Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say it is with some regret I rise in opposition to an amendment by my distinguished colleague and good friend from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. It is never pleasant to take an opposite viewpoint from your colleague, but I feel very strongly about this, as does he. Let me say, first of all, I have no quarrel or suggestion that any of the information that Senator Hutchinson has just given us about conditions in China are incorrect. I do not know that they are correct, but I am sure he has checked out the facts he just gave the Senate. What I want to say is, if you had been in China with me in 1978 at the end of the Cultural Revolution, and it was at the end of the Cultural Revolution, and if you had heard the stories or if you had read the documentation since the end of the Cultural Revolution about what went on in China, I suggest this debate ought to be not about where China is, but how far she has come since 1978. On the issue of religion in China, according to the New York Times, in 1979 there were three active churches in China. Today there are 12,000. In addition to the 12,000 temples and churches in China, it is estimated that over 25,000 religious groups meet in the homes of members every week, and nobody has tried to stop that. On the contrary, when you think of the growth from 3 to 12,000, China should receive some recognition for what they have done and the improvements they have made. Nobody in the U.S. Senate will take issue with some of the accusations here that have been made about China's opposition to religions of all kinds. Nobody will argue that China has a good human rights record. Nobody will argue with very much of what has been said here. What we are arguing here is a simple philosophical point that I feel strongly about, and that is that China is 10 times more likely to allow the kind of progress that is going on there today, which has been absolutely phenomenal, when they are engaged in dialog with nations like the United States with whom they would like to have good relations, than it would be if we try to tell a great nation of between 1 billion and 2 billion people--25 percent of the Earth's population resides in China--they are much more likely to behave themselves when they are dealing with people who constructively engage them than they are with people who ignore them and try to impose sanctions. What if China said, ``We are not going to do business with the United States anymore until they pay the United Nations dues? We are paid up. It is the United States that is the deadbeat. They owe the United Nations $900 million.'' You would hear a hue and outcry in this country that would drown out every rock band in America. Mr. President, China has a long way to go. Nobody argues that. But I can tell you that by the President constructively engaging China, presumably he will talk to them forcefully about human rights, inquire and talk to them forcefully about the issue of forced abortion, talk to them about religion, talk to them about political freedoms and how much better off they would be, talk to them about nuclear weaponry and how we are relying on China to temper one of the most volatile dangerous regions in the world, between India and Pakistan. If you read the Washington Post yesterday, read the interview with President Jiang, you heard him say that he was shocked to hear India use, as one of its excuses for exploding a nuclear weapon--a weapon--he was shocked that they used China as a threat to India as one of the reasons. China and India have not been big bosom buddies. I am not suggesting that. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been too long since they had a border war. But, in my opinion, China is not the reason they exploded a nuclear bomb. The reason they exploded a nuclear weapon is because the Indians and Pakistanis mistrust each other, and one of the main reasons they distrust each other is because of their religious differences. If you look around the world, you will find most of the wars, most of the dissent going on in the world today is because of religion--in Ireland, in Bosnia, in China, in India and Pakistan. Mr. President, I think we ought to utilize China as a possible broker in the fight on the Korean peninsula, as well as between India and Pakistan--that whole region of the world. I heard something the other day. I don't know whether it is true or not. I heard some guy on NPR talking about the criminal justice of the United States. There are 70,000 people in the United States in prison who are innocent. That is not the best record in the world, if that is true. I expect it is probably close to true. Every day you read about somebody who gets out of prison who has been there 10 years because he was found, finally, to be innocent. Nobody's criminal justice system is perfect. I am not saying there are not a lot more people imprisoned in China who are innocent. All I am saying is for any nation to hold itself out as perfect and to castigate other nations for being imperfect is the height of hypocrisy. Mr. President, nobody disagrees with the issues that are being raised in this amendment, nor is anybody suggesting the President not engage the Chinese very forcefully on those issues. We have a trade imbalance with China. They sell us a lot more than we sell them. But I can tell you, if you took away the $5 billion in goods we sell to China every year, there would be a lot of jobs lost in this country, and the people who sell in China, and other people who buy from China, are opposed, very strongly opposed to this amendment. Two final points. A lot of people have a very difficult time since the Soviet Union disappeared. They have a very difficult time accepting the idea that we don't have anybody to hate. We had the Soviet Union for 70 years. It was so much fun. We didn't have to debate about who the enemy was; we knew it was the Soviet Union. We built weapons galore, trillions of dollars' worth, because of the threat of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not around anymore, and we have been searching frantically for somebody with which to replace the Soviet Union, somebody we could hate with a great deal of gusto and vigor. I have watched for the past 2 years. I have watched the anti-China decibel level rise to unprecedented rates. China has been elected. I am not suggesting this amendment is offered because of the hatred for China. I am telling you, you cannot keep 270 billion dollars' worth of defense going a year unless you have an enemy. The military industrial complex has decided that is China, so we are going to continue to build weapons, and we are going to continue to make China the bad guy. As I say, when you say these things, it looks as if you are being apologetic or defensive. I am not, not for a moment. I am simply saying that is a fact, and I can tell you, since those bombs exploded in India and Pakistan, it is a very ominous sign, and I can tell you the threat to civilization has gone up exponentially. When the President is going to visit a country which has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has signed the Conventional Weapons Treaty, Conventional Weapons Convention, and which has agreed to quit shipping any information of any nuclear value to Iran, those are things that would never have happened if the Hutchinson amendment was in place. I feel quite sure the Hutchinson amendment will be defeated. I hope so. He is my colleague, and I regret taking a position opposite him on any issue, but on this one, I can tell you, in my opinion, common sense dictates that the President do exactly what he is doing. I wish him well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the senior Senator from New Mexico in a colloquy.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, many of us in Arkansas have been working for several years to reverse a critical ground water resource problem that is developing in our region and will ultimately affect the entire country. Throughout this century, aquifers in the lower Mississippi River Valley have been falling due to high demand and relatively low recharge. The United States Geological Survey has found that current trends by the year 2015 will reduce the saturated thickness of the aquifers to the point that soils will begin to compact, recharge will not be possible, and the aquifer will effectively be dead, along with nearly half of the U.S. rice industry. Because of the magnitude of this problem, state and local efforts to correct it will never succeed without assistance from the federal government. In that event, a regional economic collapse will occur, a major environmental resource will forever be lost, and our legacy to future generations will carry a lasting shadow of irresponsibility. The President's Budget Request provided $11.5 million for the Grand Prairie Region. I understand the difficulty the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee faced in trying to fund many worthwhile projects. Unfortunately, the Grand Prairie Project was not funded in this bill. It is also my understanding that the House Energy and Water Appropriations Bill provides the full Budget Request of $11.5 million for the Grand Prairie project. I ask the Chairman, Senator Domenici, for his support in accepting the House level when this legislation is considered in conference.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chairman for his efforts.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I, first of all, compliment my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, for what I thought was a very compelling analysis of what our relationship with China is and what it should be and what the President ought to be doing in China in the way of engagement to improve our relationship. I agree totally with everything he said. Right now, China, obviously, is not a democracy, though about 40 percent of her economy is private enterprise in the true sense of the word we cherish here. We have found in the past that when nations begin to permit economic freedom, usually the economic benefits that come from that become highly desirable to the people, and then they begin to seek more freedom, more democracy. On the other hand, you can argue that political democracy and social freedom should come first and everything else will follow. I would like to believe that, but I believe in the case of China, where unbelievable changes have occurred in the last 20 years, the ordinary citizen of this country cannot even begin to fathom the dramatic changes in the culture, even in the political system, and the economy of China. So I happen to come from the school of thought that believes that when people have economic freedom, political freedom is more likely to ensue than vice versa. I understand all the arguments on human rights. And nobody is going to stand up, who is in his right mind, and say that China does not violate human rights. Of course they do. And I do not care what anybody says, under the best case scenario, you are not going to get the kind of democracy in China overnight that we enjoy in this country. But I can tell you this. Engagement of China on these issues is going to be 10 times more beneficial to both their citizens and the world than our sitting back with a purist attitude saying that, ``If you don't do all these things we tell you to do, then we're going to quit trading with each other and we're going to quit our dialog with each other. You go ahead and start shipping missiles to Iran. You go ahead and violate the chemical weapons ban which you signed in 1992. And go ahead and violate the test ban treaty which you signed in 1992.'' Who wants that? Who thinks that is a good idea? I am not saying China would do it, but I am simply saying we are not going to bully a nation of 1.2 billion people. And I think our chances of bringing them into the mainstream are infinitely better if we engage them. So, No. 1, I applaud the President for going to China. I have a little difficulty with the Tiananmen Square event. But if you wanted to sour the trip from the opening gun, just have the President go there with a precondition that, ``I will not have any dialog with you in Tiananmen Square.'' He can turn right around and get on Air Force One and come home for all the good he is going to do. Those are the realities, Mr. President. Whether we like them or not, those are the facts. And everybody who knows anything about human psychology knows what would happen if the President took that kind of a stance, which a lot of people in this body have urged him to take. He should go there resolute on talking about human rights with the Chinese and engage them on it as strongly as he can. He should engage them on any suspected arms shipments or transfers of chemicals that we are concerned about. He should talk to them about all the violations of human rights. And he should ask them about the slave and prison labor. And he should ask them about forced abortions. There are a lot of forces at work in this country, Mr. President. We are having a very difficult time in this country since the Soviet Union fell. For the last 50 years, politicians in this country have had a field day hating the Soviet Union. We all have. It was a bizarre situation. And the Soviet Union, while they were our allies in World War II, after World War II was over, we had a very--not tenuous-- disastrous relationship with them. And the only reason I make that point is, now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, we have been looking around for an enemy. We do not cope very well without somebody to hate, and China has been elected. You cannot justify $270 billion on defense expenditures unless you have a genuine, certified enemy. So there is a lot of that at work here. I believe Eisenhower was absolutely right when he described the military-industrial complex as a real threat to the country. It is alive and well. I have always chastised President Eisenhower, whom I admired and thought he was a pretty good President, for not having made that military-industrial complex speech when he took office instead of when he left. We are all awfully courageous when we leave office. But in any event, there are a lot of people who simply cannot accept China because it is communistic. Even though, as I said, 40 percent of their economy is in the free market sector, politically it still is a Communist Nation. And there is no such thing as real democracy in China. Mr. President, there are people in this body who are going to vote against the most-favored-nation status of China because of China's treatment of Christian missionaries. I read an interesting story on that this week which pointed out there are 67 million Christians in China and the number is growing all the time. I do not really know how serious the discrimination allegation about religion is in China, but I will tell you, I suspect that it is exaggerated to some extent. But you have these people who resent China's, at least, reluctance to allow all of these various religious missionaries, especially Christian missionaries, into their country. So they are not going to vote for most-favored-nation status. And then there is, of course, this anti-Clinton segment. Some people have a very difficult time giving the President credit for anything. And so if they can make President Clinton look bad by going to China to consort with the same people Richard Nixon consorted with, if they can get any mileage out of that, they are going to take advantage of that. So you have that political faction working. So, Mr. President, I think the President is doing the absolutely right thing. I think he is going to be extremely well prepared for his dialog with the Chinese leaders. I personally believe that the Chinese can have some influence in tranquilizing the hostility between India and Pakistan. And when I say ``tranquilizing,'' I am talking about dampening their hostility toward each other ever so slightly. Mr. President, I said the other day to the Arkansas Bar Association that I believe religious extremism in any form is dangerous to our Nation and to the world. And the dispute between Pakistan and India is essentially a religious dispute between the Hindus and the Moslems. And if you look around the world--you look in Bosnia, they are all ethnically the same, but you have Catholics and you have Christians and you have Moslems. The Serbs are Russian Orthodox and Christian; and Croatia is essentially Catholic; and Bosnia is essentially Moslem. That is a volatile mix. Something close to 100,000 or 200,000 people have died as a result of the hostilities generated to a large extent to those religious differences. So if China can be a force in that part of the world to give the rest of us a little respite, a little better feeling about our ability to bring Pakistan and India together--I don't think it is unthinkable at all for a nuclear war to break out between those two nations; hostilities are intense--if China can do anything at all to ``tranquilize'' the situation, we ought to be bringing them right along and telling them ``do everything you can.'' I thought India's excuse for exploding a bomb, because they were afraid of China, was as transparent as Saran Wrap. China and India have always been enemies of a sort, but not nearly the intensity of the relationship between India and Pakistan, for example. In my opinion, they were looking for anything they could get ahold of to justify what they did, which is unforgivable. When I think about the population of China, I was there in 1978, and the population was 800 million. The population of China since 1978 has grown by 400 million people--140 million more than there are in the United States--which brings me to the second part of this sermon. Last night, I went downtown to receive a plaque from the Natural Resources Council which is an organization of 72 environmental groups. In my response, on a more serious note, I said I don't want to be the skunk at the lawn party, and I would like to think that I am a great environmentalist, but we talk about ozone depletion, we talk about global warming, we talk about building electric automobiles, and all of these things we are going to do to stop global warming from occurring. But the truth of the matter is we do not talk about the No. 1 environmental problem of the planet, and that is a population out of control. When I was a young 18-year-old recruit in the Marine Corps in World War II, this Nation had 130 million people. So in that period of time, from the time I was a raw recruit in the Marine Corps until today, we have increased our population by 138 million--268 million, compared to 130 million. At that same time, we had 30 million vehicles in the United States; today, we have 200 million vehicles. Estimates are that by the year 2050 we will have 400 million vehicles. My commute time from my home to the U.S. Senate in the 23\1/2\ years I have been here has increased by 12 minutes. Today, we are taking 2.5 million acres of arable land that was previously used to grow food to feed ourselves and to export to a hungry world, out of cultivation every year and we are adding 2.5 million people to the population. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that you have a train wreck coming. On top of that, our agricultural yields are becoming static. Soybean yields were up slightly last year, corn yields were flat; wheat yields that we have seen increase over the years are becoming static. We could, perhaps, put a lot more money into research and reverse that trend so that we get greater and greater yields, but isn't it amazing our priorities, when we spend $1.8 billion a year on agricultural research, and we send $40 billion a year down at the Pentagon for them to make things explode louder. Now, it is really tragic when you think about the problem of the population increase of the planet, not to say anything of the United States. By the year 2100, barring an epidemic or a pandemic, we are going to be standing shoulder to shoulder on this planet. Yes, people, by their very numbers, are polluters. We have to be fed. That means we use up our land. We have to be housed. That means we use up our resources to build houses. We have to be transported so we have to go in an automobile that puts a lot of noxious fumes into the atmosphere and uses up our resources at an exponential rate. On and on it goes. When you start talking about the problems of the population increase of the planet and what it means for our grandchildren--it makes me shudder to think about it. I must say I take strong exception to those who hold up our foreign aid spending to all of the countries who have family planning programs, when every single country that has a family planning program shows the abortion rate goes down. But I don't want to get into the abortion debate either. I am simply saying you can shove this problem under the rug, which we have been doing a magnificent job of for the last many years, or you can face up to it as China has tried to do. In 1978, when I was in China the last time, they had a family planning program going there. Since that time, it has worked partially in the big urban areas. It is not working in the rural areas. They still have a culture there that you have to have children to help you till the crops. You have to have children to help you do everything, so they keep having children. Mrs. Bumpers, just came back from Africa. She was over there trying to help Africans immunize their children. She was in Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast. She said it was the most exhilarating experience she ever had in her life, watching mothers bring their babies through the hot sands and dust, into these clinics, where they were having what they called national immunization days. She began to give polio doses herself. She said it was the most gratifying experience she had ever had. She was amazed with some of the progress they are making in Africa. One of the things they have done on the Ivory Coast is cut the birth rate, with family planning, from six per woman to four. Now, here is a relatively primitive country called the Ivory Coast in Africa, which seems to have a better grip on what the real problems of the world are than we have. There is more to that. I don't want to take any more time, Mr. President. I have said all I can say about what I consider to be the real problems. One of the frustrating things is--and I don't say this with any degree of acrimony or bitterness at all, and it has been a great honor to be one of the less than 1,800 people who ever served in the U.S. Senate, and I will leave here with a heart full of gratitude, hopefully strengthened by great relationships with many colleagues. But I am disenchanted, to some extent, about our inability and our unwillingness to deal with some of the real problems. We do a great job of dealing with the politics of problems, but we have a tough time facing up to the fact that our children are not being well educated. I am dismayed when I think about the $50 billion or $60 billion surplus we are supposed to have at the end of this year and people are talking about tax cuts. I would not have any objection to that, Mr. President, if that tax cut went to the lower-income groups in this country who are still being relegated to last place. This is a personal opinion. One of the reasons the stock market has gone crazy in the last several years is because there is so much money floating around in this country, people have no choice but to invest it. They are not going to put it into T-bills when they can put it in Microsoft, or something else that will pay 20 to 30 percent, or even more, than a 6-percent bond will. But I can tell you that all of this money that exists in this country that people largely have made out of the stock market has not filtered down to the bottom 40 percent of the people in this country. I would vote for another minimum wage increase because every statistic I have seen has shown that, No. 1, you don't lose jobs--the traditional argument made against it--and, No. 2, this country is not going to be what it ought to be unless we bring other people up. Every statistic I have seen in the last year is that the rich are still getting richer and the poor, by comparison, are getting poorer. I would be hard-pressed to vote for a tax cut for the well-off when children are going to school all over Arkansas, being taught by teachers who go into teaching at an entry level of $20,000. Do you know what I think, Mr. President? I think teaching is the toughest job in America. I would rather clean the streets of Washington, DC, and carry garbage than teach school. One of the reasons I feel that way is because I married a schoolteacher and I know what they go through. It is the toughest job in the world. They go through 4 years of college and get a degree in education and go into the schools of my State at an entry level of $20,000. If they are lucky, the next year they will get a cost-of-living increase. My daughter, who is my pride and joy, is with a law firm downtown. She is not going to teach for $25,000 or $30,000 a year, and she would be a magnificent teacher. There are people all over the country--men and women--who would be great teachers, who are not going into the teaching profession because it simply doesn't pay enough. When you compound the fact--if you agree with me that it is the toughest job on earth--it surely doesn't pay enough. I was doing an interview this afternoon with a prominent author here in Washington who is writing a book. We were talking about the American people and what is going on. There is something going on in this country that nobody really quite understands. I don't. I probably wasn't very helpful to him because I didn't have any brilliant analysis of what is going on in the country. But I said, ``I think the disenchantment is more a result of the way people feel that the educational system is failing them than anything else.'' I also believe that television, which ought to be this magnificent medium of communicating and making our children so much smarter, is failing us miserably. Mr. President, I have gone from China to population to schoolteaching in all my meanderings here. But I can tell you there isn't anything wrong with this country that setting our priorities straight would not cure. Until we have an educated electorate, and until we provide an education for every child in this country, not just an education at the elementary and secondary level, but at the college level, until we make the commitment that every kid in this country gets a college education, or at least is not denied a college education for lack of money, don't talk to me about tax cuts. What makes a country great? What makes a country great is how well their people are educated and, therefore, how civil their people are to each other, what their conduct is. When I see people engaged in certain kinds of conduct you want to ask them, ``Why are you doing that?'' They do it because their parents or nobody else ever told them not to. I could sit here and list all day long the things that are my favorite pet peeves. I am always saying to Betty, ``I wonder why that kid did that.'' She says, ``Because nobody ever told him better.'' So Mr. President, I certainly am not giving up on this Nation. The people of this country are rhapsodic about one thing, and that is that we got our budget house in order. The fact that we have a surplus this year is nothing short of a miracle, and the people know it. But if we start spending it and squandering it instead of dealing with the problems we still have we will be back in trouble. The other day, Mr. President, you were in the Appropriations Committee when I made a short speech about what a tough time we had crafting this agriculture bill. I said, ``You know we don't have any money to do much of anything.'' A couple of weeks ago, I had a delegation come to me from the Mississippi River delta, the poorest part of my State. Four communities described graphically for me how, every time they have a heavy rain, sewage runs down the street and runs down the ditches. The health consequences of that are absolutely incalculable. I said, ``I have looked high and low, looked everywhere in this budget, and every other budget, trying to find $2.8 million to alleviate this problem.'' Because I made that speech there in the committee, I think I about got it solved. But I can tell you, that is going to be the greatest thing that has ever happened to those people in those communities. When I was a kid, we didn't understand why people died of typhoid fever in the summer because the outhouse was just 10 steps away from the water well. That is sort of the situation these people are living in. Mr. President, we have a lot of unmet needs in this country, and I am not voting for any tax cuts until we address those. I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am most pleased to join my very good friend, Senator Cochran, in bringing this bill to the floor. I think that, considering the constraints that Senator Cochran--who is really the crafter of this bill--considering the constraints that he was operating under, this is a remarkable bill. We were allocated, and even in the President's budget request, $1 billion less than we had last year. To try to craft a bill meeting the really mostly legitimate demands--or at least even funding or increased funding--under that kind of a burden was extremely difficult. I did not interfere--tried not to interfere very much in Senator Cochran's work because he was already burdened heavily enough in trying to fit all the pieces of this mosaic together. But he deserves the praise and the accolades of every Member of this Senate for what I think is a remarkable achievement. Mr. President, Senator Cochran has outlined the levels of funding provided in this bill for various functions and programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and I will not repeat them. Let me simply say Senator Cochran and I have done the best we could with limited resources to maintain the activities at USDA, FDA, and other agencies that are so important to the American people. I wish I could be equally as pleased with the budgetary hand with which this subcommittee has been dealt, but the reality is that a budget request filled with user fees, initiatives, and other issues coupled with a 302(b) allocation that reduced our available resources well below last year's levels has produced very hard choices for us. As the Washington Post pointed out in an editorial earlier this week related to the fact that our bill freezes the WIC program at last year's level, until the overall budgetary parameters affecting this subcommittee are adjusted, there is little this subcommittee can do. We can't provide more with less. However, in my view, the bill before us, which Senator Cochran has crafted, makes the best of a bad situation. Would I suggest increases in certain programs if the resources were available? Of course I would and I believe Senator Cochran would agree with those increases. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that when you have less to work with, something has to give. Unfortunately, this year is one in which avoiding the budget ax may itself be a victory. We hear a lot these days about budget surpluses. We also hear a lot about how to spend those surpluses, such as providing tax cuts. We talk a lot about saving Social Security, but we still count those revenues coming into the Social Security Trust Fund as part of that glorious ``surplus'' which many are eager to divide up and share with their friends. The other day, a group of people from a very poor part of the East Arkansas Delta were in office asking for help to reduce flooding in their communities. The flooding causes their septic tanks to back up, resulting in sewage floating down the streets of small rural communities and into the ditches throughout the county. When this bill was considered by the full committee, I explained this problem to Senator Stevens and other members of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Stevens and others pledged to help and I hope that we will be able to include an amendment to this bill that will provide necessary funds so these people in East Arkansas will have a few of the basic services that many of us take for granted. Still, this leaves Congress with the remaining problem of caps on domestic spending that is affecting the lives of everyday people all across this country. The immediate future holds little promise for improvement. The Budget Act requires that the coming years will witness continuing declines in discretionary spending, which means the subcommittee's allocation will likely be less next year than this and Senator Cochran's headaches (not mine) will be even more severe than they have been these past few weeks. Having said all this, let me come back to the task at hand and simply state that Senator Cochran has done all excellent job in making the pieces fit into a very complex mosaic. As I have suggested, the watchword for this year has been ``maintain''. This bill restores many of the worthwhile programs that were deleted in the President's budget request and even provides a sight increase in the formula base funds for research and extension activities that have been held steady for many years. Conservation and rural development programs are protected as best we can in spite of changes in loan subsidy rates that caused severe problems in maintaining last year's program levels. We protected rural water and sewer programs which are among the best investments the federal government makes. We were also able to maintain many of last year's program levels for rural housing programs. The WIC program is expected to average more than 7 million participants in fiscal year 1998. This bill provides funds necessary to maintain that caseload. I wish we were able to provide a higher level, but limited resources have left few options. I am willing to work with Senator Cochran and other Senators to find ways to provide higher levels for important programs such as WIC if reasonable offsets or additional resources can be identified. For years, so called ``budget hawks'' have been telling Congress to ``cut the fat''. For this subcommittee, the ``fat'' was eliminated a long, long time ago. Today, we are cutting into the ``lean.'' These cuts hurt farmers and they hurt our agricultural research base which is needed to make possible the means for this planet to avoid global starvation in years to come. These cuts hurt small rural communities and they hurt children. They deprive our nation of a cutting edge in maintaining a place in global markets. They place our food and blood supply at risk and, quite simply, they harm America. This is certainly not the fault of Senator Cochran, but these problems have fallen in his lap, and mine, and on us all. I only hope that in years to come, those who would cut the ``fat'' out of these programs first explain where the ``fat'' is. I also feel it is important to make a quick reference to an item in the bill that has long been near and dear to my heart as I know it is to Senator Cochran. For longer than we have shared a place in the United States Senate, Senator Cochran and I have shared a common state boundary along the banks of the mightiest river on the continent. One hundred years ago, the highest form of travel in this country was to take a ride on a Mississippi riverboat. Ten years ago, I sponsored legislation to create the Lower Mississippi River Delta Regional Commission. Sadly, the focus of this Commission was not to highlight the gilded days of luxurious steamboat travel, or the glorious setting in the lobby of Memphis' Peabody Hotel, where legend holds the Delta begins, but to reverse the tragic decline in economic and social prosperity that has resulted in harsh impoverishment up and down this mighty river. Today, the Chairman of this Commission which we formed in 1988 now sits at a desk in the Oval Office of the White House. President Clinton submitted a budget amendment to this subcommittee to create a Delta Regional Commission based largely on the findings of the Lower Mississippi Delta Regional Commission and in the combined spirit of us all to provide a better life for the most hard pressed of our citizens. The President's request called for $26 million to establish and provide assistance to this worthy cause. With the limited resources of this subcommittee, we were not able to create a new ``agency'' for the Delta, but we did provide the Secretary of Agriculture authority to work with local groups in the region to help them help themselves. USDA holds many programs important to the Delta such as rural housing, water and sewer programs, conservation, food assistance, research and education, and many, many more. This subcommittee, over the past several years, has provided funding for the Delta Teachers Academy which has been a highly successful program to improve educational opportunities in the region. The Delta Teachers Academy is an example of the progress in rural America that USDA can help foster. I am pleased that the President has added his voice to the call for rejuvenation of this region that two hundred years ago was the western border of our nation, but now lies at its heart. In closing, I would be remiss not to state publicly my admiration for Senator Cochran and the honor I have enjoyed serving with him on this subcommittee. This is my last agriculture appropriations bill to be considered on the floor of the United States Senate, but I will always cherish the friendship and warm memories of my colleagues. Let me conclude by saying that I do not know of anybody in the Senate for whom I have a higher regard and more respect than I have for Senator Cochran. I was chairman of this subcommittee until the Republicans took over in 1995. Senator Cochran has chaired it since that time. He was my ranking member when I was chairman. And I daresay, with no reflection on any other chairman and ranking member of any of the subcommittees on appropriations, or I daresay any other committee of the Senate, I doubt that any of them have enjoyed better cooperation with each other than Senator Cochran and I have enjoyed, and that is based on the tremendous respect I have for his ability and his understanding of these programs. I concede he understands some of these agricultural programs a lot better than I do. But having said all of that, Mr. President, I just say it has been a genuine joy to work with Senator Cochran. Let me say, again, there is no Member of the Senate for whom I have a higher regard and greater respect. It has been a great honor. I will miss times like this when we come before the Senate to present this bill. I will miss working with Senator Cochran on issues that we both care deeply about, but it is time for me to move on. I want to thank Senator Cochran for his always generous and laudable remarks that he made about me. So with that, Mr. President, I hope that Senators who have amendments will come to the floor so we can dispose of this bill as expeditiously as possible. We did very well on the water and energy bill. I would like to think we could do as well on the ag bill. If Senators would come to the floor and offer their amendments, we will.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1693, the ``Vision 2020 National Parks System Restoration Act.'' I want to commend Senator Thomas, the bill's author, for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, he has been willing to compromise and work with all involved parties, including Secretary Babbitt, Senator Bennett, and me in an effort to enact a meaningful and comprehensive bill for our national parks. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this important legislation and I look forward its passage before I leave the Senate this year. I would also like to particularly thank Senator Bennett, who has once again been very helpful and constructive in developing a bill that can garner such broad bipartisan support, as I believe this bill has. Although this is a comprehensive bill that makes a number of positive changes in the way national parks are managed, for me, the most significant provisions are found in title IV--the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act. Mr. President, for almost 19 years I have worked to reform the concessions policies of the National Park Service to increase competition, provide better services, and to ensure a better return for the American public. Over the past two decades, we have held dozens of hearings, and we've debated this issue in mark-ups and on the Senate floor. As you know, during the 103rd Congress Senator Bennett and I sponsored a bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9, and passed in the House of Representatives with only minor changes by a vote of 368-30. Despite the overwhelming vote margins, we were unable to pass a final bill before the Congress adjourned. Given the magnitude of those votes, it is very frustrating to be here once again debating park concession reform. While I support passage of this bill and believe it will enhance the Park Service's ability to better manage our National Park System, the bill before us today is a real compromise between Senator Thomas and myself. The bill--particularly the concession title--does not contain all of the policy changes that I would like to see made. However, passage of this bill will finally allow the Park Service to have meaningful competition for park concession contracts. Most importantly, the bill will repeal the 1965 Concession Policy Act--a 30-year old anachronism--including its most anti-competitive provision, the granting to incumbent concessioners of a preferential right to renew their contract by simply matching the terms and conditions of a superior offer. Other important provisions in the concession reform title include: maintaining existing statutory protections for outfitter and guide contracts and small contracts with less than $500,000 in annual gross revenue; a prohibition against giving any concessioner a preferential right to provide new or additional services; and language linking the value of facilities built by a concessioner to actual construction costs, adjusted for inflation, rather than the ``sound value'' possessory interest allowed under current law. While the concession title has been of particular interest to me, the bill before us today includes several other titles which I believe will greatly enhance the Park Service's management authorities. The bill includes directives for the Park Service to improve career development and training for its employees and to establish a strong scientific research program in national parks. It codifies criteria for the Park Service to use in evaluating areas proposed for addition to the National Park System. It gives the Park Service much needed authority to collect and retain fees for commercial filming activities in national park units, and it extends the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for park fees for another six years. The bill also will allow the Park Service to develop and market annual park admission passports to increase public awareness about parks and to raise new revenues. There are a few other titles included in the bill, but those are the most significant provisions. Mr. President, the concession reform provisions in this bill are a great step forward for the National Park Service and the taxpayers. I strongly support these and the other provisions in this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this bill.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a long time friend, Ross Pendergraft. He was a good and decent man who helped make his community and State a better place. I extend my condolences to his family and friends, but especially his lovely wife Donnie. Ross passed away Sunday at the age of 72 in Fort Smith, Arkansas, a city he called home and where he was a former executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Donrey Media Group, which owns five fine newspapers in my State and more than fifty nationwide. Donrey owes its great success in a tough business in large part to the efforts of Ross Pendergraft. I knew Ross long before I entered public life. He was a man of great personal integrity and professional accomplishment. He was a man of wit, humor, and compassion who made a deep impact on the life of his community. He will be terribly missed by those in the newspaper business and by the thousands people whose lives he touched not only in Fort Smith but throughout Arkansas. Born in Abbott, Arkansas, Ross was a World War II veteran, and attended Arkansas Tech University at Russellville on the GI Bill, like so many of us did. In 1948 he joined the advertising staff of the Southwest Times-Record newspaper in Fort Smith, and so began his rise through the ranks of the Donrey organization. In 1961 he was named general manager of the Times-Record and by 1990 he oversaw all Donrey newspapers in the continental U.S. and Hawaii. Three times he was named ``Man of the Year'' by the Arkansas Press Association. But he also found the time and energy to serve his community. He was the first vice chairman of the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation, a charitable trust. He was a chairman of the Fort Smith United Way, a president of the city's Chamber of Commerce, a former member of the Arkansas Highway Commission, and he served on the Arkansas Action Committee as well as countless other civic and charitable organizations. Ross worked tirelessly to get better roads in western Arkansas and to promote economic development in Fort Smith, which is now among the fastest growing regions in the United States. Though Ross was a man who oversaw more than 50 newspapers and bought newsprint and printers ink by the ton, he was never one to seek the limelight or use his position for personal aggrandizement. So many of his good works took place quietly, behind the scenes, out of the public eye. He was a man who loved his family, loved his community, and loved the newspaper business. And while my State is diminished by his loss, it has been and will continue to be enriched by the work that he did, the causes he served and the example he set.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, be recognized for 7 minutes in order to offer an amendment, and immediately following the conclusion that I be recognized for the same purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment, I think, can be disposed of in 7 minutes.

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

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

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair for reminding me. Madam President, this amendment repeals a provision in the immigration laws that was a tragic mistake when it was enacted. My amendment to strike that provision deals with economics, it deals with patriotism, it deals with immigration, and it deals with fraud. In order for my colleagues to understand precisely what we are talking about, let me set the stage. I fought this battle in 1989 and, at the expense of sounding a little self-serving, lost, but predicted what has happened would happen. The immigration bill considered by the Senate in 1989 included a provision of the bill to increase investment because we were headed into a recession. We decided we would take a page out of the play books of Canada and Australia. We thought, if they can sell citizenship for $200,000, citizenship in the United States ought to be worth at least $1 million. It is a very logical assumption. So, we said, in that bill in 1989, we will reserve 4,800 visas for foreigners who wants to come into this Nation and bring $1 million and hire 10 people: We will give you a green card at the end of 2 years, and, at the end of an additional 3 years, we will make you a citizen of the United States. Then in the conference committee we decided we could do even better than that. We said: You don't have to bring $1 million dollars; bring $500,000. If you put a hamburger joint up that will hire 10 people in an area of high unemployment or in a rural area, we will do the same thing for you. We cut the price of citizenship from $1 million to $500,000 and the 4,800 slots that we reserved in the Senate bill increased to 10,000 in the conference report. Multiply $1 million by 10,000 visas and just think of all the magnificent investment we would have in this country and how many jobs we would create. Madam President, that ``ain't'' all. We said not only will you not really have to create 10 jobs with your $500,000 or your $1 million, you only have to maintain 10 jobs. What does that mean? If old Joe's hamburger joint is about to go out of business and he has 10 employees and you are willing to buy his place and keep those 10 employees working, you have maintained 10 jobs, so you qualify for American citizenship. Then in 1993 we decided we would liberalize it a little further. Not only do you not have to create 10 jobs, not only do you not have to maintain 10 jobs, all you have to do is indirectly provide 10 jobs if you invest in businesses located in certain areas known as Regional Centers . What does that mean? You are making widgets. You employ five people to make widgets. You have two people to distribute them and three people to sell them. Those are indirectly created jobs. Therefore, you get your green card at the end of 2 years, and you get your citizenship papers at the end of 5 years. I can remember at that time how we thought Hong Kong was going to flood this Nation with people with $1 million in their pocket because they were terrified of the Chinese taking over Hong Kong. I must say, the program, such as it is, has been mostly of people from the Pacific rim--Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan. Madam President, do you know the nice thing about this? If you have $500,000 to invest, bring the little wife and kids, too, you are all welcome. They are also going to ultimately be entitled to citizenship. What have been the results? Madam President, a cottage industry of consultants and limited partnerships has grown up in this Nation. No plan the U.S. Congress has ever devised has been scam-proof, and God knows this one is no exception. What do these consultants do? Why, they advertise in the newspapers in Hong Kong, in Oman, in Taiwan, and they say, ``You don't even need $500,000, you don't need $1 million, you only need $100,000.'' We have gone from $1 million to $500,000 to $100,000. We have gone from creating jobs to maintaining jobs to indirectly providing jobs. It is incredible what has happened to this program. How do they get by with this? These consultants form limited partnerships. They get several of these people who have $100,000 and they pool all those $100,000 contributions from various people. What about the $500,000 requirement? How are you going to put up $100,000 and meet that? Easy. You give a promissory note for $400,000. You give $100,000 in cash--incidentally, there is a little matter of a $35,000 to $50,000 fee that goes to the consultant. So if you come, you ought to have $150,000 in your pocket, $50,000 for the consultant and $100,000 to show your good faith, and then be willing to sign a note for $400,000. But not to worry. At the end of 2 years, your note is forgiven. Forget the $400,000 note. If you are in the $1 million class, forget the $900,000 note. And if, at the end of 2 years, the business has not done well, shut it down. When you shut it down, you can go down to the courthouse and apply for your citizenship 3 years later. You do not have to maintain the business for the ensuing 3 years to get your citizenship. Shut that sucker down after 2 years; it has probably been a loser anyway. Madam President, Russell Burgoise was quoted in an April 13, 1998 New York Times article. He is a spokesman for the Immigration Service. He said: ``These plans don't meet either the spirit or the letter of the law.'' Recently, when the INS sought to revoke up to 5,000 visas, the New York Times in the same article said ``influential Members of Congress protested the Government was changing rules in midstream,'' and the INS backed off. Late in 1997, the Times of Oman, not a widely read paper in Washington, contained an advertisement which said: ``U.S. green card for anyone who can show U.S. $500,000.'' They ought to be prosecuted for misleading advertising. It doesn't take $500,000, just $100,000 would do fine if you know the right consultant in this country. It is an interesting thing that it took these consultants and these limited partnerships to figure out how to get the program going. Until the latter part of 1996, the investor visa program had been an even worse disaster than its worst critics--namely me--had predicted. Nobody was showing much interest. In 1992, 280 people applied, 240 were approved. In 1993, 384; 1994, 407; 1995, 291; 1996, 616; in 1997, 1,110. The consultants are getting geared up now. It is still a far cry from the 10,000 slots available, but in 1997, 1,110 petitions were approved. But over the last 7 years, only 3,284 have been approved. So, despite the fact that the program has been weakened unbelievably to make almost anybody eligible for it, nobody much has been applying. Out of 7 years, we only got 3,000-plus, and we are supposed to be doing 10,000 each year. AIS, one of the consulting organizations I mentioned a moment ago, specializes, as I said, in pooling investors to bankroll larger products. Now you should know that a lot of people invest their $100,000 not to become American citizens; they come here because they want to purchase citizenship for their children and educate them here. Or they come here for any host of other reasons. Maybe they are actually coming with their family. That would be a fairly laudable purpose. But they do not come because they want citizenship. And a lot of people will freely tell you the reason they did not want to be citizens of the United States is because they will have to pay taxes. They have to pay taxes on all of their income all over the world wherever it may come from. They are not about to do that. They only have to come here twice a year to keep their eligibility for the green card. AIS has advertised ``Alternate residency: Less restrictive and expensive than other plans in other countries.'' You are not becoming a citizen of the United States. You do not have to love the flag. You do not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. You do not have to fight our wars. You do not have to be any particular age. You do not have to have any specialized education. You do not have to have any experience. You do not have to know the language. All you need is ``green.'' You do not have to know anything about the poor and huddled masses that Emma Lazarus wrote about. Madam President, this program is so rife with fraud. In some instances, you can get your entire $500,000 back. If you invest $500,000 or $1 million, there are some plans under which you can get it all back and still get your citizenship. Harold Ezell, a former INS regional immigration commissioner--now a lawyer in Newport Beach, CA--this is a former INS official's quote. What did he say about Congress, about this bill? ``They were smoking something when they wrote it.'' ``We've shot ourselves in the foot.'' Another attorney said, ``You know, since we're blatantly soliciting the wealthy, we might ought to charge $2 million.'' Madam President, the investor visa program makes no economic sense either. The underlying bill we are debating today would raise the cap on the number of workers who will come into this country who have skills, principally for the computer industry. The Senator from Michigan, who is handling this bill on the floor, wants to raise the annual limit on people coming into this country from 60,000 to 95,000. Now, you think about the incongruity of raising the level of people we invite into this country because they have a skill and because we have a labor shortage. We would not do it otherwise. We have a labor shortage of so-called skilled workers. At least, that is the proposition. I do not believe it, and I am not going to vote for the bill. I will announce that right now. This country, incidentally, as great as we are, to be depending on the rest of the world to send us their skilled workers so we can stay afloat in the computer industry, or whatever, is the height of something or other. If we have a $50 billion surplus looming this year, for Pete's sake, let us educate our youngsters so we do not have to depend on anybody else for these skills. That should not be too difficult. But here we are saying we want to invite an additional 35,000 laborers into this country because we have a labor shortage, and at the same time saying, ``If you will give us $100,000 or $500,000''-- whichever the case may be--``and hire 10 people, we'll give you citizenship.'' There is an outfit in West Virginia called InterBank, and they want to create a telemarketing business. While the deal has not been approved yet, the wages will be $6 an hour. I have not seen a McDonald's in I don't know how long that didn't have a sign in the window saying, ``Help wanted. Pay up to $6 an hour.'' We are desperate for workers at all levels in this country, and here we are asking people to put up money and come into this country and hire workers. How silly can we get? Even if it were not rife with fraud, even if it were not shameless to be selling American citizenship, it makes no economic sense. It is an oxymoron to vote at the same time to bring 95,000 workers in and ask somebody else to come in and hire more workers. Every time Alan Greenspan appears on a television station, every time he appears before the Banking Committee, every time he appears before the Joint Economic Committee, Wall Street and all of America holds its breath for fear he is going to announce an increase in interest rates. And why are they afraid he is going to raise interest rates? Because they have a labor shortage. In Economic 101 at the University of Arkansas, I was taught--and it is still a fundamental economic principle--that when you have a labor shortage, you have to pay more for labor. You think McDonald's is paying $6 an hour because they want to see how far they can exceed the minimum wage? They are paying $6 an hour because they cannot find workers for any less than that. That is still a pitiful wage, but be that as it may, I am not here to debate that. What I am saying is, everybody is scared to death that this labor shortage is going to kick wages up, that in turn is going to create inflation, and inflation is going to cause Alan Greenspan to raise interest rates, and raising interest rates is going to bring the longest sustained period of economic prosperity in the United States to a grinding halt. These are not things that you have to be a rocket scientist to understand. Everybody knows precisely what I am talking about. Finally, Madam President--and I am reluctant to say this because I am not one who has stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and waved the flag and beat my chest and talked about what a great patriot I am. I put in 3 years in the Marine Corps in World War II, for a very simple reason--we were in a war where the absolute freedom of this Nation was at stake. Not even a second thought about it. And 25, 30 other million men and women did the same thing. I have voted against constitutional amendments on flag burning. Nobody is more deeply offended than I am to see an American flag burn. There are ways to deal with it. But you do not need to tinker with the Bill of Rights for the first time in more than 200 years. I still get goose bumps at a military parade when Old Glory goes by. And I am offended by a law which puts American citizenship up for bid by either the wealthy or those willing to participate in a fraud. How crassly we demean this precious blessing we call citizenship. Emma Lazarus who wrote those magnificent words in the Statue of Liberty about, ``Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses,'' Emma Lazarus must be whirling in her grave to even hear such a debate as this going on. The families of the people whose sons and daughters fought those wars for citizenship and freedom--and the families of those who died, and they did it because they valued citizenship so highly--must be weeping at the thought of citizenship being sold to the highest bidder. It is vulgar. How we champion citizenship that we once prized so highly. Madam President, these people are not the poor. They are not the huddled masses who were our ancestors and who came here for freedom to contribute their labor and their values to live, live free, and to raise their families and die here, even in battle, if need be. These people who we welcome for $1 million are coming twice a year because that is the only way they can keep their green card. They don't want citizenship because that would require them to pay taxes. What in the name of God has happened to this place? I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Before the Senator leaves, let me say how much I appreciate his very kind and complimentary remarks in his opening statement, and to say that I value his friendship very highly. He and I have been close friends for many years. We were both Governors and we relate in that way. His uncle used to be Governor of my State. I must say to the Senator from West Virginia that I wonder what has happened since 1989 when he voted with me on precisely the same amendment, and his vote now after the INS says we must have been smoking something when we passed the bill in the first place?

Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator answer one additional question? First of all, I come from a poor State, too. In Arkansas, our teachers' salaries are 45th in the Nation. I don't know where we are economically; it's in that vicinity. I relate to the poverty you have described in southern West Virginia. Yet, I have to say I believe that if I could communicate the remarks I made a moment ago in offering this amendment to the people of my State--and there are plenty of areas in the Mississippi Delta where we are desperate for jobs, and this may be a gross exaggeration--I believe 90 percent of the people of my State would agree that it is wrong to be selling citizenship like this. They might be willing to accept tax credits to attract foreign investment. They might be willing to do all kinds of things that you and I did as Governor to try to attract industry into our States. But I believe that people in my State would take a very dim view if they knew, No. 1, the amount of fraud that has now been uncovered in the program; and, No. 2, the fact that we are selling citizenship in exchange for a few bucks from some of the wealthy people in other countries just to come here and get citizenship. Don't you think there is something a little crass about that?

Mr. BUMPERS. I had a question. I wanted the Senator to give me a full and complete answer according to his beliefs. Let me make one other observation. The other day, the Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD-VA very graciously invited me over to question Dan Goldin, who is, as the Senator knows, the Administrator of NASA. And, as the Senator knows, I am opposed to the space station. I know the Senator is strongly in favor of the space station. But I asked Mr. Goldin about the $6.8 billion overrun that has just been announced. It has not been built. It is not deployed and operating. It is a 43- percent cost overrun. I said, ``Mr. Goldin, is there any threshold beyond which you would not be willing to go to build the space station?'' He said he had not thought about it. If somebody asked me desperately, ``We want jobs in Arkansas''--and as much as I want to do something about the delta area of my State, there is a threshold beyond which I would not be willing to cross. That would be to sell citizenship to a bunch of takers and not givers.

Mr. BUMPERS. Here is a quote. It says, ``The immigrant investor program was created 8 years ago. It allowed foreigners to put up $500,000 to create 10 jobs.''

Mr. BUMPERS. I am quoting a newspaper article. I will answer the next question. This is an op-ed piece in a West Virginia newspaper. Yesterday the United States was selling citizenship. The program was supposed to spur job creation. The investors have the money to spend, and the benefits are worth it to them. Is it fair to open a door to citizenship but let only the rich pass through? Of course not. But that is what is done. Now there are new problems. Years after the program was established companies began springing up to pool investments and people seeking those visa. A Virginia firm called the InterBank Group plans to use some of that capital to build two telemarketing centers in southern West Virginia.'' That is what the Senator alluded to in his comments. They say: The InterBank ran into trouble in California where the Department of Corporations in March indicated that the company was luring investors who had no way of knowing that their investment would qualify them for a visa. InterBank says it was all a misunderstanding and is being worked out. Meanwhile, INS is reexamining the foreign investment deal, including InterBank, and hoping to set up stricter rules. InterBank maintains its deal should pass muster and is going ahead with the telemarketing centers. But the money is tied up until INS makes a call. That the visa program has run into trouble shouldn't be a shock to anyone. It is just too tempting with all of that money, and all of those communities are grateful for any investment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly.

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me just say to the Senator from West Virginia that there isn't a Senator in the U.S. Senate for whom I have greater respect and hopefully a warmer friendship and whose opinions I value highly. I tell you, I have been in that position many, many times where I simply disagreed with somebody who couldn't understand why I disagreed with them. And the Senator is a great champion for the people of West Virginia. The jobs situation in West Virginia is paramount to him, more than almost anything else in that State; that is, trying to improve the quality of life for people. I certainly would not ever suggest anything to the contrary. It is just that I would be willing to provide jobs for the people of West Virginia by attracting foreign investments with tax credits and anything under the shining sun, except offering them citizenship. There is just something crass about that that really hits me right here. That is the only difference we have.

Mr. BUMPERS. We are all indebted to your great-great-grandfather who immigrated to this country. We are indebted to him for coming because he wanted to be free; he wanted to live and die here; he wanted to raise his family here. These people do not even come to the United States. They live in Hong Kong and they send their money. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator be willing to answer this question. He said most of these people are coming into this country. What is the Senator's source for that information?

Mr. BUMPERS. I do not know where the bill says that. Could the Senator quote that for me in the bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. That is right. They get the green card at the end of 2 years.