Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may address a question. I understand that all the time remaining between now and 3:30 belongs to the opponents of the Daschle proposal; is that correct?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of observations and take a slightly different tack on the issue of welfare than that which has been debated. First of all, I am deeply troubled by the Dole proposal. I do not see how I can support it. One of the reasons I cannot support it is because there is no comprehensive plan on child care. Any welfare proposal that does not consider child care is doomed to failure. Women are not going to work unless they have someplace that will take care of their children during work hours. There is no added money in the Dole proposal for that purpose. The Dole proposal also has a number of other shortcomings. For instance, the Dole proposal shortchanges States in the Sunbelt, such as Arkansas, where immigration is on the increase. The bill provides no additional funding to take care of a recession when the number of applicants for welfare grow. It seems to me that the proposal is fatally flawed in a number of ways. So I am going to strongly support the Daschle proposal, which attempts to address these issues. Every Member of the Senate wants to vote for welfare reform. If you sit around the coffee shops at home, that is about all they will talk about. However, we have to reform welfare in a commonsensical manner; not the willy-nilly approach taken by the Dole proposal. It seems to me that we speak loudly, longingly and piously about the children of this country in this debate on welfare. We overtly or covertly attack them in this proposal--the most vulnerable among our population. Nobody knows for sure what the answer is. However, Mr. President, I assure you the answer is not to make children any worse off than they already are. Let me just make a point about another kind of welfare. This morning's Washington Post had a story on the Federal Page indicating that the Secretary of the Interior yesterday signed a deed for 110 acres of land belonging to the American people to a Danish company called Faxe Kalk. What do you think the U.S. taxpayers got for that 110 acres of land yesterday? $275--$2.50 an acre. What do you think the corporation Faxe Kalk got? One billion dollars' worth of a mineral called travertine. It is an aggregate source used to whiten paper. Due to the 1872 mining law, still firmly in place, the taxpayers of this country, who lament the taxes they pay, saw $1 billion worth of their assets go down the tube. In 1990, Mr. President, I stood exactly where I am standing right now and pleaded with the people of the Senate to impose a moratorium on patenting under the 1872 mining law which requires the Secretary of Interior to deed away billions and billions and billions of dollars worth of gold, platinum, palladium, travertine, whatever, for $2.50 or $5 an acre. I lost that year by two votes. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield 2 additional minutes?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for about 2 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I seriously considered not offering this amendment because obviously I will not win. As a matter of fact, I do not think a single amendment that has been proposed to change this bill has prevailed. It causes me a great deal of despair to think about how we almost relish cutting education, the arts, public broadcasting--just about everything in nondefense discretionary spending--but you cannot take a penny out of this bill despite the fact it contains almost $7 billion more than the Pentagon requested. And when you ask: ``Why are we putting $7 billion more in it than our President and military leaders want?'' the answer is, essentially, ``What do they know?'' So here I am offering an amendment that I have offered for the last 2 years--this will be the third year--a chance to save well over $4 billion, $4.5 billion to be precise, and I might get 30, possibly 40 votes, despite the fact that people in the Navy itself and in the Defense Department will tell you that the logic of this amendment is unassailable. We have eight Trident submarines in the Pacific Ocean. We have 10 in the Atlantic. The ones in the Atlantic fleet are equipped with a missile called the D-5 or the Trident II missile. The eight submarines in the Pacific are equipped with a missile called the C-4, or Trident I missile. This amendment simply prevents the Navy from starting to spend money in 1996 to backfit the eight submarines in the Pacific to carry the D-5 missile. We are testing C-4 missiles every year. And they are just fine. The tests are perfectly satisfactory. But here is the key to this amendment. Here is what Martin Meth, Director of the DOD Weapon Support Improvement Group, said on November 9, 1992. Now, this is as good an authority as you can get on C-4 and D-5 missiles and on the Trident submarines. Listen to this: There are no obvious life limiting modes or logistics barriers to extending the service life of the currently deployed C-4 missiles to the year 2016. Therefore, I would recommend that any Navy plans for either restoring the C-4 missiles or D-5 missile backfit should not be supported. We are getting ready to backfit, take the C-4's off those Trident submarines in the Pacific and replace them with D-5's, despite the fact that the C-4 missile will last as long as the submarines they are on. And what do you get? What are you going to get for this $4.5 billion? Listen to this. The C-4 has an unclassified range of 4,000 nautical miles. It can hit any place you want to hit. The D-5 has something in excess of 4,000 miles. The C-4 has what we call a circular error probability of 300 meters. That means if you fire it, the warheads, half of them will fall within 300 meters of the target. Let me restate that. On the C-4--the C-4--50 percent of the warheads will hit within 300 meters of the target. And the D-5 will hit within 150 meters. So for $4.5 billion, with a 100-kiloton warhead that will destroy everything for miles around, you get a warhead that will hit 150 meters closer to the target, 450 feet. It is the most asinine thing I can imagine, to spend $4.5 billion to replace a missile that is that accurate, that has that life expectancy. And, incidentally, they are only going to backfit four of the Trident I subs. They will take the other four out of service. And the four they will backfit will be out of service by the year 2016, and, as I said, the Pentagon says the C-4 missiles will last just as long. You just cannot find enough places to put money to satisfy most Members of the Senate, as long as it explodes. You cannot get 10 cents around here for something that will not explode. And I will tell you what we are going to wind up with. We are going to wind up with a nation exploding with ignorance because of our misplaced priorities. I will tell you what is despairing, what is so depressing. It is that you study these issues, you attend committee meetings, you listen to the chiefs of the military services. They tell you what is doable, what is not doable, what they want, what they do not want. We mark up the bill and we bring it to the floor. And no matter how meritorious your amendment may be, if it conflicts with the bill, the distinguished chairman of the committee--who is my friend, he has a right to do it-- he just gets up and says, ``I move to table the amendment.'' People walk through that door over there. He gives them the signal to vote ``aye'' or to vote ``no.'' Many do not have a clue to what the amendment is about. These are complicated subjects. I admit that. But you cannot get anybody's attention on these issues. I have been given 10 minutes this morning to explain an immensely complex amendment that would save $4.5 billion. If all 100 Senators were sitting on the floor, I might be able to convince them. But otherwise we will never get this budget under control until we have campaign finance reform. Here is $4.5 billion you might as well throw off the Washington Monument. It will do you just as much good. So, Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the point. Here is just another case. We have had case after case since we have been on this bill where the Pentagon says, ``No, we do not want to do it.'' Now, I admit, the Navy wants to do this. The Navy wants to backfit. But the people who understand the weaponry say it is a waste. The sume of $4.5 billion to retrofit four submarines, which in all probability, if we ever get to START III, we will even have to take out of service before their service life expectancy ends. You know, if we had somebody to shoot at, maybe this would make some sense. I have said a half dozen times on the floor, and it is worth repeating, if I had made the offer to my colleagues 10 years ago, What would you give in defense spending to get rid of the Soviet Union? I daresay the least percentage that anybody would have given me is to say we could cut Defense by 30 percent if we did not have the Soviet Union. Now, the Soviet Union's bombers, the Russian bombers, are not on alert. Their missiles are not targeted at us. And they are destroying ballistic missile submarines and ICBM silos. And what are we doing? We are putting $7 billion more in the Defense budget than the Pentagon asked for, and continuing to spend twice as much money as our eight most likely adversaries combined. On a personal note, this morning at breakfast my wife said, ``What are you going to do, Dale?'' I said, ``I am going to fight another fight with the windmills. I love jousting with windmills.''

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for an additional 2 minutes, Mr. President?

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me clarify one thing. My amendment takes the $120 million out that starts us down the road to backfitting these Trident submarines. Bear in mind it is always that way, the first $120 million does not amount to much. When you vote against this amendment, you are voting to go ahead and do the backfit. You are talking about $4.5 billion. But all this amendment does is postpone the decision on whether to embark on this program or not. We have at least 3 years to make this decision. My good friend, the Senator from Hawaii, has said that this will close the line down. I do not understand that argument because there are six D-5 missiles in this bill, and I do not touch them. I am not trying to stop the production of those six D-5 missiles, so there is no threat of closing the line down. All I am saying is, let us postpone the decision on whether we are going to backfit these missiles for at least a couple of years, because if the Russians do ratify START II, we are going to be right off on START III and Trident submarines are going to be a part of the START III talks. So, Mr. President, it is an opportunity to jeopardize defense not one whit and make a sensible decision that later on may save us $4.5 billion. As I say, let me point out one more time, that even the Navy will tell you the C-4 missiles, which are on these submarines right now, will last as long as the submarines will. So when you start on this $4.5 billion program, I will tell you what you get. You get a warhead that will land 150 meters closer to its target, and when you are talking about a 100-kiloton weapon, who cares? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. ``Go down there and find a battle.'' I said, ``I probably won't even offer it or I will withdraw it.'' On the way down I thought, ``No. Let's just let everybody vote for another $4.5 billion. Maybe, if this whole thing will get so bad, the President will veto the bill.'' So, Mr. President, I am not going to withdraw it. I am going to let everybody vote on it. And they can go home and tell folks about how those old Russians used to be the Soviet Union, now the Russians or North Koreans or somebody else is going to come up the Potomac River and get us. I have listened to that for 21 years. I heard that every year since I have been here. Everybody wonders why we have a $4.5 trillion debt and why we have such a terrible time getting our deficit under control. And in the last 20 years--you listen to this, colleagues--nondefense discretionary spending--immunization of children, education, law enforcement, highways, everything that goes in the making us a decent, civilized nation--has gone down. You think of that. The budget is about three times higher than it was in 1970, and nondefense domestic discretionary spending has gone down. And defense spending is up about 100 percent. I [[Page S 12319]] think the first budget I saw when I came here in 1975 was $145 billion. And so many Senators get up here and say, oh, defense spending has gone down in real dollars. When we wake up and realize the security of this Nation does not just depend on how many tanks and planes and guns and bombs we have, it will be too late.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much, if I may take a few minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 895, Senator Bond's bill to restructure the Small Business Administration section 7(a) loan guaranty program. I want to commend the chairman and his staff for their work on this, the first reported Small Business bill since he became chairman of our committee. I was glad to work with Senator Bond on developing a substitute amendment, which is in fact the committee amendment to S. 895. The thrust of this bill is simple--it reduces the budget subsidy scoring for the 7(a) loan guaranty program, which is by far the largest SBA economic development program. These loans are made by banks and other lenders to qualifying small businesses that would not be able to obtain access to credit on similar terms in the private market. The long and the short of it is that banks simply do not make long-term loans to small businesses. As the committee report points out, this has been a fact of life at least since the issue was first studied by the Department of Commerce in 1935. That finding was reaffirmed by the Federal Reserve in 1952. The SBA guaranty--which is only a partial guaranty of the loan-- allows banks to extend the term of a loan for more than the 2 or 3 years which is typically offered by bankers. Under the 7(a) program, a borrower can get a loan term for as long as 20 years, though most loans are for a much shorter period. In fact, the average loan term is about 12 years, with borrowers typically repaying the loans in about 7 years. Although borrowers pay a 2-percent guaranty fee to help offset the cost of the program, appropriated funds are still required to keep the program in business. Under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the Office of Management and Budget divides the amount of appropriated funds by the credit subsidy scoring for each program. This equation determines the program level for the coming year. Popularity and public demand for the 7(a) program has grown astronomically over the past few years due to many economic factors. During the Bush administration, the 7(a) program grew from slightly over $3 billion to almost $6 billion. Congress was hard-pressed to meet the increasing demand with concurrent program appropriations. The program during that time had a subsidy cost of slightly over 5 percent, meaning that $1 billion in loan authority required $50 million in appropriated funds. In 1992, demand for the program exhausted funding and two supplemental appropriations measures had to be enacted and signed by President Bush. This trend continued through 1993, and by late spring appropriated funds were exhausted again, closing the program down for several weeks. Congress has always recognized the economic importance of the 7(a) program, but it became clear that reliance on emergency supplemental funding and traumatic program shutdowns could not continue in the long run. Shortly after the Clinton administration took office in 1993, the Senate Small Business Committee undertook, with the Administration's full cooperation, to sharply reduce the cost of SBA 7(a) loans to the Treasury while meeting the demands of small business borrowers for affordable credit. In the summer of 1993, legislation from our committee was enacted and signed by President Clinton, reducing the subsidy cost of 7(a) loans from 5.4 percent to 2.2 percent and more than doubling the 7(a) program level with the same amount of appropriated dollars. The effect of this change was dramatic. In 1993, SBA made about $6 billion in 7(a) loans but required only $342 million in appropriations to fund the program. In the current year, almost $8 billion in loans will be made with about $200 million in appropriations. I am extremely proud of these savings, but they are still not enough to keep the ever- growing 7(a) program on a sound footing in this era of declining Federal spending. Finally, a comment about S. 895 and the chairman's work on this bill is in order. I did not choose to cosponsor this bill when it was introduced because I was concerned that the increases in fees proposed for 7(a) borrowers were simply too steep and, in my view, would be too high for the program to be workable. Borrowers who are willing to take a loan at any price are not likely to be very good borrowers, and I felt we were moving dangerously close to that point. The same could be said of the administration's ``zero-subsidy'' proposal which was considered and not adopted. The chairman is to be commended for the flexibility and progressiveness he has demonstrated in preparing the committee amendment which I was pleased to cosponsor at the markup of this bill. The maximum, marginal guaranty fee for borrowers was reduced from the original 5 percent to 3.5 percent, with this number being applied only to borrowers seeking over $500,000 in financing. Moreover, the smallest borrowers--those using the ``low doc'' program for loans under $100,000--will face no increased guaranty fees at all. The present 2 percent guaranty fee will continue to be applied to low doc loans. [[Page S 12517]] Both of these steps represent common sense and fairness, two virtues which I wish were more abundant in this Congress. I urge Senators to support S. 895 and the committee amendment. Amendment No. 2426

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS

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

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know what the people were thinking last fall when they swept the Democrats out of Congress and turned it over to the Republicans. But I can tell you one thing that I do not think they were thinking. I do not think they intended for us to design yet one more way to sell arms in the international market. We have four methods on the books right now; four--count them. We have four ways that the arms merchants of this country can finance arms sales to other nations. You would think that would be enough. Obviously it is not. We have a fifth one in this bill. No. 1, most people do not know it but the President can guarantee any loan from any company to any country. That is a powerful thing for the President. He does not often exercise the power. But he has it. Then every year when we pass our foreign operations bill--the bill that the ordinary man on the street in this country thinks is going right down a rat hole--a good big portion of that is for weapons, $1.5 billion for Egypt, $1.5 billion for Israel. If anybody wants some weapons, stand in line. We will give them to you. If you cannot afford them, we will finance them for you. That is called the Foreign Military Financing Program; No. 2. No. 3, securities assistance: The Securities Assistance Program I think is also in the foreign operations program. I am not sure. But that is where we finance a country-to-country sale. I assume we take weapons out of our stock, out of our inventory, to sell to somebody else, and we finance it; No. 3. No. 4, 3 years ago I fought like a saber-toothed tiger to keep the Eximbank out of the arms financing business, and succeeded marginally. We kept the Export-Import Bank from selling tanks, howitzers, airplanes, and lethal weapons. But they now are permitted to finance nonlethal military equipment. I guess that means tents and blankets and anything that will not explode. Now here is the fifth one in the DOD authorization bill. I get too loud when I am on the floor of the Senate. But I feel so strongly about these things I guess it is irresistable to express my contempt for the United States to be the leading arms merchant of the world, and now we are setting up yet another program to make it easier for countries to buy all the weapons they want. Do you know who most of these countries are? They are people that are starving their own people to buy weapons. That is the moral dimension to arms sales. But here is the financial dimension. This bill that we have before us right now provides for 15 billion dollars' worth of credits to sell arms to foreign countries. I am going to tell you this is a real enigma to me. I do not understand it nor has anybody been able to explain it to me. They say it will work just like the Export-Import Bank works. You pay a fee. You bear in mind that this is not set up yet. The authorization bill directs the Department of Defense to set this program up and to guarantee loans from arms manufacturers in this country to about 37 different nations. Turkey, for example, who cannot afford a turkey sandwich will be eligible. I do not mean to demean Turkey. They have been a reliable ally of ours. But they are a poor nation. They cannot afford it. But here is $15 billion in this bill. Just so you will know. I did not drag that figure out of thin air. On page 68 of the bill, section 8067, ``To the extent authorized in law, the Secretary of Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of U.S. defense exports not otherwise provided for, provided, that the total contingent liability of the United States for guarantees issued under the authority of this section may not exceed $15 billion.'' My colleagues, all you tight-fisted budget balancers who ran last year and promised the American people how you were going to balance the budget, go home and tell them that there is $15 billion in this bill that is not even scored, and does not count for anything. When I sit down I want the managers of this bill to tell us how we can assume $15 billion in contingent liabilities and it not cost us one penny. In my 21 years in the Senate I have never heard--my staff tells me there are a couple of examples like that--but I have never personally heard of us assuming a $15 billion liability and it does not cost us anything. It sounds like the good old days of the S&L's in the late 1980's to me. So how does this work? An arms manufacturer comes to the Defense Department and says, ``We have country A and they want to buy 500 million dollars' worth of weapons from us, and we sure would like to sell them because we have 3,000 people working in plants that will produce this 500 million dollars' worth of weapons.'' The DOD which wants to set this program up will say, ``Well, you have to pay a fee.'' ``How much?'' ``One percent.'' What is 1 percent of $500 million? The authorization bill says this will be paid either by the country that is buying the weapons or by the company that is selling them. I strike company in my amendment. Do you know why? Everybody here knows that a company will say, ``Look. This is really $500 million.'' But you do not have $5 million to pay the fee. ``We will pay it for you.'' And the sale price will be $505 million. So instead of charging them $500 million, they charge $505 million. And they get their $505 million, and they turn around and put $5 million of it in the DOD treasury as the guarantee. I say if we are going to do it--you all know we debated this the other night. I tried to strike this in the authorization bill. I think I got 40 votes, and when you have 100 Senators and you only get 40 votes, you lose. I lost. But I am saying that if you are going to go forward with this program, which I deplore, at least make the purchasing country put up the fee. If they do not have enough to pay a 1- or 2-percent fee, whatever it happens to be, they certainly have no business obligating themselves for such massive amounts--98 percent and 99 percent--more than they can come up with even for the guarantee. Mr. President, right after Desert Storm we had a field day. In 1993, 1994, and 1995, we sold 54.5 billion dollars' worth of weapons. Incidentally, some of these countries we sell these weapons to American men often get the opportunity to face those weapons because those weapons last longer than our friendships. I was in Iran in 1976 when the Shah was trying to buy every single weapon we would sell him. I went to an airport in Tehran. It was loaded with F-16's. And he could hardly wait for us to produce the F-18. He wanted that one, too. And the Shah wanted weapons and a strong military not because of an exterior threat but because that was the way he solidified his power. Now, unhappily, he was replaced with a government that was just as bad, but all these dictators want weapons to make sure nobody challenges their authority. And he was no exception. So now one of the people we classify as one of the most likely adversaries of the United States is Iran. Iran has a big arsenal of weapons that we sold them, and they are considered one of the four most likely adversaries we will ever have to face. Vietnam, what an arsenal we left when we left there. The Vietnamese were rich with American weapons, and they sold them to the contras. They sold them to Cuba. I never liked the idea of selling the Afghans Stinger missiles. One Stinger missile can hold any international airport in the world hostage. A terrorist can simply say: We [[Page S 12161]] have a Stinger missile. Any airliner coming into this country and into this airport is going to get it at some point. The whole city and the whole country is terrified as a result. I am not sure how many Stingers we sold to Afghanistan. I voted no, no, no, and yes. It came up constantly because we felt the Afghans could make the Soviets losses so great they would pull out. And let us face it; it pretty much worked. But there is a problem. We do not know what happened to all the Stingers. Iran --I mention Iran again--got 35 of them, so I am told. So Iran, which is considered a terrorist nation, is in a position to hold 35 international airports hostage thanks to Uncle Sugar. That is all just a way of coming back from whence I started. This program has not even been set up. My amendment says it is not likely to be set up and very many sales made before we argue these points again next year. My amendment says, therefore, let us cut this $15 billion authority to $5 billion. We are only planning on selling 10 billion dollars' worth of weapons in foreign sales this year which, incidentally, will probably be about 52 percent of all arms sales in the world except France made a couple of big airplane deals so they have quite a few weapons to sell this year. They will be a player. But today we sell 52 to 53 percent of all the weapons sold in international commerce, and by the turn of the century we will be up to 59 percent. Let me ask my colleagues, for a brand new program, never been tried, we do not know how it is going to work, do you think it makes more sense to start with a $5 billion authority or a $15 billion authority when we are only likely to sell a total of $10 billion from all sources in the coming year? And that will include foreign military, the foreign military sales program that is in the foreign aid bill, the securities assistance programs, the Export-Import Bank program, any arms weapons that the President guarantees the price of. Do you not think $5 billion is going to be enough? But here is the real clinker in this whole thing. How do we guarantee $5 billion or $15 billion with no liability? As I say, that beats the S&L crisis. We are going to take a fee from these people to sell weapons and if they default, as Egypt did in 1990 to the tune of $7.1 billion, DOD has to pay it. Where do they get it? Congress gives it to them. Where does Congress get it? Right out of the pocket of the old taxpayer. I have been through this defense bill for 20 years. This is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. They put $15 billion in there as though it is chump change and say sell 15 billion dollars' worth of weapons and, Congress, do not worry; do not score it; it does not count on the deficit. If all these people default, you have to cough up $15 billion, but we will worry about that later. It is the height of irresponsibility to pass something like this. But I have already tried to kill the program without success. So now I am saying for God sakes, do not put $15 billion in a brand new program that nobody has a clue as to how it is going to work. I feel like the most magnanimous person in the world by saying $5 billion is enough. When the managers of this bill take issue with this amendment, I do not want them to overlook telling my colleagues in the Senate how you put $15 billion in authority here to finance 50 billion dollars' worth of weapons, a good portion of which we will wind up paying for because these countries will default on. Only the least creditworthy countries are going to opt for this. I want you to tell my colleagues where the money is coming from. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Hawaii will yield, just for edification we inadvertently put in $5 million instead $5 billion.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield such time as the Senator from Illinois may require.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, I understood from the Senator from Alaska there would be a 4-minute hiatus between each vote to be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of each amendment, 2 minutes each.

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the answer to that is ``yes,'' under certain conditions, the Export-Import Bank would finance it.

Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.

Mr. BUMPERS. I might also say that is not a 100-percent guarantee either.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my very distinguished colleague and good friend from Illinois for his comments. When he leaves the Senate, there is going to be a great big void. He has been the conscience of this place on so many occasions. I cannot say that particularly about myself, but I do not know who has fought many more laudable but losing causes than I have, unless it is the Senator from Illinois. I say to my colleague, it is tough to shape this place up, is it not? Let me just close with a few remarks. First of all, my good friend from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, said the administration supported this. Here is what, 10 days ago, the White House said in its Statement of Administration Policy: The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to issue loan guarantees ensuring against losses arising from the financing of Defense exports to certain countries. The administration opposes this program because the administration has not found it necessary given the availability of existing authority for transactions of this type and the substantial American presence in international markets for military equipment. So we are not alone. The administration also opposes this. No. 2, let me just remind my colleagues--because our memories grow dim around here in about 2 days--George Santayana said, ``Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.'' Voltaire, a long time before that, said, ``History does not repeat itself; men do.'' We never seem to learn around here. We just keep making the same mistakes and paying heavy prices. But I agree with Bill Perry: We do not need this program. Let me ask you this. Who here wants the United States to guarantee arms loans to Albania? Who here wants to guarantee arms sales to Bulgaria? Who here wants to guarantee loans to the Philippines? Then there are Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. They are fine countries. But are they good credit risks? How many of you want to stand up and say, I think this is a jim-dandy idea to finance weapons to those countries? People are staring in the streets in some of them. It is almost obscene to encourage them to buy weapons. Do you remember the big agricultural loan program to Iraq? We really did not want Iraq or Iran, either one, to win the war, and it looked for a time as though Iran might have a little of the upper hand, so we started financing agricultural sales to Iraq. It went the same way as when our weapons are turned against us. Look where Iraq is now--a mortal enemy, and we are paying off $2 billion in agricultural loans that we guaranteed to Iraq. But that has been 10 years ago, and the Senate just cannot remember that far back. The Senator from Illinois, a moment ago, said that we are spending more money than our eight most likely adversaries. I hesitate to correct my good friend, but the truth is that we spend twice as much as our eight most likely adversaries, including Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the whole schmear--twice as much as all of them combined. What has been the record on the four programs we have in existence right now in arms sales? I am not absolutely sure of this, but I think Norway and Israel are the only two nations that have been totally reliable in paying their [[Page S 12164]] debts to us. Already this year, we have forgiven Jordan $300 million they owe us for arms, and I was for it because they have been instrumental in the Middle Eastern peace process. But $300 million where I come from ``ain't bean bag.'' I also voted to forgive Egypt the $7.1 billion in 1990, because they are an important ally. But you are going to be voting for a lot more of those if you pass this thing. The worst argument I know of for arms exports is jobs. Let me say to the Senator from Connecticut right now, you vote against this program and I will vote for whatever you want up to a billion dollars to attract industry to Connecticut. Did you see where Virginia just got a new deal for a chip manufacturing company? It did cost Virginia some money, $165 million. But compared to financing $500 million worth of weapons and guaranteeing them to a poor country that can't afford them, that is the best deal Virginia will ever pull off, and it is the best deal for the United States Government. So, when it comes to jobs, I promise you, with what we are going to wind up paying out of this program, we could create three times as many jobs as the arms industry is going to get out of this program. Another argument is: ``If we do not do it, somebody else will.'' The one thing my father told me when I was a kid is, ``I do not want you to be like others. I do not want you to do things just because everybody else is doing it.'' I suspect I am not the only Member of the Senate whose parents ever admonished him on that point. He expected more of me. But, above all, he wanted me to think for myself and do what I thought was right, not just because somebody else was doing it. And we are going to sell these weapons because if we do not, somebody else will. Let them. Why should we be immoral just because somebody else is immoral? Finally, Mr. President, I know, after my 21 years in the Senate, what this is; this is a foot in the door. You get this program firmly in place, and next year it will not be 37 countries eligible, it will be 50. And the year after that, it will be 60. I have never, in 21 years, seen that prediction fail. It is the nose under the tent. So, Mr. President, I have done my best to talk sense on this issue--I am sure to no avail. The Senator from Alaska will move to table. Some Members will walk in that door not having a clue as to what was said in this debate, and they will vote however he tells them to vote. Serious indictment, but true. And they will go home to the Chamber of Commerce, and if there is an industry in that town that has an overseas sale, they will take credit for it. And if the taxpayers wind up having to pay that loan off, you will never hear that mentioned in the same Chamber of Commerce banquet. Let me tell you a little anecdote that has nothing to do with this debate. But I have chided the Senator from Idaho about the amendment he offered the other night on the hard rock mine law reform that said mining companies will be required to pay the fair-market value for the land. I squealed like a pig under a gate, and you could have heard me in Charleston, AR, about what a sham that was. The truth of the matter is that the land has no value; $10 per acre will cover most of it. It was the billions of dollars worth of gold under that ground I was talking about. Anybody that voted for that, who does not come from a mining State, can go home, and if somebody asks him a question in a town-hall meeting, ``How come you voted to give away $15.5 billion worth of gold the other night to the richest mining companies in America,'' he can say, ``I also voted to make them pay fair-market value.'' They will not tell you it was just for the surface and not the minerals. Who in that room is going to know the difference?

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time is remaining?