Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I will take just a minute, Mr. President, to remind my colleagues of one thing: The bill allows the company selling the weapons to pay the guarantee fee. Think about that. They can either add it to the price of weapons and then finance the entire thing, thereby financing effectively the fee that they have paid, or they can have such a cushy profit in whatever they are selling they will say we will sell them for $16 million apiece and we will pay the fee. If the fee is 1 percent and their cost is $12 million for that product, they still have a bonanza. I want Members to think about this: Here is a loan program that is going to make every other program pale because the company--if you do not vote for this amendment--the company can pay the fee and finance it as part of the loan that is guaranteed by the taxpayers. So everybody that wants weapons and do not have the money to pay for the weapons, and do not even have the money to pay a fee of 1 percent or 2 percent, the company will pay it. And Uncle Sugar is going to be held for the principle of the loan. I still do not understand how we can obligate ourselves for $15 billion in this bill and not have a dime scored against the deficit or against this bill. It is in the bill--$15 billion. The Senator from Alaska says we have not authorized that yet; that is only because we have not passed the Defense Authorization Bill yet. Passing that is as certain as the Sun coming up in the morning. I am not even trying to kill the program. I have tried that already and got 41 votes. I am trying to reduce our liability from $15 billion to $5 billion just for 1 year. They do not need $15 billion. They have not even got the program in place yet. Colleagues, for God's sake, do your duty. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for just a second? I failed to yield back the balance of my time and I am prepared to do that. Amendment No. 2377

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator consider making that a part of the request, for 4 minutes in between each vote?

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, did the Senator from Alaska say we will vote, debate, or both in the morning?

Mr. BUMPERS. Further reserving the right to object, does the Senator have any idea how many amendments are expected to be filed?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not want to be obstreperous and I will not object to this. But I would say to the Senator from Alaska that it seems to me that we are making eminent good sense to ask for a unanimous-consent agreement that all amendments be offered by 8:30, look and see how many you have and how many you think are serious, and then go to another unanimous-consent request by 9 o'clock on how you want to dispose of those. If you have 20 serious amendments--I have an amendment that I had anticipated asking an hour on. I assume others have that. I do not think there is any way to get all of this done tonight and start voting in the morning. If we have to come tomorrow morning for votes, why not do some debating?

Mr. BUMPERS. I would anticipate that under this agreement, we could plan to be having breakfast in the Senate dining room in the morning.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, last week on the Defense authorization bill we voted to add a fifth method of financing arms sales to foreign countries. We have four programs right now. This bill appropriates for that fifth method--an Arms Export Loan Guarantee Program. This bill says the Department of Defense can accumulate liability up to $15 billion in this brand new loan guarantee program--shades of S&L's of the 1980's. I handed most of you the talking points and a list of 37 countries that are going to be eligible to buy these weapons with loans guaranteed by the U.S. Government--15 billion dollars worth. I lost the other night when I tried to kill the program. It is still intact. What this amendment does is to cut the taxpayers liability from $15 billion to $5 billion. This program has not even been set up yet. The committees in the Congress have not approved it. Why in the name of all that is good and holy would we put $15 billion in a program that is just a gleam in somebody's eye? We will be here next year. We will sell 10 billion dollars worth of weapons this year. Under this program, starting next year we can sell weapons with guaranteed loans to Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, the Philippines, just to name a few of the eligible countries. Many of them are very poor countries. So the bill allows the American that wants to sell weapons to pay the risk fee on behalf of the country that will buy them. Now, how do you like that? Do you think countries that cannot even give you a 2 or 3 percent fee are worthy of millions and billions of dollars' worth of credit guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country? I plead with you. All I am saying is let us not start off exposing the taxpayers of this country to $15 billion in liability. For Pete's sake, let us keep it at $5 billion.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator amend his unanimous-consent request to say unless the managers have agreed to the amendment and you can dispose of it instead of laying everything aside?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he will yield to me for the purpose of offering one amendment which has been agreed to and another one which I would like to file and lay down and set aside.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside temporarily.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, are there one or two amendments for me?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to first compliment the Senators from Vermont for offering this amendment. And I intend to vote for it, but not with much relish. The reason I am not voting for it with much relish is because it still leaves the National Endowment of the Arts [NEA] and the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] terribly underfunded. There is not anything wrong with this country and there is not anything wrong with Congress except our priorities. We can balance the budget by the year 2002. We could educate our children. We could teach humanities and the arts. We could become a much more civilized nation. But you cannot do that and take care of all these other things that are mostly political. For example, Congress is proposing to spend $7 billion more on defense than even the Defense Department asked for. And people are almost afraid because they do not want to go home and say they voted against the defense bill, they do not want their opponent to say they are weak on defense. A lot of times I think--and I do not mean this to be demeaning of my colleagues--that one of the reasons people cast irresponsible votes around here is because it is easy, it is easy not to have to go home and explain a controversial vote. How many times do you read almost daily how people wish Congress would gather up their nerve and do the right thing? You know what that means? That means doing things that are controversial and that you have to give an accounting for. I have cast my share of controversial votes, and it gets me in a lot of hot water. For example, I am not going to vote for a school prayer amendment to the Constitution. I am for prayer in school but not for tinkering with the Constitution. I am not going to vote for the flag desecration amendment to the Constitution, where we would allow each State to decide what desecration is and the penalty therefor. What kind of a Constitution would it be where free speech will be determined by each of the 50 States? In one State you get the death penalty for spitting on the flag and another you get a $10 fine for burning one in public. What kind of result would that be? And it is controversial. You ask the ordinary man on the street in America, ``do you favor flag burning?'' ``Of course not. Who does?'' ``Do you favor prayer in school?'' People are sure that they are going to get stricken dead if they say no. You know why people vote for those things? Some of them vote for them honestly. They believe in it. And some of them simply do not want to go home and try to educate their electorate. You know being a legislator requires you to also be an educator. And so here we are, on the Interior appropriations bill, giving away $15.5 billion in gold and silver last night--corporate welfare galore-- and cutting the NEA and NEH. Even with this amendment, those two programs are still cut 30 percent. So what does that mean? A little State like mine that has a fine symphony is going to have to get out and grub it out and try to find some money to make up for what they are going to lose from the National Endowment for the Arts. The Arkansas Repertory Theater, not big but extremely important to a few people, is going to have to go out and try to find the money or have a lot fewer performances. The very things that are so limited, but which make us a more civilized nation, are what we are choosing to cut. Mr. President, most everybody whoever watched PBS knows who David McCullough is. He wrote that magnificent book on Harry Truman. And here is what he said about the NEH. Listen to this poignant quote. When I think of what the National Endowment for the Humanities has done to support gifted young documentary filmmakers like Ken Burns, when I count up the programs in ``The American Experience'' series that have benefited from Endowment funding--38 films thus far, including biographical portraits of such American figures as Eisenhower, FDR, Lindbergh, Duke Ellington, Thurgood Marshall--when I see the magnificent library of America volumes filling shelf after shelf, when I see in libraries and archives the priceless historic documents that have been preserved, all this, the films, the books, the conservation efforts--because of endowment grants, I know absolutely the value of the returns for such government investment. Many years ago I read in Time magazine where the University of Texas was offering a dynamite course on the differences in the philosophies of Virgil's ``Aeneid'' and Homer's ``Ulysses,'' sort of a comparison really of authoritarian versus nonauthoritarian governments. They had room for 224 teachers for a 9-week course at the University of Texas, and they had 4,400 teachers apply for those positions. What a dynamite subject for teachers to pass on to their students about the beginnings of our civilization and how we got to where we are now. So I began to try to get money here for that, because that one was privately funded. We finally got the National Endowment for the Humanities up to the point that last summer, Mr. President, they had 3,250 teachers in those summer seminar courses in philosophy, political science, our beloved Constitution, literature, drama, and art, and they go back and they pass that off to 500,000 youngsters. So many children, particularly those who grow up in small towns like I did, are lucky to ever be exposed to anything that has any cultural enrichment. Turn the networks on tonight and turn on most of the pay- per-view movies, and you know what you get. I would hate to be raising children today. I feel sorry for parents in this environment. I think parents ought to have a right to determine what their children are going to see, and at the rate we are going, they are not going to see ``Mister Rogers,'' Big Bird, and ``Sesame Street.'' Oh, they must be subversive. Why else would we be cutting PBS funding? I remember when I was a sophomore in high school and we were reading ``Beowulf'' we had a literature and English teacher, Miss Doll Means. She let us read a paragraph, and we would talk about that paragraph. I had been reading for a full page, and I looked up because I wondered why she was letting me read longer, and she said: ``You have a nice voice and you read beautifully.'' She did more for my self-esteem in about 3 seconds than anybody, except my father, before or since. It was her saying that to me, plus the fact that I had had some success as a trial lawyer, to jump up out of a town of 1,000 people and run for Governor. My father said public service is the noblest of all callings. I do not know what he would think today. I always thought I wanted my children to follow me in politics. I am not so sure. It was always a given that we would go into public service, and now with the atmosphere, poisoned as it is all across America, people becoming increasingly uncivilized--``thank you'' and ``please'' and ``excuse me'' are words you hardly ever hear anymore. Mr. President, when I went to World War II, I was stuck overseas at the end of the war. One day, I saw a note on the bulletin board: ``If you're interested in Shakespeare, show up at such and such a barracks tonight.'' I thought, I do not know anything about Shakespeare, but it beats sitting around the barracks. So I went. Six marines were there, and the teacher who was going to teach us about Shakespeare, as it turned out, not only was a Shakespearean scholar, but he was a Harvard professor. He had a tape recorder, which at that time was unheard of. I had never seen a tape recorder in my life. You could actually speak into a microphone and listen to your voice come back to you. So he said, ``We'll start off with Hamlet's speech to the players,'' and he did. He had a booming base voice. He said: Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it, as many of your players do, I had as lief the towncrier spoke my lines. That was pretty common. That has been 50 years ago, and I still remember it. He played it back on the tape recorder, and it sounded so beautiful. He said, ``OK, you're first.'' And so I did it, and when he played it back to me, I could not believe I had an Arkansas twang. It was embarrassing to have to listen to it after Miss Doll Means told me I had a wonderful voice. But do you know what? That day, listening to that tape recorder, I made up my mind I was not going to be like everybody else. I was going to learn to speak. I knew English because Miss Doll Means taught me how to diagram sentences and I knew how to speak because it was genetic; my father was a great speaker. I said, ``I'm not going to be like everybody else and just drift through life. I am going to try to be distinct.'' These are personal stories, but they relate to the subject we are debating today. Think of the 500,000 children that are exposed to these teachers who go to these NEH summer seminars. Think of the people who watched ``The Civil War'' series on PBS. Think of the moral stories that children get from ``Mister Rogers'' and ``Sesame Street'', and look at the way people dress and the way they act, and you wonder where this country is headed. You read ``The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' and see if you see any analogies between then and now. Ask yourself why we spend less money on cultural enrichment than any other developed country in the world. I went to the Soviet Union in 1971. I was staggered by how much money that poor country spent on cultural programs, even trying to preserve the history of the czars. Well Mr. President, while my speech may have been too lengthy, I just want everyone to know that I think the reduction in spending on NEA and NEH is a terrible tragedy. I applaud the Senators from Vermont for trying to do something about it. I offered an amendment during subcommittee consideration of the Interior appropriations bill to increase funding for the NEH by $15 million, and we succeeded. I am as proud of that as anything I have done since I have been in the Senate. But it pales in comparison to what we should be doing. Someday--and it may be too late--we are going to understand that funding for NEA and NEH is not wasted money. It is money that makes us a greater Nation. It makes us more civilized. It makes us appreciate where we came from. It is a tragedy that we have to cut it. But I am very pleased to support the amendment to increase the levels of funding in comparison to the House bill. I yield the floor. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Why on Earth did the Senator vote no if he listened?

Mr. BUMPERS. I did not hear the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BUMPERS. With the utmost respect to my friend--he is my friend; we have an excellent relationship on and off the floor--but, honestly, I do not know how anybody could make a statement about fair market value, this kind of fair market value, and keep a straight face. You know what we are talking about here? We are talking about fair market value of the surface. We are talking about fair market value of that 1,850 acres that Barrick paid about $9,000 for. Barrick paid $9,000 for 1,850 acres. That was $5 an acre, I guess. And the Senator from Idaho says he wants them to pay fair market value. Fair market value in that case would have been probably somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Big deal. There is still 11 billion dollars' worth of gold under the 1,850 acres. A Senator came up to me a while ago and said, ``How about this Craig amendment? He says they ought to pay fair market value.'' The only scam I can think of that is worse than what has been going on is to try to make the Senators believe that they are paying fair market value. If they were paying fair market value, they would be paying about $2 billion, not $100,000--$100 an acre. Most of it is probably worth $100 an acre, $200 at the most. You know what the western land looks like when you have grazing? They tell you it is not worth anything. But now they say, fair market value, and never bother to tell you that is just the surface. They are not talking about the 11 billion dollars' worth of gold underneath that surface. That is free. You do not pay for that. Then they say, ``We have got a reverter clause in this amendment. We will give you the mine back when we are finished with it.'' Please, for Pete's sakes. You have already given us 59 Superfund sites back, as well as thousands of other mines that are not on the Superfund list. Do not, for Pete's sake, give us any more. We are liable for up to $40 billion to clean up the ones we have got. And the Senator from Idaho said, ``We are going to give them all back to you when we get through with them.'' Please, do not give them back to us. We cannot afford any more gifts like that. Unhappily, there are very few people in this body that know the issue. I do not know that we would do much better if they all knew it. We all know what is going on here. There are people who are voting against this moratorium because they have a mining industry in their State. I can almost understand that. But there are a lot of Senators over there who do not have any mines in their State. I cannot understand it. The National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste--they all say this is the biggest scam going on in America. They are all opposed to continuing this outrageous giveaway of the public domain. The mining industry argues that we are going to put somebody out of work. Really? Why is it that Montana can charge at least 5 percent of the fair market value for raw metallic minerals on State lands, but if we tried to charge 1 percent on Federal lands, they are all going to shut down and put everybody out of work? How is it that Arizona can charge 2 percent of gross value on State lands, but if you charge them 0.5 percent on Federal lands, they are going to shut down and put everybody out of work? How is it that Utah can charge 4 percent of gross value on nonfissionable metalliferous minerals on Utah State lands and a 2.6 percent taxable value severance tax, but if you charge 1 percent for mining on Federal lands, they are going to shut down and put everybody out of work? Wyoming, 5 percent of gross sales value on gold, silver and trona on State lands, plus a 2 percent of the minemouth value severance tax. If you charge them one red cent on Federal lands, they are going to take their marbles and go home. Oh, my, such cynicism, such hypocrisy while the American taxpayers plead for relief. We do not mind cutting Medicare $270 billion to provide a tax cut. But 16 of the biggest 25 mining companies in America are even foreign owned. I would like to go to England and start putting claims down on British-owned land and say, ``I think I will mine all the minerals off this land.'' You would be in the slammer in about 3 minutes. But here, simply because they have the political clout--everybody knows precisely what this debate is about. And I do not mind people voting up or down and just saying, ``I don't care. I'm not going to vote to stop it.'' But for Pete's sakes, do not put this sham out there about fair market value. There is a lot of natural gas production in my State. Do you think that they get a break when they mine on Federal, State, or private land? Of course not. They pay royalties to the landowner. Look at this chart one more time: Coal, natural gas, oil, they all pay 12.5 percent, except for underground coal, which is 8 percent. The mining companies, because they have the clout and control over Senators where they have operations, continue to pay nothing. For 7 long, agonizing years, I have listened to that argument about how we are going to work this out, we need mining law reform, but if you adopt the Bumpers amendment, it is just going to thwart our efforts. I looked at a colleague letter that went out to every Senator here, saying, ``Senator Bumpers is going to offer that old amendment again and you are going to oppose it. If you adopt that old terrible Bumpers amendment, we will never get mining law reform.'' I have heard that argument for 7 long, agonizing years. And we will hear it again next year and the next year and the next year and the next year--anything to put it off. They will also continue to use ploys, such as charging for the fair market value for the surface, to avoid the issue. Anything to give these guys something to hang their hat on and go home and say to the unsophisticated voter: ``Yes, I voted to make them pay fair market value.'' You will never hear anything about just for the surface, which is worthless. Few understand the issue, one of the reasons why Congress has such a high approval rating in this country. There are a few people who know what is going on. There are a few people who will know that we are cutting programs for the most vulnerable, helpless people in America and providing corporate welfare for the biggest corporations in America. Now, if those are the kind of values you want to go home and tell your folks about, be my guest. We know the die is cast. Three Senators who voted with me in the past did not vote with me tonight or we would have won. I do not know why they changed. All I know is, I did not lose. It is nothing personal to me. The people of this country lost a lot. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. You first. I yielded all but 48 seconds.

Mr. BUMPERS. No. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time be charged equally to both sides.