Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask the Senator, is that the Gorton amendment you are working on?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Now, Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary situation? What is the pending business?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am reluctant to interrupt the Senator, but that is not the way I read it. We give the agency the right to say that they do not have to implement that mandate. If they find there is less money than is necessary to carry out the mandate, you give them the option of reducing the mandate or torpedoing the mandate. That is what the Senator from West Virginia and I are both objecting to.

Mr. BUMPERS. If I may make an observation, then I will withdraw from this colloquy. This would have been much better, in my opinion--and I would want to think about it because there are probably better solutions--but if the language of this bill had said: At such time as the designated Federal agency--or if at any time the Federal agency determines that the appropriated amount is insufficient to fully comply with the mandate, to execute the mandate, such agency shall report their findings to the Congress forthwith for such determination as the Congress chooses to make. Would that not solve it?

Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly. So they say that because you goofed, we are going to take it upon ourselves to vastly reduce the mandate, no matter how critical it might be--it might be asbestos, water well pollution, or whatever, and they can say we are going to either severely reduce the requirement on the cities, counties, and States, or, two, we are negating the mandate. Now you are giving them an option, Senator. Even is not enough to get the water hot, so we are negating the entire mandate. Is that a fair reading of it?

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me make one observation. I am not going to pursue this and belabor it any further. But as I read this language here, Senator Chiles used to say ``the mother tongue is English,'' and this is the way I read this English. The sequence would be that the authorizing committee would authorize appropriations. I assume that the authorizing committee would either say such sums as shall be necessary, or if they have a CBO figure, what it is going to implement that, they would authorize that amount to be appropriated. The Appropriations Committee on which I sit would subsequently decide, also based on what CBO says it would cost to implement the mandate, and the figure might be different than the one the authorizing committee used when they passed the authorizing legislation. But assume for the purposes of our argument that the authorizing committee says it will take $100 million to implement this mandate; the Appropriations Committee comes along, as we usually do several months later, to discuss whether we want to appropriate this $100 million or not, because it may be that CBO by that time has said--let us assume for the purpose of argument--it will only take $90 million. So we appropriate $90 million. This Federal agency down here--as I read this, it says that if they find that our appropriation is not sufficient, after we have made our very best estimate on it, used the best information we could get from CBO, or somebody else, the agency down there says, well, you flunked, you did not appropriate enough money; this is going to cost $130 million to implement this, or $150 million.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, several years ago I introduced legislation which resulted in the creation of the Federal Lands Cleanup Act. This law designates the first Saturday after Labor Day of each year as Federal Lands Cleanup Day and requires each Federal land managing agency to organize, coordinate, and participate with citizen volunteers and State and local agencies in cleaning and maintaining Federal public lands. I was inspired to introduce this legislation by a talented and dedicated public servant by the name of Carl Garner. Carl is the resident engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers at the Greers Ferry Lake site in Arkansas. In 1970, he organized a group of about 50 volunteers to clean up trash that had accumulated along the shoreline of the lake. The Greers Ferry Cleanup Day was such an overwhelming success that eventually it was expanded to other Corps of Engineers- operated lakes and other Federal and State lands in Arkansas and became known as the Great Arkansas Cleanup. The cleanup has become so popular that last year more than 24,000 Arkansans participated in it at more than 100 sites. Carl Garner recognized that we must instill in our citizens a greater sense of ownership, pride, and responsibility for the care and management of our State and public lands. His efforts and the phenomenal success of the Arkansas Cleanup Program inspired me to introduce the Federal Lands Cleanup Act of 1985. Today, I am introducing legislation that will rename the Federal Lands Cleanup Act and the day in honor of Carl Garner. This bill was approved by the Senate in the 103d Congress but was not considered by the House. I am introducing it again so that future generations who enjoy and treasure our Nation's forests, national parks, and waterways to know that it was the vision and leadership of Carl Garner that was responsible for creating this national cleanup effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the author of this amendment, my good friend, Senator Wellstone, for the thoughtfulness of his amendment. It may not be perfectly worded. Oftentimes, we understand the thrust of amendments that come up in the Chamber at times like this, even though they are not worded quite precisely. What we ought to do now is to vote for this amendment because we know what the intention is and what the thrust is. We can worry about the precise language in conference. Mr. President, shortly we are going to be taking up the unfunded mandates bill. I have very serious reservations about that bill. I do not want to debate it. I think the thrust of that bill is probably good. But I think it needs a lot of work. We have been voting today largely along party lines. Virtually every vote has been a motion to table voted for by the Republicans and, for the most part, voted against by Democrats. That is understandable. But if there is one amendment on this bill that Republicans and Democrats ought to join hands on it is this one. The Senator from Minnesota proposes that if we are going to pay the cities and the counties and the States for any obligation we put on them, surely we must also agree not to enact legislation, the effect of which is going to increase the number of homeless and poor children in this country. Surely, we can all agree nobody in this body wants that. Mr. President, everybody in this Chamber has his own view as to what happened on November 8--not a happy day for the people on this side of the aisle. Not to offend my colleagues on the other side, I could give a half dozen reasons that I think are very legitimate on why people voted against Democrats, not for Republicans. I do not believe there is a person in America who believes Government is too big, too unwieldy, and too expensive, due to food stamps for hungry people. I take the position that food stamps, aid for dependent children, maternal and child health, Medicaid, medical leave are valuable programs. Some people would have you believe that these programs were enacted by the Congress willy-nilly. They were not. They were debated. Committees considered those proposals thoughtfully. The Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club back home did not want me to vote for a medical leave bill. But I happen to have spent 6 weeks with my daughter in Boston Children's Hospital, 2,000 miles from my home. Betty and I talk about it a lot. We were not wealthy, but what if we had been poor? We would not have been in Boston. I do not know. I might have robbed a bank to get my daughter there. We were so fortunate because all I had to do was go back home and open my law office, a one- man, solo practice in a town of 1,500 people and start practicing law again. If I had been out on the assembly line, I would not have had a job to go home to. I daresay that while an awful lot of people in this country took strong exception to the family and medical leave bill, there are not 10 people in this Chamber who would undo this law right now. This country decided years ago we did not want a single one of our children to go hungry, and that is the reason we have food stamps. We decided we did not want a poor child to suffer for lack of medical attention. That is why we have Medicaid. We decided we did not want poor women having premature or disabled babies who require costly treatment and frequently do not survive. That is why we provide prenatal care. And we provide school lunches for children from poor families. Who here would undo that? I was president of the school board in my city for 12 years. That was the only thing I was ever elected to before I was elected Governor of my State. I must say, I ran for Governor to get off the school board. That is the worst job I ever had. I know how important school lunches are. The school board struggled with that and tried to raise a little money to improve the nutritional quality of those lunches. The American people have every right to be mad, upset, disenchanted, and to distrust Congress. It is trendy to do so. But I am telling you that the people of this country do not want us to undo the programs I've described. They do not want us giving the States block grants if the effect is to increase hunger among our children. In 1950, 27 percent of the people of this Nation over 65 years of age lived below the poverty line. Since then we have reduced the poverty rate among senior citizens to below 12 percent. We can pat ourselves on the back and say Social Security and Medicare did it. Today, you talk about Social Security and you talk about the third rail of politics. Nobody would dare suggest cutting Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because there are 40 million votes out there. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out either. So how about our children? In 1950, the poverty rate among children was 14 percent. At the same time we were reducing poverty among our older citizens, the rate for children was growing dramatically to its current level of 23 percent. Senator Dodd says it will be 28 percent by the year 2010. Are we going to stand idly by and allow that figure to come true? If we do not adopt an amendment like this, we could very well see it. Everybody favors welfare reform. But when you get down to the specifics of it, it gets very tenuous indeed. Mr. President, I do not believe people want welfare reform in order to make cuts that would devastate the most vulnerable among us, namely our children. Here is a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to show the American people that when it gets to some basic values, we can indeed join hands and agree on something. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Alaska very much.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is indeed a sad day for me personally and, though Americans may not realize it, it is a sad day for them, too. The other morning, I read where former Secretary Cheney said he was not going to run for President and, in a spate of candor customary to Dick Cheney, said the price was ``too high.'' I toyed with a Presidential race one time and came to the same conclusion. I never did say it, though. But the truth of the matter is, public service, which I was taught by my father was the noblest of all callings, has come to demand an almost impossible price. I have no idea what went into Senator Johnston's thinking in arriving at the decision not to seek reelection. I know he is a family man. He is one of the few people I would defer to, maybe slightly, in his devotion to his family over me. So maybe that was it. But I am not here to wonder aloud what all went into his decision. The first time I heard of Bennett Johnston was when he ran for Governor of Louisiana and he was using the same media consultant I had used a year earlier in running for Governor of Arkansas, Deloss Walker. And while Bennett barely lost that election, he was elected handily for the U.S. Senate 2 years later. I might say to the Senator that that was probably the most fortuitous thing that ever happened to him. As a former Governor and Senator, I can tell you it was the most fortuitous thing that ever happened. But Deloss Walker had told me what a good candidate Senator Johnston was. And so he came to the Senate 2 years before I did. I was put on the Energy Committee, which was a widely sought committee assignment at that time because the Arab oil embargo of 1973 had everybody frightened to death. We were going to become energy independent. We were going to develop alternative fuels, and you name it. Senator Johnston had the seat just in front of me, and later of course became chairman of the committee. I forget the year. But I became ranking Democrat on that committee. [[Page S616]] There are perhaps people in the Senate who have been closer to Senator Johnston than I have been, though I do not see how. I have traveled with him abroad. I have sat at his right hand in that committee, all these years. I have found him to be an ardent opponent on occasion. It took me forever to kill the super collider because he was on the other side. And I did not really kill it. The House of Representatives deserve the credit for killing the super collider. But I can tell you, as long as Senator Johnston was in the Senate, it was not going to happen over here. But in good times and bad, in battles together and battles against each other, I found him always to be brilliant and tenacious, but eminently fair. Last year, he took on another battle on the side of the angels that I had been fighting sort of a lonely battle for about 5 years, and that was reform of the mining laws of this country. Senator Johnston got involved in that debate last year. He was tenacious. But I promise you some of his most ardent opponents, including the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Idaho, will tell you they always found him to be eminently fair. He held hearing after hearing, private hearings with them to see if there was any accommodation that could be made that would satisfy them. And on the California desert bill, another battle that I had been involved in for 6 years here, he took that battle on last year and won it and we passed the California desert bill. Some day the people of America will look back and say we owe Bennett Johnston a big one for that. His announcement today follows the same announcement by two other fine men in this body, Hank Brown and Paul Simon. And my guess is there are going to be others. We could sit here and I guess make partisan speeches or philosophical speeches about whether or not the price of public service has become too high, and that would serve absolutely no useful purpose at this point. Bennett will have another career and he will have more time in that career. I do not know what it will be, but I promise you whatever he takes up, whether he decides to become a professor in some law school or maybe teach political science or some contemporary course on politics at LSU or someplace else, I do not care what it is, he will have more time for his family than he has had in the past 22 years. So, Mr. President, today is a sad time for me. It is going to be a personal loss to me for Bennett to leave the Senate, but more importantly it is a loss for America. I have never favored term limits. It is not easy to go before an audience when you know 70 to 75 percent of that audience favors term limits, and say you do not favor it, but I do not; never have. One reason is because it would arbitrarily cause us to lose good men and women with good minds, but, above all, a wealth of experience which we cherish in every single profession in America except here in politics. Well, Mr. President, I will probably be here to say this a few more times over the next 2 years for good friends of mine who decide not to run, but I can tell you I will not say with any more fervor or conviction at any point in the next 2 years, no matter who leaves here, that this is truly a great loss to this Nation and especially to the State of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would transfer the property rights in the Corning National Fish Hatchery from the Federal Government to the State of Arkansas. In 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service closed this hatchery because of budget constraints. Because the State of Arkansas was interested in maintaining the Corning facility as part of its State hatchery system, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission transferring the operation of the Corning Hatchery to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The hatchery has even been renamed the William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery. Mr. President, it is time to give the State of Arkansas clear title to this property. The State has been operating and maintaining it for over 10 years [[Page S654]] without any Federal funding and it has become an important component of the State's fisheries program. The proposed transfer not only has the support of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission but also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory in Stuttgart, AR, from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. This legislation also requires that the name of the lab be changed to the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. [[Page S679]] This Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory was established under the Fish and Rice Rotation Act of 1958, with a mandate to conduct research related to the commercial production and harvesting of warm water fish. When the lab was established, there was little or no information available to commercial fish farmers about warm water aquaculture. Thanks in large part to the lab, which has pioneered research in such areas as fish nutrition, water quality management and fish disease prevention, commercial fish farming is now one of the fastest growing industries in the country. Originally, the legislation creating the lab, provided that it be administered by the Department of Agriculture. However, because the Department of the Interior already had an established fisheries program, Congress placed the program under the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. In retrospect, this decision was a mistake. The Department of Agriculture, not the Department of the Interior has become the lead Federal agency in the research, development, and promotion of commercial aquaculture. While the Department of the Interior is involved in the aquaculture arena, its emphasis is more conservation related. My belief that the Department of the Interior is no longer the appropriate agency to administer the lab was confirmed when during an internal reorganization the Stuttgart lab was transferred from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the National Biological Survey [NBS]. As my colleagues know, the NBS is charged with developing an inventory of plant and animal species and their habitats. A worthy endeavor, but one that is in no way related to the lab's statutory mission of developing methods for the commercial production of aquatic species. I believe it is only a matter of time before the staff and the resources of the lab are redirected toward research efforts that are more in keeping with the mission of the NBS. I have expressed my concerns to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who agrees with me that the Department of Agriculture is a much more appropriate place for the Stuttgart lab. The Department of Agriculture recognizes that private commercial aquaculture is an important and growing component of the U.S. economy and is committed to providing a broad range of services to it. I have no doubt that the Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory can complement and enhance the Department's existing and growing aquaculture program. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would transfer the property rights in the Corning National Fish Hatchery from the Federal Government to the State of Arkansas. In 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service closed this hatchery because of budget constraints. Because the State of Arkansas was interested in maintaining the Corning facility as part of its State hatchery system, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission transferring the operation of the Corning Hatchery to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The hatchery has even been renamed the William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery. Mr. President, it is time to give the State of Arkansas clear title to this property. The State has been operating and maintaining it for over 10 years [[Page S654]] without any Federal funding and it has become an important component of the State's fisheries program. The proposed transfer not only has the support of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission but also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory in Stuttgart, AR, from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. This legislation also requires that the name of the lab be changed to the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. [[Page S679]] This Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory was established under the Fish and Rice Rotation Act of 1958, with a mandate to conduct research related to the commercial production and harvesting of warm water fish. When the lab was established, there was little or no information available to commercial fish farmers about warm water aquaculture. Thanks in large part to the lab, which has pioneered research in such areas as fish nutrition, water quality management and fish disease prevention, commercial fish farming is now one of the fastest growing industries in the country. Originally, the legislation creating the lab, provided that it be administered by the Department of Agriculture. However, because the Department of the Interior already had an established fisheries program, Congress placed the program under the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. In retrospect, this decision was a mistake. The Department of Agriculture, not the Department of the Interior has become the lead Federal agency in the research, development, and promotion of commercial aquaculture. While the Department of the Interior is involved in the aquaculture arena, its emphasis is more conservation related. My belief that the Department of the Interior is no longer the appropriate agency to administer the lab was confirmed when during an internal reorganization the Stuttgart lab was transferred from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the National Biological Survey [NBS]. As my colleagues know, the NBS is charged with developing an inventory of plant and animal species and their habitats. A worthy endeavor, but one that is in no way related to the lab's statutory mission of developing methods for the commercial production of aquatic species. I believe it is only a matter of time before the staff and the resources of the lab are redirected toward research efforts that are more in keeping with the mission of the NBS. I have expressed my concerns to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who agrees with me that the Department of Agriculture is a much more appropriate place for the Stuttgart lab. The Department of Agriculture recognizes that private commercial aquaculture is an important and growing component of the U.S. economy and is committed to providing a broad range of services to it. I have no doubt that the Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory can complement and enhance the Department's existing and growing aquaculture program. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers and Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 151, S. 152, S. 153, S. 154, S. 155, S. 156, and S. 157 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send seven separate bills to the desk that I am offering on behalf of myself, Senators Bradley, Kohl, Feingold, Pryor, Wellstone, Lautenberg, and other Senators. Just briefly, Mr. President, those bills contain seven specific spending cuts which, over the first 5 years would save $33 billion, and over a 15-year-period would save $114 billion; four of those seven would terminate or cut spending on four specific weapons programs. One would cut the intelligence budget. One would kill NASA's space station program, and the last would kill the Department of Energy's Advanced Neutron Source. Yesterday CBS News and USA Today-CNN released new public opinion polls. Both asked over 1,000 people: What should be the highest priority of this new Congress? Interestingly, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, out of about 15 items listed, 45 percent of the people said defense spending should have a very low priority and 11 percent said it should have no priority. Mr. President, 56 percent of the people in that poll said--bear this in mind--defense spending should have no priority or a low priority. Yesterday was admittedly a euphoric day for Republicans in Congress. I have been in those euphoric positions so I watched with a great deal of interest, and I know how much they enjoyed the day. But how many times did you hear yesterday that we are going to give Government back to the people, we are going to start responding to what the people believe? Here is a golden opportunity for this Congress to prove that they can cut spending--they can cut spending the way the American people want. Bear in mind that the Contract With America provides for tax cuts which are estimated to cost between $150 and $200 billion. Under the 1990 Budget Act, that means the people who favor those tax cuts are going to have to cut mandatory spending; the great bulk of mandatory spending is entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. That means that people who favor those tax cuts are going to have to find offsetting spending cuts in entitlements. The Kerry Commission was just disbanded, after long, arduous work in trying to figure out proposed recommendations of entitlement spending cuts. After spending over $1 million on that Commission, a basket of about 100 proposals were submitted to the Commission, many of whose members were Members of Congress. Not one single proposal was adopted for cutting entitlement spending. And here we have a tax cut proposal that is going to require $150 to $200 billion in spending cuts over the next 5 years. Yet those same polls yesterday showed that 77 percent on one poll, and 82 percent on priority. So, Mr. President, I am introducing these spending cuts. Bear this in mind. In 1996 the deficit is going to start back up unless we do something. So here is our task, find $150 billion in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide for a middle-class tax cut, and you are going to have to find God knows how much else of spending to cut to keep the deficit from starting back up in 1996, and I promise you the American people will turn on this place like a saber- toothed tiger if that happens, and rightly so. So here is $33 billion in seven spending cuts. I have some charts. I will show those later and I will speak more extensively on those specific cuts, why I think they should be there. This will give people a chance to put up or shut up.