Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1693, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. Let me begin by acknowledging the work of the sponsor of this legislation, Senator Thomas. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, he has been willing to compromise and work with all involved parties, including Secretary Babbit, my friend and colleague Senator Bennett, Congressmen George Miller and Don Young in an effort to enact a meaningful and comprehensive bill for our national parks. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this important legislation and I am very pleased that this bill will pass before I leave the Senate this year. I would also like to particularly thank Senator Bennett, who has once again been very helpful and constructive in developing a bill that can garner such broad bipartisan support, as I believe this bill has. Although this is a comprehensive bill that makes a number of positive changes in the way national parks are managed, for me, the most significant provisions are found in title IV--the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act. Mr. President, for almost 19 years I have worked to reform the concessions policies of the National Park Service to increase competition, provide better services, and to ensure a better return for the American public. Over the past two decades, we have held dozens of hearings, and we've debated this issue in markups and on the Senate floor. As you know, during the 103d Congress Senator Bennett and I sponsored a bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9, and passed in the House of Representatives with only minor changes by a vote of 368-30. Despite the overwhelming vote margins, we were unable to pass a final bill before the Congress adjourned. Given the magnitude of those votes, it is very frustrating to be here once again debating park concession reform. While I support passage of this bill and believe it will enhance the Park Service's ability to better manage our National Park System, the bill before us today is a true compromise worked out between Senator Thomas and myself in the Senate and with Congressmen Miller, Don Young, and Jim Hansen in the House. Each of us gave something up in order to get a bill passed. The bill--particularly the concession title--does not contain all of the policy changes that I would like to see made. However, passage of this bill will finally allow the Park Service to have meaningful competition for park concession contracts. Most importantly, the bill will repeal the 1965 Concession Policy Act--a 30-year-old anachronism--including its most anticompetitive provision, the granting to incumbent concessioners of a preferential right to renew their contract by simply matching the terms and conditions of a superior offer. Other important provisions in the concession reform title include: Maintaining existing statutory protections for outfitter and guide contracts and small contracts with less than $500,000 in annual gross revenue; a prohibition against giving any concessioner a preferential right to provide new or additional services; and language linking the value of facilities built by a concessioner to actual construction costs, adjusted for inflation, rather than the ``sound value'' possessory interest allowed under current law. During the consideration of this bill in the House, possessory interest was the most contentious issue to be resolved. While Senator Thomas and I had agreed on a formulation in the Senate passed bill that satisfied us, come in the House, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee, George Miller, preferred the approach taken in the bill I mentioned earlier that passed the Senate in 1993. Under that formulation, a concessioner's possessory interest would be depreciated over time on a straight line basis. While I too prefer this approach, it is clear that the concessioners are adamantly opposed to this method of calculating possessory interest. More importantly, a major change to this key provision would put at risk the agreement we have reached to eliminate the preferential right of renewal, by far the most anticompetitive provision in the existing law. After lengthy discussions between Congressman Miller, Secretary Babbitt, Senator Thomas, and others, another compromise has been agreed to that gives both sides some of what they want. As passed the House, the legislation provides that the Secretary is to value possessory interest as described in the bill for 9 years. At the end of year 7, the Secretary is to send Congress a report on the concessions program in general and, in particular, how this new method of calculating possessory interest has worked. Congress can examine the report and make legislative changes if necessary based on the track record of the previous 7 years. Then, at the end of the 9th year, if no changes in the law have been made, the Secretary will have the discretion, under certain limited circumstances, to require concessioners to use other methods of valuing possessory interest, including but not limited to, straight line depreciation. I think this is a reasonable compromise and very much appreciate the hard work on the part of all parties in working it out. While the concession title has been of particular interest to me, the bill before us today includes several other titles which I believe will greatly enhance the Park Service's management authorities. The bill includes directives for the Park Service to improve career development and training for its employees and to establish a strong scientific research program in national parks. It codifies criteria for the Park Service to use in evaluating areas proposed for addition to the National Park System. I must say that I very much regret the decision of the House to remove the provisions contained in the Senate bill that gave the Park Service much needed authority to collect and retain fees for commercial filming activities in national park units, and which would have extended the Recreational Fee Demonstration Progam for park fees for another 6 years. These provisions were included in the Senate bill to help get badly needed money directly to the parks--something that everyone says they want to do. Deleting these provisions that would have provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the parks over the next 5 or 6 years will not help restore our badly deteriorating parks and public lands. The bill before us today will allow the Park Service to develop and market annual park admission passports to increase public awareness about parks and to raise new revenues. There are a few other titles included in the bill, but those are the most significant provisions. Mr. President, the concession reform provisions in this bill are a great step forward for the National Park Service and the taxpayers. I strongly support these and the other provisions in this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this bill. In closing, I want to thank several people who worked very hard on this legislation, in particular title IV related to park concessions. David Brooks and Tom Williams on the Energy Committee Democratic staff have worked with me for years on this issue and I appreciate their efforts very much. Jim O'Toole and Gary Ellsworth of the majority staff have been very helpful to me on this and other bills and I thank them both for their help and cooperation. Dan Naatz on Senator Thomas' staff and Tim Stewart with Senator Bennett were crucial to Senate negotiations on this bill and provided constructive and substantive input on a number of occasions. Finally, John Leshy, Destry Jarvis, and Lars Hanslin in the Interior Department deserve much of the credit for putting together the final compromise on possessory interest that got this bill moving again in the House. Along with John Lawrence and Rick Healy of the Democratic staff on the House Resources Committee, these gentlemen worked tirelessly to put the finishing touches on a very delicate compromise. I very much appreciate their dedication to this effort and their willingness to go the extra mile to get this bill passed.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my experiences with disasters this year--in addition to the unforgettable destruction of Hurricane Andrew in 1992--have motivated me to re-evaluate the policies and programs that are implemented to ease the pain and economic loss caused by disasters. First, we must recognize that we cannot prevent severe weather events. In fact, it seems that as we approach the millennium, the Nation is experiencing severe weather more frequently--and more intensely--than ever before. Second, as our population grows, our coastal and riverfront communities have greatly expanded, placing an even higher number of citizens at risk from floods and hurricanes. Finally, expanded requirements for housing and residential structures have increased both the number and value of property developments in high-risk areas. Taken together, these facts clearly demonstrate that we will continue to experience losses from natural disaster. Therefore, we must act now to limit these inevitable losses through a proactive, nationwide loss prevention and mitigation initiative. We cannot continue to respond to repeat disasters in the same locations in an endless cycle of damage- repair-damage-repair. It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that Senator Inhofe and myself introduced the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998. Our legislation focuses the energies of Federal, State, and local governments on disaster mitigation, shifting the Nation's efforts toward preventative--rather than responsive--actions, in order to prepare our citizens for disasters now and in the future. I worked very closely with Senator Inhofe to develop this bipartisan legislation, which has been reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This legislation will more comprehensively and efficiently address the threats we face from disasters of all types. The bill is composed of two titles: Title I seeks to reduce the impact of disasters by authorizing a ``pre-disaster mitigation'' program; Title II seeks to streamline the current disaster assistance programs to save administrative costs, and to simplify these programs for the benefit of States, local communities, and individual disaster victims. To address the problems associated with the damage-repair-damage- repair cycle, the legislation places its primary emphasis on comprehensive pre-disaster mitigation. This bill will authorize a five- year pre-disaster mitigation program, funded at $35 million per year, to be administered by Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. The pre-disaster mitigation program will change the focus of our efforts, at all levels of government, to preventative--rather than responsive-- actions in planning for disasters. Such a change in ideology is critical to reducing the short- and long-term costs of natural disasters. It will encourage both the public and the private sector, as well as individual citizens, to take responsibility for the threats they face by adopting the concept of disaster mitigation into their everyday lives. Just like energy conservation, recycling, and the widespread use of seat belts, disaster mitigation should become a concept that all citizens incorporate into their day-to-day existence. Since 1993, under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt, FEMA has truly changed its way of doing business. In the past five years, FEMA has become more responsive to disaster victims and State and local governments, and has ``reinvented'' itself by choosing to focus its energy on mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the effects of natural hazards. FEMA has already taken an important first step in advocating pre-disaster mitigation by establishing ``Project Impact,'' their new mitigation initiative, in local communities throughout the nation. I am proud to say that Deerfield Beach, Florida, was the first community to be chosen as a participant in Project Impact. By authorizing the conduct of Project Impact for five years in this legislation, we will definitively endorse both the program and Director Witt's leadership, and we expect that the initiative will produce measurable results in reducing the costs of disaster in the future. Mr. President, this legislation is the result of coordination and cooperation with FEMA, the National Association of Emergency Management, the National League of Cities, representatives of the private and voluntary sectors, and numerous other state and local governmental organizations. I strongly believe that this legislation represents a historic change in the nation's efforts to prevent the effects of natural disasters. By taking proactive steps to implement mitigation now, we will reduce the damage, pain, and suffering from disasters in the future that have become all too familiar to us from the disasters we have faced in the recent past. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Inhofe and myself by joining with us in our efforts to protect the citizens of the U.S. from disasters now and in the future. I ask the Senators who have most recently been affected by Hurricane Georges, as well as the many Senators whose constituents have been impacted by catastrophic disasters over the past several years, to support this legislation and ensure its passage before the end of this session.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak, for what may be the last time, on the floor of the Senate. It is a very bittersweet time for me, after 24 years, most of which have been spent at this very desk. I might say at this moment that I have been blessed by having Senator Kennedy as my seatmate these many years, and before him Senator Gore--both truly outstanding men. In order to deliver a speech such as I am about to deliver, Mr. President, I do not think there is anything wrong with listing some of the defining moments in my life, because this speech is really more for the benefit of my children and grandchildren than it is for my colleagues or the people of America. First of all, I was blessed by my parents. I remind my brother from time to time that everybody was not so lucky in choosing their parents as he and I were. And that really is the reason that I stand here as one of 1,843 men and women ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. We were taught when we were children that when we died we were ``going to Franklin Roosevelt''. And the reason we were taught that is because we were very poor. Most people do not realize that the South, from 1865 until about the time Franklin Roosevelt became President, was still living almost as a conquered nation. National politicians paid very little attention to the South. In our household, we were poor during the Great Depression. And I might say, the Great Depression is certainly one of the most important defining moments of my life. But it was during the Great Depression that Franklin Roosevelt began to provide all kinds of things for people in the South that they had previously thought unthinkable. We didn't have indoor plumbing. We didn't have running water. We didn't have paved streets. We didn't have much of anything. The people in our community died of typhoid fever in the summertime because the outhouse was just a few steps away from the well from which we drew our drinking water. Then Franklin Roosevelt began to provide immunizations for children against smallpox and typhoid. It was free. We got those shots at school. We had then what we called hobos or tramps; today we call them homeless people. My mother always saved a few scraps after breakfast knowing that some tramp was going to knock on the back door and ask for food. That was back before welfare came into existence. So we were very poor. I remember when I was 12 years old my father heard that Franklin Roosevelt was coming to Arkansas. He was a great believer in America and the political system and public service. He wanted my brother and me to see Franklin Roosevelt. So we drove over a gravel road 20 miles to Booneville, AR, and when the train on the Rock Island line pulled in, Franklin Roosevelt came out on the back platform, obviously being held up by a couple of Secret Service men. I tugged on my father's arm and I said, ``Dad, what's wrong with him?'' He said, ``I will tell you later.'' On the way home, he told us that Franklin Roosevelt had contracted polio when he was 37 years old, he couldn't walk, and he carried 12 pounds of steel braces on his legs. Then he told my brother and me that if Franklin Roosevelt could become President and couldn't even walk, there was no reason why my brother and I, with strong minds and bodies, couldn't become President, too. I never took my eye off that goal until many, many years later. In the following year, my father was president of the Arkansas Retail Hardware Association. They gave our family $300 to go to Los Angeles to the national convention. I can remember the big party at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles in 1937. I had never stepped on a carpet before in my life, and the Biltmore was filled with thick carpet. We just loved it. We didn't stay at the Biltmore. We were staying at the $2-a-night cabin. But the night of the big party, everybody was in tuxedos and long dresses, except my parents. And all the children were dressed in tuxedos, too, even in that Depression year of 1937. But I can remember my brother and I had on long pants and white shirts, no tie, no coat. We were terribly embarrassed. My father sensed that, and so the next day he told us that he knew we were embarrassed but he reminded us that the most important thing was that we were clean, our clothes were clean, our bodies were clean, and the kind of clothes you wore really were not all that important. He made it OK. When I was 15 years old, I had a high school English and literature teacher named Miss Doll. Every member of the U.S. Senate has been influenced by a college professor or high school teacher, maybe a preacher or somebody else. She was my influence. I remember my mother, who had a tendency--not to denigrate my mother--to not build our self-esteem. My father was working against that, trying to teach us self-esteem, not ego, but esteem. We were reading Beowulf in English, a great piece of literature. We would read a paragraph and discuss it. One time it came my time to read. I started reading, and all of a sudden--I read about 2 pages and Miss Doll still hadn't stopped me--I looked up and she was standing there. She looked at me and she looked at the class and she said, ``Doesn't he read beautifully?'' ``Doesn't he have a nice voice?'' And she said, ``And wouldn't it be tragic if he didn't use that talent.'' At first I thought she was making fun of me, but she did more for my self-esteem in 10 seconds than anybody, except my father, ever did. Some of my political detractors think she overdid it. And then just out of high school, but only after 6 months at the University of Arkansas, I went into the Marine Corps. World War II was raging. It was a terrifying time. I fully expected to be killed in that war. The Marines were taking terrible casualties in the South Pacific. Happily, I survived that. The best part of it was when I got home there was a caring, generous, compassionate Federal Government, waiting with the GI bill. While my father would have stolen to make sure we had a good education, my brother went to Harvard Law School and I went to the University of Arkansas and later Northwestern University Law School-- both expensive schools my father could never afford. I studied political science and law. The reason I did that is because my father wanted me to go into public service. He wanted me and my brother to be politicians. He may be the last man who ever lived who encouraged his sons to go into politics. In my first year in law school, he and my mother were killed in a car wreck. They were tragically killed by a drunken driver. Neither of them had ever had a drink in their life. That is what made it so bizarre. The big disappointment of my life was that my father didn't live to see me Governor or Senator. The next defining moment of my life is when our children were born-- first Brent, then Bill and then Brooke. The next defining moment was when I was practicing law in a little town of 1,200 people and decided to run for Governor. The day I filed, a poll was taken statewide. It was the last day of the filing deadline. I found that of the eight Democrats in the primary, I had 1-percent name recognition. It was probably the most foolhardy thing I had ever done in my life. But I was trying to keep faith with my father, and I believe strongly in our country and I believe in public service. The next defining moment in my life was shortly after I was elected Governor I got an invitation to go to Kansas City to speak at a Truman Day dinner. I told them I couldn't go, the legislature was in session. I just assumed those legislators would screw the dome off the capital if I left town. They came back and said, ``If you will agree to do this, we will let you spend an hour with President and Mrs. Truman,'' and that was more than I could resist. So I went and spent that hour with President Truman and he asked me how I liked being Governor. I said, ``I don't like it, it's a real pressure cooker. I am just a country lawyer. This is all new to me and the press is driving me crazy.'' I was telling him what a terrible job being Governor of Arkansas was, and it suddenly dawned on me I was talking to a man who had to make the decision to drop the atomic bomb that ended World War II. And so I shut up. And then he told me, as I left, ``Son, while you are looking at the ceiling every night in the Governor's mansion, wondering what you are going to do, remember one thing: The people elected you to do what you think is right and that is all they expect out of you. They have busy lives. So, remember, always tell people the truth; they can handle it.'' That didn't sound like very profound advice to me at the time. But indeed it was. I have thought about it every day of my life since then. Secondly, he said, ``When you are debating in your own mind the issues that you have to confront, you think about this: Get the best advice you can get on both sides of the issue, make up your mind which one is right, and then you do it. That is all the people of the State expect of you--to do what you think is right.'' So when I drove off the mansion grounds 4 years later, coming to the Senate, as I told my Democratic colleagues the other night, most of whom know this, I came here with the full intention of running for President. I had a very successful 4 years as Governor. I thought the world was my oyster and I fully intended, as I say, to run. The reason I didn't run is because after I had been here for a year, I realized that this whole apparatus was much more complex than I thought it was. I told my children, if I had three lives to live, at the end of the last one, I would look back prior to 10 years at the end of it and realize how dumb I was. I was so smart when I graduated from high school, I could hardly bear it. When I got out of law school, the problem was compounded. When I drove off the mansion grounds, I was quite sure I was ready to be king of the world. The other night I told Senator Sarbanes I really regret that I have not been as effective a legislator as I should have been. He said, ``Everybody feels that way.'' What I was really saying, I suppose, is I wish I had known then what I know now. In my dying breath I will look back and think about, really, how I was not as smart this Saturday afternoon as I thought I was. That is what a living, learning experience is. So I chose not to run for President. By the time I felt that I was qualified to be President, I decided that it demanded a price that I was not willing to pay. Not to be purely apocalyptic about our future, because I am not, I must say, in all candor, partisanship has reached a point in this country, and the demands for political money have become so great--two very insidious things--that good men and women are opting out of public service, and not to enter public service. Money is corrupting the political process and it threatens our very democracy. Since I announced that I would not run last year, I confess to you, Mr. President and colleagues, that I have voted in ways that I would not have if I were running. I think of the few times when I would have had to worry about what kind of a 30-second spot that vote would generate. I have cast my share of courageous votes since I have been here, as Harry Truman admonished me to do. I have always tried to use simple tests as to how I voted; How would my children and grandchildren judge me? Did it make me stronger or the Nation stronger? Did it do any irreversible damage to the environment? Is it fair to the less fortunate among us? Does it comport with the thrust of our Constitution, the greatest document ever conceived by the mind of man? Or does it simply make me stronger politically because it satisfies the political whims of the moment? Or does it simply keep the political money supply flowing? Speaking of courageous votes, I voted for the Panama Canal Treaties in 1978 and, in all fairness, in 1980, had I had a strong opponent, I would not be standing here right now. I lucked out. But I can tell you, people were absolutely livid about my vote on the Panama Canal Treaties--a fabricated political issue. I ask the American people and my colleagues, who today has been inconvenienced by the Panama Canal Treaties? Is this country any weaker? The truth is that it is stronger. Our relationship with Panama is much stronger. It was the Quemoy and Matsu issue of 1978. Incidentally, Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma voted against the Panama Canal Treaties and made a minute-and-a-half speech in doing it, while the rest of us were pontificating for hours trying to justify our positions. He announced he would not run again because, coming from the conservative State of Oklahoma, he knew he didn't have a prayer of being reelected, so hot was that issue. When I voted against Ronald Reagan's prayer in school amendment--the only southern Senator to do so, my opponent tried to take advantage of it. But the American people and the people of my State--once you explained what was involved to them, where the school prayers would be written or adopted by the school board and required saying in the schools--came to understand the perils of the amendment. I always tell youngsters, and college groups particularly, when you think about that, you tell me which country that has an official state religion you want to live in. Mr. President, one of the greatest moments of my life was when I was Governor and a man came into my office wanting me to talk to the highway department about a late penalty they were going to assess him for being 60 days late in completing a highway job. To shorten the story, I said, ``If I do this for you, how do I explain to the next guy who walks in the door why I can't do it for him? I don't want to start down that road.'' After a long conversation, when he started to walk out after I told him I could not, under any circumstances, comply with the request, he said, ``Governor, that's the reason I voted for you.'' This institution is a great place. It is supposed to be the deliberative body. The Founding Fathers intended the lower House, the House of Representatives, to be the House of the people. They expected this place to be the deliberative body. It is a curious thing--and the minority leader here knows this--every amendment, every bill that comes up, we immediately start trying to figure out, how stringently can we limit the debate on this issue? There are times when that is fully justified, and there are times when only if you fully air something do the Senate Members really come here well enough informed to vote on it. We are still the oldest democracy on Earth. We are still living under the oldest Constitution on Earth, and without men and women of goodwill being willing to offer themselves for service, there is absolutely no assurance that that will always be. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'' He was not just talking about military vigilance. We are still woefully inadequate in this country in the field of education. If I were the President of the United States and I were looking at a $70 billion surplus, I would make sure the first thing we did was to pass a bill that said no child in this Nation shall be deprived of a college education for lack of money. Look at all the statistics where we rank among the developed nations in education. And look at the state of health care. It is good for those who can afford it. And 45 million who have no health insurance and no health care do the best they can. Mr. President, I have been richly blessed in my life, as I said, mostly by devoted parents, and good Methodist Sunday school teaching. My mother wanted me to be a Methodist preacher and my father wanted me to be a politician. Think about growing up with that pressure. I am personally blessed with a great family. If I died tomorrow, the people of Arkansas would take note of it, and there would be headlines in all of the papers in the State. But if Betty died tomorrow the people of our State would grieve. She has founded two organizations. When Ronald Reagan announced to this country that we might just fire one across the Soviet Union's bow to get their attention, he terrified her. She and a group of congressional wives met around my kitchen table for about 6 months. Finally, I came home one night, and she said, ``We are forming an organization. And we feel so strongly about it that we are going to put `peace' in the name. We are going to call it Peace Links''. Ultimately, she had almost 250 congressional wives conscripted into that organization. I told her ``you are going to get your husband beat.'' We are from a conservative State. People in Arkansas believe in a strong defense. People across this Nation believe in a strong defense. She said, ``You men are going to get my children killed.'' She had already spent all of her public life, from the time I was Governor until this day trying to immunize all of the children in this country. And I am not going to go through all of the successes that she has had, which have been staggering. The Western Hemisphere is free of polio. Africa will be free of polio by the year 2002. Asia will be free of polio by the year 2004. And measles is next. I tell you, she deserves a lot of credit for the virtual elimination of childhood diseases in this country. She went to see President Carter when he first came to power. She said, ``I tell you something you can do that will have a lasting effect on the health of this Nation, and it will help you a lot when you run again.'' He put Joe Califano at her disposal. And today she and Rosalynn Carter have an organization called ``Every Child By Two.'' She is still going at it--peace and children. I have three beautiful children, and six beautiful, healthy grandchildren. I have been blessed with exceptional staff members, most of whom are more than staff members. They are very good friends. I have been blessed with the support of the people of my State in winning almost every election by 60 percent or more of the vote. I was much more liberal than my constituents. I like to believe that they respected me because they knew what I stood for is what I believed instead of what was politically expedient at any given time. But, for whatever reason, I will always be grateful to them. Our State does not deserve to have been torn apart for the past 6 years. I know so many innocent people who have been destroyed, financially and mentally, by a criminal justice system gone awry. You would have to go back to the Salem witchcraft trials to find anything comparable. I do not, nor does any Senator, condone the President's conduct. Call it whatever you want--reprehensible, indefensible, unconscionable. Call it anything you want. But most of us take pride in President Clinton's Presidency. And the American people are still saying they like him. But completely aside from that, as I say, I weep sometimes for the unfair treatment to my State, and so many innocent people in it. I have been blessed by unbelievable friendships of colleagues. Those friendships will probably wane. It is almost impossible to maintain a relationship with a colleague once you leave here. That is really tragic. But I am realistic. And I know that is what it will be. I know we will have a difficult time having the same kind of relationship, if any at all. But I want them to know that I value their friendship. I value my service with them. I have served with some truly great men and women. And, as Senator Byrd likes to say, only 1,843 men and women have ever been so privileged to serve in this body. I am already nostalgic about this Chamber--24 years in this Chamber, the Cloakroom, the hearing rooms, the Capitol itself. For 24 years, the first 20 of which I went home almost every weekend and came back on Sunday night, I never failed, as we flew by the Washington Monument, to get goose bumps. And I hope I never do. So, colleagues, I thank you for being my friend. To the people of my State, I thank you for allowing me to serve here. I want to teach, in order to teach children that politics is a noble profession. My father said it long before Bobby Kennedy did. It is a noble calling. And the minute it becomes what so many people think it is, who do you think suffers? All of us do. So I want to inspire this oncoming generation, as my father did me, to get involved in the political process and public service. You have a duty and a responsibility. So, to the U.S. Senate, to all of my colleagues, God bless and Godspeed. I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield just a moment for me to say: I want that to be my legacy, Senator. You couldn't have done anything that would please me more. I have had a few accolades in my 24 years in the Senate. I have had several things named after me. But I can tell you that what you did in that Energy and Water Committee gives me unbelievable satisfaction. The reason I sponsored that legislation and fought so hard for it several years ago is because I wanted my children and my grandchildren to know what my values were. I was trying to save something for them. I thank you very much.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, not to be the skunk at the lawn party, but that reminds me of a story I feel like I have to share with you. Recently, in the caucus, Senator Daschle announced the birthdays of three Senators that would occur in the ensuing week. He named them, and John Glenn was one of them, and I forget the other two. Barbara Mikulski was one. Everybody applauded, and I turned to Senator Torricelli and said, ``Isn't it strange that we applaud birthdays in this country?'' He said, ``It is an American anachronism that we applaud the march toward death.''

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I must say, his determination--his fierce determination--to get this bill passed was reflected in the fact that he asked me every day for 6 months when I was going to take my hold off. This morning, I was very happy to tell him that my reason for putting the hold on in the first place had been resolved. One of the happiest days of my life was the day I could take that hold off to accommodate the Senator and Senator Hatch. I know he has been actively involved in this also. I just wanted to say that, Mr. President. I thank the leader very much for yielding the time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there are few Senators in the U.S. Senate for whom I have ever held a higher esteem than my good friend Bob Bennett. Therefore, several months ago, when I put a hold on this Utah land exchange, which was divinely desired by the Governor and the Interior Department, which is a rare instance--would that all land exchanges had this kind of support--I went to Senator Bennett and I told him privately--and he will agree to this--I told him privately, ``Bob, if push comes to shove''--I am not going to go into the details of why I put a hold on it. We all do these things around here occasionally. I never liked it, but sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves. I told Senator Bennett privately, ``At the right time, I will take my hold off this bill.'' I said, ``I want you to know I would never allow something this popular and well received to go down and''----

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there are fewer than 800 days left before we reach the goal of eliminating polio throughout the world by the end of the year 2000. That victory will mark the second time in history we have been able to eradicate an infectious disease. The first was the eradication of smallpox, a disease that claimed millions of lives through the centuries. As recently as the 1950's, smallpox was killing over 2 million people each year, despite the fact that an effective vaccine for the disease had been in use since 1796. Smallpox eradication began in 1967. The campaign required 11 years to complete and cost nearly $300 million--$200 million from countries with endemic smallpox and an additional $100 million from international donors. The U.S. was the largest international contributor with a total investment of $32 million. And that investment has repaid itself many times over. Beyond the humanitarian benefits of eliminating this vicious killer, we have enjoyed tremendous economic benefits. The U.S. alone has recouped the equivalent of its entire investment every 26 days since the disease was eradicated. The polio effort began in 1988 when the World Health Assembly endorsed the program and set the year 2000 as the target date for global eradication. Thus far, the campaign has been a dramatic success story. Today, four out of every five of the world's children receive polio vaccine. Over the past ten years, polio cases have been reduced by over 90 percent and today more than 150 nations report no polio. All countries in the Western Hemisphere have been polio-free since 1991, and all countries in Europe and the Western Pacific Region--including China, Vietnam and Cambodia--have been polio free for one or more years. In my view, the program's achievements are the result of a model public-private partnership. Rotary International began working on immunization programs in the early 1980's and when the World Health Assembly endorsed the polio eradication program in 1988, Rotary became the primary private-sector partner in the campaign. We estimate that Rotary International will have contributed $450 million by the end of the year 2000--the largest private contribution to a public health initiative in history. In a combined effort with the health ministries in each country, Rotary, UNICEF, WHO and CDC have mobilized thousands of volunteers to recruit, educate, transport and vaccinate children in a mass campaign strategy. The scope of the program is enormous. In 1997 alone, more than 450 million children in 80 countries were vaccinated against polio through the use of mass campaigns. And the partners have enjoyed unparalleled success in densely populated areas where the risk of disease has been high. During India's first campaign in 1996, more than 87 million children were vaccinated by 100,000 volunteers over a three- day period. The last frontier for the program is Africa, where the polio campaign faces formidable challenges. Efforts there have been hindered by poverty, civil conflicts and logistical problems in vaccine delivery. Even with these barriers, the program has enjoyed significant success in many areas of the continent. National Immunization Days have been conducted in over 35 African countries and have put a real dent in the number of polio cases. Experts in the field, including my wife Betty who participated in a mass campaign in West Africa earlier this year, have all returned with the same message--We can win the war against polio and Africa can put us over the top by the year 2000, but only if we intensify our efforts in Africa over the next two years. This means more funding from all the donors and more logistical support for programs that are conducted in countries racked by civil conflict and supply shortages. As was the case with smallpox, the rewards will far exceed the costs. The U.S. alone will reap annual savings of over $230 million and worldwide savings will exceed $1.5 billion each year. More importantly, we will have conquered a disease responsible for crippling millions of children over our history. Finally, we will have set the stage for our next campaign--the eradication of measles. Regional efforts to eliminate measles have already begun and an international effort is on the horizon. Historically, measles has killed more children than any other infectious disease. Even today, it is responsible for one out of every 10 deaths in children under age 5. Many leaders in the public health field believe that we should begin planning an international strategy over the next two years so that resources can be easily shifted from the polio effort to a measles campaign once polio is eradicated. I would like to conclude by paraphrasing the testimony of several witnesses at a recent Appropriations Committee hearing on measles and polio eradication. We live in a time when government and politicians are the targets of great criticism. At the same time, there are few instances of social justice by groups other than government. No social club, no church group, no other organization represents all of us. Only government does that. Our immunization successes in this country have resulted from government at its best--government was an aim to protect every child individually and society collectively. It is the product of politics at its best. Likewise, while the U.S. effort to support smallpox eradication, polio eradication, child health and child immunization is a consequence of enlightened self interest, it also expresses our understanding, as Americans, of a responsibility to the world and to the future. It is the U.S. government at its very best.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining on the bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, my good friend, has been a steadfast ally with me in this battle for many, many years, because the State of North Dakota took this case to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said we are reversing ourselves in previous decisions. If the Congress wants to give the right to the States to collect this tax, they can now do it. But Congress has to do it. Congress has steadfastly refused to do what the Supreme Court told them they had the authority to do. I will be sitting down in Arkansas fishing 3 years from now, and I assume that is probably the number of years we are going to adopt in a few minutes. I am not going to vote for it. I am not going to vote for 4 years. I am not going to vote for the bill either. It has a 2-year moratorium. As far as I am concerned, that is enough. But having said that, I will be down there fishing. I will be watching C-SPAN. I will smile to myself when somebody gets up as though it is the most original idea that was ever created, and says, ``Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk that would create a commission to study taxation of the Internet. We have had 3 years to study it, but we are really not quite finished and we don't know what havoc this is going to create. We need to get the National Academy of Sciences, the Council of Economic Advisers, or the GAO. We need somebody to study this a while longer.'' They will buy it again. I can tell you that 3 years from now the makeup of this place will not change that much. They will buy it again, and we will extend it again. But just like the ozone layer, the time will come when everybody knows that you can't do it anymore, because the States and the cities can't afford to let this go any longer. They are barely making ends meet the way it is. That is the way it goes. If you do not learn anything in 24 years here, you will learn the way the game is played. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to take a firm stand on an issue that I felt strongly about for so many years. As I say, I don't intend to vote for a second-degree amendment which would take it to 4 years. I don't intend to vote for the second-degree amendment that will take us to 3 years. The bill, as it came out of committee and came to this floor provided for a 2-year study. That is too long. They don't need 2 years. I am going to vote for the bill because 2 years is much too long anyway. I don't believe there ought to be a tax exemption for anybody who is competing with Main Street merchants. Let me add one further thing. The Senator from North Dakota piqued my memory on this. Outside of being the entire Charleston South Franklin County Bar Association, I was also a Main Street merchant. I can tell you even then, 40 years ago, my biggest competitor was the catalog. I detested it. I was a Main Street merchant having to organize the Christmas parade, be president of the Chamber of Commerce, and trying to attract industry into town so we could create a few jobs. I paid sales tax on every dime I sold, all of which went for the schools of our State and our city, which went to the police department, which went to the fire department, which went to help us pave our streets, take care of our landfill, dispose of our garbage. Those are the things that Main Street merchants do in this country. We are saying to them and the National Federation of Independent Businesses--NFIB. I don't want to get started on them. As far as I am concerned, they represent big business, and not small business. But I think they are for this bill. It is the most damaging thing to Main Street merchants I can imagine. I know. I used to be one. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I agree mostly with what the Senator from Nebraska said. I prefer a 2-year moratorium. As the Senator from Nebraska stated, earlier this year, we passed a bill to reform the Internal Revenue Service. That legislation arose from the IRS Commission, which had a mere 15 statutory months to take a top to bottom look at, and make recommendations on, how to restructure the IRS. The entire commission process plus the legislating process resulted in a bill the President signed in just a shade over two years. The point I am trying to make is this: Fair taxation of the Internet is not more complicated than restructuring the IRS. The bill to which the two amendments presently pending are offered, is a bill that provides a 2-year moratorium. Two years is enough. To allow any more time would do nothing but prove that the U.S. Senate is knuckling under to the Internet industry. I see my good friend from Florida on the floor. He and I were both Governors. The Governors signed off on 2 years and now here is a letter saying they hope we will compromise on 3 years. ``Do not adopt,'' they say, ``the 4 year moratorium. Accept the compromise of 3 years.'' I can tell you, Senator, if I were still Governor of my State, I would be squealing like a pig under a gate. Here a significant percentage of the State's entire tax base is being eroded, literally destroyed, by remote sellers, and the Internet industry and the Governors say let's compromise at 3 years. We are willing not to tax the Internet for a 3-year period. Think about that. In 3 years' time the estimates are that sales over the Internet will be $300 billion. We know that catalog sales right now are in excess of $100 billion. The States are saying they are willing to forgo their right to tax the Internet for 3 years. If there were no catalog sales, if there were no Internet, $400 billion worth of goods would be sold by Main Street merchants in America on which they would pay a 4, 5, 6, or 7 percent sales tax to support their community schools, their fire departments, their police departments, their landfills, paving their streets and everything else that cities have to do. Yes, if I were still Governor, trying to raise teachers' salaries, trying to making better schools, trying to increase the size of the police department and reduce crime in my community, if I were charged with the responsibility as mayor or Governor and had the responsibility of our children, our environment, all of those things, I would never sit still. I would never sit still for allowing these people to escape taxation. It has been a mystery to me for 7 years, as I have fought to try to give the States the right--not the mandate, but the right--to make remote sellers collect sales taxes. There are only 7,500 of them. The bill I offered would only affect 675 of them. We exempted everybody that did less than $3 million in business a year. I have been soundly defeated each time I have tried to correct this problem. And as I leave the U.S. Senate after 24 years, it is a mystery to me. Why do people vote to allow the tax bases in their States to be eroded when their Governors and their mayors and local officials are scrounging for money to improve schools and everything else? My State has a sales and use tax on all mail-order sales coming into my State. Do you know how much we collect on it? Zero. Do you know why? Because the tax is on the purchaser. I promise you there is not 1 in 10,000 people in the State of Arkansas that even know that the tax exists. Of course, they don't pay it. Literally millions of dollars of goods come into my State every year on which not one cent of tax is collected, even though it is owed. But it is owed by the person who bought the merchandise, and he or she doesn't even know the tax exists. When we try to say to the States--Senator Graham, Senator Dorgan and myself--that we are going to help you, we want to honor what you are trying to do, they have all championed my bill. They haven't been very effective, but the Governors and mayors have all championed my legislation every year I have offered it. But the U.S. Senators sit up here, with all their arrogance, and say to their legislatures, Governors and mayors: We don't care what you want, we will decide what you get. For 7 years, so far, and much longer than that, we have said you get nothing. We are not going to let you tax mail-order sales. So quit talking about it. You might as well quit talking about it. I think 30 or 35 votes is my high-water mark in trying to address what I consider a terrible problem. The Presiding Officer heard me talk a while ago about how the first thing I did when I came here was to try to stop the manufacturing of CFCs that are destroying our ozone. We all know the ozone is being systematically destroyed, but back then we had to study it. It was just a theory. As I said, the best way to kill something in the U.S. Senate is to say let's study it. If you want to never hear of something again, get an amendment adopted that says, no, you can't do that anymore, you have to study it. That is what we are doing here. We are saying to the mayors and Governors and legislatures of our respective States--45 of the 50 States already have a tax, but it is on the consumer and nobody knows it, and they are desperate. The reason I mention that again is because I will be sitting down in Arkansas, or someplace, a few years from now and this thing will crescendo and will reach a level where the Senate won't have any choice but to deal with it and to give the States that right, because if they don't their schools are going to start crumbling, their police departments are going to go to pot, as are their fire departments. Did you see in the paper this morning where Amazon.com's stock is selling for over $100 a share, and they haven't made a nickel profit yet? It is estimated they are selling two-thirds of all the books sold over the Internet, and their sales are growing exponentially. I have a lot of friends that never buy a book from a local bookstore anymore. They buy it over the Internet. Not only do they get a little discount, they pay no sales tax on it. So this morning's paper says Amazon.com has become so terrific and so powerful that a publishing house is buying Barnes & Noble's on-line system. They have a third and Amazon.com has two-thirds. The publishing house knows that they are going to be put out of business if they don't get with the program, because Amazon.com is going to be selling all the books in the country. So they are buying Barnes & Noble's on-line book service. That is good for the consumers, but it is terrible for State and local government. Yesterday afternoon, I offered an amendment to say at least make the Internet state that the merchandise you buy may be subject to local taxation. You think about that. Senator Dorgan voted with me, Senator Graham voted with me, and we got 27 votes. They don't even want the people to know that there is a sales tax on which the purchaser is liable. Then, this morning, we finally won a little battle. There was an amendment here that I could not believe that said you can't study this issue. Think of that. Normally you use studies to kill things. This morning, we get an amendment saying you can't even study it. I am telling you, I don't know what the Internet and these mail-order catalog houses have on the Senate, but it must be something. Larry Flynt ought to be offering a million dollars to find out the answer to that one. So here we are standing around debating an issue, the merits of which are not even in question. Everybody knows that we ought not to be giving a free ride to the to people who are selling merchandise by the hundreds of billions of dollars over the Internet and eroding the tax base of almost every State in the Nation. I am for computers; I am for technology, but I am not for allowing them to destroy the tax base of the states.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my time left in the Senate is very brief. I have--I don't know--3, 4, at the most 5 days left of active duty on the Senate floor. I read a story in the paper this morning that gives me some satisfaction at least about some of the things I have done since I came here. As I have said on the floor many times, there isn't anything as gratifying to a Senator as being able to stand on the floor and say, ``I told you so.'' When I first came here, I had read a story in some science magazine about two young physicists at the University of California at Irvine who had developed a theory that chlorofluorocarbons--a gas, normally found in aerosols and freon, which we use in our air conditioners and refrigerators--that these chlorofluorocarbons that we sprayed on our hair in the morning were wafting up into the stratosphere over a period of 12 to 15 years and destroying the ozone layer. Before I came to the Senate, I thought ``ozone'' was a town in Johnson County, AR, which indeed it is. As a matter of fact I spoke at the high school graduation at Ozone last year. Nevertheless, this theory about something we were doing rather mindlessly that had almost cataclysmic consequences for the future intrigued me. I had been put on the Space Committee when I came here. I did not ask for the Space Committee--it was a spacey committee. We abolished it a couple years after I came here, but I asked the chairman, Senator Moss of Utah, if I could hold some hearings on this theory and invite some atmospheric scientists to come in and testify. And he said, ``I have no objection to that.'' Just ad hoc hearings. I certainly was not chairman of the subcommittee or anything else. I had just gotten here. He said, ``I don't mind you doing that, but you need to get a Republican to sit with you in these hearings.'' So I recruited my good friend, Senator Domenici, from New Mexico. Senator Domenici and I held nine hearings over a period of about 6 months. We had the best atmospheric scientists in the United States coming in and testifying--Dr. Rowland and Dr. Molina. In those hearings, we probably had an average of 15 people in the audience. We had a television camera show up only once. When we finished, Senator Domenici did not feel quite as strongly as I did about abolishing the manufacturing of CFCs immediately, and so Senator Packwood and I took it on and brought it to the floor of the Senate to abolish the manufacturing of CFCs. The chemical lobbyists in that lobby, through that door, were so thick I could hardly get to the floor to vote. And as I recall, we got a whopping 33 votes. I was arguing that if we were to cut off all manufacturing of CFCs right now, we still had 12 to 15 years of damage coming because that is how long it took from the time you sprayed your hair the morning we voted for it to get there and start destroying ozone. You know all the arguments: This is untested; unproved; and we need to ``study'' it. That is the way you kill things around here--study it. And so that is the end of the story in 1975. In 1985, the National Academy of Sciences, who we had assigned to do the study--10 years later--discovered that there was a developing hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. And almost every year since then that ozone hole has grown bigger and bigger and bigger. We have phased out the manufacturing of CFCs--we do not use it anymore to spray our hair with; and we have substitutes for air-conditioning and refrigeration. Nevertheless, if you saw the Post this morning, the current estimates are that the ozone hole is deeper and wider than it has ever been, and has been growing almost every year since 1975 when we first discovered it. The good news is, while scientists were shocked by the size of the ozone hole in their current study, they still believe that it can be stabilized by the year 2050. Well, let's hope so, because if it isn't, we can anticipate 300,000 additional cases of skin cancer. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BUMPERS. The ozone layer protects us from the ultraviolet rays of the Sun. The hole that we have already caused is going to cause thousands and thousands of cases of skin cancer before we even begin to stabilize the ozone layer. Mr. President, I tell that little story with some satisfaction, because I daresay there are not many Senators who fought as many losing battles in the U.S. Senate as I have. So the only reason I tell that story is to let people know that sometimes when you cast unpopular votes you will be proven right. A lot of Senators get beat before they ever get a chance to be proven right. I voted against more constitutional amendments than any Senator in the U.S. Senate. I am proud of every one of them. Rest assured, if they bring the flag desecration amendment up again, I will be happy to vote against that, too, for reasons I will not belabor now. I see my good friend from Nevada wanting to speak. And I want to follow him on the matter pending before the Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the distinguished manager very much. Mr. President, this is really a strange scenario for me. I have fought for years to allow States to do exactly what the Supreme Court, in the Quill decision, said we had the right to do, and that was to allow States to make mail order houses collect sales taxes on merchandise being shipped into our respective States. That is what the Supreme Court said. We would not be overturning the Quill decision. We would simply be taking advantage of what the Supreme Court said we had a right to do: Remove the interstate commerce clause as a burden and allow the States, 45 of whom have sales taxes on merchandise from out of State--allow those States who have passed those laws to implement them. They cannot be implemented. We are saying we do not care what kind of laws you pass at the State level, we are not going to allow you to implement them. Last week we once again killed my amendment to allow states to mandate that remote sellers collect the taxes they ought to. Yesterday, the Senate decided that we cannot even make Internet sellers alert consumers to the fact that there is a sales tax in the State. We cannot even tell them to alert people to the fact that somebody may knock on their door from their state revenue department and try to collect the unpaid use tax. Think about that. Mr. President, 45 States have a sales tax and we voted yesterday not to even require Internet sellers to tell consumers there may be a tax on their purchases. Now we come here today saying we cannot even study it. My God, how far are we going to go?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for about 2 minutes?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. The reason there is an objection is because the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Oregon do not come from the 45 States that have sales taxes. They are opposed to this because their State is not one of the 45 States that do have a sales or use tax. Secondly, the unanimous consent agreement limits amendments to relevant amendments. If you put mail- order catalog sales in, it is not relevant. That is the reason I confined it to the Internet and asked consent to extend it. That is the reason they objected. They don't have to face a legislature or people back home who passed a sales or use tax on Internet sales coming in from out of State, because their States don't have a sales or use tax. My State does have that use tax, and we would like to collect it. Your revenue departments and your Governors would like to collect it, too. All I am saying is, Internet sales simply ought to state a simple thing--that the goods you are buying could be subject to a use or sales tax in your State; if you want to know whether it does or not, contact your local revenue department. What is wrong with that? Who can oppose that? The taxes have already been passed by the legislature. It is just that they can't collect it unless they stand at the border and intercept every piece of merchandise that comes through the mail or on the highway. They can't do it. So all I am saying is, if these 45 States have seen fit to levy taxes on out-of-State sales to make the playing field a little more level with the main street merchants, we ought to give them such help as we can. I am saying they ought to at least advise these people that these purchases might be subject to a use or sales tax. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time if everybody else is, and we will go to a vote.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be expanded to include mail-order catalog sales.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. Forty- five States have sales and use taxes on sales of merchandise coming into their State from another State. The problem is, they can't collect it because the people who are buying the merchandise don't know that there is a sales tax on the goods coming in. I think Maine collects about $1 million, and that is probably as much as any State collects. People are always getting rude surprises. All of a sudden somebody knocks on the door and they say, ``We saw where you just bought $50,000 worth of furniture from North Carolina. You owe sales tax.'' They say, ``The ad said no sales tax.'' ``I don't care what the ad says. There is a North Carolina sales tax on merchandise brought in from out of State.'' My amendment says on Internet sales, if you sell into a State, you must notify people with a short notice that simply says, ``This merchandise may be subject to a sales or use tax in your State.'' You could be subject to a civil penalty or a criminal penalty--something like 100 bucks. If you want to check, you should check with your local revenue department to determine whether or not your State has a tax. I want every Member in this body to ask this question: Why would you vote against this when your legislature has specifically provided that sale of goods from across the State lines are taxable? If you say they are not taxable, you are flying right into the face of the will of the people in your State who said they should be. All I am saying, people should not be misled and should be told that when they buy this merchandise it may be subject to a sales or use tax. It is just that simple. Why wouldn't you? If your State is one of the 45 States that have a tax, why would you not want a company selling goods on the Internet--not mail-order houses on the Internet--why would you not want to tell the customer he may be subject to it, instead of him getting a rude surprise and some auditor knocking on his door? I reserve the remainder of my time.