Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

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. Objection.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say to my very dear friend, Senator Feinstein from California, who is anxiously awaiting the floor so she can get into the ninth circuit debate, that I am going to object to moving to that amendment until this amendment is disposed of. Let me also say that I am prepared to enter into a time agreement, but not yet. Let me start off by saying that Rasputin was a piker compared to the National Endowment for Democracy. It took him a long time to die, and it has just taken forever for this boondoggle to die. I have heard so may people in this body lament the size of Government, the waste of Government, the terribleness of Government, and here is $30 million of wasteful Government spending. There was actually an effort to get NED's appropriation up to $50 million 3 years ago. I can tell you that, in this Senator's opinion, the National Endowment for Democracy is without question the biggest waste of money I can think of next to the space station. That is saying something. It is a cold war relic. Everybody in this body knows that the National Endowment for Democracy was started in 1983 as an answer to communism in the world. We were not only spending $250 to $300 billion a year on defense at that point--that was not enough to contain communism around the world--we decided to add $18 million to bring democracy to the world. We started this program with $18 million in 1983, and a year after that, it soared up to about $23 million; the year after that, $27 million, then $35 million. Then, finally, I was able to get it back to $30 million 2 years ago. And this year, in this bill, thanks to the very good judgment of our chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, it was sacked as it richly deserved. Mr. President, we have been holding hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee. And the headlines in the paper since January have been in anticipation of those hearings about foreign influence in American elections. I want to say that if China had had any judgment at all they would have consulted with the NED before they started trying to influence American elections. The National Endowment for Democracy has as good a record of meddling in foreign elections as any organization the Earth has ever known. They tried to clean it up a little bit. They used to be very overt, and made no bones about who they were giving money to. But they are still giving out money to influence foreign elections. One of the things that is the most intriguing of all is: Who do they give this $30 million to? At the expense of sounding terribly arrogant, I would just like to say that on the debate on the space station which occurred day before yesterday, I daresay if that debate were held on national television before an American audience of every voter in America, the space station would be dead, dead, dead, at this moment, by an overwhelming vote. But, unhappily, all the people who might be watching that telecast wouldn't be interested in those few jobs that NASA has put in their State. But now when it comes to boondoggles and giving away money, I invite my colleagues' attention to this: What happens to this $30 million? It took me 2 or 3 years for the realization really to soak in that this actually is the case. Out of the $30 million, first of all, 15 percent of it, 15 percent of it, or $4.5 million, goes for NED Administration. And if you look at the way the money is spent, you will find a lot of it going for first class airfare to transport people all over the world, people who every year will write letters to the people who are engaged in this debate. They will write letters about what a wonderful program NED is. You think of it. If a food stamp program had a 15 percent administrative cost, we would kill it dead. We would not tolerate that for a moment. But we are willing to put aside $4.5 million, 15 percent of this $30 million, and allow NED to use that for administrative expense. But that is not the worst of it. We give the money out as follows. Listen to this, colleagues. CIPE--that's a nice acronym, isn't it. CIPE gets 13.75 percent of the money--$4.125 million. Who is CIPE? I bet you never heard of them. CIPE stands for Center for International Private Enterprise, but they are really the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a little offspring of the chamber of commerce, CIPE. We give them a neat $4,125,000 out of this $30 million. Let me ask you this: how much of that do you think they spend on administration? Bear in mind, 15 percent comes off the top for NED administration. Then you give the chamber of commerce $4.125 million, and what do you think their administrative expense is? Then to even things up, we give an organization called FTUI, to make things even we give them 13.75 percent, also $4,125,000, the same amount we give the chamber of commerce. Who is FTUI? The Free Trade Union Institute. Why, that's the AFL-CIO. You cannot give money to the chamber of commerce unless you are willing to balance it out and give the AFL-CIO another $4,125,000. And what do you think their administrative expense is? Lord only knows. I cannot find out. So you have the administrative expense of the chamber; you have the administrative expense of the AFL-CIO; you have the 15 percent for NED right off the top. We are not finished. Now we go to the IRI. Whoever heard of the IRI? Now, this is going to be hard for you to believe. I will tell you who the IRI is. That is the International Republican Institute--the Republican Party. Can you believe this, another 13.75 percent, $4,125,000. We have to be evenhanded. We have to give the chamber $4.125 million, have to give the AFL-CIO $4.125 million, have to give the Republican Party $4.125 million. And then we get down to the fourth organization, NDI. Who do you think NDI is? Why, you guessed it. It is the National Democratic Institute--the Democratic Party. And we are going to give them 13.75 percent. They get $4,125,000. I will say one thing. What do you think the administrative expense is for all those four organizations on top of the 15 percent administrative expense of NED? Who knows? The National Endowment for Democracy is an egalitarian group; they treat everybody the same. But some are more equal than others. Here is the portion for everybody else. After you get through giving it out most of the money to all these groups who we know will send members to the Senate every year to tell us how wonderful NED is so we will give them another $30 million the next year after they evenhandedly give everybody $4.125 million in exchange for writing Senators here saying how wonderful it is, they have $9 million left. That's what everybody else gets. Do you know what that amounts to? It comes to an average of $41,096 for all the grantees who are not part of the chamber of commerce, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Everybody else, the other grantees--there are 218 of them for 1996, 218 grants made with the remaining $9 million, gets an average of $41,096. Now, ain't that something--218 grants. When you get past the big boys, the Republicans, Democrats, labor and the chamber, you have 218 grants, $41,096 each. What are they going to do with that? That will not even buy enough first class air tickets to get to the election in Cambodia or wherever. And what is the administrative expense for those 218 grantees? You talk about money well spent and saving the world through democracy. Mr. President, we spend on the Agency for International Development about $4 billion a year. And did you know that I am a great champion of that program? And do you know what that is for? That is to help countries help themselves. That is to help them generate electricity so they can develop. That is to teach them how to plant crops so they can feed themselves. And it is also designed to make those people feel kindly toward the greatest democracy of all, the United States of America. And about $450 million of AID's budget is for democracy- building projects. And then there is Public Law 480, popularly known as Food for Peace-- over $1 billion a year. Do you know who favors that? The Senator from Arkansas. We help feed people who cannot feed themselves. Mr. President, Public Law 480 has been around as long or longer than any Member of the Senate, with a couple of exceptions, and it is designed to help people keep from starving. Do you know what else it is designed to do? It is designed to help them feel kindly toward the United States, that great citadel of democracy. Then, Mr. President, there is that $13 to $14 billion a year we spend on that terrible thing that the American people have such misconceptions about called foreign aid. And you know something else? I vote for that. I vote for foreign aid. Never made any bones about it. No. 1, it helps farmers because that money also buys food. It helps industry because people buy American products with the aid we give them. It is money well spent. Do you know what else we expect to get out of it? We expect people to want to be like us. We expect them to want to be democratic. We expect them to want to be free and enjoy the same kinds of freedoms we enjoy here in the United States. I have just finished listing for you all those billions of dollars we spend for what? To try to build democracy around the world. What good do you think this $30 million will do in changing China from a Communist nation to a free democracy? None. It is utter waste, $30 paltry million dollars that ought to be saved. It is nothing. You have the Voice of America. You have these radio programs to influence the rest of the world about the joys of democracy and how great the United States is. And $450 million for the Agency for International Development is for democracy building. This is nothing in the world, but in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was President and everybody thought the Communists were going to come up the Potomac River and get us any minute, we thought, well, we will just dump a little more money into this democracy-building business. You know something else. It was never intended--I want everybody to understand this. It was never intended that the National Endowment for Democracy would be a federally funded agency. We started it off with $18 million with the clear understanding that within a short period of time they were going to have to stand on their own feet with private contributions. We never intended for that to be another perpetual Government program. And so last year, 1996, do you know what their report shows? Out of $30 million, they collected from the private sector $541,000. And if I am not mistaken that is their high watermark. It is just like so many other Federal programs. It is a program that becomes self-perpetuating because a lot of people find it to their advantage. It is difficult when you think about how I was trying to save $100 billion, 2 days ago, on the space station. Here I find myself just as exercised, just as exercised about $30 million because it doesn't really matter. It is money that ought not to be spent. The taxpayers have a right to expect more of us. Can you imagine, Mr. President, can you imagine members of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce sitting around the table with some people from a foreign country and trying to explain the joys of democracy, the Chamber member representing what democracy means to him, the head of the labor union telling what democracy means to him. Why, if those people on the other side were not confused beforehand-- --

Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding.

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.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. This amendment would reduce the amount recommended for pesticide clearance by $150,000 and increase the Cooperative State, Education, and Extension Service research and education Federal Administration appropriation to increase the amount recommended for the geographic information system by $150,000 to include New Mexico and Colorado in this program.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. That includes the present 4-plus million.

Mr. BUMPERS. Now, the administration has asked for an additional $34 million?

Mr. BUMPERS. This money will be distributed to the States to assist them in the enforcement of this law?

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. If we develop a formula along the lines I mentioned a moment ago, where say my State of Arkansas would get 1 percent, what if we were to say to the Federal Government: We don't like the rule and we are not going to enforce it. Keep your $340,000. Would the Federal Government have any recourse against the State of Arkansas?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Mr. BUMPERS. And there would be no way for the Feds to make them enforce it?

Mr. BUMPERS. Now, if we do not provide--we have imposed, in effect, a law that we are requesting the States to enforce. We passed a law saying to the States, you can't allow sales of cigarettes to anybody under 18, and we have not given them any money to enforce it. How does that play with the law we passed here either last year or the year before on mandates to the States with no money?

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator will recall the distinguished Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Kempthorne], led the fight here to provide that the Federal Government in the future must pay the States for any mandates we impose on them and for which we do not provide any money. I am asking the Senator, why doesn't this come under the category of a violation, as long as we required them to enforce the ``18-year-old'' prohibition, but we haven't given them any money? Why is that not a violation of the law we passed here prohibiting mandates on local jurisdictions without money?

Mr. BUMPERS. I think it might be helpful if we engaged in a few questions and answers to understand precisely what this amendment is. I have not been sure all along I understood it. There is presently a Federal law which prohibits the sale of cigarettes to anybody under 18 years of age, is that correct?

Mr. BUMPERS. And does the Federal Government provide any funds to the States for enforcement of that law at present?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Is it also the Senator from Mississippi's understanding that if State allocations are not sufficient to meet any States needs that a national reserve is available.

Mr. BUMPERS. And am I correct in noting that the committee will continue to actively monitor the progress of the Department toward fully funding the Arkansas communications project in a timely manner?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this bill includes the Rural Community Advancement Program which provides flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs. Through this program rural business enterprise grants are made available. As you are very well aware, I have pursued funding for the Arkansas communications project since March 1992. This project will provide a statewide communications and education network that will eventually include all Arkansas publicly funded 2- and 4-year institutions of higher learning, research and extension centers, cooperative extension county offices, many rural hospitals, and State and Federal Government office buildings. The network will include compressed video, TV/video production, and data networking. When completed, the project will serve the large rural population of Arkansas as well as provide linkages and educational support to our more urban areas. This committee first voiced its support for the project in the fiscal year 1993, and the committee has continued to note its support every year since. Unfortunately, the University of Arkansas Divisions of Agriculture, which is sponsoring this project, has endured mixed results in getting the Department of Agriculture to honor the wishes of this committee. Promises were made and broken until the project came to the attention of Under Secretary Thompson and her staff in Rural Development. She and they have offered invaluable assistance, and I am pleased to note that the division received funding for the first phase of the project earlier this year and is actively seeking funding for the second and third phases. I should also note that the division has already committed sizeable non-federal resources to the project while reducing the total cost by nearly one-third. Am I correct in noting that the committee still strongly supports completion of this project? Mr. COCHRAN, The ranking member is correct.