Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just say to my colleagues that I have not seen the debate change a vote since the third battle of Manassas in 1988. People walk on the floor, and they may listen to it in their offices, but most do not even do that. So the debate does not change it. I daresay that when people walk in here on both sides, they are going to say, ``What is our vote?'' without realizing the deadly consequences of what the House has done. Senator Bingaman and I and Senator Dorgan, want to help Republicans keep their commitment to balance the budget by the year 2002. I think it is utterly and wholly implausible and impossible. But I promise my cooperation in helping in any way I can. But to say the one thing you cannot do is to raise taxes that are progressive, but you can raise all the regressive taxes you want to to deal with this when we all know that working people in this country are having a terrible struggle just keeping their head above water. So I applaud the Senator from New Mexico. I am pleased he asked me to speak on this because I do feel strongly about it. I urge my colleagues to think very carefully before they vote on this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. My administrative assistant and I were having a discussion on the way to work this morning, not just about this amendment but about the Senate. I said, ``You know, I feel so strongly about the balanced budget amendment and I am so adamantly opposed to it because I think it guarantees utter chaos.'' It is going to, at some point, absolutely render the U.S. Congress a eunuch. We are not going to be able to deal with it under that amendment. I said, ``I do not like to speak unless I feel strongly about something.'' I have a tendency to speak on maybe too many amendments. You can wear your welcome out around here by talking too much. So I try to choose carefully. It is very difficult for me because I detest this amendment so much. It is difficult to be as choosy about what I talk about. But I want you to know that the Senator from New Mexico is on to something very, very important.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. If the Senator will yield, is he saying the vote will not occur until when?

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. I wanted to point out, Mr. President, that if I do not leave here at 9:30, I am not going to get to make a speech. Obviously, I am not going to be able to make that speech.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. But more important, I think him for crafting this sense-of- the-Senate resolution which ought to pass 100-zip. I do not know how many votes we have had--maybe 60 votes since we came back into session. And I will hand it to the Republicans, they know how to stick together. I am speaking of votes occurring not only on the balanced budget amendment but everything that has come up since we came into session. It has been unanimous on the other side. I think on one vote two Republicans defected. So it makes you have second thoughts about even standing up here and talking what you think is ordinary common sense. But the Senator from Wisconsin, with whom I am pleased to join in this amendment, is simply saying it is time we quit playing games and start debating the real issue, and that is, ``What are we going to do about the deficit?'' The balanced budget amendment is probably a done deal. But as far as the deficit is concerned, it does not make any difference whether the balanced budget amendment passes or not. If it passes or if it fails, we are going to be back to square one after we vote on final passage because we are going to have to figure out how to actually balance the budget. You see that chart over there? That is clever. I give the Republicans credit for putting that chart up. It shows how much the deficit has gone up each day since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. I wish we had a chart on this side showing how much the deficit would have gone up if we had not passed the President's deficit reduction plan in 1993 without a single Republican vote. It would be 50 percent higher each day. Our chart would show the deficit going up 50 to 75 percent more every day than that chart shows. And we reduced the deficit that much without one single Republican vote. [[Page S2623]] So, Madam President, I rise today to try to talk common sense. There is a new book out. I was down at Wake Forest University today delivering a speech at a convocation. A man caught me just as I was leaving. He said, Senator, you must read this new book called ``The Death of Common Sense, How It Is Suffocating America.'' Well, that is what we are trying to talk about--common sense. I want you to think about this, Senators. The Republican Contract With America is not a contract I signed, but it says we are going to pass this balanced budget amendment. And we are going to give the American people expanded IRA's to increase savings. And we are going to provide an across-the-board tax cut that costs $200 billion over the next 5 years and $700 billion over the next 10 years. Then we are going to increase defense spending by somewhere between $60 and $80 billion. Then we are going to provide a capital gains tax cut, 90 percent of which goes to the richest 5 percent of the people in America. We are going to do all this and balance the budget in the year 2002. What that adds up to, Madam President, is $1.6 trillion that must be cut in the next 7 years. Everybody here who has been here any time at all knows that is absolutely lunacy. That is not going to happen. There are not very many people in State hospitals in this country that believe we are going to make all those tax cuts, increase defense spending, and balance the budget. Yet the Congress bought that same argument 14 years and $3.5 trillion ago. Did you know that if it were not for the interest on the increased debt that built up during the 12 years of the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Presidencies, we would have a surplus today. Not a deficit--a surplus--if we were not paying the interest on that staggering debt we accumulated when we bought the same argument we are asked to buy again today. There is one thing that is really crafty about the Contract With America. The middle-class tax cut in the Contract With America is supposed to cost $200 billion in the first 5 years. Then, in the next 5 years, it will cost $500 billion. That is very crafty. But the only time you ever hear this Chamber so silent that you can hear the termites working is when you ask, ``How are you going to pay for it?'' It would make Houdini blush to suggest that this can be done in the next 7 years. Every Member of Congress, every economist in the country, and every citizen of America, knows that this is palpable nonsense. With his amendment, the Senator from Wisconsin is saying it is time we start actually doing something about the deficit instead of just putting a few words in the Constitution. Let me say to my colleagues that you do not even have to be courageous to vote for this amendment. Look here. Here is a USA Today poll; 70 percent of the people of this country say put those spending cuts on the deficit. Everybody says, ``Senator you are going to vote against the balanced budget amendment. It is very popular.'' I say, ``You are going to provide middle-class tax cuts and that is very unpopular.'' Let me just read a couple of letters. These are ordinary citizens, constituents of mine. Dear Senator Bumpers: The truth is, as much as I hate paying taxes, I don't want this tax break. I would much rather see the cuts made as proposed, taxes kept at the current rate, and see some serious reduction in the national debt. This is a price for my future and that of my children that I am willing to pay. Madam President, the people of America are way ahead of this crowd. Here is another letter from a constituent in Warren, AR: Dear Senator Bumpers: I urge you with your vote to cut spending by the Federal Government in every way possible and to not even think about tax reductions or refunds. He says that we need to reduce the deficit. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent those two constituent letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, it just drives me insane, the talk about providing $700 billion in tax cuts, then providing another Lord knows how much for the Pentagon, and, then say, ``Folks, just as soon as we can get these words in the Constitution, we will balance the budget in the year 2002.'' What are we doing? We are treating them like children who could not possibly understand the nuances, the sophistication, the complication of the budget process. ``But they understand if you put it in the Constitution. The Constitution is a sacred document.'' We have had 11,000 constitutional amendment proposals since this country was founded. Besides the Bill of Rights, those 10 amendments adopted together in 1789, the people of this country have amended the Constitution 17 times. But people here in Congress have tried to get them to amend it over 11,000 times. You know something else. Of the 11,000, the majority of those amendments have occurred in the last 32 years. And 35 constitutional amendments have been proposed since we came back into session January 3. That is one a day. Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Hamilton, the most brilliant congregation of minds ever assembled under one roof, gave us this sacred document and we trivialize it. Norm Ornstein said the Constitution is the fix of last resort. Do you want a figleaf to go home and talk to your constituents about instead of actually doing something to reduce the deficit? Term limits, put it in the Constitution. Prayer in school, put it in the Constitution. The Constitution is not crafted to deal with social problems for which there is a legislative fix. You know that virtually every one of the 35 constitutional amendments that have been introduced this year have been introduced by Republicans, who consider themselves conservatives. But you know what, Robert Gowin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a very conservative think tank here, says: ``Conservatives revere our institutions and our traditions.'' True conservatives. Robert Gowin says, ``True conservatives do not muck with the Constitution.'' I could not agree with him more. Madam President, what we are talking about is spine, a little courage, not a figleaf to hide behind by putting a few words in the Constitution and hope that 7 years from now people will have forgotten the grandiose and wholly unkept promises. The Senator from Wisconsin and I are simply trying to introduce a grain of common sense into this debate. The American people deserve it. If the President can find $63 billion for a middle-class tax cut, then put it on the deficit. If the Republicans can find $200 billion or $700 billion for tax cuts and Finally, let me reiterate, Madam President, that this is a sense-of- the-Senate resolution that does not cost you a nickel. You are not changing the constitutional amendment that is before us, House Joint Resolution 1. You are simply saying, yes, I agree that we need to get the show on the road in a serious way and quit talking nonsense. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from California for yielding me 4 minutes. Let me preface my remarks by saying I will never forget this. I had been Governor of my State I guess about 3 months. Arkansas is part of what we call ``tornado alley.'' We have a terrible tornado in Brinkley, AR, and my staff said, ``You have to go over there.'' I said, ``They would think I was trying to politicize their plight.'' They said, ``You do not understand it; they are desperate and they want to see authority figures. They want to know somebody is going to help them.'' They finally talked me into going, even though I thought it was a political thing to do. I never failed to go immediately to every flood and tornado after that, because when those people saw me, they crowded around me and wanted me to hear their stories, wanted me to assure them that everything was going to be all right. It was one of the most gratifying things I ever did in my life. Senator Boxer's amendment is the exemplification of simplification. It just simply says that if we have a big disaster in this country, by a majority vote--and who could quarrel with that? By a simple majority vote, we can spend the money to alleviate the terrible plight of people in California, southern California or northern California, who had been hit by a terrible earthquake; or we can cover 10 States in the Midwest, whose homes, farms, cities had been wiped out. Can you not just see us sitting here and people dying, water washing their homes away and saying: Well, we tried. We got 59 votes but we just could not quite cut the mustard. You people just do the best you can. How silly can you get? That is not what this country is made of. I admit that a flood in Arkansas gets my attention more than a flood in West Virginia or California. You know, some day, if you look at this map, you will see that the New Madrid fault in Northeast Arkansas is one of the most dangerous areas in the United States. The maximum risk of earthquake is along the New Madrid fault. The Presiding Officer knows where it is because Tennessee is part of it, too. To sit here and say that, in the interest of killing every single amendment, we are going to kill this one, too, and we are not determine whether we are going to help American citizens who through no fault of their own have been decimated, it would be the height of irresponsibility to vote to table an amendment as well conceived and sensitive as this one is. So, Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from California for offering the amendment. I am very pleased to cosponsor it, to vote for it, and I hope the people who walk in this Chamber in about 15 minutes will not just vote that knee-jerk vote we have been watching ever since we started this amendment, but stop and reflect. If you cannot go home and tell the people of your State that you voted for this because you want to take care of them in case of emergency, you do not deserve to be here. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come this morning sadly to eulogize one of the truly great political and intellectual giants of my home State of Arkansas. In a way, it is especially difficult for me because in 1974 I ran against him for the Senate. J.W. ``Bill'' Fulbright had been a Congressman, president of the University of Arkansas, U.S. Senator, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and an icon to millions of people, not just in Arkansas, but all over the world. In 1974 Senator Fulbright had served in the Senate for 30 years and was prepared to run for his sixth term. I was Governor of my State, completing my second term, and I can tell my colleagues that being a Senator is infinitely more enjoyable and less stressful than being Governor. I was not interested in running for the House of Representatives, nor was I particularly interested in returning to the practice of law. While I had been a great fan of Bill Fulbright's, I was late in opposing the war in Vietnam, long after he opposed it. I had admired his courage in speaking out against that war almost from its inception. I suppose now would be a good time to say that he once told me that his vote on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the worst vote he ever cast, and that he regretted it. But I had to make a decision about the Senate race, and I had to make it by March 1974. So I made what was one of the most difficult decisions of my life--to run against him in the Democratic primary. There are people, needless to say, who never forgave me for it, and I understand that. I do not mean this to sound self-serving, but it is not terribly uncommon for people to come up to me and say, ``How does Arkansas elect the quality of people that it does?'' And they always include Bill Fulbright's name. We have a saying in Arkansas that we defeat better men than most States have a chance to vote for. So while our relationship was not close even before that primary election, it was certainly not close afterward. Happily, about 5 years ago, we had a 2-hour luncheon, which I would have to say was one of the highlights of my life. It was not spectacular from a content standpoint, but we obviously liked each other and regretted that we had not been closer the first 15 years I was here. Out of that luncheon grew a very, very warm friendship, not only with him, but with his beloved wife Harriet, who is one of the truly superior people I have ever known. I might say at this point that Harriet has been as loyal, faithful, caring, and compassionate during Senator Fulbright's illness as anybody could possibly be. Mr. President, I will introduce more formal remarks into the Record sometime in the near future, but I hastened here this morning after his death last night to say that I know I speak for all of the people of my State in expressing our genuine sadness at the loss of this truly great man. Bill Fulbright believed in public service. I was just a youngster when he was first elected to the Senate, but in the time I did know him, while I was Governor and in the past few years, I never heard him express any idea that was not noble, an idea that was not motivated by his commitment to his country, or an idea that would not inspire our young people to choose politics as a career. Though he did not suffer fools gladly, he was not a cynical man. I came here to say he was a great icon, a great public servant, and a brilliant man who loved his country beyond the love of anything else. I will personally miss him and the warm relationship we had been enjoying. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the Senator is absolutely right. They have said they will not touch Social Security, and obviously they cannot avoid interest on the debt. Although they did not say defense was off the table, they said, ``We will increase defense spending.'' I think one could assume if they increase spending it is also off the table.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, let me just say that common sense dictates three or four conclusions that seem obvious to me. No. 1, the Contract With America says we will not include Social Security or interest on the debt. Obviously we cannot do anything about interest on the debt. We have to pay it. As I said, they are proposing to increase defense spending. That leaves Medicare, and Medicaid, and it leaves nondefense domestic discretionary spending. In order to reach a balanced budget under that scenario, we would have to cut crime prevention, education, highways, law enforcement, everything that goes to making us a decent civilization. We would have to cut every one of those by at least 30 percent. In my opinion, in 2002 we would still have a deficit. I appreciate the Senator raising the question. If you want to do what is popular, vote for this amendment. There is not any question about its popularity. Public opinion is contradictory about it because the people also support the right to know amendment which would require to say what we are going to cut. Seventy-four percent of the American people want the middle-class tax cut to be applied to the deficit instead of their tax bill. They want that to go on the deficit. Yet, the same people who are hot for a middle-class tax cut ignore the popular will of the people on that one. But I am willing to admit I am going to vote ``no'' on this, and that is not the popular vote. So if you want to do what is popular, you vote ``aye.'' If you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that you can meet the mandate that I just laid out for you about balancing the budget in the year 2002, for God's sake vote ``aye'' if you think you can do that. If you think the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing when they crafted this most magnificent of all organic laws in the world, vote ``aye.'' If you are one of the 11 new Senators who came to this body in January and you do not have the courage to do what you told those voters you were going to do when you were campaigning about spending cuts, you vote ``aye.'' If you want to postpone the tough choices until the problem is even worse than it is now, vote ``aye.'' With an ``aye'' vote, you get 7 more years of grace in which the budget will balloon. The Senator from Utah has a chart over there showing how much the debt has gone up since we have been debating this. If this constitutional amendment were on the books right now, or any time in the future, that chart would be exactly the same. Nothing would be changed by a balanced budget amendment. But if my colleagues believe that the highest calling they have is their duty to the Constitution, to be honest with their constituents, if they believe that their constituents can handle the truth no matter how unpleasant, even though all they have been getting is talk-show idiocy, distortions, pap, and partisan snapping, then they should vote ``no.'' And then they should follow that with a few courageous votes on cutting spending, even if it tears their hearts out to cast those votes. Ten times nobler is the man who bit the bullet in his quest to fulfill the promise of a great nation than the man thereafter, the people, because political expediency overcame our nobler instincts. If you take that stale bait of popularity over what is best for our country, you are, in effect, saying, ``Let this great Nation perish.'' I yield the floor, Madam President. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I am happy to yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, to the lay people who may not understand the workings of Congress, here is the way it works. The Budget Committee goes into session when we first come into session, and they decide what revenues next year are expected to be, how much we are going to take in. And then they go through the various budget functions and they say, here is how much we are going to spend. And they say, in order to have a balanced budget, we have to cut spending by this amount. Let us assume, just for easy figuring, that they say we are going to have $2 trillion in revenues and here is our $2 trillion in expenditures, the budget is balanced. They bring it before the Senate. It passes by a lopsided majority. We pat Government award, and go home happy as a clam. Then, October 1 rolls around and it looks as though the economy is not doing so well. Within 5 or 6 months, it is obvious that we are going to have a $50 billion deficit. So what happens? Well, somebody goes to court and says, ``Why, those clowns told us they had a balanced budget, and look here. They are going to run a $50 billion deficit.'' Who can sue? First of all, will the Federal courts have jurisdiction? We do not know. Not one person in this body can answer that question. Second question: Who has standing to challenge the budget in Federal court? Everybody? Taxpayers? State and local governments? Foreign nationals? We do not know. Third question: What will we do while the current budget is tied up in court? We do not know. Fourth question: How will the amendment force Congress to reach an agreement as to what they are going to cut or what tax hikes they are going to adopt? We do not know. Fifth: Would the courts find that enforcement of the balanced budget amendment is a political question on which they refuse to rule? We do not know. Sixth question: Can the Congress just ignore the amendment as drafted, and go merrily on their way? They probably can, and they probably would. Another scenario: Let us assume that even before October 1, in the beginning of the year 2002, as soon as Congress adopts the budget resolution, 6 months before October 1, somebody says, ``Why, you guys are crazy. What are you talking about? You're projecting a $2 trillion income. You're not even going to come close.'' They go to court even before the year starts and say, ``Those people are mucking with the figures, cooking the books. They say they are going to have an income of $2 trillion when they are going to be lucky to have $1.9 trillion. Make them do it right. Make them cut more spending or raise taxes.'' And let us assume for the purposes of argument that court then says, ``You're right. I agree with you. Those people have overestimated revenues by $100 billion,'' and issues an order to Congress to close the gap and Congress does not do it. Can the court raise taxes to make us comply with this amendment? Maybe. Would that not be a beautiful thing to see? Would that not be something? James Madison would be whirling so hard in his grave, it would be like a fan in the kitchen. He would be saying, ``What have those clowns done to abdicate their responsibility to another branch of Government, the one thing I warned against?'' Madam President, I could go on with scenarios like this. Senator Johnston has an amendment that is going to clarify this. It is going to say the courts can take jurisdiction over these questions. I think it ought to be clarified. Can they or can they not? And if the courts cannot take jurisdiction, if the courts have no role to play in this, who is going to enforce it? There is nobody left but us. If we are the ones that are already flagrantly violating the constitutional amendment we are debating here today, we are flagrantly violating it, do you think we are going to correct it? Let us assume, finally, one further scenario. Let us assume that my colleague, Senator Pryor over here, is so upset about the fact that he does not believe we have a balanced budget, and maybe the court has already said ``You are right. The budget is $100 billion off, but this is a political question and we are not going to get involved in it. This would be meddling in legislative affairs and we are not going to do it.'' So then Senator Pryor goes to court and says: ``I want an injunction to prevent the Treasury Department from issuing one single bond, T- bill, or note to pay off that $100 billion deficit for this year.'' A court might take jurisdiction of a case like that. The plaintiff would simply be saying that if compliance with the balanced budget amendment is a political question and the courts are not going to make Congress pass a balanced budget, then keep them from doing anything, namely, issuing scrip, bonds, notes to cover the deficit. Some will say the courts will not do that, but in fact they already have. Most people here have heard of Missouri versus Jenkins, the Kansas City segregation case where the courts ordered the city of Kansas City to raise taxes. The Supreme Court affirmed it. You know something, Madam President, if I went home to that same coffeeshop I talked about a moment ago and I told my friends sitting around the coffee shop in Charleston, AR, that the effect of this amendment would be to turn the budget over to the courts and the courts would have jurisdiction to raise taxes or cut spending, the balanced budget amendment would not have a 75-percent approval rating; it would be lucky to get a 25-percent approval rating. Madam President, we keep dealing with distractions and issues that are not relevant to the real problems of this country. The Contract With America has some things in it which are legitimate and which Democrats ought to join Republicans in passing, as we have already done on the congressional compliance question. In thumbing through the Federalist Papers yet once again this weekend, I found that James Madison talked considerably about the House. Strangely, he did not say Congress or the Senate. He said the House of Representatives should be very careful not to pass a law from which they are protected. So we are 205 years late passing a bill to make us comply with the laws other people have to comply with, and I was happy to vote for that bill. But this idea that we are going to do middle-class tax cuts--when it comes to doing what is popular, Madam President, let me tell you something that is interesting. Seventy-nine percent of the people say they favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Over 80 percent favor the right-to-know amendment, which is the pending business here. The right-to-know amendment simply says if you people in Congress are so hot for this amendment and you can balance the budget by the year 2002, you tell us now how you are going to cut between $1.5 and $2 trillion between now and the year 2002. That is an absurdity on its face. It is as utterly impossible as my soaring out of here into the heavens, flapping my arms. We have a right to know. And the reason everybody is silent is because they do not have a clue as to how they would even come close to cutting that kind of spending. It is ridiculous in the extreme. Yesterday, the Joint Tax Committee, which does the best job of estimating, says the Republican tax cuts over the next 10 years--listen to this, I say to the Senator--those tax cuts are $704 billion. Add that to the trillion-dollar base line just for the first 7 years, $704 billion in lost revenue for the middle-class tax cut plus the capital gains tax cuts and the IRA's. That ought to cause people to wake up screaming. What is the biggest item on the budget now? Interest. Interest on the debt. But talk about how popular this amendment is, the right to know is popular, too. Know what else is popular? The idea that if we can find $80 or $200 billion in spending cuts to provide for a middle-class tax cut, we should apply that money to reducing the deficit, rather than a tax cut. And 81 percent of the people favor that idea, Senator. I disagree with the President's budget to this extent. I am not willing to accept $190 to $200 billion a year in deficits for the next 7 or 8 years. We can do better. We can do a lot better. I have seven bills pending that will save $133 billion over the next 15 years, $33 billion over the next 5 years. Madam President, we have big problems. We have a crime problem. We have welfare problems. Our educational system has been failing miserably. Our culture is degenerating. On that point, is it not curious that when people are becoming increasingly uncivil to each other and we have crime on every street corner, the proposals in the House are to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the one station we can watch without getting blood all over ourselves. One small piece of culture left, and they want to torpedo that. That is not enough. They want to abolish the Education Department. Take ourselves back to the stone age for the Arts, without which the State of Arkansas probably would not have the Arkansas Symphony. Who cares about the old music that Bach and Beethoven and all those guys wrote 200 or 300 years ago? Get rid of that, too. The National Endowment for the Humanities who gave Arkansas a $50,000 grant when I was Governor and allowed Betty Bumpers to start artist programs in every first grade in the State. Get rid of that. What are we doing teaching first graders about art? What a waste. They are trying to scrap every smidgen of culture left in this society. There are not any words that we can put into the Constitution, Madam President, that are going to stiffen one single spine. Not one word in the Constitution will make somebody vote against Social Security or the space station, the latter, particularly if there is a contract providing 500 jobs in your State. No, words in the Constitution do not change people's character. We vote for what is popular around here. James Madison, again, ``Do not take that stale bait of popularity * * *,'' as opposed to what is best for the country. Many of the people of this country think there is enough waste, fraud, and abuse to balance the budget. A lot of them think if we change our salaries and the pension fund we could balance the budget. Take away our airport parking, install term limits. With issues like that, nobody will notice much of anything we do around here. In August 1993 we did something that we are asking the Republicans to do this year. I will never forget the month or the year. We said we would get the budget deficit going down, and keep it going down. We said we would do that by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people in this country by $250 billion, and cutting spending by $250 billion. And we did it. We did it just before the August recess. I voted for it, unhappily. Even though we told people exactly what we were going to cut, exactly what the tax hike would be, we still did not get one single Republican vote. Not one. Now the $500 billion in deficit reduction we promised over the next 5 years, has turned into nearly $600 billion, maybe headed for $700 billion. It was the most courageous thing, the most important thing that has been done since I have been in the Senate. I have screamed my head off about the deficit. I have offered amendments here every fall to cut spending. I might as well be shouting in a rain barrel. But we passed that bill, 50 votes from Democrats alone, plus the Vice President in the Senate Chamber. Everybody knew exactly what we were doing. And now we are saying, You tell us exactly how you will come up with almost $2 trillion in spending cuts in the next 7 years. Why should they not? People on Social Security want to know if they are included. People on Medicare, people on Medicaid, people who pay taxes, want to know what it will do to them.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there is a great story about Winston Churchill. It is probably apocryphal. Somebody was introducing him one night at a dinner, and they alluded to his drinking habits. And whoever it was that introduced him drew an imaginary line on the wall and said, I bet if all the whiskey Winston Churchill had drunk were put in this room, it would fill this room up to this mark. Churchill looked at that line, looked at the ceiling and said, ``Oh, so much to do and such a short time in which to do it.'' Now, here we have a constitutional amendment, and everybody has said everything that needs to be said--well, I guess everything that needs to be said has been said but everybody has not said it. So I come late to the debate, 10 days after it began, to put in my 2 cents' worth and express my undying opposition to this proposal. When it comes to the Constitution of the United States, I belong to the wait-just-a-minute club. I confess that I voted for a constitutional amendment early on in my career in the Senate. I would not do it again. I have taken plenty of political heat in my lifetime. I remember that great school prayer amendment in 1984 which would have allowed the school board or the State legislature to compose prayers or adopt prayers composed by others and demand their recitation by the students in school. And now it has become so commonplace to offer an amendment to cure every seemingly intractable problem. As to the Contract With America, I join my colleague from West Virginia. I am not a party to that contract. My contract is with the people of America: the Constitution of the United States. But right in this session, there is a proposal to require a balanced budget, which is the debate now, a proposal to again address the prayer in school issue, and a proposal to limit the terms of Members of Congress, which I also consider to be a very bad idea. Every time we demonstrate to the people of America that we do not have the spine or the political courage to deal with a pressing problem, somebody says, ``Well, let's amend the Constitution.'' In 205 years, Mr. President, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, have not been tinkered with. So far as our Constitution is concerned, 205, coming on 206 years old, we have amended it 27 times including the 10 amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights. So actually, the people of this country in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to tinker with the Constitution only 17 times. When you take out the constitutional amendment that said, ``We will not drink,'' and the ensuing constitutional amendment of 1933 that said, ``We will drink,'' only 15 times in 205 years have we chosen to tinker with this very precious document. There is a fellow named Robert Goldwin at the American Enterprise Institute. I do not know him, but I was reading an article by Robert Samuelson the other day where he quotes Robert Goldwin as saying, the first principle of a conservative should be ``Don't muck with the Constitution.'' Now, I do not agree with the American Enterprise Institute very often. I do not always agree with Robert Samuelson. But I can tell you there is infinite wisdom in that statement for everybody who considers himself or herself a conservative. ``Do not muck with the Constitution.'' When the House of Representatives came back into session, and Speaker Gingrich told Members of Congress that they ought to read some of these early documents. Two that he mentioned were the Federalist Papers and Alexis de Tocqueville's ``Democracy in America.'' I read those in political science 103A. I read them again in law school, and have read them a couple of times since then. The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were published in New York newspapers explaining to the people what the Constitution would do, and why they ought to vote to ratify it. New York and Virginia were key States and were absolutely essential for the ratification of the Constitution. Incidentally, do you know how old James Madison was when he wrote that magnificent series of papers? Hamilton wrote most of them. Hamilton was 31, and Madison was 37. I think John Jay was the old man in the crowd, and he was 44. But the point is that the most important point that Madison made in the Federalist Papers was that we have three separate branches of government, and we have created all these checks and balances so that one branch does not run amuck or usurp the powers of another. He said we should let the President nominate Supreme Court Justices, but Congress is the one that is going to have to sign off on them. Time after time Madison returned to the theme of checks and balances. Lets not muck with it now. I will come back to this in a moment. There is absolutely no question that this amendment is utterly foolish, totally unenforceable, unless the courts, the judiciary branch of Government, enforce it. Who wants that? You go back home to the coffee shop, Senators. Go home this weekend and walk into small town America in the coffee shop, and say, ``We are passing that balanced budget amendment up there. We are going to get our house in order.'' Maybe some old farmer or small business owner says, ``Well, now, Senator, how you going to enforce that amendment?'' You say, ``Well, we are going to let the courts do that.'' And he is going to say, ``Wait just a minute. Are you telling me that you people are so spineless that you cannot deal with this deficit, and so you are going to put a few words in the Constitution and buck it over to the courts?'' I promise you that you just lost his vote. If there is anything America does not need or want it is for the Court to say, ``Congress, you must raise taxes. Congress you must cut spending.'' Where? When? How much? In what programs? It is the height of folly. You know sometimes we all ought to go listen to the folks at the coffee shop more often. I never will forget in 1979 speaking to the Nevada County Cattleman's Association. Jimmy Carter had just imposed a grain embargo on the Soviet Union. I voted for it. I thought, ``We will show those Soviets.'' And the embargo had an effect precisely opposite what we expected. It did not bother the Soviets at all. They just bought wheat in other places, and the American wheat farmers saw the price of their product go down dramatically. So this old cowboy said, ``Senator, you voted for that grain embargo against the Soviet Union?'' I said, ``Yes. I did.'' By that time, I knew I had done the wrong thing, and, I said, ``I am sorry about that. I will never do it again.'' Then he said, ``I hope you won't Senator, because I think a fat, happy Russian is a lot less dangerous to us than a starving Russian.'' I said, ``You are wiser than most of the people I serve with in the U.S. Senate.'' I remember in 1981 when President Reagan came to town, he said, ``We are going to grow our way out of this deficit. We are going to have an economy so hot people will be paying more taxes, and we are going to balance this budget in nothing flat.'' That was in 1984. Those were his words. They were not mine. Ronald Reagan is the one who said we will balance the budget by 1984, and that we might even do it in 1983. I remember it so distinctly. When we double defense spending, and balance the budget.'' And with the utmost respect to everybody who was here at the time, I say it was a lunatic idea; sheer lunacy. When I die I want my epitaph to say, ``Dale Bumpers was 1 of the 11 Senators in the U.S. Senate that voted no.'' Very shortly after that vote we saw the deficit start zooming. That was $3.5 trillion ago, Senator; 14 years and $3.5 trillion ago that we were told that was the way to balance the budget. Did you know that if we had not done that, if we did not have those mammoth deficit increases during the 12 years before Bill Clinton became President--the deficit today would be $800,000, less than $1 million. Virtually every dime of the interest we are paying on the national debt today is due to the deficit from 1981 to 1992. So everybody says, well, we mucked that up. We forgot something. What did we forget? We forgot to put a few words in the Constitution. Mr. President, you could put all the words in the Constitution you want to put in, and it will not matter. I do not mean to be denigrating to anyone, but I can tell you what this is all about. It is about two or three things. No. 1, it is about putting the balanced budget amendment into the Constitution, your simply declaring that we will achieve balance by the year 2002. Then everybody hoped and assumes that by the year 2002 the American people have forgotten what was said in 1995. No. 2, what we are in effect saying is that we do not have the spine or the courage to do what we have to do to get the deficit under control. Therefore, let us put a few words in the Constitution that we can hide behind for at least another 7 years. Members will say, ``I probably will want to be out of here then anyway, so what difference does it make?'' Finally, Mr. President, the Contract With America says we will amend the Constitution, and we will balance the budget by 2002 or 2 years after the States ratify the Constitution, whichever is later. I want you to think about that. What does that mean? It means that the people who are championing this amendment and saying ``Trust me,'' are also saying that we will cut spending by $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion over the next 7 years, and we will do it while increasing defense spending and we will not touch Social Security, and obviously, we cannot touch interest on the debt. So what does that mean? That means that at least 30 percent of all the rest of Government spending has to be cut. There is not one person in this body, Republican or Democrat, who believes that is even remotely possible--not even remotely possible. Yet, we plow ahead asking the American people to not probe too deeply into what we are doing here, hoping they will not expose us for our hypocrisy and our cynicism. When the year 2002 rolls around and the deficit is still soaring, we will have done exactly what Alexander Hamilton said we should guard carefully against, and that is: Do not raise people's expectations beyond the point of fulfillment. Every time you promise the American people something you fail to deliver, they become that much more cynical. Mr. President, let me show you a chart here regarding the space station. Everybody knows that I think the space station is an utter waste of money. I saw the picture this morning of the Russian cosmonaut waving at the American astronauts. That is heady stuff--sending a shuttle up there and to come within 35 feet of the Russian space station Mir. I do not want to berate the space station, but that is the seventh space station Russia has had orbiting the Earth. One guy aboard has been on it 2 years. We say we want to put one up there, too. That is going to cost about $70 billion. So last year, 63 Senators voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, yet within 3 months, 43 of them voted to plow ahead with this $70 billion boondoggle, the space station. Some of the other amendments I offered last year to cut spending were just as embarrassing, or more so. So now we have people saying, ``Well, it did not work in 1981 when we proposed to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget. But this time we really mean it, and we are going to put some words in the Constitution, and now it will work.'' Some very wise reporter here in Washington has properly called it deja voodoo. You remember the comedian Flip Wilson, who use to say ``The Devil made me do it!'' I suppose people in this body think that in the future when they have to make the tough choices and cut spending, they will have the Constitution to rely on. They can go home, and when everybody is irritated because their program got cut, they can say, ``The Constitution made me do it!'' If we just put a few lines into the Constitution, you can go home and say, ``We had to cut Medicare, Social Security, and all of those things because the Constitution made me do it.'' But did it? Will it? This proposal, as the Senator from Utah well knows, provides that if 60 people in this body want to vote to unbalance the budget, the budget will be unbalanced and we can have all the deficit spending we want. If you do not think they will do that, look at this chart. This bar represents the 60 votes it would require to unbalance the budget and these bars represent the votes we made on the 13 appropriations bills last year. The lowest vote on any appropriation bill was 71. On average the appropriations bills, where we do the real spending, passed with 84.5 votes. So, do you think the Members of the Senate are not going to vote to unbalance the budget if it means a cut in Social Security and Medicare? When you mention those two programs, 100 Senators dive under their desks. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 60 Senators will not vote to unbalance the budget. Where does that leave you? Let us assume that the economy is in a recession, as it was in 1929 and 1930 and 1931, and only Government can bring it out and avoid a depression. So somebody comes on the Senate floor and says we have to vote for spending money we do not have because people are homeless, out of work, and they are hungry; we have to vote to unbalance the budget until we get over this recession. Forty-one Senators--a very slim minority--can say, no, we are not going to unbalance the budget. Forty-one Senators can bring this country to its knees by refusing to address a dramatic economic crisis in the country. Do you know another thing I remember about the Reagan years and the Carter years? Senators, especially on that side of the aisle, decided they would quit voting to raise the debt limit to match spending. That's liking going into a restaurant and eating the biggest steak and when they bring the bill, you say, ``I am not going to pay it.'' So everybody thought this it would be a great campaign issue to vote not to raise the debt ceiling. They said, ``I voted for all these appropriations bills, all the spending; but now I have decided I am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling.'' That happened five times in 5 years. And one time we brought the Government to a halt over the weekend and a good part of Monday and Friday, and it cost the taxpayers of this country $150 million. That is just peanuts compared to the damage we risk under this amendment. Under this amendment, 41 Senators can bring this country to its knees. Do you think when that thing comes up on the floor, though, and somebody says we are going to have to cut Social Security 10 percent, cut 20 percent out of Medicare, we are going to have to close 18 veterans' hospitals, we are going to have to cut back civil service pensions, do you think 60 Senators will not vote in a minute to unbalance the budget? (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I really apologize for interrupting the Senator. I do want to say I am not so concerned about the requirement of a constitutional 60 percent, three-fifths vote in the Senate to balance the budget. That will almost certainly happen. I had my staff do a study of all the appropriations bills for fiscal year 1995. Last year, the average vote for all of the 13 appropriations bills was 84.5 votes in the Senate. So I expect it is not going to be too difficult to get 60 votes to override the amendment. But my concern is not that. My concern is the potential damage that can be done by 41 obstreperous ideologues who care more about their ideology than they do the future of the country. Let us assume we are in a recession headed for a depression, and every economist in the country tells us the only way in the world you can head off massive unemployment and massive social and cultural disaster is for the Government to create job-producing projects. And 41 Senators, far fewer than a majority, can say, ``We don't care what the economists said. We are for a balanced budget. And we are not going to stand for allowing 60 Senators to unbalance this budget.'' So the country goes right into the tank. That is my real concern. I am interested in the reaction of the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. I did not utter one word yesterday on the balanced budget amendment. But I want to serve notice that I am going to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BUMPERS. Again, just so we make this point, I am one of the people in this body, along with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who remembers well the Depression. I was just a child. We were very poor. There was no snob value in it. Everybody in town was poor. But I can remember. The reason I still believe in Government is that the Government did some good things and created jobs at the same time. They helped us pave our streets where we choked to death on dust and mud. We lived a block from Main Street, and you could not get there when it rained. I can remember when we got an indoor john for the first time. We were rich. Before that we had a ``two-holer'' out back. Most people just had a ``one-holer.'' We got running water, clean water. People quit having typhoid fever and the farmers got low-interest loans. As a matter of fact, the Government built houses for them. I could go on about rural electrification, which saved my father's business. He was a small hardware merchant. As a result of rural electrification he was able to sell refrigerators, radios, ranges, all of those things. So I think Government does some things well. And we could face a time like the Depression again if we have 41 obstreperous Senators saying, ``No; that does not fit with my philosophy.'' The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from a State where we built TVA power, and the people of Tennessee enjoy very low rates as a result of TVA power. I promise you, he does not think Government is all bad, either. All I am saying is, if those things happen--and they most certainly will at some point--what happens? I do not believe in Government by minority rule. That is what we will have.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Bennett in sponsoring the National Park Service Concession Policy Reform Act of 1995. I first started trying to reform park concession policies in 1979. Over the past 16 years, we have held numerous legislative and oversight hearings, but until last year, had been unable to move the bill beyond the hearing stage. During last year's hearing, Senator Bennett offered to work with me to find a compromise, and in large part because of his efforts, we reported a bill with bipartisan support from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That bill, S. 208, was overwhelmingly supported by the Senate, passing by a vote of 90 to 9. The bill enjoyed equally strong support in the House of Representatives, passing with relatively minor changes by a vote of 386 to 30. Despite such strong support in both Houses, the bill died last Congress because two Senators refused to allow the final compromise version to be brought up on the Senate floor during the final days of the 103d Congress. The bill that Senator Bennett and I are introducing this year is essentially the same as last year's Senate-passed bill. This bill will make much-needed changes in the current system and ensure that the American public receives a fair return for allowing private entities the privilege of doing business in units of the National Park System. As I have said many times, the Concessions Policy Act of 1965, the law under which the National Park Service authorizes concessions to provide visitor services inside units of the National Park System, is outdated and anticompetitive, and should be repealed. Private visitor service facilities have been operating in our national parks for nearly 100 years. Prior to 1965, the National Park Service provided for in-park visitor services by administrative action under very general provisions in the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act. In 1965, Congress enacted the Concession Policy Act, making the National Park Service the only Federal land-managing agency with a specific concessions statute. Current concession operations in parks vary in size from small, family-owned businesses providing services such as canoe rentals and guiding services, to major hotel and restaurant facilities operated by large corporations. Although the number fluctuates because of seasonal changes, there are currently about 650 concessioners operating inside units of the National Park System. Concession permits are issued for most smaller or seasonal operations, while concession contracts are used for larger, more long- term operations. Total gross revenues generated by concessioners currently amount to more than $657 million annually. Significantly, about 50 concessioners--less than 8 percent--account for over 80 percent of these revenues. have been topics of intense interest for many years. In addition to the hearings we have conducted, this issue has been the subject of numerous studies, reports, and analyses prepared by the Congress, the General Accounting Office, the Department of the Interior's inspector general, the National Park Service, and a variety of private research organizations. All of these studies have identified problems with the current law which need to be addressed. franchise fees One of the problems with the current system concerns franchise fees, the fees paid by concessions to the United States for the privilege of operating a business inside a national park. These fees are too low and should be increased. This is especially true for the larger concessioners who are operating under long-term concessions contracts entered into many years ago. At present, the U.S. Treasury receives approximately $18 million in franchise and related fees from concessioners who do in excess of $657 million worth of business in our national parks. In addition, another $7.8 million is retained within parks in special accounts. Combined, these franchise fees and special accounts average only 4 percent of the total gross revenues earned by concessioners. This low rate of return results in a giveaway of some of our Nation's most valuable resources. I am pleased to note that some of the most recent contracts have provided for a better rate of return. For example, the new contract to provide visitor services at Yosemite National Park increased the rate of return to the Government from three-quarters of 1 percent to almost 20 percent. However, this change was the result of a very unique set of circumstances which permitted several companies to compete for the new contract; in general, the Concession Policy Act of 1965 continues to prevent serious competition for the awarding of any new contract. In addition, there is no assurance that a future administration would not reverse course and return to the abysmally low returns of the past. Rather than arbitrarily establishing a minimum franchise fee in the legislation, my bill will ensure that these fees be set at more realistic levels by encouraging and facilitating increased competition for concession contracts. In addition, under existing law, franchise fees are deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the U.S. Treasury. Since these funds do not directly benefit the parks or the people who use them, there is little incentive for the Park Service to aggressively pursue increased fees, or for concessioners to pay them. The Concession Policy Reform Act of 1995 would deposit these receipts into a special account in the Treasury to be used to benefit park operations, resource management maintenance, visitor services, et cetera. The bill also directs the Park Service, where practicable, to establish a park improvement fund in lieu of collecting all or a portion of the franchise fees. While I believe it is important to try and ensure that the Federal Government achieves a higher return from these contracts, the operation of facilities in national parks should not be determined simply on the basis of the highest bid. This legislation explicitly states that consideration of revenue to the United States shall be subordinate to the objectives of protecting and preserving park areas. In addition, the bill grants the Secretary the authority to reject any bid, regardless of the amount of franchise fee offered, if the Secretary determines that the bidder is not qualified, is likely to provide unsatisfactory service, or is not responsive to the objectives of protecting and preserving the park area. So that there is absolutely no doubt about the priority of concessions operations within national parks, the bill explicitly directs the Secretary to evaluate franchise fee proposals only from among those companies that the Secretary determines will be responsive to protecting and preserving park resources. preferential right of renewal Perhaps the most significant impediment to competition concerns the statutory preferential right to contract renewal which, as currently interpreted by the Park Service, gives an existing satisfactory concessioner the right to meet the terms of a better offer submitted by a competitor and to retain the contract if the existing concessioner's offer is substantially equal. In my view, in most cases, this is anticompetitive and should not be granted as a matter of law. While such a preference may have been warranted years ago to encourage certain developments in parks and ensure the continuity of concession operations, it can also limit both the Park Service's influence in dealing with concessioners and the ability of most Americans to compete for concession contracts. In many instances, the right to provide visitor services inside National Parks is a very desirable and very valuable privilege which can attract a host of extremely competent and qualified prospective concessioners. The Park Service ought to be able to choose from these qualified applicants without being constrained by a preferential right. This legislation will eliminate the preferential right of renewal in future concessions contracts, with the limited exception of outfitter and guide operations who currently operate in a largely competitive environment, and small contracts with gross annual revenues of $500,000 or less, which I will discuss in detail shortly. Notice of Opportunity to Bid on New Contracts It is apparent that the Park Service does not adequately publicize new concession contracts or contract renewal opportunities, nor does it always provide interested parties with the specific financial and other submission requirements needed to submit competitive proposals. The Concession Policy Reform Act would establish a detailed competitive bidding procedure for the awarding of all concessions contracts. This process would require that advance notice of all concessions contracts be published, that specific minimum bid requirements be established and made public, and that the details of the previous contract for the park area and other important information be made available to prospective concessioners. Possessory Interest The other most significant obstacle to competition for concession contracts involves a provision in the current law which allows the granting of a possessory interest to a concessioner. When a concessioner makes an improvement on land inside a National Park, that concessioner is entitled, with the approval of the Secretary, to a possessory interest in that improvement, which consists of all incidents of ownership except legal title. The method of valuation for this property interest as set forth the 1965 act is sound value. Sound value is defined as current reconstruction cost, less depreciation, not to exceed fair market value. This effectively gives concessioners a right of compensation for the appreciated value of their improvements. This current practice of routinely granting sound value can result in concessioners being entitled to millions of dollars in possessory interest, which can effectively make it impossible for the National Park Service to terminate a contract or award it to a new concessioner. This practice is not financially warranted in all circumstances, serves as a barrier to new and qualified concessioners, and limits the Park Service's flexibility in managing concessions facilities. The Concession Policy Reform Act of 1995 will continue to recognize a current concessioner's possessory interest, if there is one. With respect to new concessions contracts, however, the bill provides that if a concessioner's contract is terminated, the concessioner shall be entitled to the actual cost of building or acquiring the structure, less depreciation. Last Congress, the legislation was modified to provide for the depreciation of the structure over its useful life, up to the depreciation period used for Federal income tax purposes, which is currently 39 years. As modified, I believe the bill allows for a more reasonable depreciation schedule, while at the same time, permitting a concessioner to be compensated for its nondepreciated interest in the structure, thus protecting the concessioner's investment. In addition to these major changes, the legislation would adopt a number of other recommendations identified by the General Accounting Office, the Inspector General, and the Department's Concessions Task Force. several times to incorporate many constructive suggestions and proposals. These changes include eliminating what some perceived to be excessive reporting and regulatory requirements, clarifying the criteria by which a contract is to be awarded, narrowing the uses for revenues generated from franchise fees, and other clarifying and conforming changes. This year's bill retains the provision in last year's Senate passed bill to recognize a preferential right of renewal for outfitters, guides, and river runners, as well as for small operations with gross annual revenues of under $500,000. While I believe such a right is anticompetitive in general, I believe a limited exception is warranted in these cases. Unlike most concessioners, river runners and other companies providing outfitter and guide services operate in a competitive environment within a park, with several companies providing the same or similar services. In addition, guide and outfitter operations do not have a possessory interest in park structures, unlike many other concessioners. The legislation directs the Secretary to grant a preferential right of renewal for these outfitters, but only if the operator does not have a possessory interest in a structure, and only if the company has been evaluated as operating satisfactorily during the previous contract. I think this approach recognizes the needs of this class of concessioners, but is consistent with the overall thrust of this legislation. The bill also provides a preferential right of renewal for small operations with gross annual revenues of less than $500,000. This encompasses almost 80 percent of all concession operations. I have always maintained that concession reform should not be a means to force small operations, especially family operations, who have in many instances provided service to a particular park for decades. At the same time, the bill ensures that the contracts with gross annual revenues exceeding $500,000, which account for over 90 percent of all concession revenues, are awarded based on a competitive basis. I would also like to repeat an observation that I have made continuously during the past several years, one that I am sure Senator Bennett would agree with. The purpose of this bill is not to eliminate concession operations from our national parks. I do not subscribe to the theory all visitor facilities in national parks are inappropriate. Many of the facilities and services provided by concessioners are entirely appropriate and benefit the park visitors. I only want to ensure that when concession contracts are awarded, the American people receive a fair return, and that there is an opportunity for competition for these desirable business opportunities. Mr. President, this bill represents responsible reform of national park concession policy. As demonstrated last Congress, this issue has strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. In addition, concession reform has been a high priority within the Department of the Interior. I urge my colleagues to continue their strong support for this much-needed reform, and I look forward to its swift enactment this year. In summary, Mr. President, I again wish to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague and very good friend, the Senator from Utah, Robert Bennett. I have to confess that after working 16 years to reform the concessions policy of this country in the national parks, I had annually hit a stone wall until Bob Bennett came to the Senate. I am not only grateful to him and to his values and his integrity, political, and every other way, but also because of his background in business and the recognition, once he delved into the issue, that this was a policy which was long, long ago outdated and needed dramatically to be reformed. Let me further say that even my own efforts on this through the years have not been, as some concessionaires thought, punitive in nature. It is just one of those things that has been going on for 50 to 100 years in this country and nobody ever did anything about it. Once I realized how badly it needed reform, I went to work on it. As I say, it was not until 1993 and 1994, after Senator Bennett came and sat on the Energy Committee with me where the original jurisdiction on this issue lay--and I never will forget the morning that he made what I thought was one of the most sensible presentations in the committee I ever heard, and that was we believe in competition. We pride ourselves on being a capitalistic nation. We believe in free enterprise, and that entails competition. And there was, Mr. President, virtually no competition in this field. In 1993, the concessions of this country took in $657 million, and the U.S. Treasury derived the princely sum of $18 million. The one contract that we have let under something similar to this bill was let in Yosemite, and this Yosemite contract pays up to 20 percent. Now, we want to keep the rentals as low as we can because the lower they are, the lower the prices are and that is good for the American people who visit the park. But we also want the U.S. Government, which owns the parks and is responsible for them, to get a decent return based on competition. So, Mr. President, I wish to say this is a very happy day for me. We passed this bill out of our committee last year, and one Senator killed the bill in the last 2 weeks of the session. As a matter of fact, that same Senator killed about 35 to 40 bills out of the National Parks Subcommittee of the Energy Committee and now we have to have hearings on those bills all over again this year at a staggering cost to the taxpayers, report the bills, go through the House, go through conference, go through everything we went through before in order to pass the bills again. One other thing I would like to point out is that one of the things that occurred to me, which made this concessions policy absolutely necessary, was the policy of allowing concessionaires in the parks to build hotels and other structures and, of course, depreciate those things on their tax books but at the end of the lease, if they lost the lease, be entitled to what was called sound value, which was effectively market value. If you had the concession at Yosemite and you decided to put $5 million into a hotel, at the end of your lease, say 15 years later, you are entitled to the market value of the hotel if you lost the lease, and that might be $20 million. The fair market value of the hotel might actually be more than it was when you paid for it, yet you had been able to depreciate that hotel on your tax books for tax purposes for 15 years. It gets a little more complicated than that, but I just want to say that was the thing that first caught my attention on these leases. The other was the extremely low rental that the Federal Government was getting. What the Government will get in years to come is not going to balance the budget. It is not a large amount. But it does deal with what Congress ought to be alert to all the time, and that is the elemental principle of fairness.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, these days we hear a lot about the need to reinvent Government and make it more responsive and less costly. Today, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Pryor that will help the Fish and Wildlife Service achieve both these goals. For many years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted a triploid grass carp certification program. The triploid grass carp is a sterile fish that is used by 29 States to help control aquatic vegetation in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. This fish has proven to be both effective and economical and many States prefer using it over chemicals and pesticides. As more and more States have legalized the use of the triploid grass carp, they have adopted regulations requiring that the Fish and Wildlife Service verify through certification that these fish are sterile. If a reproducing triploid grass carp was to accidentally enter a pond or river ecosystem it could seriously damage the habitat of existing fish species. Certification by the Fish and Wildlife Service ensures that the fish are ecologically sound and clears the way for them to be shipped to various States by private producers. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 550 triploid grass carp certifications, free of charge. The cost for providing this service was $70,000. Unfortunately, because of severe fiscal constraints, the agency can no longer afford to absorb the costs associated with the certification process and is moving to discontinue the program in the next 60 days. The producers of the triploid grass carp have informed the Fish and Wildlife Service they are willing to pay the agency for this service, provided that the money comes back to the agency and is used only for the triploid grass carp certification program. The agency supports this ``fee for service'' concept but needs congressional authorization before it can be instituted. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, will give the Fish and Wildlife Service the authority it needs to charge a user fee and apply it to the triploid grass carp certification program. Without this legislation, a valuable program that benefits the public will be terminated. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and look forward to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his comments. He was perhaps even more eloquent than I have been and said more concisely and clearly what I have been trying to say.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Not yet. I am not trying to delay. I hope to be through here very shortly. I assume that the floor manager will wish to move to table. As I said, my design is not to try to impede the unfunded mandates bill. But 80 percent of the people who walk through that door when the rollcall buzzer goes off will not have a clue as to what this amendment is about in a sense that they fully understand. As the Senator from North Dakota has just stated, this amendment is discretionary. It does not require the States to do anything. We have had 27 votes since we came back into session, and two Republicans defected on one vote. I do not expect any defections on this one. I am not anticipating a big vote. I am not anticipating prevailing, but this is an idea whose time, if it has not yet come, is coming. The National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, National Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Counties, all have strongly endorsed this measure. I think we can conclude from that that we really do not care what people think unless it comports with what we think. Now, Mr. President, last night, the senior Senator from Maine talked about what a burden this was. And I alluded to the fact that one of our very own Members, Senator Bennett from Utah, was one of the founders of a business that ships catalogs of office supplies all over the country, over $200 million a year in business. When they started out they made a conscious decision to collect sales taxes for every State they shipped into that had a sales tax. He tells me that virtually one press of the computer button at the end of each month does the whole thing. They have never had a minute's problem with it. Now, why would the States maybe want to do this? Forty-five States have a use tax right now, but it is on the consumer. If I bought a computer and it was shipped across State lines to me from a mail-order house, in 45 States I would be obligated to pay use tax on that computer. Most consumers do not know that, but now some States are beginning to enforce the use tax. Let me show you something. Here in Indiana, some people are getting rather rude awakenings. People from the revenue department are knocking on their door and saying, we know that you bought something from Lands' End or whoever. You owe us the use tax on that out-of-State product. In 1993, 10,500 people in Indiana were assessed for unpaid use taxes; in New Jersey, 10,000 people; in Ohio, 7,100 people. Some comment was made last night about Maine having this very unique thing on their tax return. Know what it is? I will tell you how unique it is. On your State income tax return in Maine it says multiply .0004 times your adjusted gross income and that is how much you will pay for mail-order purchases that you made last year. If I lived in Maine I would contest the constitutionality of that. I did not buy anything from a mail-order house last year so why should I pay the State of Maine a percentage of my adjusted gross income? Other States are doing different things to collect use tax to help them comply with all these terrible mandates we have been putting on them. [[Page S1152]] Somebody else says this is going to be a terrible burden on mail- order companies. I have already alluded to Franklin Quest, the company that Senator Bennett started, and the fact that Franklin Quest collects taxes in every State where they ship products. Look, I have about 50 or 60 catalogs here. This is a 1-week stock at my house. Here is Franklin Quest, Senator Bennett's firm. Franklin Quest says, ``Add sales tax on the subtotal for all States except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Puerto Rico.'' Know why? Those States do not have a sales tax. So what does Franklin Quest say for the other 45 states? ``Add sales tax.'' Is that complicated? Of course not. Here is CW. CW is located in North Carolina. They say, ``In California, North Carolina, New Jersey, and New York, add sales tax. In New York, add applicable sales tax to shipping and handling and express delivery charges, too.'' Complicated? Why, of course not. The reason they are saying add sales tax in those States is because they have a presence in those States. And that is all this amendment would do. If the State does not want to implement the legislation, it does not have to do so. So, Mr. President, you must bear in mind, this is going to happen. It is just a question of when. The mail order business is burgeoning--L.L. Bean had a 17-percent increase in sales last year, whereas retail sales in the Nation were fairly static. You put all these mandates on the States and you say, ``We want a point of order raised on every issue as to whether or not we are fully funding this mandate,'' but I come in with an amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Graham, of Florida, Senators Dorgan and Conrad, of North Dakota, Senator Harkin, of Iowa-- we come in here and offer a real bill to help States comply with mandates and they say, ``Well, that's not germane. It would be too big a burden.'' They say: Call your Governor and see how he wants you to vote on the mandate bill, but don't call him to ask him how he would vote on the Bumpers amendment. We don't want that. We want the Federal Government to belly up and pay all these mandates. Mr. President, let me tell you, in closing, that I understand the concerns behind the unfunded mandates bill. I was a Governor in my State for 4 years, and we used to squawk continually about that bad old Federal Government, unless we were having a flood or a tornado. Did you see that cartoon in the Washington Post the other day, with the guy standing up on top of his house with flood waters up to the roof? Under the water you can see a sign in his front yard saying: ``Get the Government off my back.'' And he sees this boat from FEMA coming and says, ``Thank God the bureaucrats are coming.'' As I say, as Governor, Federal mandates drove me crazy sometimes. But I never hesitated to come to the Federal Government for help when I was Governor, and I usually got it. I am not one of these people who think Government is the root of all evil. Here is an opportunity for this place to stand up and do something responsible and reasonable and it will actually help. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me address one of the things the Senator from Maine, Mr. Cohen, said about 6,000 different tax jurisdictions in the country. Our bill would involve only 45 different tax rates because it provides for a blended rate within each state. As for the exemptions on food, which the State revenue department of Maine told the Senator would be an impossible chore, I want to point out to you that I believe the biggest seller of food by mail order houses in the country is Harry and David. They ship fruit and they ship nonfood articles. What do they say on their order form? ``Please add sales tax. See page 2.'' Page 2, ``Sales tax information. We collect State and local taxes on all nonfood items delivered to the following States.'' Then they have stars and asterisks, and so on. They have about 30 States listed here. Then, down below, it says, ``These States also require sales tax on all candy items.'' Illinois requires 1 percent tax on all food items. Then there is a pound mark. ``These States require sales tax on all items.'' [[Page S1156]] If Harry and David can handle it with one hand behind them, why is that such a big impediment? The truth of the matter is that is just another smokescreen. The truth of the matter is, there is absolutely no trick to it. Otherwise, dozens of companies would not be doing it. If the Boy Scouts of America can collect sales tax on their catalogs, surely L.L. Bean and Lands' End can. Then, Mr. President, bear in mind, there are 7,500 mail-order houses in this country. My amendment would exempt all with sales less than $3 million a year. So there are no mom-and-pop operators that are going to suffer under this amendment. How many does that leave? It leaves 825, and 6,675 are exempt under my amendment. We have a 1-800 number for every State revenue department so any catalog house that has any question can call toll free to the States and find out what they are supposed to do, if they have any question. The Senator from Maine has very appropriately raised the question about what Wal-Mart--which he knows well is in my home State. We are proud of them. We have a lot of billionaires in Arkansas, and we are proud of every one of them. But I will tell you what Wal-Mart does. They collect sales tax. They collect sales taxes that go to the local schools and other purposes. Their sales in 1994 were over $100 billion, and they collect sales tax on every dime of it. You see, Wal-Mart alone does about the same amount of business that all these mail-order houses do. And the big difference is Wal-Mart is a good citizen, collecting taxes to keep the schools going, to keep the fire department going, to keep the police department going, to keep the landfill going. And many mail-order companies collect nothing. It is an elemental question of fairness. I have letters from all over the United States. Here is a woman I happen to know, Debbie White, Benton, AR. It says: We have ``a small retail furniture business. I have personally lost individual sales in my area for $15,000 to $20,000. They go out of State. They come in here and pick out what they want and they go to the catalog and order it. We support the schools. We have the merchandise here that they can feel and touch. We carry a big inventory and we employ nothing but Arkansas people. We lose thousands of dollars of business every year to people who pay nothing.'' Here is a letter from a little 75-year-old woman in Portland, TN, Mr. President: ``I buy several hundred dollars' worth of mail-order merchandise per year. I am 75 years old and can no longer drive to the city to shop.'' She said she knows there are a lot in her situation. ``Since I have always tried to be a law-abiding citizen, I added up all my records--because the other day I found out that our State has a tax that I am supposed to pay on anything I buy from a mail-order house.'' She said she once ordered many Christmas gifts through catalogs. She said, ``I believe it is the duty of the mail-order companies to collect sales taxes due just as other stores and grocers do. Modern computers certainly make it easy for them.'' Here is a letter from a man in Hilton Head, SC. Just briefly, paraphrasing, he says: ``We bought thousands of dollars' worth of North Carolina furniture to furnish our new home in South Carolina because we were told if we bought it in North Carolina and had it shipped in, we would not have to pay any sales tax. So we went up to North Carolina and bought all this merchandise and what happens? Four years later, we got a letter from the South Carolina Department of Revenue, saying we have to pay sales tax on this, and because of the penalties, it cost us $700.'' I ask unanimous consent that all three of those letters be printed in the Record at this point.