Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have not heard every speech on the question of the National Endowment for the Arts. I know about the principal amendments. Frankly, the amendments that most intrigue me are those that propose for block grant. I am not sure I am going to vote for anything that provides for a block grant, based on what I know about the proposals that are being made. But I will come back to that in just a moment. I would like to share with my colleagues one of the reasons I am a strong supporter of the National Endowment for the Arts. If I were ``king,'' we would be putting over $1 billion a year into the program, maybe more than that, because I personally feel that it provides the kind of cultural benefit that is not only sorely lacking in this country, but is diminishing. Mr. President, $100 million represents one-tenth of 1 percent of our $1.6 trillion-plus budget. That is 38 cents for every American citizen to provide programs that enrich the culture of this Nation and give a lot of youngsters who would not otherwise have the opportunity the absolute, abject joy of enjoying music, good literature, and dance. I can tell you that no nation has ever really prospered well that didn't have a culture that embraced the performing arts and the fine arts. I am sorry Mapplethorpe ever got a grant. That is the thing that set off the firestorm in the country, from which we have never recovered in the Congress. But let me go back. I grew up in Charleston, AR, with a population during the Depression of 851 people. The only cultural enrichment we got in that town was a high school band. It was started when I was a sophomore in high school. So I took band and became a trumpet player and later became trumpet player in the University of Arkansas band as well as drum major of the Razorback Band--because I had learned some music in the high school band. I might add that we were extremely fortunate because we had an unusual band director, a brilliant man. He used to gather some members of the band at his home in the evening. We listened to great music-- Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Sibelius--and that is when I developed, as a very young teenager, a keen appreciation for symphonic music. We went to Jackson, MS, to a regional band contest, and our sextet won first place. Not only were we learning something about good music, but we were also learning something about how one builds his ego, his self- esteem, and his pride out of this little town. So when I went to the University of Arkansas, as I said, I was in the band, sang in the university chorus, went to all the drama presentations, and then I went into the Marine Corps. After the war--I told this story a couple of years ago on the floor of the Senate--I was waiting to come home. I was in Hawaii. One day I saw a bulletin saying that anybody interested in Shakespeare should show up at such and such a barracks this evening at 7 o'clock. So I went. Lord knows I had never been exposed to Shakespeare. The man who had put the sign up and who was going to teach Shakespeare turned out to be a Harvard professor of Shakespearean literature. He had a tape recorder. Tape recorders were unheard of then. I had never seen a tape recorder, and I certainly had never spoken into one, and, therefore, I didn't know what my voice sounded like. So, after giving us about a 1-hour lecture on Shakespeare, he took his tape recorder, and he said, ``I am going to deliver a couple of lines from Hamlet's Speech to the Players.'' He had a magnificent baritone voice with that Shakespearean accent. He spoke into his microphone, ``Speak the speech, I pray you.'' And then he went on. I could tell it to you now. I do not want to bore you with it. But I can still remember every word of it. So, when he played it back, it was so beautiful to hear this mellifluous voice. Then he handed it to me and said, ``Here, you do it.'' He put the lines in front of me, and I spoke into the tape recorder. Then he played it back. I could not believe how poorly I spoke. You know, I took a vow that evening that I did not want to sound like that. I wanted to have a rich tone of voice like he had. But, more than anything else, I discovered that there was a lot of literature that I knew nothing about that could be very enriching. So, I came back, and I studied diction and debate. I began, on occasions when I got a chance, to go to all the drama presentations. Most people in this audience are frustrated actors. But my point is all of that had such a powerful influence on my life. I daresay, if it had not been for those experiences, I would have never been Governor of my State, and I certainly wouldn't be standing here as a U.S. Senator. These are the sort of experiences that the National Endowment for the Arts funds for so many youngsters, experiences that they would never otherwise have. When I was Governor, my wife was looking for some way to use her position as First Lady to benefit the children of Arkansas. Nancy Hanks, who was then Chairman of the National Endowment, came to Arkansas at Betty's invitation. Betty talked Nancy Hanks into giving her a $50,000 grant to do a small pilot program of art in the first grade. Betty had been an art major. She thought children ought to be exposed to art in the first grade. So, the National Endowment, because of her appeal to Nancy Hanks, gave her $50,000, and she started a few programs. Today programs of that sort are common. Every first grade in Arkansas has art. It is mandated now. She had a little left over from the $50,000, so she decided she would take it down to the prison and see if any of the inmates had any talent for art. It was absolutely amazing how much talent the inmates had. All I could think about was how many of those people might not have been in prison if somebody had picked up on either their artistic talent or maybe some musical talent that had never been explored. Do you know something, Mr. President? When I became Governor of my State, the prisons were in such horrible condition that they were under the control of the Federal courts. We couldn't do anything in the prisons without Federal court approval, they were so terrible. I was sort of hesitant to go down there. But I went. I was doing everything I could to improve the condition of our prisons. You know what Winston Churchill said once that you can tell more about a civilization by the way they treat their elderly and the conditions of their prisons than anything else. It is a strange thing but probably true. So, I started going down to have lunch with the inmates. I would visit with them. I visited with the hardened killers that were on death row. I can tell you, I don't believe in all my conversations with the inmates in the Arkansas prisons that I ever visited one who had a role in the senior class play in high school, who played in the band, who had a college degree--though there were a few there--or who owned his own home. Nobody is shocked at that. We know who is in the prisons-- people from broken homes, people who are uneducated, and people who never had a dog's chance as far as learning anything about art, literature, or music. I can tell you that the $100 million we spend on this program may be the most productive money we spend. It is tragic that it is not at least 10 times more than it is. You think about the greatest Nation on Earth, the United States, spending 38 cents per person per year to support the arts while Canada and France spend $32, almost 100 times more per person than we do. In Germany, it is $27 per person. My colleague and I share a concern. I heard his speech a moment ago. He comes at it a little differently than I would. But certainly his argument about how much our home State gets is, in my opinion, a valid argument. We got about $400,000 this year. I think that in the past we have gotten as much as $500,000. But, if you disbursed the $100 million of the National Endowment for the Arts money according to population, we would get $1 million. We have 1 percent of the population of this country. We would get $1 million. We feel a little slighted. But there is another dimension to it. That is, if we are going to do block grants to the States, some money should be held aside for national programs that serve all of the States, such as PBS, public broadcasting. I see a lot of fine shows on PBS that are partially funded by NEA grants. In my opinion, many of those shows would not be there for all to enjoy without that funding. If you didn't have the National Endowment, a lot of national programs that benefit everybody, even National Public Radio in Alaska and West Virginia, would not exist. Second, the national programs that are funded by the National Endowment for the Arts raise an average of $12 in matching money for every dollar that NEA provides. In my State, we leverage $3 in matching funds for all the money you send to Arkansas. And we are proud of that. So, I am not so sure that, if you put these block grants out, you are not going to wind up losing a lot of matching dollars. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas has an amendment that has some appeal to me. It provides 75 percent of the money in block grants. I think maybe 60 percent for openers would be better. So I am not totally opposed to that. But I am not going to vote for any proposal to block-grant money that does not carry with it a mandate for matching money. If we are going to match money, as we do in Arkansas now, $3 for every $1, why not require the same of block grant recipients? When you consider how much money the arts produce in this country-- between $30 and $40 billion a year--and you think about how much income tax we collect a year from the arts, we are big winners. The $100 million is peanuts compared to the $ 3.4 billion in revenue the arts generate in this country. I am not going to take much more time here. I see we have other speakers wishing to speak. But there are some national programs that we need to continue funding with this money. The YMCA is putting culture programs in its facilities throughout the country with NEA support. There are a lot of NEA-funded regional dance tours, a lot of national dance tours, and programs for children everywhere. Incidentally, when I played in the high school band we thought we were pretty good. At the bi-State band contest with Oklahoma, the Iowa State band performed on the stage of the Fort Smith High School. I had never heard a really great band before. We only had 30 members in our band. Here was this Iowa State band with 150 members, and when that conductor brought his baton down, I thought I was going to faint. I had never heard such music. So it was, the first time I ever went to a symphony. I am telling you, these things are important to the culture of this country. I do not for the life of me understand the antipathy that some of the Members of this body have for what I consider to be absolutely essential and basic to the character of this country. It is important that we give a lot of citizens of this country access to the performing and fine arts. That would never happen if it were not for this program. I look forward to the day--I will not be here, Mr. President, after next year--but I yearn for the day when we treat this program with the respect and the money it deserves. And, like so many other things, if we do away with it and let that bulwark of our culture slip into oblivion, we will pay a very heavy price for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to yield 10 minutes, or such time as he may use, to the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb]. Are we going back and forth? I apologize for that, and withhold the request.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have already spoken on the subject today. There are a couple of other things I would like to add. First of all, there is always a big constituency for tax cuts and I have never known a Member of Congress to lose a vote by voting for a tax cut. We lost a lot of good men and women in 1993 because they voted for a tax increase, which has reduced the deficit from $300 billion to an anticipated $40 billion this year. But they are not here. They honored what they thought was a demand by the American people for a balanced budget, clearly within our grasp. But, you see, there is a big constituency for tax cuts. There is always a big constituency for spending. There is no constituency for a balanced budget. There are those who have looked forward to that, as I have, for 22\1/2\ years. When I was deciding whether I wanted to run again, that was one of the major considerations with me. There are two things that I think would reinstill confidence in the American people in the congressional system and in our democratic system, in our very political system. The two things that would do more than anything to build confidence in America would be to balance the budget, and, No. 2, to change the way we finance campaigns. I concluded that neither were going to happen in the next 18 months and probably wouldn't happen during the next 6 years if I ran and were reelected. That wasn't the only consideration. But here we are. In 1998--every economist in the country now believes we will probably balance the budget in 1998. So what are we going to do? No. No. We screamed about balanced budgets around here for 22\1/2\ years that I have been around here. Now it is within our grasp and how do we treat it? Postpone it for 5 years. Don't do it in 1998, give away some goodies. And there are some goodies in here that I love. The educational part of it intrigues me. I love it. But here is something the American people have been clamoring for all of these years. We could postpone this for at least a year and provide some comfort to the American people in letting them know that we are really concerned about deficit spending. Let me ask you this. What in the name of goodness are we always talking about Greenspan raising interest rates for, depending on the inflation rate? Everybody is scared to death the inflation rate is going to go up a couple of tenths of a point, Greenspan will raise interest rates, and this glowing economy, almost unprecedented in the annals of the history of this country, will come to a screeching halt. There will be no balanced budget once this economy goes into decline. I yield myself 2 additional minutes, Mr. President. So, what are we doing? This is not a tax cut of the magnitude of 1981. Certainly in the scheme of things it doesn't even begin to match the tax cuts of Jack Kennedy in 1961-1963. But I tell you what it is, it is $135 billion infused into the American economy which could, which just could fuel the economy to the extent of a couple of tenths of a point in inflation. And if that happens, you can bet that the Fed will raise interest rates. And if that happens you can bet that this economy is going to start slowing and you will not see a balanced budget. The idea, I don't mind saying, Mr. President, I don't know how to say it any stronger--the idea of doing what we are doing today and postponing something that is so near at hand, a balanced budget-- postponing it for 5 years is the height of irresponsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff during the pendency of this measure: Barry Becton, Catherine Dolan, and Tom Walls.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. No, I am willing to let you go and I'll follow you.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, several years ago, there was a magnificent book that came out by a great historian, Barbara Tuchman, called the ``March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.'' The book cataloged how in moments of history, terrible tragedies, terrible mistakes could have been avoided because there was always some lone voice saying, ``Don't do that.'' Almost invariably, the politics of the moment dictated otherwise. The book ``From Troy to Vietnam,'' starts out with the Trojan horse. Every schoolchild knows the story of how the Greeks went to rescue Helen from the Trojans. Finally, after many, many months of not being able to break into the Trojan fortress, the Greeks designed this Trojan horse, a wooden horse, a fabric horse, as the Aeneid describes it, and they place this horse outside the Trojan fortress. The Trojans are afraid that the gods have placed the horse there, and it would be a terrible tragedy for them if they didn't let the horse into the fortress. One person, named Laocoon, said, ``Don't let that horse in. What more than madness has possessed your brains?'' he said. ``What have the Greeks ever done for us?'' But he was the sole voice of dissent. So they opened the gates. They let the horse in, and 50 of the Greeks' finest soldiers poured out of the belly of the horse and took the fortress. In World War II, when the debate was going on with the German high command about whether to get involved in the war, whether to antagonize the United States or not, the commander of all the German submarines was consulted. ``If you can sink so much allied shipping,'' they said, ``the United States won't be a threat.'' And the German U-boat commander said, ``You're silly; you're foolish. We can do a lot of damage, but we can't come close to sinking that much allied shipping.'' And his voice was drowned out as if he had never spoken. When the warlords of Japan sat around plotting the attack on Pearl Harbor, the great Japanese admiral, Yamamoto, stood up and said, ``I've gone to school there. I know the Americans, I know their industrial output, I know their tenacity, and I know their love of country. This will not work.'' He went ahead to say, ``I am at the Japanese Emperor's beck and call, and I will do anything I am called on to do.'' The rest of that is history. Yamamoto's voice was drowned out. Today, we have this reconciliation bill before us. And there were few lone souls in the U.S. Senate who voted against the great tax cut of 1981, Mr. President. Only 11 people stood up in the U.S. Senate and said, ``I'm not voting for a concept of doubling defense spending and cutting taxes and presuming to balance the budget.'' Eleven souls said, ``No, let's not do this. It is the height of folly.'' Our voices were drowned out. At that moment, the national debt was $1 trillion and the interest on that debt in 1981 was $60 billion. Our voices were drowned out. And 16 years later, because our voices were drowned out, today's national debt is $5.3 trillion, and the interest on that debt has gone from $60 billion a year to $359 billion a year. That is the interest we are paying on the national debt in this year of our Lord, 1997. You know how much of that $359 billion is as a result of the craziness of this place in 1981? Approximately three-hundred billion dollars. The pages who sit in front of me will not live long enough to see that figure even reduced very much. You want to do something for the children? You say, let us give the middle-class children of this country a tax break. How about tomorrow's children and the children in the next generation and the next generation? What are you doing for them? You are saddling them with an incredible debt. When I think about what we could do if we would not pass this bill. With the economic growth we have enjoyed for the past six or seven years, and as we anticipate it will be for the immediate future, would almost certainly balance the budget in 1998, and we could even run a surplus in 1999. Balancing the budget is within our grasp, an eyelash away. And this bill thwarts it in the name of a middle-class tax cut. About the only distributional analysis that has been done on this bill is a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice. And what do they say? Just look at this chart. Look at this middle-class tax cut, Mr. President. The bottom 20 percent, people who make less than $12,000 a year do not get a tax cut. They get virtually no benefit from the child credit and capital gains and the other major tax cuts. So with the increase in cigarette taxes and airline ticket taxes, the bill is going to cost them $39 a year. So much for the poorest of the poor in this country. They not only don't get a cut, they pay more. Go to the next 20 percent, the people who make up to $22,000 a year. What do they get? Why, they get a whopping $8-a-year cut in their taxes--a few cents a week. If you combine these two bottom groups, you will see that the bottom 40 percent on average will see their taxes go up by $31 a year. Then go to the next 20 percent. The next 20 percent, the people who make $22,000 to $39,000 a year, they are going to wind up with a $171- a-year tax cut--less than 50 cents a day. So where is all the money going? Look at this chart for just one moment. The next 15 percent that, they get $1,163 a year. What does the next 4 percent get? The people who make $109,000 to $246,000 get $1,772 a year in tax cuts. And the top 1 percent, the people who make $246,000 or more, get $16,227 a year. So seventy-six percent of all the benefits of this bill go to the top 20 percent of the people in this country. That is a middle-class tax cut? That is to help the middle-class families of this country? This bill has had more public relations, more ballyhoo under the name of a middle-class tax cut. No wonder 54 percent of the people of the country say they favor this bill. And you know why? Because the question is asked, ``Do you favor the balanced budget resolution that Congress is considering?'' Well, of course they favor a balanced budget resolution. Who doesn't? What a travesty. Mr. President, I have been divinely hoping that negotiations between the President and the Republicans would reach an impasse, breakdown, with gridlock, because if we did nothing the budget would be balanced in 1998, 1 year from this moment. If somebody had said in 1993, ``You vote for this omnibus budget reconciliation bill and we'll balance the budget in 1998,'' we would have insisted they take a saliva test. When I think of all the good men and women who used to sit in the House and the Senate, and they are gone only because they had the courage to vote for that bill in 1993, which raised taxes on the top 1.3 percent of the richest people in America--1.3 percent--because a few courageous people in this body--Jim Sasser, Harris Wofford, two of the finest men ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, who are no longer with us. And a lot more people in the House are no longer with us--they had the courage to face up to something that was very unpopular at the time. But even on the outside they can take solace in the fact that they honored what they believed was a nonnegotiable demand by the people of this country for a balanced budget. Do you know what we did as a result of that 1993 vote? I am always reluctant to talk about this because I have so many good friends on the other side of the aisle, but truth has to be told. Not one single Republican in the U.S. Congress, in the Senate or the House, not one voted for that bill. And the Democratic party suffered at the polls as a result of that vote. A lot of people stood on the Senate floor and said the 1993 bill is going to bring about a terrible recession. So what really happened? Before we passed that bill, the deficit for 1993 was estimated to be $290 billion. And as a result of passing the deficit reduction bill, it turned out to be only $255 billion. In 1994, it dropped to $203 billion. In 1995, it was $154 billion. In 1996, it was $107 billion. For 1997, it is now calculated at around $45 billion, and many economists say it could be less. From almost $300 billion, in 4 short years, to $45 billion because a few people in this body had the spine to vote for something that was politically unpopular. Those people who lost their seats as a result of that vote are undoubtedly watching their hard-won victory being sacrificed on the altar of political expedience. The balanced budget of 1998 that is just about to elude us. You know, the economy, if it stays as good as it is right now through all of 1998, despite the foolishness of this bill, we still might balance the budget in 1998 if the economy stays good, but only for a nanosecond. Under the calculations of the bill, we are going to spend almost $300 billion more in deficit spending over the next 5 years, and the interest on that will be $15 billion--forever. That $300 billion goes right on top of the $5.3 trillion you see here. At the end of 5 years, instead of $5.3 trillion, that will be $5.6 trillion. At the end of 5 years, instead of $359 billion in annual interest, it could well be $375 billion. You want to do something for children? Don't saddle them with that kind of debt. The Senator from New Mexico pointed out some very cogent points a while ago with which I do not disagree. I favor the educational benefits in this bill. I favor the child health care provision which we are paying for with a cigarette tax. It isn't all bad. But it isn't all critical, not as necessary as a balanced budget. We are today going to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. The only gratifying thing to me about this whole exercise is it shows the hypocrisy of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I always knew that was political, but it is a very effective political tool. It took a lot of courage because it was portrayed that if you did not vote for the constitutional amendment, you were portrayed as being against a balanced budget. The fact that we are about to pass a bill which will supposedly balance the budget by 2002 reveals the hypocrisy of those people who said, ``You have to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.'' And those of us who voted for the 1993 bill to cut spending by $250 billion and increase taxes by $250 billion have something to be proud of because that act instilled so much confidence in Wall Street and the people of this Nation, the economy has been on fire ever since. The Nation thought the people here in Washington had finally stiffened their spines to do something that was right. I cannot believe we are in the process of postponing balancing the budget for 5 years--the very people who said, you must put it in the Constitution and who said they wanted a balanced budget more than anything in the world. Here it is within our grasp. And what is their solution? Postpone it for 5 years, spend another $300 billion in deficit spending. Mr. President, the needs in this Nation are truly great. We are the greatest Nation economically on Earth. We certainly are the oldest living democracy. We have the oldest Constitution in the world. Militarily, we are certainly the strongest on Earth, and well we should be the way we spend money on defense. But when I think about the needs of this country, if you absolutely have to spend this money, there are better things to spend it on. We asked the Department of Education what it would cost to provide every child in America with a college education--every one who would get a college education if it were within their financial means. It is very interesting, this tax cut is roughly $135 billion, and it would take $1 billion less--$134 billion--to provide a college education for every youngster in America that would want one. So the next time you talk to the most conservative groups in your hometown--the chamber of commerce or the Rotary Club--you ask them, do you think this country would be stronger if we educated with a college education every kid in America, or if we give a $135 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in America? I can promise you that if you were debating that on national television, it would be 90-10 in favor of educating our children. So, Mr. President, I divinely hope that everything I say today turns out quite differently from the way I am predicting it. But I don't believe that is going to happen. If Barbara Tuchman were alive, she would certainly include this vote as one of the top follies in our Nation's history. Once again, we have managed because of political expediency to finesse the real problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is a unanimous consent agreement that I have cleared with the minority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the time controlled by the Democratic leader with respect to H.R. 2014, the revenue reconciliation conference report, that 90 minutes be under my control or my designee's.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. So 25 percent of that goes to the Postal Service to administer this program?

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator mentioned 25 percent. Is that 25 percent of 32 cents or is that 25 percent of something else?

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

Mr. BUMPERS. We debated this in the Appropriations Committee, as we know, for a short time. We voted on it the other day--a different proposition. I am not clear on the difference between the amendment the Senator is offering now and the one that was overwhelmingly passed in the Senate the other day. That was carried--a 1-cent increase in the 32-cent stamp, with the extra penny going to breast cancer research. This one, as I understand it--does this amendment take part of the 32 cents or does it also carry an increase in the 32 cents?

Mr. BUMPERS. I did not realize the parliamentary situation. Could the Senator just take a minute to explain?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. If I may ask----

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it would be my intention at the conclusion of that time to move to table the Lugar amendment. Of course, if that would prevail, it would take the McConnell amendment with it. When we talk about voting at 4:30, I want to reserve the right to make that motion to table at the expiration of that period of time. So the unanimous-consent agreement does not necessarily pertain to the McConnell amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. There is objection--reserving the right to object, is the request of the Senator from New Hampshire on the McConnell amendment or on the Lugar amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to my distinguished chairman, of course, I sit on this subcommittee and he is doing an excellent job. One of the greatest day's work he ever did in his life was when he torpedoed NED in the bill. But let me say, to accommodate the chairman, I will be delighted to agree to 1 hour equally divided, 30 minutes on a side, with a vote to occur at 4:30.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I object to the request.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator from Utah yield for a moment?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me echo the laudatory comments the Senator from Mississippi has just paid to the majority staff. I would like to also pay tribute to the minority staff as well as the majority staff. They worked extremely well with us. They were helpful to us as well as the chairman of the committee. On our side of the aisle, I want to especially thank Galen Fountain, who is seated at my left and who was my personal agricultural aide for many years before he joined the appropriations staff, and pay special tribute to him and Rebecca Davies, who probably know on a magnitude of about five times more about this bill than Senator Cochran and I do. We simply could not function here and get a bill like this through without the very able assistance of those people. But in addition to Galen, I also want to pay tribute to Carole Geagley and to my own personal staff member, Ben Noble. They have done a magnificent job. Again, my sincere thanks to Senator Cochran, who is the chief architect of this bill. He did a magnificent job. If you watched here, as always when these appropriations bills are coming through, you see the Senators all gathered around here pleading with Senator Cochran and me to accept this amendment and that amendment. We would love to accept them all. It is always that way in appropriations. But the money constraints keep us from doing that. But we like to help other Senators. As I said yesterday afternoon on the floor, it is not pork. Sometimes it is pure, unadulterated research from which the entire Nation benefits. But having said that, I think it is a good bill. We will do our very best to honor all the Senate's wishes in the conference committee. I think we will come back here with a good bill from conference.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the managers.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, everybody knows that I am sort of a Johnny-one-note on the space station. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in this morning's Washington Post, the headline of which is ``Russia Wonders If Manned Flight Is Worth Cost.'' One of the reasons I wanted to put it in the Record is because it echoes precisely what I said on the floor, in spades, 2 days ago.