any time that we wish.
       Sam Donaldson: What do you mean by that?
       Mark Koernke: We have access to it. . . .

  This is someone who is a leader in the Michigan Militia:

       We have access to it . . . for Department of Defense, 
     D.C.M. [a civilian marksmanship basis] shooting on a regular 
     basis. We can enter the facility or any other military 
     facility.

  So, while this may not be a weapon of choice for criminals, the fact 
is if it is a weapon of choice for military people to train with--
militia people, I think it is a bad idea.
  We are down to the nub here, frankly. Whether or not the process is 
exactly as it should be, yes, Senator Frank Lautenberg wants to 
eliminate this program. That is what the Army suggested. That is what 
the GSA suggested. We want to stop paying for it. I want to stop paying 
for it altogether. I want those weapons destroyed, not given over to a 
civilian organization where they can sell them and use the profit for 
their mission. It ought not to be that way. No place else in Government 
do we do that kind of thing.
  It was said, by our colleague and friend from Idaho, this was a board 
appointed by the Army Secretary. That should give it some balance. But 
this board has the authority to replace itself, replace members that 
retire or leave for whatever reason, so it can easily become a captive 
of a particular group.
  I do not want to stop gun practice, gun safety instruction, none of 
those things. I do not want my Government, I do not want these 
taxpayers, to have to pay to give it to the group. I think it is an 
absolutely unjustified process. We ought to stop the program. We ought 
to get out of the business. If people want to pay for ammunition and 
guns and so forth, there is a marketplace out there, they can buy all 
they want.
  I hope, Madam President, we will bring this debate to a conclusion 
and let the Senate speak for itself.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At this moment 
there is not.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do know the Senator from New Jersey's 
military background. Apparently I know something he does not know about 
the Army.
  The Department of Army did investigate the militias to see if there 
was any connection between the militias and the problems the Senator 
from New Jersey has mentioned. It is my understanding they found there 
was none.
  As a matter of fact, just in the last 2 weeks when I have been back 
to Alaska, twice, I have seen the Alaska Militia working as volunteers 
at the fires that took place near Anchorage, around our lake country. 
We call it the Meadows Reach fire. They were in their uniforms, 
provided by my State. They perform voluntary service, assisting people 
in disasters.
  They also perform the function of teaching our people, young people, 
how to handle weapons, weapon safety, weapons training. The unfortunate 
thing is, I do not think the Senator from New Jersey realizes in the 
President's appropriations bill, in the bill the President submitted to 
us--and this is the President's budget I have here--is this provision:

       None of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
     may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 carbines, M-1 
     Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles or M-1911 
     pistols.

  The impact of that is to continue in the appropriations process the 
provision that we put in there for many years to prohibit the 
Department of Defense from destroying these weapons. These are weapons 
that are now stored by the Defense Logistics Agency. They are obsolete 
with regard to the activities of the Department of Defense. The 
Department is required by law to protect them. I think others

[[Page S7103]]

have already mentioned we have a series of people, 28 Government 
employees, we pay $83,000 annually for rent of a commercial building to 
store them, there is approximately $850,000 we currently pay from the 
taxpayers' money to conduct the national rifle matches.
  What has happened in the last year, the Department of Defense bill, 
which was signed by the President, had a provision to require these 
rifles be turned over to them, and the ammunition, which is surplus to 
the Department's needs. There is no U.S. ally or entity of our U.S. 
Department of Defense that uses a .30 caliber ammunition now.
  Contrary to this chart, there is no property being given to this 
corporation. I do not know where the Senator from New Jersey got those 
figures. This is not a giveaway. It is a creation of a foundation, in 
effect a corporation that is required by law to pay the costs of 
preparing and transporting any firearms or ammunition. It deals with 
the surplusing of these rifles over a period of time to this creature--
it is a corporation, created by law.
  It was not deep inside the Defense Authorization Act, done in the 
dark of night, as the Senator from New Jersey would have us believe. It 
is legislation signed by the President, 14 separate sections. This is 
the act that passed last year. That is an act of our Congress last 
year. It was signed and there are 14 sections in here that deal with 
this corporation for the promotion of rifle practice and firearm 
safety.
  We take the position it is a logical use of the power of Congress to 
create a corporation and assign it a function that has previously been 
paid for by the taxpayers. This is going to save money and continue the 
concept of trying to find ways to instruct our young people on rifle 
practice and firearm safety.
  I am sad we disagree. But he is not disagreeing just with those of us 
who are opposing him, he is disagreeing with the President of the 
United States. The President signed that bill. I do not remember 
objection being raised at the time. The President sent up to us again 
the same provision that prevents the destruction of these rifles and 
will require us to continue to store them and hire people to watch them 
and to guard them.
  The consequences of the amendment of the Senator will not be to 
prevent a giveaway, it will be to require the taxpayers to continue to 
pay for functions that can be supported by this corporation. And I did 
support the corporation when it was included in the Department of 
Defense authorization bill for 1996. And so did the President of the 
United States. I thought we had found a logical compromise to avoid the 
annual fight we have had over this program, to try to teach young 
people how to conduct themselves and how to handle rifles and firearms 
safely.
  I still think it is a good function. I am disturbed the Senator from 
New Jersey apparently links all of the State militias into the problems 
that have occurred with regard to two or three groups that call 
themselves militias. Particularly Western States have militias. My 
State has a militia of necessity because of the number of disasters we 
have. I saw them last year at the large, Kenai Peninsula flood area. 
They were down there volunteering. They came in and they helped 
everybody who was suffering because of that disastrous flood. They are 
helping, this year, the people involved in the fire area.
  I do not know why people have to attack a legitimate function of 
State government in order to try to make a point there are some people 
who go off the deep end, as far as the use of firearms. We join with 
others who are trying to correct that. But this amendment is not going 
to correct that. This amendment will take us back to the fight, what do 
we do with the rifles and guns? Even the President of the United States 
says none of the money in the bills--we are going to appropriate funds 
for the Department--can be used to in any way demilitarize them or 
dispose of them or destroy them.
  I believe the concept of this corporation is a good one. It basically 
gives us the ongoing funding by taking those firearms that are no 
longer necessary for defense purposes and makes them available for sale 
to gun collectors and others who want them or could use them.
  Many of us who are hunters still use .30 caliber weapons. My hunting 
rifle is a .30 caliber. I do not see any reason why that ammunition 
should be destroyed when it can be used by those of us who still have 
those guns. We are not using them in criminal ways. We are using them 
for our hunting activities, and I believe that ammunition should be 
available.
  The corporation will make it available for distribution and will use 
the income from that to offset the $850,000 we have been spending 
annually to conduct the national rifle matches and will use the income 
to continue the concept of these educational processes to teach our 
young people how to use rifles, how to use firearms safely.
  Sure, they have access to our military bases for that purpose. That 
is where the safe ranges are. I wonder where the Senator from New 
Jersey thinks in his State the safe firearms ranges are?
  I have a whole list of things here--I do not know if anybody read 
them--that people from New Jersey have said about the Senator's 
amendment. I do not think it is quite fair to quote his constituents to 
him. He can talk to them himself.
  Clearly, they have access to those military bases for the purpose of 
rifle practice and to teach safety classes, and I think that is a good 
idea. I do not think there is anyone better qualified to teach our 
young people how to handle firearms safely than people who are in the 
military. I do not think there is any safer place to have them learn 
than on a military base where we have a range that is operated under 
all sorts of conditions that protect the safety of all concerned. I am 
sure the Senator did as I did; he learned to shoot on a range on a 
military base.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In uniform.
  Mr. STEVENS. In uniform. A lot of these kids are not going to be in 
uniform now, thanks to those of us who did away with the draft. They 
are going to have to learn how to shoot guns, and if they are going to 
learn, they ought to learn right from military people on military bases 
where safety is taught first.
  The first two times I went to the range in the military, we did 
nothing but what we called ``dry firing.'' We learned how to handle 
those guns safely. That is what goes on on those bases, and I think it 
is right.
  I sincerely oppose the Senator's amendment. I call his attention to 
this provision. I assume when we get to the Defense Department 
appropriations bill, that the Senator will try to take this provision 
out. But I remind the Senate, it was sent to us by the President of the 
United States. It says that none of the funds that we make available to 
the Department of Defense can be used to demilitarize or dispose of 
these weapons that he now opposes we transfer to this corporation for 
purposes of supporting a legitimate educational program on how to 
handle firearms safely.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, whenever one has an opportunity to 
engage in a debate with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, one 
always knows that the citizens of Alaska have justly deserved the 
reputation for being focused on their mission and let no holds bar them 
from their purpose--and with respect and admiration, by the way. I 
enjoy my moments of conversation, sometimes a tiff, as we might call 
it, with the Senator from Alaska. I will tell you, he is never at a 
loss for words and thoughts, and I respect him.

  In this case, the Senator happens to be wrong. The situation, as the 
Senator describes it, I think, extends my remarks just a little bit.
  Yes, I know the President signed the defense bill after having vetoed 
it once, and, after having another bill put in front of him, he signed 
it last year. I assume the President carefully studied it, his people 
studied it, and he signed a bill that, like all pieces of legislation, 
some are excellent through and through and some have problems with 
them, but on balance you say, ``OK, this bill is good enough that I 
have to swallow hard and take some things.''
  The Senator from Alaska knows very well that there is rarely a piece 
of legislation that is exempt from amendment, review, rewriting or 
otherwise.

[[Page S7104]]

 That is life around here. So simply because it was in the defense bill 
at one point does not make it right. Now that we have had a chance--one 
solid year--to examine the weaknesses of that bill, this is one that 
stands out sharply in my mind.
  When I talk about access to military bases--the Senator is gone--but 
Fort Monmouth in my State still exists because one of the things I 
worked hard to do was to make sure this prime facility continued to 
operate. Fort Dix in my State has some marginal operations. McGuire Air 
Force Base. We have military bases that are important in our society 
and important in our culture. But access to the base does not mean you 
can run in any time, go anyplace you want without typically some 
specific purpose. If you are there for rifle practice or target 
practice, so be it.
  What I was quoting was a person from the Michigan Militia who said, 
``I have access any time I want to Camp Grayling.'' That is the kind of 
access I do not think ought be available. These are places, after all, 
that have dangerous materials and information that ought not to be 
accessible to someone without the right to look at it.
  Madam President, in short and in long, I think that we have examined 
this question thoroughly. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
talked privately with me about coming to an agreement so we can end the 
discussion now and take up the vote at a later time. If the Senator 
from New Hampshire wants to propose it, I certainly would like to hear 
him and see if we can arrive at a point in this discussion where we can 
terminate for a moment.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, while the Senator from New Jersey gets a 
chance to review the unanimous-consent request, I want to make a couple 
of points in response, very briefly, to some of the points that were 
made in this debate.
  The Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from California, when she 
was on the floor, argued about the value of these guns, the M-1. Both 
Senators advocate that these rifles be destroyed.
  You want to remember that in this program, rifle sales are only a 
part of the program and the program is about safety, it is about 
competitive sport shooting, it is about instruction. But the thing that 
fascinates me is how can one argue that the rifle should be destroyed 
on the one hand and, if they are destroyed, then the value is zero; 
yet, on the other hand complain that they are being sold?
  If I have a $10,000 porcelain artifact that an antique dealer would 
buy from me for $10,000 and I pick it up and I throw it to the floor 
and break it, I do not have anything of value. I think that is really 
what this debate is about. The taxpayers bought these rifles at one 
point for our military, and now we are hearing complaints when the 
taxpayers have the opportunity to buy them again.
  A couple more quick points. On the question about what stops the 
militia from participating, the law stops the militia from 
participating. They cannot participate, they cannot buy an M-1 if they 
advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government. No group like that can 
get those. There is a background check on all the people. It must be a 
certified program. There is a waiting period of 10 to 15 months. They 
are fingerprinted, and no felon can purchase these. Again, this is 
excess inventory.
  This is surplus. It is obsolete. These weapons are surplus, obsolete. 
They are of no use to the military. They are excess, therefore, the 
Government, in all types of excess materials, disposes of them. How do 
you advocate destroying $76 million in taxpayer assets if they do not 
have value, are without value to the taxpayers?
  This business about military access, militia access, and Camp 
Grayling, that does not have anything to do with this program. CMP is a 
very tightly controlled program. As a matter of fact, those people were 
thrown out who tried to get into Camp Grayling. U.S. citizen access to 
military installations is another issue.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I am concerned that the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey is based on assertions and 
conclusions that do not appear to be based in fact. I am also concerned 
that adoption of this amendment would require the Department of Defense 
to divert millions of dollars from the training and maintenance of our 
Armed Forces.
  Congress developed an approach to transition the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program from a semifunded Federal program that had 
required an annual appropriation of approximately $2.5 million to a 
private, nonprofit Corporation. The transition plan was contained in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, which the 
President signed into law. The plan was completed in full partnership 
with the Department of the Army.
  According to police officers in the State of New Jersey, who are in 
charge of Police Athletic League clubs, the program is strongly 
supported by parents, the local schools, and the community. It is 
highly effective in teaching young people about safety, respect for 
firearms, competition, and teamwork. There are no incidents of crime or 
violence associated with club members. The firsthand experience and 
judgment of police officers and others who understand this program are 
significantly different from the opinions of the sponsor of this 
amendment.
  The program serves as a primary feeder for the U.S. Olympic Team and 
international competitors. More than 1,100 organizations in all 50 
States use this program to develop responsibility, discipline, and 
sportsmanship in our youth. These organizations include Police Athletic 
Leagues, schools, and churches, and numerous youth groups such as the 
Future Farmers of America, 4-H, the Boy Scouts, and Law Enforcement 
Explorers. It is also an effective recruiting mechanism for the Armed 
Forces.

  The Corporation is a self-financing program. It will be used by 
almost half a million citizens, at no cost to taxpayers. The amendment 
appears to require that the program be self-financing, but its language 
actually terminates the program. Since the program will be self-
financing, the amendment is unnecessary.
  The enacted legislation states that the ``Corporation shall not be 
considered to be a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
Federal Government.'' Rather than expend public funds, the program will 
save the Government millions of dollars that would have to be spent to 
store and demilitarize obsolete firearms.
  The assertion that these firearms represent a $76 million asset is 
not correct. In fact, they are a liability to the taxpayers, because 
they are obsolete, surplus, and have no current military value.
  This program is about rifles, not handguns. A citizen who satisfies 
all the provisions of current law for purchasing a firearm, completes a 
background check, and undergoes a formal training program may purchase 
an obsolete M-1 rifle through the Corporation.
  The requirements to purchase an M-1 rifle are the most rigid in the 
United States. They are set out in legislation. The waiting time for a 
purchaser to receive an M-1, after paying for the rifle and meeting 
all the program requirements, is between 10 and 15 months.

  The inventory of surplus firearms is not transferred to the 
Corporation. No firearm will be transferred to the Corporation unless 
an affiliated club or individual has met the criteria for transfer.
  There is no record of any crime ever having been committed with a 
firearm purchased through the program. The legislation explicitly 
prohibits both participation in the program and the sale of firearms to 
convicted felons and individuals who advocate the overthrow of the 
Government. There is no evidence of any subversive or so-called militia 
group ever having acquired these firearms. They are hardly state of the 
art; they are basically suitable for marksmanship training, competitive 
sport marksmanship, and as collector items.
  The National Rifle Association has no role in the Corporation.
  The legislation to which the Senator now objects was not slipped into 
the Defense authorization. Both the House and Senate bills contained 
provisions that transitioned the program. The provisions are clearly 
labeled in a separate title of the act. The Senator raised

[[Page S7105]]

no objection when this matter was considered last year.
  The Committee on Armed Services has not had the opportunity to 
consider the Senator's amendment because it was submitted as a 
freestanding bill after the committee had completed its markup. Our 
initial analysis indicates that the Government would incur millions of 
dollars in additional costs if the amendment were adopted.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, if there are no other Senators who wish 
to debate at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg 
amendment be temporarily set aside, and that at the hour of 3:25 today 
the Senate resume consideration of the amendment, and there be an 
additional 5 minutes equally divided for debate, prior to Senator Craig 
or his designee being recognized in order to make a motion to table the 
Lautenberg amendment and, further, that no second-degree amendments be 
in order prior to the vote on the tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity, since 
there is no one here offering amendments, to make a few remarks in 
support of this defense authorization bill as reported by the Senate 
Armed Services Committee.
  I want to certainly commend my leader on the committee, Senator 
Thurmond, for his outstanding leadership in formulating this 
legislation. The committee conducted an abbreviated but thorough 
investigation of our defense requirements, examination of our defense 
requirements, and formulated what I believe to be an excellent 
blueprint for defense spending. The Senator from South Carolina 
deserves great credit for his leadership and invaluable contribution, 
and his diligence and hard work, on behalf of the defense of the United 
States of America and in the Armed Services.
  I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute also to the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Nunn. Senator Nunn has served on 
this committee for 23 years with great distinction. He has been seen on 
both the majority and the minority sides of the table--probably prefers 
the majority side. He served as the full committee chairman, as well, 
at a very critical time in our Nation's history regarding defense 
matters. Throughout the 6 years that I have been privileged to serve 
with Senator Nunn, he has always sought to promote the national 
security of our Nation and the well-being of our men and women in 
uniform. He has always shown great consideration for me, especially 
when I first came to that committee. I was a very junior member, 
sitting down at the end of the table in the minority.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator. We enjoy very much the Senator being 
on the committee. I thank him very kindly.
  Mr. SMITH. As the Senator leaves this institution later this year to 
pursue other interests, I want to take this opportunity, while I have 
it, while he is here, to thank him for his service to our Nation and 
certainly for his kind attention to me as both a majority and a 
minority member.
  Madam President, the bill before us provides a much needed increase 
of about $11 billion to the President's original budget request. I want 
to emphasize that this is still well below this year's funding level 
when adjusted for inflation. Since 1985, national defense funding has 
declined by 41 percent in real terms. Let me say that again, 
particularly for those who complain we are spending too much. Since 
1985, the defense spending has fallen 41 percent. That is 11 straight 
years of decline, real decline.

  There are a variety of very important initiatives contained in this 
bill that I want to briefly highlight. They include, first and 
foremost, the 3-percent pay raise and a 4-percent increase in the basic 
allowance for quarters to our military men and women. We forget that 
every day, 24 hours a day, our Armed Forces are out there protecting 
us, serving our country.
  We found out this week how important that is and what sacrifice that 
calls for. If one were to look at the pay scale of those young men and 
women who were involved in that incident in Saudi Arabia, it is not a 
lot of money to risk their lives for. But they did not do it for money, 
and we all know that. So I am proud to support that pay raise, that 3-
percent pay raise and that 4-percent increase in the basic allowance 
for quarters because these people give their all; sometimes they truly 
give their all.
  There is also $1.2 billion of additional readiness funding for the 
unfunded requirements of the service chiefs. There is an increase of 
$170 million for the cruise missile defense programs, including $40 
billion for the Patriot ACM Program; legislation and funding to conduct 
competitive evaluations of promising laser programs. Antisubmarine 
warfare programs are also in this bill.
  There is an increase of $134 million to buy additional night vision 
goggles, thermal weapons sights and aiming lights to enhance Army and 
Marine Corps night-fighting capabilities.
  There is service funding and direction for the Navy to upgrade the 
effective jamming capabilities of the EA-6B also there, and a $700 
million increase in military construction to enhance the quality of 
life of our troops and their families, and to improve readiness.
  On that point, Madam President, it is often forgotten--we talk about 
the big things, the submarines and the ships, the aircraft carriers and 
the airplanes and the missiles and missile defense. These are the big-
ticket items, so to speak, that we find in the defense budget. But we 
had testimony earlier this year from the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
saying that at times he had leaky tents, sleeping bags that were 
falling apart, clothing that was not enough to keep the soldiers warm.
  These are the kinds of things that we overlook. When you put a 
soldier or sailor in a position like that, out there defending America, 
literally putting their lives on the line, they deserve the best we can 
provide them. I think we cannot overlook how important these so-called 
basics are. If you are out there in that tent and it is leaking and you 
are soaking wet, it is very basic to you.
  There is no excuse for ever allowing that to happen to our Armed 
Forces. So any time we can provide dollars in there--that is not 
glamorous. It does not get a lot of attention. And sometimes it is 
overlooked because it is not a glamour item. I am proud to support 
increases in funding in that area.

  Additionally, Madam President, the bill includes a number of 
important initiatives relating to ballistic missile defense, and it 
authorizes nearly $900 million in increased spending along the 
following lines: National missile defense, Navy Upper Tier Program, and 
the Theater High Altitude Area Defense Program as well, $134 million 
for a space and missile tracking system, and $50 million for the joint 
Israel-United States laser program known as Nautilus.
  This national missile defense program is so important, and we have 
had to fight, fight, fight, on the Senate floor even to get language, 
let alone dollars, for national missile defense. We have no defense 
against ballistic missiles. None. We cannot defend ourselves against an 
Iraqi, Iranian, North Korean, or Libyan missile. We need to be 
promoting this national defense program. A lot of people do not realize 
that. They say, ``What about the Patriot missile during the Persian 
Gulf?'' That was not designed to take out incoming missiles like the 
Scuds. We were able to do that. We were able to use improvisations on 
the Patriot and get it done, but we are not able to stop a ballistic 
missile.
  I am troubled by the administration's failure to comply with the law 
on missile defense. We tried to address it here last year in language 
and this year in language. We had to resort to writing a separate bill.
  The Congress has established very clear, firm schedules for the 
development and deployment of theater missile defenses in the fiscal 
year 1996 authorization bill. The President signed

[[Page S7106]]

the legislation and never once complained about the schedule. In fact, 
for 3 years, the Clinton administration has stated that theater defense 
was their No. 1 priority. We are talking theater defense, not national 
defense. Yet in its budget submittal, the administration ignored the 
law and underfunded, I believe deliberately, the most important theater 
missile defense programs --THAAD and the Navy upper tier.
  Consequently, under the administration plan, our troops are 
vulnerable to hostile missile threats for as much as 4 or 5 years 
longer than mandated into law. This is simply unacceptable. We had a 
terrible tragedy this week in Saudi Arabia. It was terrible. It was a 
terrorist act. But that terrorist attack could very well have come from 
a missile, from a theater missile, as well. We have a lot of threats 
out there. It is not the cold war anymore, but we have a lot of 
threats. We have to be prepared to adapt to these threats.
  The bill codifies the so-called demonstrated capability standard for 
theater defense as a formal U.S. compliance policy. This action 
specifically mirrors the criteria proposed by the Clinton 
administration in Geneva 2 years ago. It is a responsible and 
appropriate standard, Madam President, and its codification in law 
supports the administration's position. I am pleased to be able to 
support the administration on this issue.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, I want 
to speak just briefly on some initiatives included in the jurisdiction 
of my own subcommittee. Our review of the budget request highlighted a 
continuing trend within the administration of shortchanging investments 
in technology, development, and modernization in order to provide near-
term relief for readiness. This is simply unacceptable. When you take 
dollars from the programs of the future to put them in some activity 
that you are conducting today, you are going to shortchange the troops 
of the future. We should be doing both. That is the truth. We should 
not be shortchanging the troops in the field. We should not shortchange 
the troops in the field of the future. That is where the technology and 
investment now in these technology programs is so important. Certainly 
today's readiness is important, but modernization is the key to long-
term readiness.

  If people in the 1950's and 1960's in the Pentagon had not been 
farsighted enough to come up with the weapons that we used in the 
Persian Gulf, the price of oil would be a lot higher today and the 
outcome of that war could very well have been different. In order to 
have the weapons of the future, you have to invest today.
  The acquisition and technology section of the bill emphasizes three 
main concepts. First, it encourages more innovative thinking in the 
area of emerging operational concepts, and, in particular, the bill 
supports the Marine Corps' Sea Dragon and the Army's Force 21 
initiatives, which seek to leverage technology to change the nature of 
warfare. It is the futuristic things that we are looking at here. What 
is war going to be like 10, 15, or 20 years down the road? Will we be 
ready to help the soldier, sailor, marine, air man or woman in the 
field? What will it be like 20 years from now? You need to have your 
think tanks and the best minds in the services out there trying to get 
a handle on that, looking at what that technology may be and begin to 
fund it. The bill seeks to reward, not discourage--reward--more 
innovation, to challenge the services to question traditional doctrine. 
Do not just do it tomorrow because we did it yesterday. Challenge the 
services to question this doctrine and to develop new strategies and 
tactics that leverage the revolutionary capabilities that technology 
now provides.
  I emphasize the word ``revolutionize.'' Sometimes we get evolutionary 
in our approach to things rather than revolutionary. I use the example 
of the Hubble telescope. That was a revolutionary item because it 
allowed us to see out into deep space things we have never seen before. 
That was revolutionary. Those are the kinds of breaks with the past, 
breaks with the present, futuristic approaches that we need to 
encourage. That is what we have tried to do in this committee. We are a 
$9 billion budget out of a $262 billion budget, but we tried to make 
the best of what we had.
  The second priority is the increased use of commercial technologies 
by the services. The bill provides a significant beginning for dual-
use, cost-shared programs in the services, as well as a portion of the 
dual-use program in the budget requests. The key to integrating more 
commercial practices into the acquisition framework is not simply to 
spend more money on some stand-alone program, but rather to make 
commercial practices and products part of the core service acquisition 
so this is routine rather than an exception. There may be dual use 
between commercial and military.
  Third, the bill focuses on an affordability initiative to lower cost 
and increase the purchasing power of our limited defense dollars. The 
bill increases funding for manufacturing technology programs of the 
Navy and the Air Force and funds a variety of initiatives to improve 
the affordability of future weapons systems.
  Madam President, since he is on the floor, I take a moment--Senator 
Cohen, my colleague from Maine, regarding his information in the 
information technology area on last year's acquisition reform 
legislation, this is the kind of forward looking that the defense 
community needs, and the committee is fortunate to have benefited from 
Senator Cohen's foresight and acquisition reform. Although he is not 
chairing the subcommittee, his input has been greatly appreciated by me 
and it has been a pleasure to work with him on these issues. We will 
certainly miss him on the committee next year.

  Let me close, Madam President, with just some brief comments on a 
couple of other observations. We know this is an election year. We know 
that Members on both sides of the aisle are seeking sometimes to gain 
political advantage by delaying, obstructing or amending legislation 
that is brought up on the floor. Unfortunately, this is the case with 
this bill. This is not a partisan issue. The defense of America is not 
a partisan issue. How could one of us with these dilatory amendments 
and tactics look the families of those people in Saudi Arabia who lost 
their lives, look those families in the eye and say we ought to be out 
here debating something about vitamins or something on the floor of the 
Senate while we are trying to pass a defense authorization bill. It is 
wrong. It is wrong. We can do it. It is a misguided notion, Madam 
President, to take these kinds of things on the floor of the Senate 
during the Armed Forces debate, the debate on the moneys we use to fund 
our national defense.
  Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility, 
probably the most important one we have. It should not be a political 
hot potato. It should not be a time to talk about minimum wage or 
vitamins or something else. That is not appropriate. You can do it, and 
it is within the rules, but it is not appropriate.

  The bill before us was reported out of the Armed Services Committee 
unanimously, 20-0. There was no dissent. Yet, it is being delayed here 
on the floor. The reason I am speaking now is because nobody is down 
here to offer amendments so that we can finish this bill. That should 
indicate to my colleagues the degree to which Senator Thurmond and 
members of this committee have worked to formulate a balanced, 
responsible, and nonpartisan defense bill. It is not easy. We lose 
sometimes, we give in a little bit sometimes. We all do, and we do not 
like it. We like to get our own way all of the time, but we understand 
that getting a good bill to support our men and women in the armed 
services, with the weapons they need, the clothing they need, O&M 
funds, operations and maintenance funds, they need--these are critical.
  Now, we are certainly sure that there are items in this legislation 
that some may oppose, but that is the nature of the legislative 
process. We ought to do it. If they are germane, let us have the 
amendments. That is the nature of the constitutional separation of 
powers. We have research, we discuss and debate and find common ground, 
and, when necessary, we vote to resolve issues. That is the way the 
Framers intended it, and that is democracy. It is not intended to be a 
polarizing bill, to draw political lines in the sand. It should not be 
about gun control. Yet, here we are talking about gun control.

[[Page S7107]]

  This leadership has decided to address controversial issues, such as 
missile defense and U.N. command and control, through separate 
legislation. We did it deliberately, not because we wanted to, but 
because we did not want to deny a 3-percent pay raise to our military 
and deny this bill.
  So the bill before us is designed to foster consensus, to promote the 
national security objectives of the United States of America. Let us 
maintain a spirit of cooperation and avoid the temptation to engage in 
election year demagoguery and negativism, which everybody is sick of.
  This is for the defense of the United States of America. Kids were 
killed this week defending our country. We owe it to them to pass this 
bill. We should have passed it days ago. Let us pass it today in honor 
of them and stop this bickering with nongermane, unessential items. The 
national security of this Nation is too important for this kind of 
stuff.
  I will conclude by thanking the chairman, Senator Thurmond, who is on 
the floor, and the ranking member, for their service. I am proud to 
serve with them. I am proud to be a part of this committee, and I will 
be proud to support and vote for this bill.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to thank the able Senator from 
New Hampshire for the kind words that he said about me as chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is a 
member of the Armed Services Committee and renders a valuable service 
to our Nation. He stands for a strong defense, which is essential to 
the survival of this Nation. I just wish we had more citizens in this 
Nation that feel as he does about the importance of maintaining a 
strong defense.
  I compliment him not only for his integrity and dedication, but his 
vision in realizing the importance of a strong national defense. We are 
very proud to have him as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg].
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that under the rules and under 
the unanimous consent agreement, we have about 10 minutes here of 
general debate, during which amendments can be offered, and then there 
are 5 minutes to be debated on the amendment that is pending, with a 
vote at 3:30; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I note that the Senator from Maine and the Senator from 
Arizona are here. I have an amendment which I wish to offer. I suspect 
they have a colloquy they want to pursue.
  I ask unanimous consent that after we return and complete the vote at 
3:30, that I be allowed the floor to offer my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To clarify for the Senator from New Hampshire, 
the vote to be taken at 3:30 is a motion to table the Lautenberg 
amendment. Should the motion to table fail, then the Lautenberg 
amendment would be the pending business.
  Mr. GREGG. I simply ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed after the regular order has been completed on that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, I was off the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
  Mr. GREGG. No.
  Mr. NUNN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 4364

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to 
 provide for the forfeiture of retirement benefits in the case of any 
   Member of Congress, congressional employee, or Federal justice or 
 judge, who is convicted of an offense relating to the official duties 
of that individual, and for the forfeiture of the retirement allowance 
                of the President for such a conviction)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 4364.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In the appropriate place in S. 1745, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. CONGRESSIONAL, PRESIDENTIAL, AND JUDICIAL PENSION 
                   FORFEITURE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension 
     Forfeiture Act''.
       (b) Conviction of Certain Offenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8312(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or'';
       (C) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) is convicted of an offense named by subsection (d), 
     to the extent provided by that subsection.'';
       (D) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (E) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (F) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (d) 
     of this section, to the period after the date of the 
     conviction.''.
       (2) Identification of offenses.--Section 8312 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The offenses under paragraph (2) are the offenses 
     to which subsection (a) of this section applies, but only 
     if--
       ``(A) the individual is convicted of such offense committed 
     after the date of the enactment of the Congressional, 
     Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act;
       ``(B) the individual was a Member of Congress (including 
     the Vice President), a congressional employee, or a Federal 
     justice or judge at the time of committing the offense; and
       ``(C) the offense is punishable by imprisonment for more 
     than 1 year.
       ``(2) The offenses under this paragraph are as follows:
       ``(A) An offense within the purview of--
       ``(i) section 201 of title 18 (bribery of public officials 
     and witnesses);
       ``(ii) section 203 of title 18 (compensation to Members of 
     Congress, officers, and others in matters affecting the 
     Government);
       ``(iii) section 204 of title 18 (practice in United States 
     Court of Federal Claims or the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the Federal Circuit by Members of Congress);
       ``(iv) section 219 of title 18 (officers and employees 
     acting as agents of foreign principals);
       ``(v) section 286 of title 18 (conspiracy to defraud the 
     Government with respect to claims);
       ``(vi) section 287 of title 18 (false, fictitious, or 
     fraudulent claims);
       ``(vii) section 371 of title 18 (conspiracy to commit 
     offense or to defraud the United States;
       ``(viii) section 597 of title 18 (expenditures to influence 
     voting);
       ``(ix) section 599 of title 18 (promise of appointment by 
     candidate);
       ``(x) section 602 of title 18 (solicitation of political 
     contributions);
       ``(xi) section 606 of title 18 (intimidation to secure 
     political contributions);
       ``(xii) section 607 of title 18 (place of solicitation);
       ``(xiii) section 641 of title 18 (public money, property or 
     records); or
       ``(xiv) section 1001 of title 18 (statements or entries 
     generally).
       ``(B) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United 
     States in falsely denying the commission of an act which 
     constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named 
     by subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with 
     the false denial of another individual as specified by 
     subparagraph (B).''.
       (c) Absence From the United States to Avoid Prosecution.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8313 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may 
     not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the 
     service of the individual which is creditable toward the 
     annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 
     8311 (2) and (3) of this title, if the individual--
       ``(1) is under indictment, after the date of the enactment 
     of the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension 
     Forfeiture Act, for an offense named by section 8312(d)(2) of 
     this title, but only if such offense satisfies section 
     8312(d)(1)(C) of this title;
       ``(2) willfully remains outside the United States, or its 
     territories and possessions including the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, for more than 1 year with knowledge of the 
     indictment or charges, as the case may be; and
       ``(3) is an individual described in section 
     8312(d)(1)(B).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 8313 
     of title 5, United States

[[Page S7108]]

     Code (as redesignated under paragraph (1)(A)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or (b)'' after ``subsection (a)''.
       (d) Refund of Contributions and Deposits.--
       Section 8316(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) if the individual was convicted of an offense named 
     by section 8312(d) of this title, for the period after the 
     conviction of the violation.''.
       (e) Forfeiture of Presidential Allowance.--Subsection (a) 
     of the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     retirement, clerical assistance, and free mailing privileges 
     to former Presidents of the United States, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 25, 1958 (Public Law 85-745; 72 
     Stat. 838; 3 U.S.C. 102 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Each former President'' and inserting 
     ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each former President''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The allowance payable to an individual under 
     paragraph (1) shall be forfeited if--
       ``(A) the individual is convicted of an offense described 
     under section 8312(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, 
     committed after the date of the enactment of the 
     Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture 
     Act;
       ``(B) such individual committed such offense during the 
     individual's term of office as President; and
       ``(C) the offense is punishable by imprisonment for more 
     than 1 year.''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I again propound my unanimous consent 
request. I would be willing to proceed with this amendment after the 
regular order on the amendment, which is going to be voted on at 3:30, 
is pursued, so that the Senator from Maine and the Senator from New 
Mexico could proceed, with the understanding that I would bring the 
first amendment up at the conclusion of that regular order.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has the floor. The Senator from New Hampshire is advised 
that, under the previous agreement, at 4 o'clock we are to take up the 
Pryor amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. At 3:25?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 3:25, we have the amendment by the Senator 
from New Jersey. At 4 o'clock, we have the amendment by the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  Mr. GREGG. Fine. After that, we will be on my amendment.
  I wish to proceed on my amendment. I understand I have 10 minutes to 
discuss this amendment at this time. This amendment is supported by 
myself and Senator Reid of Nevada, and Senator Bryan of Nevada and 
Senator Nickles are also original cosponsors of this bill as 
introduced.
  This goes to the issue and the fact that a large number of--
unfortunately, 34--Members of Congress over the last century have been 
convicted of felonies, which is obviously a serious act. Some of these 
individuals were convicted of felonies that involve a violation of the 
public trust.
  Under the laws of this country, in certain instances when the public 
trust is violated, Members of Congress who are convicted felons for 
doing that lose their pensions--or at least the public part of their 
pension, that which is supported by the taxpayers. Unfortunately, it 
does not apply to all actions that involve violation of the public 
trust.
  For example, somebody could be convicted of bribery, of a conflict of 
interest, of defrauding or conspiring to defraud the United States, of 
theft or embezzlement of Government property, false or fraudulent 
statements to the Government, perjury, insubordination in actions 
relative to their duties as a Member of Congress and, still, while 
serving time for a conviction, receive pension benefits, which is 
rather ironic and clearly inappropriate.
  So this amendment simply expands those areas of the present law which 
terminates pension benefits for people who are convicted of crimes 
while serving in the Congress and when those crimes are directly 
related to their service.
  It means that, for example--I will use a hypothetical--a person 
convicted of a crime in recent times, who is receiving a pension from 
the Federal Government of over $70,000, would no longer be able to 
receive that part of that pension, which is basically a public tax 
contribution. That person would still receive the pension, to the 
extent that they contributed to it. They would get their money back, 
under the usual course of law, but they would not get the additional 
benefit of having the taxpayers support them--actually, in many 
instances, while they are still in jail with these pension benefits.
  This is an issue which is timely, and it is important that we act on 
it in a timely manner. That is why I offered it on this bill, even 
though it is not directly related to defense matters, although it would 
obviously impact a defense individual who committed this sort of 
action.
  I would yield at this time to the Senator from Nevada for any 
comments he might have.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I first of all want to express my 
appreciation to the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership on 
this issue. He and I started working on this matter in May of this 
year, and it is an important issue. It is something that I think is 
important because this is an issue where we can go forward on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Joining us initially on this legislation was the Chairman of the 
Republican Policy Committee, Senator Nickles. Senator Nickles, Chairman 
of the Republican Policy Committee, and I have a similar job on the 
Democratic side. We do our partisan things in this body. But there are 
certain things that we have to express to the American public in a 
bipartisan fashion, and this is one of them.
  It is simply wrong for people who are convicted of felonies --
especially felonies related to their jobs; that is, being Members of 
Congress, and then they resign and draw these hefty pensions. They are 
convicted of crimes and draw these hefty pensions that are 
congressional pensions paid for by the taxpayers. And that is simply 
wrong.
  So I publicly express my appreciation for the leadership of the 
Senator from New Hampshire on this issue and our friend, the majority 
whip.
  I also want to extend my appreciation to my junior colleague, the 
Senator from Nevada, who is also extremely interested in this issue.
  Mr. President, you cannot reward public officials who have engaged in 
wrongdoing, and, I repeat, especially wrongdoing connected with their 
jobs even though this legislation draws no distinction between a felony 
that comes about as a result of working in the Congress or a wrong 
where you just do something wrong generally.
  You do not have to be a Democrat or a Republican to reach this 
conclusion. This is a problem that is seriously undermining the 
public's confidence in Federal officials generally. It is my 
understanding--I see here on the floor the senior member of the 
appropriations committee and the chairman of the Governmental 
Operations Committee. I hope that the Senator from Alaska, if I could 
just get his attention for a second, would be willing to hold a hearing 
quickly on this issue. I think it is necessary that it be done no 
matter what happens on this issue.
  As I indicated to the body earlier, we joined forces in May, and 
introduced the Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential Forfeiture 
Act. This legislation will not apply only to the legislative branch of 
Government. It should apply the same to the executive branch of 
Government and the judicial branch of Government.
  As a Member of this body, I sat on impeachment committees. I have 
voted for impeachment. I think it also should apply to Federal judges. 
We have Federal judges who are convicted of felonies. They should not 
be able to draw their taxpayer driven pension.
  So this legislation, the Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential 
Forfeiture Act, should apply to all aspects of Government. Our 
legislation now before this body in the form of an amendment will help 
to restore trust in Government.

  Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my friend for yielding, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S7109]]

  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There does not appear to be a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue calling the roll.
  The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
quorum call----
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 4364, Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have conferred with the sponsors of 
this bill--it is a bill, a separate bill--that has been referred to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. It is a matter on which we are seeking 
the advice of many people in this country as to how it would affect the 
pension systems not only of our governmental employees but also of 
those in the private sector. As I have said to the two Senators, 
whatever we do in this area has generally been followed in the private 
sector after we have taken a new course with regard to pensions.
  I have committed to the Senators, I am pleased to say, Senator Gregg, 
who is the principal sponsor, and Senator Reid, cosponsor of the bill, 
that we will have a hearing and we will get the opinions of these 
people as quickly as possible. If we can get to the place where we can 
reach a conclusion in time to consider it at the time the legislative 
appropriations bill comes up, I will be pleased to assist in that 
regard. But I do think we have to have time to see how this is going to 
affect those people who rely on the pension systems. I am thinking of 
widows and spouses of those who might be incarcerated and how it is 
going to happen that we follow this process and what happens to the 
economy if they do not have the money they have earned in the past 
through the retirement systems.
  So I commit that we will hold that hearing as quickly as possible 
when we come back and work with them. I do applaud what they are doing. 
I do not disagree. There are provisions already in Federal law that 
authorize the forfeiture of benefits such as this in the event of 
conviction. I am not disputing the fact that there could well be 
additions to that. But I only ask that we be allowed to know what is 
the impact.
  There is, I understand, a rollcall vote scheduled now I am taking 
time on, but I would urge the gentlemen to withdraw this, we hold the 
hearing and come back to the floor at a later time in this Congress.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. If I am able to, I will.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. I just said I would yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, I serve on 
the Appropriations Committee. The Senator is chairman of the 
Governmental Operations Committee. I think it is appropriate that we 
have some hearings or his staff does some detailed study of this before 
we go forward. So I take the Senator's word as his bond, as everyone 
does here, and on behalf of Senator Judd Gregg I would be happy to 
withdraw the amendment, in fact, if the Senator from New Hampshire is 
willing to do so.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from New Hampshire wish me to yield?
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding the Senator hopes to proceed with 
these hearings as soon as possible?

  Mr. STEVENS. I will find some time in July, if we need to hold the 
hearing on Saturday, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and ask the amendment 
be withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. I withdraw the request for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may withdraw his amendment. The 
yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4364) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4218

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
continue the consideration of the amendment offered by the Senator from 
New Jersey for a period of 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
the adjutant general of Michigan and a memorandum from the Camp 
Grayling Training Site Manager, Lt. Col. Gary J. McConnell, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Department of Military Affairs,

                                      Lansing, MI, April 25, 1995.
     Hon. Virgil C. Smith,
     Detroit, MI.
       Dear Senator Smith: Following our conversation this 
     morning, please be assured the Michigan National Guard has 
     not and will not authorize members of paramilitary 
     organizations to train at Camp Grayling, or any other 
     military training site in Michigan. Claims made by members of 
     any organization to the contrary are grievously 
     misrepresenting themselves.
       I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet with 
     you, over the last few weeks, regarding some very important 
     National Guard issues. You have my utmost assurance, that I 
     will continue to provide you with the best information our 
     department has to offer, regarding any matter confronting 
     you. Your constituents and the people of Michigan are served 
     by the finest men and women the National Guard has to offer.
           Sincerely,

                                              E. Gordon Stump,

                                                  Maj Gen, MI ANG,
     The Adjutant General.
                                                                    ____

                                                     Department of


                                             military affairs,

                                         Lansing, MI, May 1, 1995.
     Memorandum for MG Gordon E. Stump, The Adjutant General.
     Subject: Michigan Militia.
       1. On 30 March, Camp Grayling received a phone call from 
     Mr. Andy Keller. He stated he was the unit leader of a 
     Department of Defense, Director of Civilian Marksmanship Unit 
     No. 56132 from Caro, Michigan. Mr. Keller indicated Camp 
     Grayling had been designated as their home range and, as 
     such, was responsible for providing their ammunition and 
     targets. He also indicated they had previously used Camp 
     Perry, Ohio. A member of the Camp Grayling staff contacted 
     the DCM Office in Washington D.C. at DSN 285-0810 on or about 
     3 April 1995. It was verified that DCN Unit 56132 was a Unit 
     sanctioned by the DCM. Based upon this verification and a 
     written request from Mr. Keller, the Unit was scheduled for 
     range firing on 29-30 April.
       2. On Friday, 28 April at approximately 1830 hours, Mr. 
     Keller arrived at Camp Grayling in civilian clothing and 
     checked into Camp Grayling Range Operations. On Saturday 
     morning at 0730 hours, the group was provided the Camp 
     Grayling Range Safety briefing, a range flag and radio. They 
     had been assigned Range 8, an automatic pop-up target range 
     for high powered rifles. The group occupied this range at 
     1011 hours.
       3. The undersigned and Captain Leask, a Camp Grayling Range 
     Officer, visited the range at approximately 1025 hours. 
     Eleven personnel were on the range. All personnel had 
     military BDU uniforms on and all had military rank insignia 
     on both collars of the uniform shirt. The ranks ranged from 
     O-6 to O-2. Mr. Keller was wearing the rank of O-5. All 
     members also had an Identification Card attached to their 
     right breast pocket. This card indicated Department of 
     Defense affiliation. A copy of both sides of this 
     Identification Card is attached as Enclosure 1.
       4. Several personnel had a tape above the left breast 
     pocket in place of the ``U.S. Army'' tag that read ``SMRM'' 
     for Southern Michigan Regional Militia. Several members also 
     had an insignia on their left shoulder that read ``Civilian 
     Militia''. All other personnel had velcro attached above both 
     breast pockets and on the left shoulder, which would allow 
     for the attachment of name tags and shoulder insignia.
       5. As the undersigned and Captain Leask walked up to the 
     firing line, Mr. Keller approached. He was advised that there 
     were two problems and that he would not be allowed to go 
     ``hot'' on the range.
       a. Members of his organization had uniforms on that 
     indicated membership in the Michigan Militia. He was advised 
     that under no circumstances would identified members of the 
     Michigan Militia be allowed to train at Camp Grayling.
       b. The wearing of officer insignia on the military uniform. 
     All eleven personnel wore officer insignia, and as such by 
     doing so were giving the impression of being a Federally

[[Page S7110]]

     recognized commissioned officer. When I asked Mr. Keller how 
     he obtained the rank of O-5, he replied, ``he was elected to 
     this rank''.
       6. Mr. Keller was again advised they would not be allowed 
     to use the range and to return the range flag and radio to 
     Operations. Mr. Keller stated he would file a protest with 
     the Department of Defense, Director of Civilian Marksmanship, 
     and he was advised by me that he should go ahead and do so. 
     All members of this DCM Unit cooperated and pleasantly left 
     the range and turned in range equipment.

                                            Gary J. McConnell,

                                                 LTC, EN, MI ARNG,
                                            Training Site Manager.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. While not stipulated, I would certainly agree to 
dividing the 5 minutes that we have as close to evenly as possible if 
the Senator from Idaho wanted to say a few words, if the Chair would 
watch the clock.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that agreement, I ask that I be allowed to proceed no 
longer than 2\1/2\ minutes on the issue of the amendment of the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey by his 
amendment is attempting to block or wipe out an action that this Senate 
took in 1996 in the Defense authorization bill to create the 
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, 
and in doing so to privatize the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
  As a result, the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and 
Firearms Safety was created. This is a private, nonprofit, self-
sustaining entity. It will have a board of directors appointed by the 
Secretary of the Army. The corporation will be allowed to raise money, 
just like any other not-for-profit association.
  Of course, the intent of this organization is to instruct 
marksmanship, conduct national matches and competition, to award 
trophies, prizes, badges and insignias, and to promote the sale of 
firearms, ammunition, and equipment.
  Under this new action, in addition, the corporation would be 
permitted to sell an existing 373,000 rifles and use money to fund the 
Civilian Marksmanship Program.
  The Senator from New Jersey has for a good number of years tried to 
discontinue this program. The Senate clearly recognized the value of it 
and in so doing recognized that it probably ought not subsidize it 
anymore and allow it to be privatized so that it could continue in that 
nature.
  I hope that the Senate would reject the amendment of the Senator from 
New Jersey and vote to table this action. We are now in the midst of 
organizing this Civilian Marksmanship Program as a private nonprofit. I 
think it ought to be allowed to move forward in that direction.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I hear 
references here to the fact that this organization will be self-
sustaining. That is wonderful. Just give them $76 million worth of 
goods to start with and then from then on we are self-sustaining. It is 
taxpayers' money. That is what we are giving away.
  The Army says it has this kind of value. The value has been disputed, 
the value being $76 million, which is conservative because as we have 
heard from the Senator from California and my personal investigation. I 
called a gun dealer that I know in Colorado. It may surprise some 
around here to know that I know a gun dealer, but I do not buy guns 
from him. He confirmed that an M-1 can be anywhere from $400 to $500, 
and so when we multiply that by 176,000 weapons, we know pretty well 
what kind of value we have.
  Very simply, Mr. President, this is not a gun control measure. If 
people choose to have target practice, learn how to use rifles, 
practice gun safety, that is fine with me. Let them pay for it. When we 
send teams to the Olympics or we encourage sports, we do not pay for 
ping-pong paddles or ping-pong balls or tennis rackets or tennis balls 
or baseball bats or mitts.
  That is not the Government's responsibility. This is something that 
ought to be discontinued. These weapons should be destroyed. They ought 
not to be out in the population. I hope that we will have support for 
our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous-consent request 
before we start?
  Mr. President, since Senators Cohen and McCain have been trying to 
get recognized and I had to interpose an objection before they were 
recognized, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of this 
vote, the 4 o'clock order be delayed by 8 minutes, with the Senator 
from Maine having control of that 8 minutes for the purpose of making a 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the 
amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 71, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4218) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, is recognized for 8 minutes.

                          ____________________