May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6743

CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM SHOULD BE TERMINATED

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I

rise to bring to my colleague’s attention a copy of a letter I recently received from the Department of Defense

regarding the Civilian Marksmanship

Program.

The letter from Under Secretary of

the Army Joe Reeder responds to a letter I sent recently to Defense Secretary Perry about the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It confirms my

longstanding belief that the time has

come for the Congress to terminate

this program once and for all. The letter says ‘‘* * * the Army gets no direct

benefit from the program’’ and that

there is ‘‘* * * no discernible link’’ between the program and our Nation’s

military readiness. It goes on to say,

‘‘Last year and again last week, DOD

repeatedly has conveyed to Congress

that, while it will continue to administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue to support

legislation ending the program.’’

This letter, Mr. President, is not a

plea to the Congress to save a program

that enhances our military readiness

and national security. To the contrary.

It is an invitation to terminate the

program. I ask unanimous consent that

a copy of the letter be printed in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at the end of

my statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,

recent press reports indicate that

members of extremist militia groups in

this country, which may pose a threat

to public safety, may be gaining access

to military bases and receiving weapons, ammunition, and training at

Army facilities under the auspices of

the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

In one article, I learned that the leader

of the Michigan-based militia group

told ABC’s ‘‘Prime Time Live’’ that he

had access to U.S. military bases in

Michigan for the purpose of training

through this program. In another article, I learned that members of the

Competitive Sportsman club were

asked to leave Camp Grayling base

when they showed up wearing Southern

Michigan Militia patches. The American people have a right to know that

their tax dollars are not being used to

train people who may pose a threat to

law abiding citizens and to peace and

order in this country. The Defense Department should either investigate

these allegations or call on another

branch of the U.S. Government to do

so.

In the meantime, Mr. President, the

Civilian Marksmanship Program

should be terminated. My colleagues

know that I have long believed the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a lowpriority program and is an egregious

example of waste in Government. The

program promotes rifle training for civilians through a system of affiliated

clubs and other organizations, and

sponsors shooting competitions. As

part of these activities, the program

donates, loans, and sells weapons, ammunition, and other shooting supplies.

The Department of Defense has provided me with a State-by-State breakdown listing of 1,146 member clubs that

participate in this program, which I

will make available to any of my colleagues who wish to read it.

The program was first established in

1903, at a time when civilian marksmanship training was believed to be

important for military preparedness.

Yet the Pentagon says it supports legislation to terminate it and that there

is ‘‘no discernible link’’ between military readiness and the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As Army officials

told the GAO, no Army requirements

exist for civilians trained in marksmanship, and no system is in place to

track program-trained personnel. In a

March 15, 1994, hearing in the Senate

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,

Army Secretary West stated that national security objectives will be met

with or without the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

In essence, the Civilian Marksmanship Program has provided a taxpayer

subsidy for recreational shooting. In

light of the budget deficit we face and

the military needs we ought to address,

this simply is not a justifiable use of

scarce resources. After all, defense dollars are not used to subsidize other

sports. They ought not be used to subsidize a shooting program which has no

relationship to military needs and requirements.

Additionally, the program puts the

U.S. Government in the role of selling

weapons and ammunition to civilians.

There is no shortage of guns and ammunition available in this country

through the private sector. I do not believe the U.S. Government needs to be

involved in putting more guns on the

street in this country.

Mr. President, Senators FEINSTEIN,

LEVIN, SIMON, and I recently introduced a bill, S. 757, to terminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I urge

my colleagues to read the letter from

Under Secretary Reeder and approve

that bill without delay.

EXHIBIT 1

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.

Hon. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Secretary

of Defense, the Honorable William J. Perry,

has asked me on behalf of the Army, which

serves as the executive agent for the Civilian

Marksmanship Program (CMP), to respond

to your letter regarding your concerns about

the CMP.

The CMP was established by Congress in

1903 to develop marksmanship skills

throughout our nation from which the armed

forces could draw when needed for rapid mobilization. To this end, the CMP supported

creation of rifle clubs throughout the country. There are 1,146 member clubs (the current listing at Tab A is an update from all

previous reports on clubs).

Over time the mission of the CMP changed.

Now, the current focus of the CMP is weapons safety, familiarization and the sport of

marksmanship. The CMP is apolitical, and

provides no instruction in military skills.

In FY 1994, the CMP spent $2.483 million of

appropriated funds; $2.544 million are budgeted for FY 1995. The Army has requested no

appropriated funding for the CMP in FY 1996,

because the Army gets no direct benefit from

the program. The FY 1996/1997 Biennial Budget Estimates submitted to Congress documents the request for no funds in FY 96. Last

year and again last week, DOD repeatedly

has conveyed to Congress that, while it will

continue to administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue to

support legislation ending this program. I

have enclosed a copy of the recent OSD, General Counsel, response (Tab B) to The Honorable Floyd Spence, Chairman, House National Security Committee, and Ranking Minority Member Ron Dellums reiterating,

‘‘. . . no discernible link’’ between military

readiness and the CMP.

DOD shares your concern that the CMP not

inadvertently become involved with groups

or individuals who may intend to harm federal or non-federal employees. To my knowledge the CMP has never endorsed the involvement of militia groups or extremists in

any context. Before club status is granted,

three adults responsible for the formation of

the club must submit a DD Form 398–2 (Personnel Security Questionnaire) and pass a

background investigation performed by the

National Agency Check and Investigative

Center. If Congress continues to direct that

this program be implemented, we will continue to follow these procedures.

Section 4309, Title 10, United States Code,

provides that all ranges built in whole or in

part with Federal funds may be used by persons capable of bearing arms. Under this legislation, the CMP and other organizations

may request the use of military ranges and

are generally granted such use provided they

comply with range and installation rules.

They must not interfere with scheduled military training and their intended use must

not pose a safety hazard. If we have any indication of misuse, we will take appropriate

corrective action.

Thank you for your interest in this program. I hope this information addresses your

concerns.

Sincerely,

fJOE R. REEDER.

MINOR CROP PROTECTION

ASSISTANCE ACT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today

I rise to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Minor Crop Protection

Assistance Act. This legislation will

provide much needed relief to the food

and horticultural industries so important to the economy of my State and

the Nation.

This purpose of this legislation is

simple: It is all about economics. This

legislation seeks to provide some relief

to producers of minor crops who face

the imminent threat of losing access to

vital, and safe crop protection tools

due to market forces. Currently, registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] with EPA is

an intensive process, involving as

many as 120 data requirements. Chemical manufacturers are forced to make

the decision to cancel, or not

reregister, crop protection tools for use

on minor crops because the resulting
S6744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

sales revenues will not support the

high costs of reregistration. The result

is that many safe minor crop protection chemicals have been dropped from

production, despite the essential role

they play for our minor crop growers.

The production of the minor commodities, as they are called, is in fact

of major importance to Washington

State. In Washington, 90 percent of our

agricultural industry is in minor crops.

Most notable are hops, apples, small

fruits, vegetables, and hay. Washington

alone produces 77 percent of all commercially consumed hops in the United

States. Hops growers have five pesticides available to them, and four of

these are in danger of being lost due to

the high cost of reregistration. If only

one pesticide is available, pests will

quickly develop their resistance and

this compound will become obsolete as

a tool for crop protection. Another example comes from the hay producers in

Washington. The hay we grow makes

up one-third of the world’s hay market.

We export 75 percent of our product.

One particular pesticide which is essential to the growth cycle is in danger of

not being reregistered. If it goes, with

it will go our global market share.

This purpose of this bill is not an

issue of public health or public safety,

this is an issue of economics. It is designed to preserve safe minor use pesticides and to encourage the development of environmentally sound pest

management tools. We need to provide

the economic incentive for pesticide

manufacturers to pursue the costly reregistration of products with limited

market potential.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognize this situation. They

have worked with a coalition of minor

crop producers and my colleagues, Senator LUGAR and Senator INOUYE, on

this legislation. Accordingly, this bill

streamlines the registration and reregistration process, and provides new incentives to the pesticide industry to

pursue minor crop registrations. Most

importantly, this bill reinforces EPA’s

authority to deny reregistration of

minor use pesticides out of concern for

public safety. In the Administrator’s

judgment, if a pesticide puts the public

at too great a risk, the incentives for

development, registration, or reregistration can be revoked.

A safe food supply is very important

to me. Minor crops, which in large part

are fruits and vegetables, are staples in

the diets of infants and children, and

they also receive large applications of

pesticides. In its 1993 report, ‘‘Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children,’’ the National Academy of

Sciences found that current pesticide

standards may be inadequate to protect infants and children from pesticide exposure and recommends policies to increase protection.

While this legislation addresses a

market issue, it leaves us with the responsibility of addressing the complex

issue of food safety and the adequacy of

the current pesticide regulatory system. In no way are we relieved of dealing with pesticide issues in a comprehensive manner.

I am very interested in promoting

the development of newer, safer pesticides, and encouraging farmers to decrease their use of dangerous pesticides. Our efforts in this bill should

go hand in hand with incentive-based

approaches that encourage integrated

pest management, and even organic

production practices. I look forward to

working with my colleagues to address

the shortcomings of our current pesticide regulatory system, and to encourage innovative approaches for the

future.

TRIBUTE TO MASSIMO

SANTEUSANIO

fMr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would

like to acknowledge a ceremony which

was held yesterday in Boston to honor

Mr. Massimo Santeusanio.

Mr. Santeusanio recently celebrated

his 100th birthday and the ceremony is

to honor not only this extraordinary

event but his service during World War

I. He is to this day an inspiration to

those Americans who appreciate the

unselfish sacrifices made in defense of

freedom and liberty. During this Memorial Day period, I would like to express our country’s gratitude to all

World War I veterans through Massimo

Santeusanio.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have

WELFARE REFORM

ftoday received a copy of a resolution

passed by the Rhode Island House of

Representatives, outlining the devastating consequences that H.R. 4, the

Personal Responsibility Act, would

have on the State of Rhode Island if it

becomes law.

This resolution, introduced by Rhode

Island State Representatives Benoit,

Sherlock, Williams, Kellner, and

Bumpus, articulates far better than I

can the great damage that this legislation would do to the neediest of Rhode

Island families.

As the welfare debate begins in earnest in the Senate, I hope that my colleagues will bear in mind the strong

opposition of many in my State to this

proposal, and will heed in particular

the part of the Rhode Island House of

Representatives’ resolution which

urges us to ‘‘Put children first by

working for humane welfare reform

that provides for all citizens in need

during difficult economic times, that

supports effective return-to-work programs, and that recognizes that the

care given to our Nation’s children is a

shared Federal-State responsibility. * * *’’

I ask unanimous consent that the

resolution passed by the Rhode Island

House of Representatives on May 10,

1995, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

HOUSE RESOLUTION

Whereas, under the provisions of the Personal Responsibility Act (H.R. 4), Aid to

Families with Dependent Children would be

replaced by the Temporary Family Assistance Block Grant, and the entitlement program which guarantees benefits to all children who qualify would be eliminated. Under

the proposed block grant financing formula,

Rhode Island would receive $54 million less

in federal funds over the next five years, and

an estimated 25,000 children would be denied

benefits; and

Whereas, while the Personal Responsibility

Act purports to return control to the states,

the block grant legislation, in reality, contains many federal prohibitions limiting

states’ freedom that would deny eligibility

to several categories of children and families; and

Whereas, the Personal Responsibility Act

would virtually eliminate cash assistance to

21% of the disabled children currently in the

SSI program, and $27 million less in federal

funds would be available to Rhode Island

over the next five years; and

Whereas, all child nutrition programs

would be replaced by two block grants; federal funding would be reduced by 10%; federal nutrition standards would be repealed;

eligibility for food stamps would be sharply

curtailed by federal restrictions with the result that Rhode Island would receive a combined total of $127 million less in federal

funding over the next five years; and

Whereas, funding for several major child

protection programs would be sharply reduced and replaced by a block grant, and

Rhode Island would receive $15 million less

in federal funding over the next five years,

sharply reducing funds for adoption assistance, foster care, and the computerization of

the state’s abuse and neglect tracking system; and

Whereas, essential child care programs

that enable low-income families to work

would lose their entitlement status; Rhode

Island would receive $8 million less in federal

funding over the next five years and $2.4 million less by the year 2000, thereby resulting

in 1,570 fewer children receiving assistance;

and

Whereas, most legal immigrants would be

ineligible for most programs, leading to a

loss in federal aid to Rhode Island of $72 million over the next five years; now, therefore,

be it

Resolved, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby respectfully requests that the Rhode Island Congressional

delegation:

1. Oppose the Personal Responsibility Act

(H.R. 4) as passed by the United States House

of Representatives; and

2. Put children first by working for humane welfare reform that provides for all

citizens in need during difficult economic

times, that supports effective return-to-work

programs, and that recognizes that the care

given to our nation’s children is a shared federal-state responsibility; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be

and he hereby is authorized and directed to

transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the members of the Rhode Island

Congressional Delegation.

AND ATLANTIS COMMUNITY, INC.

NORWEST BANK OF COLORADO

fMr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I

want to say a few words of congratulation to the people who work for