Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first I want to pay tribute to my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, who has indeed made a monumental effort to bring a balanced budget to the floor of the Senate. I consider Pete Domenici a good friend. We seldom vote together, but we banter back and forth in a friendly way. And what he did in bringing this budget to the floor was not easy. [[Page S6894]] If you ask the American people, ``Do you understand this budgeting process?''--the answer would be no. It is a very arcane procedure. People in the U.S. Senate do not understand it, let alone the 260 million people in America. But if you would also ask the people of America, ``What do you want more than anything else?''--they would say, ``We would like to hear a lot less partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans. We would like to see those two parties hold hands for a change and provide a final budget.'' That is a nonnegotiable demand by the people of this country, and it is a legitimate demand. But we have two parties. The reason we have two parties is because we do not agree. I consider this budget to be a virtual assault on the most vulnerable, exposed people in America. It is an assault on education. It is an assault on working people. And above all, it is an assault on the elderly people who depend on Medicare, and who are terrified. When they hear us continue to talk about it, they wonder: Do they have a future? Is their health care going to be provided for, or is it not? Before I go any further, Mr. President, I want to also say something to my friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. I have never, in the 20 years I have been in the Senate, heard a Member of the U.S. Senate say, ``Where is Bill?'' ``Where is George?'' ``Where is Ron?'' I consider that to be the exemplification of the growing incivility of the people in this country towards each other, the lack of respect that people have for each other. Nobody could have disagreed with Ronald Reagan more than I did, and I stood right here in this spot. But you never heard me say, ``Where is Ron?'' The President of the United States deserves the respect of everybody. The office and the man who holds it deserve our respect. And, above all, he deserves not to be called in a denigrating way by his first name on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He has been a good friend of mine for 20 years, and I might occasionally say ``Bill Clinton.'' But it would benefit all of us to show more respect for the Presidency of the United States. Mr. President, I might also say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who was saying, ``Where is Bill?''--Where was the Senator from Pennsylvania when he was a Member of the House of Representatives in 1993, when President Clinton was cajoling, begging, pleading with both Houses of Congress to cut the deficit by $500 billion which, incidentally, turned out to be a $600 billion cut? Where was the Senator from Pennsylvania? Where was every single Republican in the House of Representatives and every single Republican in the United States Senate? Well, to coin a phrase, AWOL. You could not find them with a search warrant. They said, ``You are raising taxes.'' Everybody jumped under their desk on that side. And the Vice President had to come and cast the deciding vote. Every single one of the 44 Republican Senators voted no. Do you think I enjoyed voting for a tax increase? I did not even enjoy voting for the budget cuts. But had it not been for the courage of President Clinton and the Democrats in this body and the House of Representatives, we would be here not debating a $1 trillion cut between now and the year 2002; we would be debating a $2 trillion cut. Where were they? Here we have this draconian budget which, as I say, is an assault on the most vulnerable people in America: Our youngsters who want to be educated, lower-class working people, and the elderly. Even Medicaid. Of the roughly 25 million people in this country who are eligible for Medicaid, 10 million to 12 million of them are blind, disabled, and elderly. Oh, yes, and the Republicans are lining up the votes to cut those programs. Why? To preserve the Contract With America, in the House, which would cut taxes by $371 billion by the year 2002, and in the Senate bill, $170 billion very carefully set aside for a tax cut for the wealthiest, not for the people we are assaulting, but for the wealthiest in America, those who do not need our help. We are always hearing what the American people want. Here is a poll by USA Today taken December 20, 1994: ``If Congress is able to cut spending, where should it go?'' Seventy percent say deficit reduction, 3 times more people than say they want a tax cut. It just shows you the American people are not selfish. They want a balanced budget. They would like a tax cut, of course. But given an option between the two they will take a balanced budget every time. I heard the same arguments in 1981 that I have heard here all day today. In 1981, they said we will balance the budget by cutting spending, cutting taxes, and raising defense spending. And I said about an hour before we voted on that, ``You pass this and you will create deficits big enough to choke a mule.'' And I was wrong. They were big enough to choke an elephant. Senator Bradley of New Jersey, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, and yours truly were 3 of only 11 Senators who voted for the spending cuts and against the tax cuts. Mr. President, we would be sitting here tonight enjoying not only a surplus but drawing interest on it if 51 people in the Senate had voted that way. The herd instinct was flowing through this body like I have never seen it before. And so what happened? We voted to double defense spending. We voted to cut all other spending. We voted a massive tax cut, most of which again went to the wealthiest people in America. And here is what happened, the deficit exploded. At the time we debated the 1981 resolution, the deficit was $65 billion. And the Republicans said that if we would just adopt their resolution, in 1983, no later than 1984 or 1985, we will balance the budget. That was the promise. That was $3.5 trillion of indebtedness ago. The deficit went completely out of sight. And so today we have a $4.6 trillion debt because that siren song was irresistible. The Democrats have been criticized, and with some legitimacy, for not offering an alternative. We could offer an alternative. It would not pass. It would be defeated. But we have four important amendments. I will make an offer to that side of the aisle. You adopt our four amendments, which will still give us a balanced budget by 2002, and I will vote for your budget resolution. I will vote for that resolution. Put that $170 billion that is very carefully set aside for a tax cut, and put it back in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and the earned income tax credit, and I will vote for it. And I will worry about reforming everything else later on. Now, if that is not a fair proposition, I do not know what is. I heard a Congressman the other day say we are going to give welfare recipients a chance to become productive citizens by cutting them off. You tell me how you make productive citizens out of the 20 percent of the people in this country who are on welfare and who are dysfunctional, unemployable. You think you have a lot of homeless people in Washington, DC, right now? Wait until you pass this budget. Wait until you pass welfare reform as it is being proposed here. It is a death sentence for a lot of people. These Medicare cuts, what do they do? They fall on the people who are totally dependent on Medicare. They fall on the rural hospitals in my State, which are totally dependent on being at least adequately reimbursed. And they fall, Mr. President, on the doctors who are also going to have to assume a good piece of the hit. We all know Medicare reform is necessary. Everybody knows Medicare is going to have to face up to reform. But to cut Medicare to make room for tax cuts is absolutely heartless. Look at the capital gains tax cuts that have been passed in the House; 76 percent of the cuts go to people who make over $100,000 a year. Is that what we believe as a people in this country, that 76 percent of a tax cut should go to people who make over $100,000 a year? Look at this chart. Here is the average tax cut per household by income category. If you make between zero and $30,000 a year in a family of four, you get a whopping $124 a year. That is a pizza every third Friday night. If you make over $200,000 a year, you get a tidy little sum of $11,266. Who here believes that is what America is all about? Somebody once said that a progressive tax was something Karl Marx dreamed of. Unhappily, they did not [[Page S6895]] know about Teddy Roosevelt. He was the person who gave us a progressive tax system. You want me to vote for a bill that provides that kind of relief to people who make over $100,000 a year and $124 a year to people who make $30,000 a year and in the process take away the earned income tax credit from them? I am not going to embarrass anybody by reading quotes, but the last two Republican Presidents and the majority leader of the Senate today have all said the earned income tax credit is the best program ever invented to keep people off welfare. Do you want to save the Government $21 billion? Raise the minimum wage to $5.15 and you can cut a lot of that investment tax credit out. But this is a tax increase on people who are making $28,000 a year or less, while we give a cushy $11,266 a year to people who make $100,000 a year or more. It is heartless. Education will take the biggest cut in its history. I would not be standing here, Mr. President, if I had not put in 3 years in World War II and gone to school on the GI bill. My father could not have afforded to send my brother to Harvard Law School, a classmate of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who is standing in the Chamber tonight. He could not have sent me to a prestigious law school where the tuition would have been totally out of the question. So I am a champion of student loans and Pell grants. The managers of the bill say, well, this does not cut student loans; this does not cut Pell grants. What does it say? You will cut a certain amount of money in these functional areas. And when you analyze that requirement, student loans and Pell grants are the only places you can find that amount of money within a particular functional area. CBO has said if you borrow the maximum of $17,000 for undergraduate studies on student loans, your fees and interest rates will probably cost you an additional $5,000. Mr. President, kids who have borrowed money to go to school are so saddled with debt they cannot breathe. Now we are going to sock another $5,000 on them. What else does this bill not do? This bill says you may not touch defense. There is $255 billion next year that is off limits. It does not make any difference how much of it is squandered. Every person in the Senate read the lengthy article last week saying that for the past 15 years the Defense Department has spent billions and billions without knowing where it went and cannot until this day be traced--overpaid contractors without knowing what they were paying for. One of the saddest things I ever read in my life. We are not talking about $700 coffee pots and toilet seats. We are talking about checks written that should never have been written, people being overpaid, nobody knows what for. So what will this budget do? It will cut school lunches. It is going to cut AFDC payments for the poorest of the poor, eliminate the investment tax credit which is an effective tax increase on the lowest income people in America, and there is a firewall around defense. You cannot take a penny. No matter how lousy a weapons system may be, you cannot kill it and put that money into student loans. You cannot put it in school lunches. Of course, if you want to put it in some other weapons system, that is just Jakey. A House Member last week was quoted as saying he was not going to vote for any more foreign aid. You want to hear applause? Just say you are opposed to foreign aid and you will have people applauding. Most people just think if we eliminated foreign aid and welfare, we could balance the budget. Foreign aid is less than 1 percent of the budget. But the House Member said we give this money to Third World countries and they buy weapons and starve their own people. What are we doing, focusing attention on foreign aid when it is less than 1 percent of the budget? What else did we not touch in this budget? Why, the space station. The biggest single boondoggle in the history of the world. We have spent over $11 billion on the space station as of this moment, headed for $100 billion--yes, $100 billion--while we cut student loans, student lunches, AFDC, investment income, raise the taxes for people who make $30,000 or less by reducing the earned income credit, and we leave the space station fully intact. The senior Senator from Texas was quoted in the paper the other day as saying, ``Yes, I am going to go for a tax cut. I am going to offer an amendment to cut taxes in the Chamber.'' We have not even begun to cut as much as we need to. The other day I said to the junior Senator from Texas that I am not going to offer an amendment to kill the Space Station on this bill. But do not get too comfortable, because I am going to offer it later. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. So the space station, which costs $160,000 per job, is safe and secure. It is only the most vulnerable, the elderly, the blind, the disabled, and the children, they are the only ones who bear the brunt of this. What else was not touched? Why, mining laws. In 1988, I started trying to revise the mining laws of this country to keep the U.S. Government from selling billions of dollars worth of gold for $2.50 an acre and here it is 1995 and they are still selling America's land for $2.50 an acre that has billions of dollars worth of gold and platinum under it. And what do the taxpayers of America get out it? Zip. Not a penny. Whoever is tuned into C-SPAN in America tonight would not believe that. It is a fact. The Secretary of the Interior as recently as 6 months ago was forced by the courts to deed $11 billion worth of gold to the Barrick Mining Co. for the princely sum of $9,000. It is not mentioned in this budget. You talk about corporate welfare. I can remember 3 years ago when the mining companies would say, ``We might be able to afford a 2 or 3 percent net royalty,'' even though to private land owners that they mine on they pay 18 percent. They might find it in their heart to voluntarily pay 2 to 3 percent on Federal lands. That was when gold was $333 an ounce. That was when platinum was $354 an ounce. And in this day, 1995, gold is $384, $51 an ounce more than it was then. Platinum is $427, almost $75 an ounce more than it was when they said they would pay 2 to 3 percent. Today, guess what the argument is? They will still go broke if you impose a royalty on them. Mr. President, that is the worst, egregious form of corporate welfare I have ever seen in my life. And yet I never get more than six Republicans to vote with me to stop the most outrageous practice going on in America. The people who are assaulted by this budget cannot afford $1,500 for a ticket to Washington, DC fundraisers. Do you know who they depend on because they cannot afford the 1,500 bucks? They depend on me. They depend on you. They expect you to be concerned about them. They expect you to see that they are treated fairly. Why do we not drop this $170 billion nonsense called the tax cut for the middle class which goes to the wealthiest people of America and keep faith with the people who sent us here to do their business? I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I say to the Senator, he has not waited nearly as long to take the floor as I did.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for yielding. Mr. President, when I was a student in law school I remember studying criminal law. There never had been a lawyer in my family. So I knew nothing about any kind of law. But I remember the professor about the second day said, ``Remember, the presumption of innocence is the hallmark of our system of criminal jurisprudence.'' It is not presumption of guilt. I asked the question, ``Should I defend somebody if they came into my office and told me they were guilty?" He said that will be a personal call, but you bear one thing in mind. That person may not know whether he or she is guilty under the law. They may think they are and are not. I am going to vote for this resolution. I have no objection whatever to a fair, open hearing giving everybody a chance to answer the questions of this committee. But I have heard some names thrown around here this morning. Mr. President, in cases like this, all you have to do is throw out a name. Oftentimes you have destroyed a person or at least destroyed their reputation. And there has been entirely too much of that surrounding this case. So let me admonish my friends in the U.S. Senate, and especially on this special committee, lawyers and nonlawyers, to ask yourself when you are making some of these speeches and you are throwing out names, why did not this happen, why did not that happen? Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But ask yourself when you are throwing names around and wondering whether or not you are destroying that person, a perfectly innocent person for life, you ask yourself this question: ``How would you like to be in that somebody's shoes and hear your name bandied around on the floor of the Senate which carries with it the connotation of some wrongdoing or some guilt?'' I hope the Members of this body will rise above that sort of thing, and when they say something and use some of these names in regard to this hearing, make awfully sure they are not destroying some innocent person needlessly and wrongfully. I look forward to the hearings. I look forward to the people having an opportunity to say what they want to say and answer the questions of the Members of this committee. But for God's sakes do not prejudge everybody that is going to be called as a witness before they get there and have an opportunity to answer the questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Arkansan, Avis B. Bailey. Avis is the owner of Avis Nissan in Fayetteville, and I am proud to say, was honored last week by the U.S. Small Business Administration as the 1995 Arkansas Small Business Person of the Year. I had a chance to visit with Avis and her husband last week on the Capitol steps, and I was immediately convinced that this honor is richly deserved. Avis Bailey was born and raised in Prairie Grove, AR. The youngest of six, she married right out of high school and then moved with her husband to Tulsa, OK. Twelve years later and a single parent, she returned to northwest Arkansas and settled in Fayetteville, where she worked in her brother's transmission repair shop. In 1971, Avis took another job as a cashier at Hatfield Pontiac and Cadillac, one of Arkansas' oldest and most respected Cadillac dealerships. This became job No. 3 for her. However, in less than 2 years Avis was out from behind the cashier's desk crunching numbers and in the showroom selling Cadillacs. It was not long before she became one of the State's top salespersons for automobiles and, within 10 years, manager of the dealership. Avis told me she could remember when new Cadillacs started selling for over $10,000. It was at that time that her father told her she needed to get out of the business. He said no one would pay that much for a car. Mr. President, 20-some-odds years and many success stories later, Avis B. Bailey bought that Pontiac-Cadillac dealership where she started as a cashier. I know many people who still dream of owning a Cadillac someday, and here is Avis with a whole parking lot full. Her whole career is a testament to what hard work and dedication can accomplish. She has truly risen through the ranks of the small business world. In 1991, Avis bought a Nissan dealership that was nearly bankrupt. Its standing in the community was down, but Avis took the initiative and the gamble to take that failing business and turn it around. Within 3 years, she more than doubled the volume of sales and her number of employees. Sales totaled $11.7 million in 1994 for Avis Nissan. Avis and her partners have also bought four more automobile dealerships in Arkansas, adding both to the economy and to the community. She and her partners are now owners of Mazda and Ford dealerships in northwest Arkansas as well. Mr. President, we need more people like Avis Bailey in this country. She is more than a shrewd business woman. She is filled with a spirit that can make a difference. Avis avidly supports the athletic programs of the University of Arkansas, she is a member of both the Fayetteville and Springdale Chamber of Commerce, and she's a friend to area grade schools, working to furnish school supplies and clothing. We need more people who aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves, work hard, and make a difference in their communities. Mr. President, I hope you will join me in congratulating Avis Bailey on being named the Arkansas Small Business Person of the Year for 1995.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a member of my staff who is leaving Washington to return to her home State of Connecticut, Tracy Crowley. Tracy came to Washington 12 years ago to work for the Small Business Committee, which at the time was chaired by Senator Lowell Weicker. I was fortunate that Tracy remained with the committee when I became chairman in 1987. In 1991 she joined my personal staff and has been a valuable member of the office for the last 4 years. Mr. President, those of us fortunate to serve in the Senate are often blessed with loyal and dedicated staff that make us look good. However, very rarely do we show the gratitude that these staffers deserve. The hours are long, the pay, in comparison to the private sector, is not very good and the working conditions can be difficult. There is no one on my staff that has been more dedicated or worked longer and harder than Tracy Crowley. Although she is not a native of Arkansas, she treated each and every appropriations project with great tenacity, fighting to make sure that the interests of Arkansans were preserved. There is not a fish farmer, park superintendent, forest ranger or environmentalist in the State of Arkansas that does not owe Tracy Crowley a great debt for her work on the annual Interior appropriations bills. Twelve years is a long time for anybody to work in one place. For a congressional staff person, 12 years of service is above and beyond the call of duty. Mr. President, while I am sorry Tracy is leaving the office, I know that she will have great success in her future endeavors and I wish her the best. All of those who have worked with Tracy, and those she has so ably served in Arkansas and throughout the Nation, will miss Tracy greatly. Mr. President, I know that you and the entire body wishes Tracy well.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing opposition to the privatization of the Federal Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's]. This ill-conceived concept, which proponents claim would help reduce the deficit, is simply a bookkeeping gimmick that would accomplish little except for raising the electric rates of millions of consumers served by municipal and cooperative utilities. A number of years ago customers of municipal and cooperative electric utilities entered into a covenant with the Federal Government. In exchange for the right to purchase the hydroelectric power generated at multipurpose Federal water projects at cost-based rates, these customers have provided a significant portion of the funds needed to build and operate the water projects. In addition to power production these projects serve other significant purposes, including making water available for irrigation, flood control, navigation, municipal and industrial water supply, wildlife enhancement, recreation, and salinity control. In many instances, the beneficiaries of these nonpower purposes of the water projects have paid little, if anything, for the projects. Some are not suggesting that the Government renege on its agreement with the power customers by eliminating their right to purchase the power produced at Federal water projects. In addition to being patently unfair, the breach of this covenant with the power customers raises serious questions about the integrity of future agreements entered into between the Government and private parties. The five power marketing administrations currently sell power to municipal and electric cooperative utilities serving millions of consumers in 34 States. Privatization of the PMA's could result in tremendous rate increases for these customers. In some areas, retail residential rates could triple. A recent study prepared by the Congressional Research Service estimated that PMA privatization could cause electric rates to rise by $1.2 to $1.3 billion per year. The Southwestern Power Administration [SWPA] currently sells power produced at Federal water projects to customers in my home State of Arkansas, as well as in Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. The privatization of SWPA could cause serious adverse economic consequences in the region. A study prepared when President Reagan first proposed privatizing SWPA indicated that consumers in Arkansas alone could stand to pay as much as 343 percent more to replace the power currently purchased from SWPA. Mr. President, I don't want to go back to my constituents and tell them that they are going to have to pay three times as much for electricity because the Government no longer wants to honor a contractual commitment. Rather than roll up our sleeves and make the tough choices in order to reduce the Federal budget deficit, some Members of Congress instead want to resort to budgetary gimmicks. The sale of Government assets to increase the Government's cash flow, in the short term, might be the most cynical gimmick of them all. Because budget scoring periods run for 5 or 10 years, it is tempting to take actions that would reduce the deficit during the scoring period, but would actually increase the deficit in the out-years. This is exactly what would happen if the PMA's are privatized. Selling-off the PMA's could very well produce $2 billion in revenues immediately. However, because the PMA's would no longer be selling power on the Government's behalf, the immediate increase in revenues would be offset by the revenues forgone resulting from the sale of the assets. In 1990 Congress amended the Budget Act to prohibit the use of receipts from the sale of Federal assets to be scored as a reduction in the deficit. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the use of gimmickry to create an illusion that we are balancing the budget. Mr. President, I fully expect that efforts will be made this year to repeal this prohibition. I intend to fight any such efforts that would make it more difficult to honestly balance the budget. Mr. President, I recognize that we live in a new era and that streamlining Government and making it more efficient are not only desirable, but necessary. In this spirit, I am willing to wok with critics of the PMA's in order to make them more efficient. But I will not support any legislation that would abrogate the covenant between the Government and the PMA customers which provides reasonably priced power to more than 1,000 consumer owned electric systems in the United States. power marketing administration

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time remains for the proponents?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Iowa for yielding to me. I congratulate him on trying to maintain a semblance of culture, decency, and civility in this Nation. The Senator from Illinois spoke just before I did. He spoke about the fact that our children, by the time they graduate from high school, will have seen 18,000 murders, to say nothing of the other unspeakable violence they are going to see on network television. We have grappled in the Senate with how to control children's exposure to violence in light of the free speech provisions of the first amendment, and nobody has been able to come up with a workable solution. I was speaking with a Senator's wife about a week ago and she said, ``You know, Dale, we don't subscribe to cable at our house. We have a 12-year-old son. We do not want him exposed to MTV.'' I tell you, there are an amazing number of people in this country who deplore what their children are watching on television, and some of them are opting, as she does, not to purchase cable television. Mr. President, you can be assured that this is not the final definitive debate on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is an assault in the U.S. Congress on public broadcasting. With Newt Gingrich leading the charge, the Republicans in Congress deal with the problems that really cause harm to our society. Mr. President, we have heard the argument: ``CPB can be privatized; let them do as everybody else does.'' Let me ask you about the magnificent, unprecedented series on the Civil War which was so poignant. 14 percent of Americans tuned in to see it. I promise you, most Americans were in tears watching, but above all, learning about the most defining moment in American history--13 hours on public broadcasting. Can you imagine watching that series on one of the commercial networks and being interrupted every 5 minutes with a car being dropped on top of a mountain top, or a Budweiser beer commercial? I cannot believe that the Harkin amendment is even being challenged. If the Senator from Iowa prevails on his amendment, there will be $175 million left in the Radio Free Europe account. That is $100 million more than the President requested. In addition, even if the Senator from Iowa prevails, we will still be $29 million short of what public broadcasting was supposed to get. Mr. President, how many times during the balanced budget amendment debate did you hear the argument, ``Senator, how can you vote against the balanced budget amendment? Eighty percent of the people of this country favor it. You are going against the wishes of the people.'' So, for the Senators here who are prepared to vote against the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, let me remind you that between 65 percent and 70 percent of the people of this country do not want the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be cut. Is it for dilettantes? The statistics show that the average salary of the people of this country who watch opera is $40,000 a year. Where else could they see Pavarotti, Kiri Te Kanawa, all of the magnificent voices; are they to be silenced? Are we going to say to the American people that other countries of the world are willing to spend up to $38 per household for the very same thing the American people are paying $1.09 for? It is troubling to hear the assaults on things like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio--I never move my radio off NPR. When I get in the car in the morning, that is what is on; and when I go home at night, that is what is on, because I want to know what is going on in the world and I do not want all those commercials interrupting it. I want a definitive, honest-to-goodness, analysis of what is happening all over the world. I wonder what the opponents of the Harkin amendment listen to in order to get their news. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am also worried and concerned about the provisions in the House bill that eliminate the current WIC competitive bidding requirements. I have supported these efforts right from the beginning and will strongly oppose efforts to eliminate competitive bidding. I share Senator Leahy's concern that the new plan of attack by the companies will be to only offer paltry cost containment deals to States. This would include giving States some free formula, or modest cash rebates, or free coupons instead of participating in competitive bidding. This could mean that millions of infants, women and children would be forced off WIC. Senator Pryor has been a leader regarding child nutrition programs and I would like his views on this issue.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I will yield myself such time as I may use, which I hope will be less than 10 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. First of all, I want to thank my colleague and very good friend, Senator Bryan, of Nevada, for his unstinting efforts in this. In 1993, Congress directed GAO to prepare a report on the effectiveness of the Market Promotion Program. The report that came back was less than satisfactory. Subsequently, for Fiscal Year 1994, we cut MPP from $147.7 million to $100 million. In Fiscal Years 1991 and 1992, the funding level had been at $200 million. Last year, as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I made every effort to eliminate this program. However, the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, was successful in reinstating the program, both in the committee and on the floor. Madam President, I do not see how we can go through the agony we have been going through in here in trying to cut spending, particularly in light of the fact that we are cutting spending for school lunches and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and for a host of other things which, in my opinion, have great merit and go right to the heart and soul of America. How we can cut spending for them and actually add nearly $25 million to the Market Promotion Program? It was at $85.5 million for Fiscal Year 1995 and it now stands, by virtue of the bill now before the Senate, at $110 million. Senator Bryan and I now propose to eliminate the Market Promotion Program and apply the savings toward deficit reduction. We are not setting it aside for something else. I would love to take this and put it in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but we chose to offer this amendment and apply the $110 million for pure deficit reduction. I do not believe any member of this body should be able to keep a straight face and support some of the measures we are voting for when we cannot kill a program, like MPP, that is a pure subsidy for some of the biggest corporations in America and abroad. If we were solely promoting an industry, an industry-wide product or an agricultural product, as we do in the Export Enhancement Program, it might make a little sense. But we are promoting brand loyalty. With MPP, we are using federal funds to promote a large number of popular retail items that most of us know as household words. MPP funds have been used to promote McDonalds' products, Gallo Wines, and several popular items produced in my State which we can all easily identify in grocery stores across the Nation. Look down the list of the people who benefit from this--143 foreign firms. You inquire, what on Earth are we doing spending American taxpayers' money subsidizing foreign companies and promoting their brand loyalty? The answer: They use some American products. So if foreign companies that use our products want to advertise their brand and create a brand loyalty, we give them money, too. And, in addition to 143 foreign corporations, Madam President, over 700 American corporations participate in this program just last year alone. I am not blaming them. When Uncle Sam throws a big trough full of money out and says, come and get it, if I were one of these corporations and I had a foreign presence, as most of them do, I would get up there and apply for it, too. Now, Madam President, I started off saying that the 1993 GAO report gave us reasons to question the validity of this program. More recently, another GAO report was prepared which I received in March of this year, just a couple of weeks ago. No Senator should vote on this amendment until they look at the March 1995 GAO report. Here is what they say, and this is the meat of the whole argument: The Foreign Agricultural Service has no assurance that marketing promotion funds are supporting additional promotional activities rather than simply replacing company industry funds. The GAO did not just reach that decision without substantial program review. They studied it, and they said there is no evidence that this money is going for additional promotional activities that the companies themselves would not spend if we torpedoed this program. You cannot find a more compelling reason to vote for anything around here than a GAO report offers findings such as this. If we were going to champion a program such as this--and I am not prepared to do that yet--it ought to be for small business, or companies new to market U.S. agricultural products abroad. Not big businesses that have been in the export business for years. So, Madam President, I hate to use the term corporate welfare because big corporations make a contribution to this country, although members of the national press have not hesitated to attach that label to some results of the Market Promotion Program. I am not blaming them for standing at the trough and getting this money. There are 716 domestic and 143 foreign firms that received MPP funds in Fiscal Year 1994, and some of these are among the largest commercial enterprises in the World. Look down the list. It is shocking. it can be argued that the farmers of this nation are only the indirect beneficiaries, if even that; $110 million in genuine deficit reduction, much of which will otherwise go to some of the most affluent companies we know. I listened to some Senators on the other side of the aisle 2 evenings ago talking about pork, talking about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting being an outrageous waste of the taxpayers' money. Here is an opportunity for everybody to quit talking and making partisan points. We need to make better use of our limited federal resources. We should join hands and eliminate this funding and allow these large companies to float free and easy on their own and spend their own money. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time that the distinguished Senator from Nevada has.

Mr. BUMPERS. Has the Senator from Washington sent the amendments to the desk? Are they at the desk?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, those amendments have been cleared on this side.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this is an amendment that was part of the law last year and should be part of the bill this year. It allows up to $10 million in WIC administrative expenses to be used for incentives for immunizing children prior to the age of 2 years. This has been cleared by Senator Cochran, who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture where this resides, and with the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the leader. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. How many amendments do you anticipate would be allowed under an agreement?

Mr. BUMPERS. The announced consent agreement has not been propounded yet has it?

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I cannot add or detract from what the Senator from North Dakota has just eloquently said. I do have some charts that perhaps are a little more graphic, but I also want to say that one of the things that my wealthier friends not only back home but across the country say to me is, ``The thing I do not like about Democrats is they promote class warfare.'' The Senator from North Dakota alluded to that. I do not believe in class warfare. I believe in fairness, justice, and the judicial system, as well as in our economy. What happened in the House last evening is one of the most bizarre things I have witnessed in my 20 years in the U.S. Senate. A tax cut--a tax cut--of about $180 billion over the next 5 years but which balloons to about $600 to $700 billion for the 10-year period. In other words, $180 billion for the first 5 years, and between $400 and $500 billion for the next 5 years. They say they will identify cuts to pay for it. We see in the House they can do that because they only have to project 5 years out. Our budget in the Senate requires the Senate to come up with a 10-year projection. To get on with the story, I do not like class warfare but how do we say to the American people that the tax bill that passed last evening provides a tax cut for people who make over $200,000 a year, provides them a tax cut of $11,266--and that is per year--and provides an average for those who make zero to $30,000 a year, gives them $124 a year. Mr. President, for the people who make less than $30,000 a year, the tax cut last night will not even buy a 13-inch pizza for the family to enjoy on Friday nights. Are we engaging in class warfare to bring up this fact? Is it class warfare to point out the unbelievable unfairness of this situation? I ask the American people and my colleagues, if you are going to provide a tax cut, how do you say to the American people that those who make over $200,000 a year are going to get a $11,000 tax cut and people who make $30,000 or less get a $124 tax cut? Class warfare? It is utterly the most bizarre thing I have ever seen. Who do you think needs the tax cut most, the guy making $200,000 a year or the guy with a wife and two kids making $30,000 a year? Let's discuss the capital gains part of the tax bill. Capital gains occur when you buy and sell stocks or other property. I agree with Felix Rohatyn, who I watched on CNBC yesterday, who said, ``I have never understood what economic benefit this country derives when somebody sells General Electric and uses the money and buys DuPont stock.'' What does that do for the economy, except fatten some broker's fees? But look at this chart showing who benefits from the capital gains tax cut. Who benefits from it? You guessed it. Those who make $100,000 a year or more are going to get 76 percent of the benefit of this capital gains tax cut. What does this poor stiff get who makes only $30,000 a year? Only 6.4 percent of the capital gains tax cut. Class believes that the people making $100,000 a year or more--which includes every single Member of Congress--who believes we ought to be getting 76 percent of this tax cut. How can I believe that this is fair while the people of my State--where the median family income is less than $30,000 a year--will get only 6.4 percent of the cut? Mr. President, here is a USA Today poll. It points out what I have been saying for months around here. I never lost a friend voting for a tax cut. It is so wonderful to be able to vote for a tax cut and go back home and say, ``Look what we did,'' and beat our chests. I get letters from people who want their taxes cut. But I get more letters from people who want the deficit reduced. People who are making $30,000 a year or less would gladly give up that $124 tax cut in return for a balanced budget. Do you know why? Because if we balance the budget, it will hold down inflation and interest rates. Mortgage interest will be less, interest on car loans will be less, the economy will be more stable, the dollar will stabilize. Why in the name of God are we considering this tax cut when polls like this one indicate that 70 percent of the people in this country say they want the deficit reduced before they want a tax cut? Only 24 percent of the people in this poll said, ``I want the tax cut over deficit reduction.'' Do you know who the House agreed with when they passed the tax cut last night? Not with the 70 percent of the people who say, ``Deficit reduction first.'' And, actually, not with the 24 percent of people who say they want a tax cut more than they want deficit reduction. No, the House agreed with this 5 percent of people who say, ``We want both.'' That is what the House is saying. ``We are going to cut your taxes and balance the budget, too.'' Think about it--5 percent of the people in this country saying we want both--and that is where the House comes down. We tried that $3.5 trillion ago in 1981. Here is a graph that shows pointedly and precisely what happened. In 1981--and I remember it well--Ronald Reagan's press conference, after Congress passed his tax cut plan. He said, ``You have given me the tools. Now I will do the job. We will balance the budget by 1984 and with a little luck we will balance it in 1983.'' Those were Ronald Reagan's words. Well, it did not happen. Instead the deficit shot up to record levels. I want it put on my epitaph that I was 1 of the 11 U.S. Senators who voted against those 1981 tax cuts. I said, ``You will create deficits big enough to choke a mule.'' They turned out to be big enough to choke an elephant. Look at this chart. Here was our deficit in 1981 and here is how the Reagan administration said they would reduce the deficit. That was the promise. That was the siren song that an irresponsible Congress bought into. But what happened? The deficit did not go down as promised. Look where it went. By the time we were supposed to have a balanced budget in 1983, we had $200 billion deficits and we have never had one less than that since. Ironically, I can remember the last year Jimmy Carter was President, the deficit was $65 billion and people were threatening to impeach him. Unthinkable. No, Mr. President, I am not voting for a tax cut. I am going to vote the way 70 percent of the people of this country want me to vote. When it comes to fairness, the tax cut, even if desirable, is hopelessly inequitable and unfair. The greatness of this Nation, the greatness of the Constitution, is it says each one of us counts. We are all somebody. Whether you like Jesse Jackson or not, I always like it when he has those kids say, ``I am somebody.'' The soul of America is that each one of us counts. And no one of us should count for $12,000 or $11,000 a year more than the people who did not happen to be born quite so wealthy. This chart shows where the deficit has been going since Bill Clinton became President. There it is in 1995. Here are his projections for the outyears and here is the projection the American people want. They want that deficit to continue going down. They do not expect miracles, but they do expect a responsible, thoughtful Congress to give this Nation a chance. Give our children a chance. You are not ever going to achieve the greatness of this Nation by cutting student loans, or AmeriCorps, where people can pay off their student loans. When the families of America sit around the dinner table in the evening and talk about what they love most, it is not the tax cut. It is not that Mercedes out in the driveway. It is not that nice big split-level home. It is not the farm out back or that posh office downtown. What they talk about most is loving their children. In light of that, what do you think the ordinary American person with a family believes--that he or she should get a few dollars more in spendable income or that this Nation ought to start living within its means so that those children have a real opportunity, not a saran-wrapped opportunity, but a real one. I come down on the side of all of those American families. My children are all grown. I have two grandchildren. They deserve better than they are going to get if we do not reverse our overspending ways; if we do not show the kind of responsibility they have a right to expect of us. Mr. President, I believe the Senate will show a great deal more discretion in dealing with this, and if we do not, if we do not, the chart you saw a moment ago of what happened from 1980 to 1995 will just be compounded. Mr. President, I have taken more time than I really intended to take. I feel very strongly about it and will speak again on the subject and again and again. My side may lose just as 11 of us lost in 1981. But I am absolutely certain without intending to be arrogant or self-serving that it will be one of the greatest travesties ever to befall this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business