Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for about 5 minutes as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. As to this amendment, I think what we want to make sure of, whatever differences we have about the welfare bill, what I think is a kind of bipartisan consensus is that it work well as it gets implemented at the State level. And so whether it is food-nutrition programs or whether it is a mother trying to find child care or whether someone who is in a job training program and trying to stay in that program or whether it is an issue of public transportation, we want to make sure that all of our citizens, even if they are poor, even if they are women and children, have legal representation and that the due process rights are maintained. I think this study will give us a clearer picture as to where we are in relation to these issues. I thank both my colleagues. Mr. President, I would also like to thank them for their patience. I was at Justice Brennan's service and that is why I was a little late in getting back. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Restrictions on INS Fingerprinting in the CJS Appropriations Bill

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Is the amendment agreed to?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can be very brief on this. This is really just a study. Basically, what this amendment asks is that as we go forward with the welfare bill and it is implemented in States around the country, the Legal Services Corporation compile data on what kinds of appeals might be made by women and their families dealing with the welfare law as it is implemented. It is simply a study to document numbers of people who come to them with a variety of different grievances so that we get a clear record of what is happening. Right now, in many cases, these lawyers are not able to take up these cases. This does not mandate anything. It just simply calls for a study. I thank my colleagues for their support.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think we can go forward with the vote. I thank my colleague from New Jersey. Please, I say to both of my other colleagues, this is a very important amendment. It really is connected to many people's lives, and many of them are women--some men but I am sad to say mainly women. This is an extremely important protection that we are now providing to these women with children. I hope we will keep this in conference committee. I thank, Mr. President, the National Task Force on Violence Against Women and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, for their help on this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Torricelli, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Akaka.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that Elise Gould, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1085, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1085, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. This situation is extremely unfair--owners of other ethanol production facilities are able to take advantage of this incentive, yet we are denying family farmers their fair share of the benefit. While I strongly support the preservation and extension of the ethanol tax incentives--vital for this maturing industry--passthrough of the small producer credit is a separate issue of fundamental fairness for family farmers. I believe all Members can agree that family farmers, who have made a substantial investment in ethanol production, should be able to take advantage of the same tax benefits that other small business owners who produce ethanol now enjoy. Passthrough of this tax credit is not a corporate subsidy and does not benefit large corporations, but is an incentive for America's family farmers to help produce a fuel that decreases our foreign oil dependence, spurs rural development, and improves our Nation's air quality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I offered this amendment last night. We had a fairly thorough discussion. I don't think this is an adversarial relationship with my colleague from Mississippi. Let me just briefly summarize. This amendment revives what is called the Outreach and Start Up Grant Program for school breakfasts. Let me point out to my colleagues what this is about. This is a Children's Defense Fund poster. ``Remember these hungry kids in China? Now they are in Omaha.'' They could be in any of our States. We have 5.5 million American children who do not regularly get enough to eat. There was a $5 million outreach program that we eliminated last year in the welfare bill. I don't think colleagues knew what they were voting on. They did when it came to the overall welfare bill. But this was one tiny provision. The argument that was made about this outreach program was that it was too successful. That is to say, we have 8 million children who could qualify for the School Breakfast Program but don't receive it because many school districts and States aren't yet able to set it up. This $5 million outreach program made a huge difference. It was very successful, and, indeed, the School Breakfast Program is credited as being one of the most successful nutritional programs in our country. I fear that too many of my colleagues do not understand that there are children in our country who go to school hungry, and we are not doing very much about it. When children go to school hungry, they don't do well in school, and when they don't do well in school they can't learn, and when they are adults later on they can't earn. It is very shortsighted that we eliminated this program. We should not have done so. Mr. President, there are 8 million children spread across 27,000 schools who go to school hungry or are malnourished or without enough to eat. The distinctions aren't that important. We can do better. For $5 million we can have an outreach program that will enable more of our States and more of our school districts to provide a school breakfast, a nutritious meal, to children before they start school. Mr. President, again this is an extremely effective program. Study after study has really pointed out that the School Breakfast Program makes an enormous difference. It makes an enormous difference in terms of overall test scores. It makes an enormous difference in terms of whether students drop out of school or not, whether they arrive at school on time, and how well they do. Clearly this amendment speaks to priorities. Surely we can find $5 million. Mr. President, the offset is from funds allocated to the crop insurance companies for which right now the total amount is $202 million. In the Senate we have $24 million more than the House appropriated. We have $52 million more than the President appropriated. The GAO in a very critical report of this insurance program pointed out that there is $81 million more than the companies' expenses for selling and servicing crop insurance. I am very careful to maintain the integrity of this program--a mere $5 million transfer, $5 million out of $24 million more than the House allocated, $5 million out of $52 million we have more than the President asked for, which could go to an outreach program for school breakfast. I make this appeal to colleagues. There are too many children in our country who are malnourished. There are too many children who cannot learn. There are too many children who have rotting teeth because they don't get the decent meals that they deserve and the adequate meal that they deserve and the nutrition that they deserve. There are too many children who aren't able to concentrate in school. There are too many children who suffer from health care problems because they don't have an adequate diet. We never should have done that. We never should have done this. We eliminated the most successful outreach program--total cost for the whole Nation, $5 million. Surely it is not asking too much of my colleagues to allocate a transfer of this small amount of money to make sure that we provide children with an adequate breakfast, with a decent meal, so that they can start school on the right foot and do well. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Greg Renden, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor for the duration of today.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have just been conferring with my colleagues from Kansas and Arkansas. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to modify my amendment that the offset be from travel and administrative costs within the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. This situation is extremely unfair--owners of other ethanol production facilities are able to take advantage of this incentive, yet we are denying family farmers their fair share of the benefit. While I strongly support the preservation and extension of the ethanol tax incentives--vital for this maturing industry--passthrough of the small producer credit is a separate issue of fundamental fairness for family farmers. I believe all Members can agree that family farmers, who have made a substantial investment in ethanol production, should be able to take advantage of the same tax benefits that other small business owners who produce ethanol now enjoy. Passthrough of this tax credit is not a corporate subsidy and does not benefit large corporations, but is an incentive for America's family farmers to help produce a fuel that decreases our foreign oil dependence, spurs rural development, and improves our Nation's air quality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, who is always gracious. I think that is one of the reasons he is held in such high regard. I just point out again that we can have a discussion tomorrow morning or negotiation. And look, from my point of view, you know, I am sometimes grateful for small victories. And if there was a way that this amendment would be accepted, I would be very pleased. Then I would have to fight hard to keep it in the conference committee. Mr. President, I think that my colleague from Mississippi is absolutely correct in his analysis of what happened by way of going after this outreach grant program for school breakfasts with the argument being, ``Here are the caps and here is what we have got to do to save the money.'' If you want to, call me naive, but I just would like to say that this is a very brutal argument, not by my colleague from Mississippi, but this is a brutal argument that people are making. ``We have got caps. We have got to save the money. Therefore, we eliminate a $5 million outreach program because it has led--that is why we have to eliminate it--it will lead to more school districts setting up a school breakfast program, and, therefore, more children who are in fact malnourished or hungry will be able to get at school a nutritious breakfast.'' That is a brutal argument. Why in the world are we willing to make these kinds of cuts that target these children when we know darn well that the medical evidence and the educational evidence is so clear that it can make a huge difference whether or not a poor child has a decent breakfast and can start out the schoolday with a decent breakfast? What do you think the price is that we pay in children that could do well in school, that don't, that drop out? What do you think the price is that we pay for kids that get into trouble with substance abuse, that get into trouble with the law, that there is a higher correlation between high school dropouts and incarceration than cigarette smoking and lung cancer? What is the price we pay for kids dropping out? Now, an adequate breakfast for a poor child does not, ipso facto, guarantee that child will do well. But why in the world did we eliminate this outreach program? And why can't we restore it? Mr. President, I am really hoping that tomorrow we will be able to get support for this one. The Tufts University--I believe the Chair knows the Tufts University does some pretty good work, especially when it comes to issues with children and malnutrition. Current scientific research links nutrition and cognitive development. Undernutrition along with environmental factors associated with poverty can permanently retard physical growth, brain development, and cognitive functioning. The longer a child's nutritional, emotional, and education needs go unmet, the greater the likelihood of cognitive impairments. Iron deficiency anemia, affecting nearly 25 percent of poor children in the United States, is associated with impaired cognitive development. Iron deficiency anemia, which affects 25 percent of poor children in the United States, is associated with impaired cognitive development, and we cannot find $5 million for an outreach program, for a school breakfast program for malnourished children? Poor children who attend school hungry perform significantly below nonhungry low-income peers on standardized test scores. There is a study--I am a social scientist. They had an experimental group and control group, and they found out--they took children from the same income category--and they found that those children who attended school not hungry did much better on standardized tests than those children who attended school hungry. Is anybody here surprised by that finding? Isn't that clear? Those children from poor families who go to school and receive a good breakfast will do better in school, will do better on standardized tests. Does anybody want to argue with that? Well, if you don't, then how can you eliminate an outreach program that makes sure that those children are able to get that healthy breakfast? So, Mr. President, we will have more debate on this tomorrow. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi. I really hope that there will be support for this amendment, that we can find the small amount of money which would make such a huge difference. In any case, this is one of those amendments I just am going to keep bringing out on the floor because I know that we did the wrong thing. I know that. I think I can argue that. Since I believe in the goodness of people and I believe in the goodness of the Senate, I think there has just got to be a way that we can restore this program because it is not a program; it is kids, it is children. And we can help them. I yield the floor. amendment no. 971

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am sorry it is late tonight. I am going to have a chance to summarize this amendment for colleagues tomorrow. Let me just start out with a poster from the Children's Defense Fund: ``Remember Those Hungry Kids In China? Now They Are In Omaha.'' But it could be in any of our States. Currently there are an estimated 5.5 million American kids who don't eat regularly. They don't get enough to eat. Mr. President, we have to do better. I offer an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill which would revive the outreach and startup grants program for school breakfasts. They are called outreach grants. It may come as a shock to some of the Members of this body that children, too many children, are going to school hungry and we are not doing anything about it. Let me repeat that. I have brought this amendment to the floor of the Senate before. I now have an amendment on the agriculture appropriations bill. I hope I will win on this amendment. I appeal to my colleagues to please support this amendment, but I will come back with this amendment over and over and over again, until I restore the funding. This program was eliminated. Let me just repeat what is going on here. There are too many children who go to school who are hungry. We are not doing anything about it. There are too many children who go to school with rotting teeth from non-nutritious foods. There are too many children who go to school with aching, empty stomachs. There are too many children who go to school who are unable to learn because they are malnourished and hungry. And that is not the goodness in our country. Mr. President, the welfare law of 1996 eliminated--eliminated the school breakfast outreach and startup grants. They were created in 1990 and they were made permanent in 1994. What these outreach grants are all about--and we are talking about $5 million and only $5 million to reestablish this program--these were grants that enabled States and school districts to set up school breakfast programs. Some 45 States have received these funds. Every student who is eligible for a free lunch is eligible for school breakfast as well. However, only about 40 percent of those who are hungry, those who come from very low-income families and are eligible for school lunch program, are able to participate in the school breakfast program as well. This program, this outreach program which was combined with the public awareness program by the Food Research and Action Committee--and thank God we have FRAC, because they do wonderful work, and other nutrition advocacy groups--was a catalyst. We were able, through this outreach program, to expand the school breakfast program by 26,000 schools to an additional 2.3 million poor children between 1987 and 1994. I would like my colleagues to listen carefully to this, not only tonight, many are gone but staffs are around, but also tomorrow when I summarize. This program was extremely successful. It was eliminated because of the almost Orwellian argument that the $5 million outreach program should be eliminated because it was effective, because it was providing States and school districts with the information they needed to set up a school breakfast program to help hungry, malnourished children. I need to repeat that argument. This was completely eliminated. We eliminated an outreach program for poor children in America to make sure that they were able to participate in the school breakfast program because the argument was made it was encouraging school districts to set up school breakfast programs and therefore the Federal Government would have to contribute some money. Yes, we would. And that would be a good thing. Because today there are 14.3 million children who receive free and reduced-price lunches, but 8 million of them, spread across 27,000 schools, go to school hungry and receive no school breakfasts at all. Mr. President, 8 million children who need the help, 8 million children who could be starting out the day with a nutritious breakfast, do not receive that assistance, in part because we eliminated a $5 million outreach grant program. We eliminated the whole program. My colleagues know that hungry children cannot learn. And they know that if they cannot learn, when they are adults they won't be able to earn. I could not think of anything that is more shortsighted. Let me just repeat, talking about children and the importance of an equal chance for every child, too many children in our country, 8 million children--maybe more, maybe a few less, what difference does it make?--go to school and there is no school breakfast program. They are eligible. We eliminated the outreach program that would give States and school districts additional information so they could help hungry children, and as a result of that there are too many children who don't do well in school. Let me go with the next chart, although I will hold this up tomorrow. I would like my colleagues to see this. There are hungry kids in our country, an estimated 5.5 million American kids don't regularly get enough to eat. That is the Food Research in Action Coalition report, that is the Children's Defense Fund, this comes from the work of Tufts University. I mean, the evidence is there, colleagues. We have too many children who are malnourished. We have too many children that do not have an adequate diet. And we eliminate a $5 million program, an outreach program, because we said it was too effective. This chart points out the percentage of children from hungry and nonhungry households, and how it relates to health-related problems. Let me point out, the red is percent of nonhungry children, the green is percent of hungry children. Whether you are looking at unwanted weight loss, or fatigue, or frequent colds, or inability to concentrate, or ear infection, dizziness, asthma, allergies, diarrhea, irritability, frequent headaches--over and over and over again--this is from the Food Research Action Council, 1995--it is dramatic: The much larger percentage of children who are hungry children experience all of these specific health related problems. It is not too much, I say to my colleague from Mississippi, this is not too much to ask for. I don't think, when we voted on the welfare bill, the debate was really on this one $5 million outreach program. It was just one program in a large bill that we eliminated and we should not have. We set it up in 1990. It was very effective between 1990 and 1994; 1995, it was an excellent program, it was a program that provided outreach to 45 States. It meant that some additional school districts knew how to set up a school breakfast program. And, yes, we ended up providing some funding for that. But we should. Where there are children in need, where there are children who could really be helped by a program that would give them a nutritious meal, would give them a nutritious breakfast, we ought to make sure that happens. Otherwise these children don't do as well in school. I would just say to my colleagues, this is really all about our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. How can anybody here in the U.S. Senate say that we truly have equal opportunity for every single child when we have over 5 million children that do not get enough to eat and we don't even allocate $5 million for an outreach program that would help those children start out the day with a nutritious breakfast? This is wrong. I am just sure of it. This is wrong. We have to be able to do this. I just want to say, because my colleague is on the floor, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, that the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee did not cut this program at all. They didn't eliminate this program. This happened in the overall welfare bill. This was not action of the Appropriations Committee. I also want to say that Senator Cochran has been an advocate for children's nutrition programs. So let me be crystal clear, this is not aimed at some action taken by the Ag Appropriations Committee. But, Mr. President, what we did in the last Congress was profoundly mistaken. Let me just read for a moment--and there are many different studies I could read from--from the Tufts study. This really went back to 1987, in which Meyer Sampson, et al, examined the effect of the School Breakfast Program on school performance of low-income students in Lawrence, MA. In any case, what they found out is that from standardized tests to lateness and absences, over and over again, children who participated in the School Breakfast Program were shown to do much better on achievement tests, were shown to get to school on time, were shown to not be absent from school so often. It is just so clear. Can't we come up with $5 million? Now we have a doctor, Dr. Frist, who is presiding. This is a medical issue. I am just saying to Dr. Frist that we have a study here from the Food Research Action Council which points out the correlation between children who are malnourished and some of the health problems--unwanted weight loss, fatigue, frequent colds, inability to concentrate, ear infection, dizziness. I am saying I don't think any of us realize that in the welfare bill, we eliminated a $5 million--that is all it is--outreach program that was very effective. It was in operation in 45 States, and for the $5 million investment, we help provide school districts with information about how they can set up a school breakfast program. I am pointing out that there are some 8 million children who are eligible for the School Breakfast Program who don't receive any help, and there are too many children who go to school and don't get a nutritious meal. For $5 million, I say to my colleagues, we could have this outreach program. We never should have eliminated it. We know that when children are hungry, they don't do as well in school. The evidence is irrefutable and irreducible. We know that when children are malnourished and hungry that they don't have the same opportunities as our children do to do well in school. And we know that there is, as reported by the Tufts study, as reported by some of the work of the Food Research Action Council, and I have here about--if I had wanted to, I could have taken several hours to go over this amendment--a variety of different studies that have been done, and over and over and over again, it is the same. This is the Tufts University School of Nutrition, I say to the Presiding Officer, ``The Link Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development in Children.'' Look, if we have children in our country--and the evidence is clear-- who go to school and, because their parents are so poor or for other reasons, and they are eligible because they are from low-income families, they don't get that nutritious breakfast, and we know there is a link between nutrition and cognitive development, we know there is a link in early years, we know there is a link in terms of how children do in school, why in the world would we have eliminated an outreach program? That is what we did. I will tomorrow, in summarizing this amendment, talk about what the offset will be, but I want to be real clear to everybody who is listening tonight--and I will do my very best to talk about this tomorrow again--that it may come as a shock, but the fact of the matter is, there are too many children who are going to school hungry, and we are not doing what we could do to help those children. It is a fact that there are too many children who go to school with rotting teeth from non-nutritious foods, and we could allocate $5 million for an outreach program which, as I pointed out, multiplies itself over and over and over again, and, in fact, has made a huge difference for some 2.3 million children. It is a fact that too many children are going to school with aching, empty stomachs, and we are not doing all that we can do to help those children. It is a fact that there are too many children who, because they do not start out the day with a decent meal, are not able to learn, and I will say it one more time, they are not able to learn, and because they are not able to learn, when they are adults, they are not able to earn. How shortsighted can it be to not be willing--we had a $270 billion Pentagon budget. We have all sorts of subsidies that go to oil companies, to pharmaceutical companies, to big insurance companies. We find all sorts of places and areas to spend money, and this $5 million outreach program was eliminated. Mr. President, maybe some people who are watching tonight will have a chance to speak on the floor about something I think is important tomorrow morning. I will have a chance to summarize this amendment. But one more time, I hope that we will restore this. I could read study after study after study, but I don't think I need to; I really don't think I need to. It is just crystal clear: We never should have eliminated a $5 million outreach program that actually led to some 2.2 million more children having the chance to participate in the School Breakfast Program, because this outreach program gave school districts and gave States the information they needed to set up the School Breakfast Program. Then in the welfare bill, this outreach program was eliminated because the curious argument was made that it was too successful and too many school districts were setting up the School Breakfast Program and, God forbid, we were going to have to spend more money on child nutrition. That is the argument that was made, not by this committee, but the Ag Committee has jurisdiction over nutrition programs. I say to my colleague from Mississippi, this is an opportunity for us to do something in a bipartisan way that would really make a difference. This would be a good thing to do. This would be a right thing to do. This would be a small thing to do, but it would have a really large impact. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time to see whether or not there might be some reaction to my amendment. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. More than that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senator from--I thought that this amendment was going to be much more brief. That was my understanding. I am anxious to go on with my amendment, but my understanding is that the Senator from Vermont had wanted to speak on this, and out of courtesy to a colleague, I defer to him. I ask the Senator, does he know how long he will be speaking?