Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished friend from North Dakota for yielding. Second, I especially thank him for his very generous laudatory comments, all of which are true, of course, and to thank him for his very valiant, noble efforts in the cause of constitutional government. He made an observation which I have made many, many times but frankly across the Nation seems to fall on deaf ears, and that is we are the oldest democracy on Earth. Our Constitution, which should be sacred to all of us, is the oldest organic, existing law in the world, and yet many of my colleagues want to treat it as an unfinished, rough draft. Every time we have a politically popular thing crop up in this country, everyone wants to amend the Constitution. Without denigrating specific colleagues, nor really denigrating the Senate as a body, I do not know a single person in the Senate that I want to defer to instead of James Madison, defer to instead of Benjamin Franklin, defer to instead of John Adams or John Jay. Arthur Schlesinger, one of the preeminent historians of this country, has said, and I think with a great deal of acumen and accuracy, in 1787 the greatest gathering of minds ever assembled under one roof met in Philadelphia to craft this document which we solemnly swear, when we are sworn into the Senate, we will support and defend--the Constitution of the United States. Is that a sacred, solemn oath we take, or is it something we do just for political reasons, because we have to, or because of legal reasons? I have heard it said in this body that 83 percent of the people in this country when asked, ``Would you favor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget,'' 83 percent of the people say yes. What they do not tell you is that 83 percent of the people of this country also say they are contemptuous of politicians who have to look at a poll in order to find out what they think. The Senator from South Carolina, from Oregon, the rest of us, have a solemn duty to be educators as well as legislators. The people of my State did not all attend law school and study constitutional law. They have not all read ``The Federalist Papers.'' I am chagrined, irritated, and angry because in this body we want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We want a constitutional amendment to limit terms of Senators, as though the people of your State do not have enough sense to know who they want to vote for; or a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning; a constitutional amendment that would require our children to recite certain prayers in school, and on and on it goes. This is just a snipe hunt. As a matter of fact, this amendment gives snipe hunting a bad name. What does this amendment do? Sam Nunn, our distinguished colleague from Georgia, when we considered this before, very thoughtfully added an amendment saying the courts will not have any jurisdiction over this. I am not sure we can legislatively make that decision here, but assume we can; that answers the question ``Will all Federal courts have jurisdiction?'' Under the Nunn amendment, they would not. But let us just assume that, as my good friend from South Carolina is wont to say very often in this Chamber, we pass a budget resolution to say this balances the budget, pat ourselves on the back, give ourselves the good Government award, head on home and tell the constituents how great we are. But, wait, some person that is aggrieved says, ``Look, that budget resolution is based on flawed assumptions about revenues and expenditures. You have it all out of kilter.'' Would he have a right to go to court and demand that Congress do this thing right, the way the people of this country told them to do it? I do not know the answer to that. Will the Congress be required to raise taxes and cut spending to achieve it? Can they do it all one way or the other? I suppose they could, but I am not at all sure. Numerous questions remain unanswered. How does this amendment force Congress to reach an agreement about which specific spending cuts or which tax hikes we should adopt? Finally, if you go to court, do you have standing? And what if the Supreme Court says this is a political question, which they often do where politicians are involved; where does that leave it? High and dry, just like we were last fall. Mr. President, I have listened to a good portion of this debate from my office on C-SPAN. I cannot believe people come to the floor and they say, ``I do not have the courage to make the tough choices, to vote for a balanced budget; therefore, please vote for this constitutional amendment so the courts or the law will make me do it.'' Frankly, I do not want to get too strident or partisan about this, but if I were sitting on the other side of the aisle, that is exactly what I would be saying. In 1993, every Member in this body, every single Senator, had a chance to vote for a meaningful deficit reduction package. It has been said over and over, but it bears repeating, that when we adopted that package in, I think, August 1993, not one Republican could find it in his heart to vote to reduce the deficit by $500 billion. The Vice President sat in the Presiding Officer's chair and cast the tie- breaking vote. Two-hundred and fifty billion dollars in tax increases, $250 billion in spending cuts. You cannot find a better way to start reducing the deficit. And OMB said, if you pass this, over the next 5 years the deficit will be $500 billion less than it would otherwise be. Mr. President, that turned out to be grossly wrong. The figure now, according to OMB, is $846 billion. Bill Clinton, to his eternal credit, I do not care whether you like him or do not like him, but I can tell you one of the reasons he is going to be reelected President is because he did not sit around waiting for a constitutional amendment to do something. He submitted a package of deficit reduction proposals to this body and we adopted it without one single Republican vote. I inform my Republican friends who are all so enthusiastic about this amendment today, that deficit reduction package we adopted constitutes a reduction not of $500 billion, but $846 billion. So, my Republican friends, my question is this: Why not repeal it? You did not like it then. You are trying to kill the gas tax part of it now, which has to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. But I want to ask you, why not repeal it if it was that bad? We lost two of the finest U.S. Senators ever to sit in this body because they voted for that package, and their opponents took advantage of it and said, ``He is a taxer and spender.'' They lost their seats for doing the most courageous thing any Senator could do. People sit in their seats today who are spineless, who did not have the courage to vote for it. So I say to my Republican friends, repeal it and then tell us where are you going to find $846 billion, because that is what you have to find. When Bill Clinton ran for President he made a promise to the American people and I thought it was fair. It was a political promise, of course. Any promise a politician makes is political. But he said: You elect me President and in the first 4 years I will reduce the deficit by 50 percent. We were looking at a $290-billion-to-$300-billion deficit that year, 1993, which turned out to be $264 billion, and which has been going down every year. Because of that bill in 1993, the deficit this year is not going to be 50 percent of the projected $292 billion. The projection was that the deficit would be $292 billion in 1996. Current figures place the deficit at $125 billion, not a cut of 50 percent, a cut of almost 60 percent. I can tell you, this fall, if I were President Clinton, I would keep a chart, about twice the size of these I am using, with me every minute of every day to show the American people why they should be dancing in the streets, because a few courageous Senators screwed up their nerve and did what they were supposed to do. What else does this constitutional amendment require? Nothing, in the year 2002. It gives the States 7 years to ratify it. We do not have to do anything for 7 years. You know, I think if I were a Republican, I would probably be taking the same tact they are. I would be so embarrassed about a lack of courage, a lack of responsibility in refusing to vote for something responsible, to bring the deficit down when the chance finally emerged. So, what is their solution? Well, I do not know what kind of a tax cut Senator Dole will propose. I have heard figures up to $600, $700 billion. I do not know what it is going to be. But here is their method of balancing the budget: build a ballistic missile defense system which will cost American taxpayers $50 billion to $60 billion and deploy it by the year 2003. ``What kind of a system is that going to be?'' The Republicans respond, ``Don't know. Don't have any technology yet, but we can start spending the $50 billion.'' The people ask, ``Where's the money coming from without raising the deficit?'' The Republicans reply, ``Don't know. Find it somewhere.'' What else? The gas tax, repeal of that 4.3-cent gasoline tax we passed in 1993. It will accommodate the big sport utility vehicles and the vans and the big trucks. It will encourage people to drive more and further pollute the environment, as well as losing about $2 billion. The people want to know, ``Where is that $2 billion coming from?'' Again, the Republican response is, ``Don't know.'' What else? Airline ticket tax. We conveniently let that lapse on December 31 of this year, and we have already lost about $3 billion this year on the airline ticket tax. ``Why haven't we reinstated it?'' ``Don't know.'' What does it do? That loss of revenue raises the deficit by $3 billion. What other proposals do the Republicans have for balancing the budget? Well, there is a $7 billion cut for small business. I can tell you, I yield to no one in my commitment to small business. I used to be a small businessman, and it was a struggle. I can tell you, they hurt me every time they raised the minimum wage. It did not hurt for very long. Back in those days, you had to do $250,000 a year in order to qualify, and I was not doing that much business. So what are the Republicans going to do here? They propose $7 billion in additional tax cuts for small business. It is tough for anyone to vote against that. What else? Well, we are going to continue selling Federal lands that belong to the taxpayers for $2.50 or $5 an acre, beneath which lies billions and billions of dollars worth of gold; sell it to them for $2.50 or $5 an acre and not require them to pay the taxpayers 1 cent of royalty. This has been going on since 1872, and you cannot stop it. I know, because I have tried desperately for 7 years. It is shameless and unbelievable. Republicans who do not have a mine within 500 miles of their States vote to defend this practice for the benefit of the biggest mining companies in America. What else? Continue the shameless way we let our parks concessions. I urge my colleagues to listen to this story. Matsushita Electric Co. bought Universal. Universal, among other things, owned the Curry Co., which had the right to all the concessions in Yosemite, National Park. It is a beautiful, beautiful park. Everyone here has visited it. As you know, since the memory of man runneth not, as we lawyers like to say, the people who own the parks concessions in Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon took in around $500 million to $600 million a year in revenue, and they returned about $18 million to the Government. I say to my colleagues, when we go home and tell the chamber of commerce, ``Please reelect me, and if you do, I will treat your money just like it is my own,'' that we should consider this example. I want everyone in the U.S. Senate who would let a contract that produces for the person you contracted with $500 million to $600 million and you received $18 million to stand up. I want everyone in the U.S. Senate who would sell his land that had $11 billion worth of gold under it for $2.50 or $5 an acre and not receive a dime of royalty to stand up. I want all those Senators to stand up. You told the Chamber of Commerce you would treat their money and the public lands as if it were your own. Finally, Matsushita bought Universal. There was a hue and cry in this country about a Japanese company owning the concessions at Yosemite. And $100 million a year, I say to my colleagues, is what that one produces. And so the Japanese said, ``Look, we don't need all this flack. We'll just return it to you.'' So the Parks Foundation said, ``Well, why don't we take it and we will relet the contract.'' So they took it and they relet the contract and the company they selected last year returned $20 million to the U.S. Treasury, more than all the others combined have been returning, because we negotiated a decent contract. But if you tried to do that on all the national parks, we have a half a dozen on this side and about 50 on that side who will squeal like a pig under a gate: ``Oh, you can't do this, you can't do that, that's jobs in my State.'' So we tried cutting taxes and balancing the budget in 1981, Mr. President. Do you know what we got out of it? We went from a $1 trillion debt to a $3 trillion debt in 8 years. It was hogwash in the beginning and it still is. You cannot do it. We did not do it. You cannot cut taxes massively like we did in 1981 and hope to balance the budget. So what are we paying for? If we did not have to pay interest just on the debt that was accumulated in the 8 years of Ronald Reagan's Presidency--let me repeat this. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BUMPERS. If we did not have to pay interest on just the increased deficit that was accumulated when Ronald Reagan was President, we would not be standing here debating today because we would have a nice healthy surplus.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, ``thems the facts,'' and that is what brings us here today: using a constitutional amendment as a figleaf, a political ploy to keep from making the hard decisions just as they did in 1993, just as they will in 1996. Finally, I am not voting to tinker with what James Madison did 207 years ago that has made us the strongest, longest living democracy in the world. I am not voting for something that nobody in this body can explain how it will work. It is nothing but utter chaos. I plead with my colleagues, don't snap on this one. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Arkansan, William Bruce Johnson. Bruce is the president of White River Hardwoods and Woodworks, Inc., in Fayetteville, AR. Because of his outstanding contribution to the business community, Bruce has been selected by the U.S. Small Business Administration as the 1996 Arkansas Small Business Person of the Year. I am convinced that this is an honor richly deserved. Bruce Johnson and his wife Joan have pioneered new and innovative approaches to their business, and in the process, propelled White River Hardwoods into a nationally known company. In 1979, Bruce's company mainly sold premium hardwood lumber, but with an entrepreneurial spirit, Bruce entered the finishing market with a full line of architectural moldings and interior hardwood products. He and his wife proudly built a business that has become synonymous with superior quality and customer satisfaction. Incidentally, their children play a very active role as well, making White River Hardwoods truly a family- owned small business. Mr. President, I have said many times that small business is the backbone of this country, and White River is the perfect example of that statement. As many of you here know, owning your own business gives new meaning to full-time employment. That kind of dedication is precisely the reason why I think SBA is such a vital program to this country. Bruce got his first SBA loan in 1983 and then his second in 1992. Because of the availability of those SBA loans, White River Hardwoods expanded warehouse space, purchased equipment, hired new employees, and bettered the small business community--not only for Arkansas, but for the whole country. Outside of their Fayetteville base, White River operates a combination showroom and warehouse in Springfield, MO. They are partnered with 28 independent manufacturing representatives across the United States, and each day they effect a network of 32 stocking distributors and 314 dealers. The company's sales in 1995 reached nearly $5.5 million, which is no insignificant contribution to our economy. We need more people like Bruce and Joan Johnson in this country. Together they work hard every day along side their children to ensure the futures of their employees and the community around them. Mr. President, I hope you will join me in congratulating William Bruce Johnson as the 1996 Arkansas Small Business Person of the Year.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered on this amendment already. This amendment, I say to my colleagues, is one with which you are all familiar. It is called the defense firewalls. What it says is, no matter how many epidemics, floods, typhoons, earthquakes, no matter how much of anything you have in this country, you may not take a dollar from the defense budget with less than 60 votes to put it over in something that is of a much more dire need. In 1991, and 1992, we had defense firewalls. We took them down in 1993 and 1994. Nothing untoward happened. I am just offended what this does. It says that no matter what happens that defense may not be touched. No matter how bloated the defense budget may be, it says you cannot take a penny out of defense for any other purpose, no matter what the emergency is. We are saying we do not trust the Senate; we do not trust the Senate with a 51-vote majority. If you want to take something out of defense, you have to get 60 votes.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. I have been preparing for the amendment on asset sales. We are not really quite ready to go to firewalls. Is there any objection to going ahead with the asset sales?

Mr. BUMPERS. It is close.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona's amendment is not the worst amendment in the world. But it simply does not address the problem. It essentially says that if we are going to sell an asset, let us get fair market value. That is not the problem, even though in cases it has a tendency to be the problem. But the problem is that we have been proposing around here to sell the PMA's. If you have a power marketing system in your State, there has been a proposal to sell it. We sold one in Alaska, just voted to sell the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. There have been proposals to sell Elk Hills. It is now on the block. I am not suggesting we are not going to get fair market value for it, even though we will not because it is money--as the Senator from Arizona says, the amount of money coming in over the next 30 years is more than we are going to get. All I am saying is, sell it if you want to, put it on infrastructure; but do not put it on the deficit when you have to come back next year and redress it. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is one that we have voted on a number of times. We voted twice last year. It got 47 votes the first time, it got 49 votes the second time. It simply says, you cannot sell assets of the Federal Government and score those assets on the budget deficit. If you sold $130 billion worth of Government property today, you could balance the budget this year, but next year you are going to have the same budget deficit you had. Rudolph Penner, Bob Reischauer both say it is bad policy. It is dishonest budgeting. We ought not to be doing it. From 1987 to 1995 we specifically provided in the budget resolution that we would not score asset sales. So, Mr. President, I hope that at least we can get this body to vote for honest budgeting. I am not suggesting that you not sell assets. I have voted one asset sale this year. I am saying, do not score it. It reminds me of the guy that came home from the office and told his wife he had a great day at the office. She said, ``What happened?'' He said he sold his desk. That is what we are doing when we sell the assets and put it on the deficit.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. We would rather like to offer the asset sales first and then get the second one disposed of one way or the other.

Mr. BUMPERS. I think it is irreparable.

Mr. BUMPERS. You want to do firewalls first?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know everybody wants to get to the party. This amendment, the second-degree amendment, is precisely the same amendment as my first-degree amendment which was taken down by the McCain amendment. The McCain amendment does one thing that is good. It says that you cannot sell an asset for less than its net present value, but that does not affect an asset like a national park that has no income stream. And second, let me repeat, Rudolph Penner and Bob Reischauer, two of the most respected directors of the Congressional Budget Office we have ever had, said it is terrible policy to score asset sales on the budget deficit. Please vote yea on my amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Which one do you want to do first?

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

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I think the Senator from Alaska wants to speak on my amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. And then I will offer the second. We will make it brief.

Mr. BUMPERS. I say to my good friend from Tennessee, I will try to confine my remarks to 5 or 10 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from Alaska, he is correct, I voted for the sale of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. I did not vote to score the money received from that sale on the budget to reduce the deficit, to mask the size of the deficit. He is incorrect in characterizing my support for his proposals to sell assets. I voted against the reconciliation bill out of our committee. Mr. President, my point is this--I do not know how many times I have to say it--I am not suggesting we prohibit asset sales. I am suggesting that we not mask the size of the deficit by scoring revenue from asset sales against the deficit. If you want to put the sale of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation into infrastructure that you would otherwise spend, be my guest. Amendment No. 4014 (Purpose: To restore common sense to the budget rules by eliminating the defense firewalls)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside in order to offer another amendment.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment would abolish what we refer to around here as the firewall that protects the defense budget against any diminution if you try to take any money out of defense to put it in something else. If you had 5 million homeless people in this country that were hungry, and you wanted to decide, as a matter of national policy, we did not want those 5 million people on the streets hungry, and you felt like you might cut the defense budget it would require a supermajority--60 votes. Now let me explain what the firewalls do. The 1990 Budget Act established caps on discretionary spending and imposed firewalls on the defense portion of the discretionary budget for fiscal years 1991 to 1993. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, we did not have these so-called firewalls. All of a sudden last year it came back. And so the last 2 years, 1995 and 1996, the firewalls were up again. Now, Mr. President, let me tell you, in the 2 years, 1993 and 1994, when the firewalls were down, I want anybody here to tell me how defense suffered. Did anything happen in those 2 years that would jeopardize the national security of this Nation? I can answer that. You can answer it. The answer is no. I am just offended by the philosophy that every day of every year that approximately $270 billion for defense is sacred at the expense of everything else. You might have 10 million children unimmunized. You might have 5 million children who have been kicked off Medicaid and therefore are ineligible for health care. You may have hungry children who are not getting fed because the only meal they get is at school. Under the firewalls you cannot take $1 to redress any other of the millions of problems we have in this country unless you can muster 60 votes. The thing that I think is almost as offensive to me as that is that everything around here is couched in terms of either you vote for every single dime anybody can conjure up for defense or you are perceived as being weak on defense. The Budget Resolution provides more than $11 billion for defense above what the President asked for. I sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I get a chance to decide later whether I think that is enough money, too much, or not enough. Let me discuss what is happening to this country and you tell me whether or not you think we can continue with this policy and continue to be a great nation. First, the argument I have heard most is that we do not spend as much on defense as a percentage of the national budget as we did when Jack Kennedy was President. Well what is so startling about that? We did not have Medicare then, either. Social Security expenditures were around $10 billion to $15 billion a year; now it is almost $300 billion. Entitlements did not take 60 percent of the budget as it does now. If you take entitlements and interest on the national debt it leaves you, out of a $1.650 trillion budget, it leaves you approximately $500 billion for discretionary programs. Let me repeat: Out of $1.7 trillion, all that is left for defense and all the other things that make us a great nation, a civilized nation, a democracy, is $500 billion--about 35 percent of the budget. So here we are with 35 percent of the budget, $500 billion for defense and everything else--the environment, education, law enforcement, medical research, you name it. So where are we heading, Mr. President? This chart demonstrates what is going to happen. Between 1997 and 2002 we are going to spend $1.895 trillion on defense. During the same period we will spend $1.579 on domestic discretionary programs. While defense spending rises during the period, domestic programs are cut, down to the point that in the year 2001 defense gets $275 billion while everything else gets $218 billion. Education, the environment, highways, medical research, law enforcement, our system of justice, these programs all get slashed. In comparison, defense over the next 6 years get $316 billion more than everybody else. This budget over a 6-year period cuts $60 billion in education spending. The other day, the majority leader of the House suggested that we cut education to offset the gas tax cut. He said: ``We are not getting a very good return on our dollar, anyway, for education.'' I swear, sometimes you would think we are living in the middle ages. Mr. President, what has been happening to nondefense discretionary spending? We are by far the most powerful nation on Earth. One of the reasons is because over the next 6 years we are going to spend $316 billion more than we spend on nondefense programs. I am not talking about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, welfare and all the entitlement programs. I am talking about just the things where we have some discretion. We account for one-third of all the world's military spending. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Cuba; twice as much as all those eight nations combined. We spend 17 times more than the six so-called rogue nations, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Cuba--17 times more. Oh, yes, we are by far the most powerful nation on the Earth militarily. This body has said, ``You can't cut a dime of it unless you get 60 votes.'' Bear in mind in 1993 and 1994, it did not come up. Nobody tried to rob defense to pay for other things. There are some things I would have changed. However, let me tell you where the United States is not doing so well. Listen to this, colleagues: we are 21st in infant mortality rates in the world. Mr. President, 27th in education. Let me repeat that: 27th in education by the scores the Department of Education keeps. Where are we in the immunization of our children? Mr. President, 61st. Betty Bumpers has spent her entire public life since I was elected Governor on childhood immunization programs. I am proud of her. I have said many, many times if I died tomorrow, the people of my State and this Nation would owe her a much bigger debt of gratitude than they will owe me. I do not say that to be gracious. I say that because it is true. When I think of the man hours that have been spent, I think of the children's lives that have not been lost, when I think of the human misery that has not been suffered because of Betty's commitment now, and in the last 5 years with Rosalynn Carter, traversing this country back and forth, up and down, for the past 5 years, trying to get these levels up, and we are 61st in immunization levels. I must say, our levels are pretty high, but not as high as they ought to be. How many children in this country live below the poverty line? Twenty percent of our children live below the poverty line. Who has the highest teenage murder rate in the world? The United States. So how are we going to address that? Not by putting 100,000 more cops on the beat, because we cannot afford it. While we should be spending for the things that make us a great Nation, we have to keep that going down, so we can keep defense spending going up. So, Mr. President, I can tell you, categorically, that it is not my plan. I am just saying it is bad public policy, and it does not reflect well on the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress to say that we consider defense so important that, no matter what happens in this Nation, no matter what kind of an epidemic we may have that we need to stomp out, no matter how many hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods we have, you cannot, without 60 votes, take a dime from defense to address it. That is a crazy policy, and it shows how little confidence the people who conjured that up have in the U.S. Congress. It is as though we will unilaterally disarm. We do not do it for anybody else, and we ought not do it for defense. This body is not going to take leave of its senses if I or anybody else offers an amendment to take $1 billion out of defense. If they do not like it, they can vote against it. That is called democracy. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that I be allowed to ask for the yeas and nays on both of my amendments dealing with firewalls here and also on asset sales.