Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. On rollcall No. 334, I mistakenly voted ``yes'' on what I believed was a motion to table. I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as ``no.'' It will not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just ask the distinguished assistant majority leader if he can tell us how many amendments we are working on. What is the potential for more votes?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Did I understand just now that the order is that since this rollcall vote has been requested by the Senator from Nebraska, we vote on that and that the only pending business left before final will be voted on at 9 o'clock in the morning? Is that correct?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a piece of legislation that will begin a public process for a project of great importance. This legislation would allow for the exchange of lands between the Weyerhaeuser Co., the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This land exchange could, in my view, achieve a number of worthy goals for the environment in my home State of Arkansas and for the State of Oklahoma. It is a bill that I have been working on, and will continue to work on, with the advice and assistance of Senators Pryor, Nickles, and Inhofe, as well as Congressman Brewster of Oklahoma and the entire Arkansas House delegation. First, let me provide a bit of background on this exchange proposal. In 1985, I learned that the Weyerhaeuser Co. had informed the Forest Service that it had thousands of acres of land for sale in Arkansas. These lands included undeveloped timberland adjacent to Lake Ouachita. After a meeting that I had with representatives of the Weyerhaeuser Co., they agreed to withhold the sale to allow me time to work through the appropriations process and acquire environmentally significant lands through the land and water conservation fund for the Ouachita National Forest. The acquisition of lands inside the Lake Ouachita Management Area presents opportunities for more dispersed recreation, wildlife enhancement work, and protection of visual and water quality of the lake. These acquisitions began in 1989 and have continued up through this year. As a result of these acquisitions, the Government has been able to acquire almost 40,000 acres of some of the best forest lands I have seen. Since the acquisition program started, the bald eagle has become established on Lake Ouachita. In addition, habitat is provided for the red-cockaded woodpecker, Southern lady slipper, and Arkansas fat mucket mussel. The area is popular for deer, turkey, and small game hunting. While it would be nice to continue acquiring lands through the land and water conservation fund, that is just not a practical strategy. I know that some of my constituents do not like the concept of a land exchange because it means some lands leave Federal ownership and, under this proposal, would go to the Weyerhaeuser Co. However, reality is that this Government has a budget deficit, and funds for land acquisition have been decreasing for several years. In fact, the money that has been dedicated to land acquisition of the Weyerhaeuser property has fallen steadily since 1991. The decrease of funds has not resulted from my lack of interest in this area. It is due to the fact that Federal dollars are scarce for the kind of environmental enhancement I would like to see. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress, the Federal Government, land owners and interest groups to be creative about how we can reach mutual goals for conservation. I challenged the Weyerhaeuser Co. to work with me in finding such an opportunity, and I believe they have taken a good step toward such an effort. I know Senator Nickles offered the same challenge. As a result, for the past year, the Weyerhaeuser Co., the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have been working to determine if a mutually agreed upon land exchange proposal could be achieved. The bill today represents the result of that preliminary effort. Pursuant to this legislation, the State of Arkansas would gain approximately 25,000 acres for a national wildlife refuge. This unique bottomland forest called Pond Creek is located in the floodplain between the Cossatot River and the Little River. It is extremely rich and diverse in wetland habitat for wading birds, resident and migratory waterfowl, small mammals, deer, fish, alligators, and other wildlife. I understand that there are four bird rookeries there, used by herons, egrets, and other birds. This land would become part of the Cossatot National Wildlife Refuge. Arkansas would also benefit by acquiring lands that would complement Lake Ouachita; the Little Missouri Wild and Scenic River; Flatside Wilderness, and parts of the Ouachita National Forest. These acquisitions would enhance recreational opportunities for hiking, rock climbing and mountain bicycling. It would protect watersheds, and help block up ownership that is currently intermingled between the Weyerhaeuser Co. and the Forest Service. In the State of Arkansas, approximately 30,000 acres would be added to the Ouachita National Forest. In Oklahoma, the exchange would add more than 100,000 acres to the Ouachita National Forest through the addition of lands around Lake Broken Bow. This lake is similar to Lake Ouachita--very beautiful, and worthy of protection. I will work closely with my colleagues in the Senate and House from Oklahoma to ensure that this legislation fits with their goals for the area. To summarize, through this exchange the Federal Government stands to receive almost 160,000 acres of land that is currently owned by the Weyerhaeuser Co. I want to emphasize that I have personally viewed this property and believe it is worthy for consideration in this land exchange bill. Of course, Weyerhaeuser will also receive something in this exchange through the acquisition of approximately 28,000 acres of the Tiak district of the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma and approximately 20,000 acres in Arkansas. This is land currently under timber management, and would continue under timber management by the Weyerhaeuser Co. I have inquired into the company's forest practices and understand that these lands would be managed in conjunction with its recently adopted Forestry Resource Goals. These goals strengthen and reinforce the company's commitment to continue protecting water quality and fish habitat in carrying out forest management, providing habitat for wildlife associated with managed forests, using scientifically based practices to protect soil stability and ensuring long term soil productivity; and considering aesthetics in forest practices as they manage forestlands for sustainable production of wood and other forest products. I understand that the Weyerhaeuser practices go beyond the guidelines of State Best Management Practices [BMP's], and that it has a good neighbor policy that calls for carefully considering the concerns of adjacent landowners and host communities. There are several issues I would like to address. First, is the concern that Weyerhaeuser is merely trading away cutover lands. I have toured the exchange area and seen first hand the quality of lands that the Forest Service has been receiving through the land and water conservation fund, as well as the lands that Weyerhaeuser would transfer to the Government. These are some of the best forests I have seen, and they deserve to be in Federal ownership. Currently, the Arkansas Nature Conservancy has scientists conducting an ecological assessment of all of the Weyerhaeuser lands that would come into Federal ownership. I am anxious to see the result of this work, and it will be important for Congress to review this proposal as the bill moves ahead. I plan to hold hearings on this very topic so that we can all understand the environmental impact of the land exchange. While we know a great deal about the lands currently in Federal ownership that would go to Weyerhaeuser, this assessment will help us learn more information about the quality of lands owned by Weyerhaeuser that would go to the Ouachita National Forest for management. I understand that preliminary data show that this land provides habitat for a number of sensitive species and serves important watersheds. A question has arisen about whether this exchange would be a value- for-value exchange. I can assure my colleagues that this exchange would be a value-for-value exchange. I understand that the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Weyerhaeuser Co., have contracted with an independent land appraiser to determine the values of the land and ensure that land is traded on a value-for-value basis. That is, the total value of the land, timber and other economic resources that the Federal Government would give up will equal the total value that it receives from Weyerhaeuser. Determining resource values will involve surveys, land appraisals, timber cruises, mineral and [[Page S 9807]] geologic assessments. As with any other business transaction, evaluations would be based on such items as recent comparable sales and current market values. These will provide an economically sound basis for discussion and negotiation--even for areas where the highest and best land uses may be environmental, recreational, or aesthetic rather than economic. I plan to be sure that the land values will be established precisely before this legislation is enacted. Concerns have also been raised about whether or not hunting and fishing will be allowed in the Cossatot National Wildlife Refuge. I believe that as long as hunting and fishing can be conducted in a manner that is compatible with sound wildlife management, then it makes sense to allow this and other forms of recreation. One issue that I am committed to working on with my colleagues from Oklahoma is an issue regarding the school districts in McCurtain County. I understand that under the current land exchange proposal, two school districts--Haworth and Tom--would lose money they presently receive under current allocations from the timber receipt payments. I know these timber receipt payments are important to the operation of these school districts and look forward to finding an equitable solution to this situation. Then there is the issue of minerals. Because of the acreage imbalance, the exchange would result in approximately 100,000 acres of Weyerhaeuser minerals being located under the lands to be conveyed to the Federal Government. At my request, Weyerhaeuser Co. has met with the Forest Service to come up with a recommendation that could be agreed to by all parties. The result of these discussions includes a proposal whereby Weyerhaeuser would trade all Forest Service mineral rights--approximately 50,000 acres--for an equivalent amount of acreage of Weyerhaeuser mineral rights when the surface is exchanged. The Weyerhaeuser hardrock minerals, which means all minerals except oil and gas, on all of the property Weyerhaeuser conveys to the Government, would be conveyed at the time of the surface exchange. However, Weyerhaeuser will reserve oil and gas rights on the acres for 45 years. Ownership by Weyerhaeuser of all oil and gas rights within any section containing a producing oil or gas well would extend beyond 45 years for as long as production continued. Weyerhaeuser would also reserve a proportionally reduced 6.25 percent of 8/8's overriding royalty interest in all oil and/or gas produced from any well located within the eight governmental sections immediately surrounding any section in which well is producing as of December 31, 2041. Finally, let me say Mr. President that this proposal has a great deal of support. It is supported in concept by the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. It has the support of the Arkansas Nature Conservancy and the Oklahoma Wildlife Federation to name but a few. I was particularly encouraged recently by the statement of the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, James Lyons. When I asked him about the exchange in an Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, he said ``I think it is a good exchange for the taxpayers and for Weyerhaeuser, and certainly for the State of Arkansas''. I would encourage anyone who has concerns about this proposal to contact Weyerhaeuser and the Forest Service and take the time to tour the proposed lands for exchange. It was time well spend for me, and I would highly recommend it. I would emphasize that I want to hear from my constituents about this proposal. I want to hear about what they like and what they don't like so that I can be sure that the public process we are beginning today will benefit from their views. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the great French philosopher Voltaire once said, ``History doesn't repeat itself, men do.'' So here we go again, precisely as Voltaire said, plowing the same ground, the same way we did in 1981, and it will be a few years from now before we can stand on the floor and say, ``I told you so.'' In 1981, I stood right here at this desk and fought like a saber- toothed tiger to keep us from quadrupling the deficit. But there was a herd instinct that swept across this floor, and only 11 Senators--only 11--stood up for common sense. What did we get? We got a deficit which grew to $290 billion in 1992, and which accumulated over the years into today's $4.6 trillion national debt. This chart shows what the Republicans promised in 1981. They were going to balance the budget in 1983, no later than 1984, and here is where they said the deficit would go--down toward zero. Between 1984 and 1985, they said, we would have a balanced budget. ``How do you reach a balanced budget?'' we asked. ``You double defense spending and cut taxes,'' they said. That was their method of balancing the budget. What happened? Here it is. By 1983, we had a $200 billion deficit. Even those of us who were terrified by the 1981 budget changes would never have guessed that could happen. David Stockman, President Reagan's head of OMB, wrote a book about that. Here it is. It is called ``The Triumph of Politics,'' and he wrote it in 1986, after the damage had been done. In the book he says that the 1981 Reagan budget plan was all done on the back of an envelope. Where were the numbers coming from, he asked? People kept putting things on his desk that he did not understand. Stockman was a friend of Senator Moynihan because he had studied under Senator Moynihan while in college. And in his book, Stockman relates a conversation he had over dinner with the Senator and Mrs. Moynihan on September 24, 1981 after the damage of the Reagan tax cuts had already been done. Stockman says he told Moynihan, ``You guys on the hill are going to have to rescue this. We went too far with the tax cut and now I can't get them to turn back.'' And Moynihan responds, ``I am not sure whether anything can be done about it.'' And so the damage continued to pyramid. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected President. President Clinton came to this body in 1993 with a proposal to raise taxes by $250 billion and cut spending by $250 billion, and we passed it, without one single Republican vote in the House and without one single Republican vote in the Senate. And this chart shows where the deficit was when President Clinton made his proposal. It was headed for a $300 billion deficit in 1992. We had nearly a $300 billion deficit. The Republicans said the Clinton proposal would be a disaster for the Nation and would bring on a terrible depression. The predictions were ominous and endless. But what happened? The deficit, the first year, went from $300 billion to $255 billion; the next year, to $203 billion; and this year to $175 billion, without one single Republican vote. So here we are. We cannot stand to admit the success of that. So we have this budget here. I daresay I could walk down the streets of Little Rock and pick out 535 people at random, bring them to Washington, put 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, and I promise you that we could come out with a better budget, a more compassionate budget, and a fairer budget, than this one. I heard a Congressman say the other day that there is ``plenty of pain in this for everybody.'' Really? Pain for everybody? What about Members of Congress? Where is their pain? Where is the pain of people who can afford to send their children to school without Pell grants and student loans? The one thing that will restore some sense of decency, civility, culture, and social fabric in this country is education. You can stand on this floor and moralize all you want. You are not going to force people to go to church by moralizing with them. You are not going to force people to quit having babies out of wedlock by moralizing with them. You are going to solve all of these problems by educating people. The one thing Joycelyn Elders said--and it is not popular to quote her these days, but this is worth repeating--when they asked, ``What are you going to do about this generation?'' She said, ``Nothing, they are already lost. I am going after the next generation.'' Well, I do not totally agree with that, but I can tell you that is where our money ought to be spent--on the coming generation. So what are we going to do? Cut $11 billion out of education for the next 7 years and stand back and ask why our children are not learning. What else? Why, we are going to deny 350,000 children the right to Headstart. Everybody knows what Headstart means to children, particularly from poverty areas. So what are we going to do? Sorry, we are closed. What else? Two things that we fund here are, for some reason, such an anathema to most Republicans. I watch public broadcasting and Discovery and Arts and Entertainment. I do not watch sitcoms. I do not know any of those people. I do not say that boastingly. It just does not interest me. I have an intense curiosity about everything, and I am interested in knowledge; I want to learn all I can before I die--and that is not too far away. But I am still curious about everything, so I watch the Learning Channel and the channels where I am likely to learn something, not the channels where I know I am not going to learn anything. So what do the Republicans propose? Eliminate PBS. Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. ``Well, Senator, you favor pornography, or you must if you favor the National Endowment for the Arts.'' No, I do not favor pornography. But I am hot to keep the Arkansas symphony afloat. I am hot to keep the Arkansas Repertory Theater afloat. I am hot to see people in small rural communities of this Nation get exposed to Shakespeare now and then. I deplore the Mapplethorpe exhibit as much as the Presiding Officer or any other Senator. It is like welfare--eight percent rip off. You cannot design a program that somebody is not going to corrupt. So two of the few civil, decent culturally enriching things in this Nation, public broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts, they go on the block. Earned-income tax credit. You think about the earned-income tax credit, which everybody considers to be the greatest program ever invented to keep people off welfare. This is where people who make less than $28,000 a year get a refundable credit of up to $2,200 a year, on a sliding scale. We make money off of it because we keep them off welfare. Is that what Dale Bumpers says? No. That is what Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, said. What did he say about the earned income tax credit? ``It is a great way to help families with the costs of raising their children. It sends assistance to those in need; to those who work hard and yet struggle to make a living and provide for their children.'' That was Senator Domenici, not Dale Bumpers. This is what Senator Packwood said: ``A key means of helping low-income workers with dependent children get off and stay off welfare.'' Those are Senator Packwood's words. This is what President Reagan said: ``The best antipoverty, the best profamily, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.'' So what do we do to that? About $21 billion is whacked off of it in this budget resolution. Family values. I must tell you that I get sick listening to the moralizing about family values from the same people who choose to torpedo the best program we have going to help families stay together and stay off welfare. What else are we going to do? We are going to sell the Presidio, the most magnificent piece of property left in America. The old Fort Presidio goes on the auction block. What else? We are going to sell the naval petroleum reserves, which we have always relied on in a time of military crisis. The naval petroleum reserve. We are going to sell it to the highest bidder. What else? We are going to privatize all those people who are in the towers at the airports who guide our planes. We are going to privatize them. It will run for profit in the future--not for safety necessarily, but for profit. What else? We are going to sell the Uranium Enrichment Corporation and the Power Marketing Administration which make the Government money. We will get a pretty good amount of revenue in the year that we sell those programs, but then we will fail to get the annual revenue that we are getting now. What else? We are getting down to the bone now, Mr. President. We are going to cut Medicare $270 billion. How are we going to do that? We are going to reform Medicare. How are we going to reform it? Nobody knows. Nobody has said. We can either bankrupt every rural hospital in America, which we would do in my State, cut doctors' fees to the point they do not want to participate in the program anymore, or assess every single Medicare recipient in the country $3,345 over the next 7 years. Medicaid, the poorest of the poor, we are going to increase 4 percent. It has been increasing by 10 percent. What will happen? We will do block grants to the States and we will have 50 different programs for Medicaid. Mr. President, all 100 people who sit in this body get a nice fat check every month, $133,000 a year. A lot of them never dreamed they would make that much. I guess I am one of them. We get $133,000 a year. We have a nice, fat, cushy pension waiting to retire. But we have a health care plan second to none. Any doctor or hospital in this city is more than pleased to see a Member of Congress come in because they know our plan will pay for everything. But do you know what we forget? We forget that 37 million people in this country are over 65, and 50 percent of them go to bed terrified at night for fear they will get sick and not be able to pay their medical bills. We in Congress have no such fears. What are we going to do? We are going to give a $245 billion tax cut. Not a middle-class tax cut. I cannot believe people have the temerity to call this a middle-class tax cut. This tax cut, at least the House tax cut, goes to virtually the wealthiest people in America. What in the name of God are we thinking about? Seventy percent of the people of this country say, ``Don't spend that $245 billion on tax cuts.'' If you can come up with $245 billion, put it on the deficit. Mr. President, what is next? Defense--the Senate Armed Services Committee is this day marking up a bill that is calculated to do one thing: that is to gin up the cold war one more time. More B-2 bombers. For whom? Whom are we going to bomb? Even new battleships--two battleships. All kinds of things the Defense Department, even the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, say they do not want. We in Congress will teach the Joint Chiefs a thing or two about military battles. Imagine Senators telling old people we are cutting Medicare by $270 billion and telling poor people we are cutting Medicaid by $180 billion. What do we say to the Defense Department? Have it all; just have what you want. Do you want to kill the ABM treaty so the Russians have no choice but to start rearming? Do you want to build all the weapons systems that really have no meaning in today's world? Here is the proof of the pudding. The United States is spending $280 billion this year, counting the Energy Department's budget, on defense; the eight biggest military nations on Earth outside NATO--Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, our most likely adversaries--the combined total budgets of all eight nations is $121 billion. We are spending twice as much in the United States alone as our eight most likely adversaries combined. When we add NATO spending of $250 billion, the United States and NATO are spending four times more than all these nations combined. Mr. President, this sounds like sheer lunacy, because it is. In a few days, the Budget Committee will send over all their mandatory spending instructions to the committees to report back to them by September 22. Then CBO will certify that the budget really will be in balance in the year 2002. Then the Budget Committee will tell the Finance Committee, ``Come up with a big tax cut of $245 billion over the next 7 years,'' and then the Budget Committee will combine all of this mandatory savings legislation with a tax cut bill, and it is all going to be passed in one fell swoop. What does that mean? That means that we will pass a tax cut this fall. We will pass this budget, and all the appropriations bills that go with it, and then we will be free to have an immediate tax cut. Then next year, it will require only 51 votes to undo every bit of our balanced budget. If we have a recession, a war, if we have a trade war, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, every Senator in this body will fall all over himself to vote to pay for every bit of it, and there goes our balanced budget because we will have already passed a $245 billion tax cut. Mr. President, we are back to square one. I know my time is about to expire. I wanted to say some other things. I just want to close by making a couple of observations. This budget is guaranteed not to solve the problems of this Nation. This budget tells the American people only one thing: That it has been crafted with the utmost cynicism to keep people's attention diverted just long enough to get this tax cut passed. When we pass a tax cut, think of who will feel the pain. Here is the chart. On capital gains alone, 76.3 percent of the capital gains tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of people in America--76 percent to the wealthiest 5 percent of people in America. If that is what America is about, somehow or another, I missed it all. You could not hold a gun to my head and make me vote for this budget. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by the quorum not be charged against the resolution.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. We are all victims of our own personal experiences. So I will tell you about mine. I was a freshman at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. My brother was up at Harvard Law School. Both of us were there on the GI bill because I promise you my father could not afford that kind of education for us. One Sunday evening, I got this phone call that my mother and father had been in a car wreck, and the message was obviously tempered. But I got on a plane the first thing the next morning and flew home. It was tough to get home to Fort Smith, AR, from Chicago back in those days. But to shorten the story, my father owned a small farm over in Oklahoma, just across the Arkansas River from where we lived. He and my mother and a couple next door had gone over to look at the spinach, which was coming up, and they were going to start harvesting it the next day. They were coming back and were 10 miles west of Fort Smith, AR, on what is now I-40--this is the transportation bill. They were on an 18-foot narrow highway with no shoulders, and they came up over a slight hill, just a slight incline, at about dusky-dark--the wrong time, wrong place--roaring drunk, whom a cop had been chasing, but he had a flat tire and he lost him. He went over on my father's side of the road and, blam, our neighbor next door was killed instantly, and my mother died 2 days later. And my father died 5 days later. I have often wondered about how we establish death penalties in this country. You could not have taken an AK-47 and more deliberately killed my mother and father than to get behind the wheel of an automobile roaring drunk and, in a split second, destroy our family. So I have no problem supporting this amendment, the Byrd amendment, and any other amendment that anybody wants to offer dealing with this subject. As I was about to say a moment ago, this is a transportation bill. Almost precisely where my mother and father were killed, today is I-40. If I-40 had been there then, my mother and father would have lived a normal lifespan and we would have had the happiness that should have been ours for at least another 20 years. So I speak in favor of these magnificent highways we have today that give us some protection. As you know, the death rate on interstate highways is about 80 percent less than it is on all the other two-lane highways, because you do not have to worry about some drunk coming over a hill on the wrong side of the road. So I am pleased that we are trying to improve our highways in this country and give people like my father an opportunity not to have to face drunken drivers who do not have any better judgment than to get roaring drunk. And, as I say, surely as if he had an AK-47 in his hands, he could not have killed those three people any more efficiently. Why not the death penalty? I have always struggled with the death penalty, I admit it. I voted for it. It has always been a problem. But I have never been able to see the distinction between the people we provide the death penalty for and the guy who served 5 years in the penitentiary for killing my mother and father and their best friend next door. I will yield the floor and say that I strongly support the Senator from North Dakota, and I strongly support the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1453 (Purpose: To provide for the transfer of funds between certain demonstration projects in Louisiana)

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. And while I want to support the foreign policy of the President and the Secretary of State, we may very well have reached the time--the President made a compelling point the other day in support of his position. Everybody says our policy in Bosnia now is an unmitigated disaster. The President responds by saying, in 1993, I guess it was, 92,000 people were killed in Bosnia. In 1994, 3,000 were killed. So it is difficult to say the policy is an unmitigated disaster when that many lives are being saved. But there is not any question, the six Bosnian Moslem enclaves, are threatened. They are going to starve. Something is going to happen. Some of them have not been resupplied in months, and something is going to have to give. I am almost of the opinion that perhaps we should withdraw. While we might not be, as a nation, actively involved in arming Bosnian Moslems, other nations are perfectly willing to do that if we can figure out a way to get the weapons to them. That does not mean that war is going to reach a stalemate. It does not mean the Bosnian Moslems are going to be winners ultimately. But at least it would help equalize the sides. The thing is totally unfair now to them.

Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely. The Senator makes a very, very compelling point that I should have started off with. So, to allow a member nation to be systematically choked to death while other U.N. members, as well as NATO, essentially look on and allow it to happen is totally unacceptable. Either we get involved or we get out. I doubt very seriously the people of this country would stand very long for our entry into the war. I saw a poll last week that said 61 percent of the people in this country are now saying they would not oppose the introduction of American ground troops in Bosnia. I do not happen to be a member of that 61 percent, because I realize what a sticky wicket this can be. But I was shocked by that number. Mr. President, I found the Senate in a quorum call and I thought I would just make these few comments regarding those two issues. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Now, Mr. President, I want to make a point on a different subject that has been discussed here several times today dealing with Bosnia. I heard the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, a moment ago. I must say I thought the Senator made some very cogent points about what the United States role should be. [[Page S 8613]] Even though I have steadfastly opposed the introduction of ground forces in Bosnia, I think the British and the French are on fairly solid ground when they chastise the United States for trying to tell them how to conduct themselves there. And they remind us periodically, that we have not been facing the same kind of threat they have. They are the ones who have had their troops taken hostage. They are the people who have had people killed. We have not. If it is determined that we are going to withdraw the UNPROFOR forces from Bosnia, then I think the United States has a role to play. I am not sure, and I am not prepared today to define it in any detail, but certainly in my opinion we have a financial role to play. We have been neglecting our dues to the United Nations because there is a trend in this country that thinks that somehow or another the United Nations is subversive. I watched some of that militia hearing the other day. I never heard as many cockamamie theories in my life in such a short period of time about what a terrible Government we have. I wanted to ask, why is everybody in the world scratching and clawing and swimming the ocean to try to get here, if it is such a terrible place? Back to Bosnia. We have an obligation. We are part of NATO. We are part of the United Nations. We have not been nearly as diligent as we should be in our commitment to our dues to the United Nations, or paying for the peacekeeping operation. I think the Senator from New York will be much more familiar with this than I am, but as far as I know, the part of our dues we are furthest behind on is in the peacekeeping area. Yet we have championed all of these peacekeeping operations. I spent a day at the United Nations a couple of years ago, and at that time I was shocked to find the United Nations has something like-- I hesitate to say--20, 25 peacekeeping operations going on in the world right now. We only know about the Golan Heights, and Bosnia, and some of the more visible areas, but the United Nations has peacekeeping operations all over the world, trying to keep people from fighting. A very laudable undertaking. Let me remind those people who always want to denigrate the United Nations and the whole concept of world cooperation that time and again on this floor I have applauded President George Bush for going to the United Nations and getting that body's approval of Desert Storm and for recruiting a lot of the countries in the United Nations to assist in that operation. It was essentially a U.S. effort, but we had tremendous help from other nations because we were operating as a group of nations that the United Nations had endorsed for this operation. Now, I have about reached the conclusion. About the time I wrote an op-ed piece in my own State newspaper, I read an article by Tom Friedman in the New York Times. Tom Friedman had been in Lebanon and wrote a magnificent book called ``From Beirut to Jerusalem.'' A magnificent book. He pointed it out in this New York Times piece last week, that in Bosnia, as in Lebanon, we have religion as one of the centrally dividing issues--they are not different ethnically. It is my understanding during the Ottoman Empire the Turks said to the Bosnians, ``You may be blond and blue-eyed but you will be Moslem.'' I can tell the Senator from New York is not agreeing with me on that. He is the historian, so it must not have been the Ottoman Empire. It may have been later.

Mr. BUMPERS. I was not quoting Tom Friedman on that point.

Mr. BUMPERS. Perhaps so. But his bottom line was when the Serbs and the Bosnian Moslems tire of fighting each other, they will reach some kind of an accord.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I was disturbed, almost alarmed, when I saw that the new President of France had said that France was going to conduct eight nuclear tests. It is not at all certain, from the press releases I have seen, what the magnitude of those tests will be--that is, how much plutonium will be used and what the kilotonnage will be. Second, I would like to say that I think President Chirac is off to a very bad start. The precedent that he is setting is certainly going to influence people in this country who, for no sound reason, think we should also begin testing again. And sure enough, this morning, I read an account--I think maybe from Reuters--that our Secretary of Defense, William Perry, has said that he is getting ready to present the President with a series of options for resuming tests, from 4 pounds of plutonium to a full-scale test. He does not say how many tests will be conducted. But the argument is the same as that being used by France, that is, we have to determine the reliability of our deployed weapons and our stockpiles. Now, bear in mind, Mr. President, that we test our ballistic missiles every year. I have been arguing on the floor of the Senate for 3 years that we are buying more D-5 missiles than we can possibly use on our Trident submarines. And in my arguments, I have always insisted that the number I think we should procure is not only adequate for the purposes, but also allows the Defense Department to continue testing anywhere from three to five D-5 missiles every year to determine their reliability. I understand that this falls in the category of things that the Defense Department would like to do but does not have to do. We are coming up on a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which is supposed to go into effect in 1996, and we are all trying to get under the wire now with these little tests which were portrayed as to be ``so small as to be insignificant,'' at least for the French, just prior to asking every other nation to be good scouts and obey what has been agreed to in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I hope the President of the United States will have the courage to do what he did the first year he was in office and say, ``No more testing.'' He first said no testing for 15 months. When 15 months was over, he said no more testing, indefinitely. This is an indefinite ban on testing by the United States. He no more had the words out of his mouth, and the Defense Department says it is absolutely essential to determine the reliability of our weapons, and we must start testing all over again. Now, Mr. President, I will say, I know the makeup of this body. I know the makeup of the House. Unless the President says ``No,'' and is prepared to stick with it, we will start testing. That sends a message to every two-bit dictator in the world. We have been pleading with nations that we know are involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons, we have been pleading with them ``Don't do it.'' Now what kind of a message does it send to those same nations when we start testing again? The United States and France will be the two most irresponsible nations on the planet Earth--if we join France and start testing again. I do not intend to call the President. He has a lot of things to do. He knows my feelings about it. I have discussed it with him on previous occasions. I just think it would be a terrible thing for the United States, a terrible precedent, here 1 year away from the implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator makes my point better than I made it myself. I must say, the Senator has given me a piece of information, as closely as I try to follow this issue, that I did not realize, and that is that India has never tested since their first test. With some respect, we expect this sort of thing from the Chinese. In the world diplomacy, the Chinese have never been quite as concerned as to how the nations of the world community might feel about what they do. They test when they are ready. As far as I know, China is the only nation that has tested since the President took that bold initiative in 1993. It does not endear them to me, but they have always danced to their own tune, marched to their own drummer. I thought it was irresponsible for them to start testing, but be that as it may, our thinking about testing sends a terrible signal to every nation on Earth. It seems we are doing our very best to torpedo both the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I might also say, incidentally, on the other side of the coin, once India tested, Pakistan decided it needed nuclear weapons. The Senator is all too familiar with the problems we have with Pakistan and India, now. It is never ending. The Pakistanis will never be satisfied until they think they are coequal in the nuclear game with India. Every time somebody joins the field, some other nation that has a 1,000-year history of animosity with that nation immediately goes to work--Iran and Iraq, and so it goes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I remember it well.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes on the bill but not on the amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to say that I have concluded, after considerable debate with myself, not to vote for this bill on final passage. It was not a decision easily reached. This is an immensely complex bill. Frankly, there are very few Senators in the U.S. Senate who really understand the full complexity and ramifications of this bill. My decision is not based on whether or not the baby Bells can get into the long distance telephone market. That is a problem for me. But it is not nearly the problem of the unlimited power of people owning an unlimited number of radio stations and television stations, which I consider to be highly dangerous. I heard the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, this morning say that Thomas Jefferson once asked which would he choose between a free government and a free press? He said he would always take a free press because you cannot have a free government without a free press. These airwaves of radio and television stations can only be allocated by the Government. You cannot allow people willy-nilly to take a particular channel in the airwaves for a radio or television station. That is what the Federal Communications Commission was set up to do, allocate those things. And for years the Government gave away billions and billions of dollars' worth of television station channels and radio station channels. It has only been in recent years that the Government has decided it was being taken and it ought to start making people bid at public auction for those airwaves. Incidentally, it has helped a great deal in our efforts to balance the budget. We have been getting billions of dollars for radio and television station channels on the airwaves. There was a time not too long ago in this country when you were prohibited from owning a television station and a newspaper in the same community. Now, under this bill, you can own 500 radio stations, 1,000 radio stations. You can own as many television stations as you want, as long as you do not control more than 35 percent of the market as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Can you imagine some people--I will leave it to your imagination, and I will leave it to your imagination as to who it may be--can you imagine some of the people in this country who are very big in telecommunications owning 1,000 radio stations; 100 television stations? Let us face it, the newspapers are not nearly as powerful as the television stations. It is a concentration of communications power that I think is dangerous to the country. So I believe that some ideological bent or belief, not an empirical belief but an ideological belief, a philosophical belief that the free market will solve this problem--turn them all loose to buy and sell these stations however they will--it has not even worked in a lot of the rest of our society. That is the reason we have an antitrust division down at the Justice Department. It was the very reason Teddy Roosevelt saw that the people were suffering from the gigantic trusts of his day. So from that evolved the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act and all the other acts that protect people from what can become a tyranny. I think it was Madison who said--and I sometimes wonder what James Madison would think today--but it was James Madison who said the Congress, the Congress is what stands between the people and what would otherwise surely become a tyrannical leader, tyrannical government. Mr. President, for all of those reasons history tells me we are about to make a colossal mistake that will be very difficult to undo when we discover it someplace down the road. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the just concluded 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, and especially to 18 of my fellow Arkansas who traveled a great distance at personal expense to participate in this conference. These delegates took time away from their work and their families to represent the Arkansas business community and are to be commended for their dedication and sacrifice. The Arkansas business owners who attended the conference as national delegates and their respective businesses are as follows: J. Baker, Baker Car and Truck Rental, Inc., Little Rock; Bob Boyd, Boyd Music and Pro Sound, Inc., Little Rock; Greg Brown, Union Bancshares of Benton, Inc., Benton; Mel Coleman, North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Salem; Dexter Doyne, Doyne Construction Company, Inc., North Little Rock; Bill Ferren, B-B-F Oil Company, Inc., Pine Bluff; Michael Jackson, Jackson Development Group, Brinkley; Thomas Jacoway, Artran, Inc., Springdale; Phyllis Kinnaman, P.K. Interiors, Little Rock; Charles Mazander, Mazander Engineered Equipment, Inc., Little Rock; Bruce McFadden, Improved Construction Methods, Inc., Jacksonville; Ron McFarlane, Process 1500, Inc., Little Rock; Mary Rebick, Copy Systems, Little Rock; Mary Gay Shipley, That Bookstore, Blytheville; Walter Thayer, Walter Thayer & Associates, Inc., Little Rock; Daniel Warmack, Warmack and Company, Fort Smith; and George White, Delta Vending Enterprises, West Helena. Mr. President, the 1995 White House Conference was created by a Congress and President who care about small business--specifically, a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. In 1993, small business in this country was responsible for 50 percent of the gross domestic product, while employing 54 percent of the American work force. This conference was attended by approximately 2,500 delegates from around the country to discuss the most pressing issues facing small businesses. Although political circumstances have changed, the President and Congress still deeply care about the views and interests of small business owners. Recently, President Clinton signed into law a reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1992, a law that was originally proposed by the first White House Conference on Small Business during the Carter administration in 1980. Recognizing the important role that the Small Business Administration plays in promoting the entrepreneurial spirit, Congress has said no to proposals to abolish that agency. I am proud to say that last year SBA was directly responsible for stimulating $10.6 billion in small business growth while spending only $232 million of American taxpayer money--an amount, I might add, less than the taxes paid by three companies that started with SBA loans--Intel, Apple, and Federal Express. It's time to listen again to the backbone of our country. In the weeks to come, the White House Conference delegates will be sending their suggestions for the future of small business to both the President and the Congress. On behalf of the 18 delegates from my home state, I urge this Congress to take a close look at their suggestions and debate the legislative agenda set forth by the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business.