Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President and Senators, the budget is all about priorities. This amendment speaks to priorities. This amendment says that we invest in crumbling schools all across our country $5 billion, that we should do that now. This amendment says that, while we have made progress with Head Start in this budget agreement, still only half the children, if you consider early Head Start, are covered and we should cover more of these children. This amendment says that last year we made cuts in the school breakfast program, we made cuts in the child nutrition programs for Family Head Start Centers, and therefore we ought to restore that nutritional funding for poor children in America. Madam President, altogether this amendment says we make investments in these areas to the tune of about $20 billion over the next half decade, and the offset is to make sure that the cuts in taxes are targeted to middle income and small business, not the top 2 percent of the economic profile in the country, and that we look at all of these loopholes and deductions in corporate welfare.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the budget----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Madam President. May I have order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague wants to comment, I would like to preserve 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. The Pell grant program has been a huge success. It has sort of been the foundation of opportunity in our country. I feel like my words are also dedicated to Senator Claiborne Pell. Let me just highlight a few things that Senator Reed had to say. And, again, Senator Bingaman and Senator Moynihan are also original cosponsors. What we are really doing is saying that we are pleased to see the tax deductions. And we are pleased to see the tax credits. But we want to make sure that we also provide the support for students and families with incomes under $20,000 a year who may very well fall between the cracks. So what this amendment does is it says for $6 billion more over 5 years we take it out of a variety of different loopholes and deductions that are called corporate welfare. Instead, we would invest it in the Pell grant program. We would increase the award up to $3,500. My colleague is right. The President has brought it from $2,700 to $3,000, and that is a modest increase. But we are pleased to see that. But if we brought it up to $3,500, then what you would see is that the Pell program would be available to several hundred thousand new students and the average Pell grant among low-income students would increase by about a third. One of the things that I want to say to my colleagues is that I hope before you vote on this amendment that there will be a way that you can be in touch, if you are not already, with the higher education communities in your States, because I think you will hear over and over again from them that there is no more important program than the Pell grant program, if we want to target this assistance to make sure those students and those families most in need of assistance are able to have access to higher education. There is a shameful statistic in our country. The best predictor of attending college is family income. And only 16 percent of college freshmen come from households with incomes under $20,000 a year. Only half of them graduate by age 24. So just think about that for a moment. Only 8 percent of those women and men coming from households with incomes under $20,000 a year are able to graduate. And we are now moving toward an economy where the brainpower of women and men in industry is going to matter more and more. Many of these companies, by the way, are going to be small businesses--not necessarily large companies. And the whole key to whether or not our children and our grandchildren are going to be able to do well economically is to be able to have access to higher education. I mean this really speaks not only to the whole issue of opportunity but also to national security. We do well as a Nation when we make sure that women and men have access to higher education so that they can do well for themselves and their families and they can do well for our country. So, again, I just want to make it clear that this is the choice. We just simply take $6 billion. And believe me, you know, you are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars when you look at this whole area of tax expenditures. We say find some of those loopholes and deductions and plug them. Mr. President, $6 billion over 5 years is not too much to expand the Pell grant program up to $3,500 which would make a huge difference. Again, what we would be talking about is several thousand new students. The Pell grant award would increase. It would make a huge difference to low- and moderate-income families. It would make a huge difference to access to higher education. And if we want to talk about priorities, I don't see any reason why this amendment would not be an amendment that would carry on the floor of the U.S. Senate. There are a whole bunch of loopholes and deductions. Regular people are pretty angry about them. They don't think that those people who already make millions of dollars should get these breaks. And I think it is an absolute priority for people to make sure that higher education is affordable. This would really make this budget a budget with a strong higher education component. This would really make this budget a budget that I think Senators could feel really proud of when it came to higher education. Senator Reed and I are really trying to improve upon this. So, Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will get very, very strong support. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. I thank my colleague from Washington.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The fact of the matter is, the same thing can be said for the Summer School Program. So, the question--I said actually a comment, but I will put it in the form of a question. My question for the Senator is, how can you even view this as some sort of potential TV attack ad when these amendments are so substantive and they speak to the huge--I am sorry, I say to the Senator--disparity between children who need this assistance and, quite frankly, a budget that does not get them anywhere near close to it? How can that be viewed just as an effort to have an attack ad?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, who is really--we say a good friend--he really is a good friend. I want him to know both of these amendments--and I am speaking for myself, not for Senator Reed--do not have a darn thing to do with TV attack ads. I cannot stand them. I wish there was no such thing. These amendments are offered out of a sense of sincerity, and, in all due respect to my colleague, you can talk about what we are doing in the area of, for example, nutrition for children, and it is, I guess, all a matter of how you see it. These amendments just say we can do better. The fact of the matter is that in the last Congress, we cut grants for school districts to establish the School Breakfast Program and only 50 percent of the children who are eligible receive it. The fact of the matter is----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question or comment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question or comment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank again the Senator from Rhode Island. He comes from a State with a great tradition of commitment to higher education. To my colleagues, there are two amendments. One of them is, if you will, very precious. It is all about making sure that we at least provide some more funding for nutritional programs for many poor children who are malnourished in America; that we invest in Head Start; and that we invest in our schools, too many of which are crumbling across the country, and we take that out of tax cuts that are skewed to the very top and we say target those to middle-income and small businesses, and we take it out of corporate welfare. The second amendment Senator Reed and I offered is a higher education amendment. This makes all the sense in the world. With this additional $6 billion of outlays over 5 years, we would be talking about a dramatic increase in access to higher education for many, many families all across the country in our States. Mr. President, those are the two amendments. I am going to finish on a positive note, but with 30 seconds left, I will just say one thing on a negative note. I gather that I will be meeting with my colleagues from North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Apparently the House is not going to finish the disaster relief bill. I have to say on the floor of the Senate, I cannot believe that this is happening. I think it is just unconscionable. It is irresponsible. This is emergency assistance that people in our States have been waiting for. We as Senators are going to have to figure out exactly what we do next, but I can assure you, and I think I speak for my colleagues, we will be as strong as we can be, and we will fight as hard as we can for people in our States. That is not meant to be showman-like. It is very sincere. Finally, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his graciousness. We were able to get the two amendments in in the 30- minute limit, and I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk to amendment numbered 313. This was a typographical error.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and on my second amendment I know I will be joined by Senator Reed from Rhode Island. Mr. President, this amendment that is before the Senate right now essentially says this. We make sure that the tax cuts in this budget resolution do not go to the top 2 percent of the population. We look at some of the loopholes and deductions, and what Senators have called corporate welfare. There is several hundred billion dollars that fits into this category. Instead, we take the following steps, which seems so reasonable. First of all, since we cut child nutrition programs by roughly $3 billion for 6 years, this amendment restores $2.7 billion. Let me repeat that: Last year, we made cuts in child nutrition programs. This amendment says, can we not take some of this out of corporate welfare? Can we not take it out of loopholes for billionaires? Can we not make sure that the tax cuts go to middle-income families and small business people and not the top 1 percent and 2 percent? And instead, could we not provide just a little bit, over 5 years, $2.7 billion, could we not invest that in nutritional programs for some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in America? They do matter. They do count. Mr. President, currently, there are 6.5 million children who participate in the school breakfast program. However, in many States, this program reaches only 50 percent of those eligible. In the State of Minnesota, the school breakfast program, much like the national, reaches just under 50 percent of those students eligible. Mr. President, what we are talking about is all across the country we have schools who are not able to participate. The welfare bill last year wiped out grants for schools to start up or expand school breakfast programs, and we have 13 million malnourished children in America. I do not know how my colleagues think some of these children will do well in school when they come to school hungry. I have talked to kindergarten teachers in Minnesota, and every single Senator here, I think, has had similar experiences with their teachers who surely say it breaks their heart to know some of the students in their class come to school hungry. Mr. President, there is another food nutrition program, the summer food service program. Many of my colleagues may not be aware of it, but I want you to be aware of it because these children, when they are not in school, are no longer able to receive school lunch or breakfast if that program is not available now during the summer. What we try to do is serve meals at summer schools or recreational centers or other nonprofit groups--a lunch, a breakfast or a snack--some way of making sure that these children have at least one nutritious meal a day. Over 14 million children, unfortunately, are low income enough to be eligible, and only 2 million are served--only 2 million are served. In Minnesota, only 16 percent of low-income children who are served throughout the school year are served during the summer. Mr. President, is it too much to ask to take just a little bit from loopholes, deductions for billionaires, large multinational corporations, and others that do not need it and invest a little bit in nutrition programs to make sure the children in our country have at least one nutritious meal? Mr. President, the Head Start Program has been discussed so there is no need for me to go into it in great detail but just to say one more time, that the President, in his budget, in this budget proposal, intends to serve an additional 1 million children. That is fine until we find out that that there are 2 million children who are eligible who are not participating. This does not even deal with Early Start, that is to say, age 2, age 1. So what this says is if we are serious about doing well for all the children in this country, surely we will dramatically expand the number of children that can participate in Head Start. That is worth it. That is an investment, an investment all of us can be proud of. Mr. President, the final part, of school construction, and I do not even need to go into it, again, this amendment says invest the $5 billion that was in the original agreement--at least that was being negotiated; it was taken out. This is too painful a contrast. On the one hand, tax cuts not targeted, going to be skewed to the very top of the population; on the other hand, not a pittance when it comes to going after corporate welfare, but being unwilling to invest in crumbling schools all across the country. Mr. President, let me use this amendment for a final conclusion about this budget. One more time, I have heard it said that this budget is balanced, represents balanced values. I do not see the balance. I do not see the balanced values when on the one hand the tax cuts are skewed to the top and on the other hand we do not invest in crumbling schools across the Nation. I do not see the balance when we cannot invest in nutrition programs to make sure children are not hungry in America. I do not see the balanced values when we talk about a compelling problem of children going without adequate health care and we are not willing to fully fund health care for those children. I think this is a budget without a soul. It is interesting what is not on the table. What is not on the table is the $12 billion more than the Pentagon wanted. That is for defense. I would have thought we could have used that for some of our investment. What is not on the table are the tax preferences to special interests that are, quite candidly, a result of those who make the large contributions and have the power. What is not on the table is the deterioration of public institutions which are supposed to be so important to the quality of our lives. If we are going to rebuild a sense of community in America, Mr. President, that means attending to this deterioration. We have fewer good schools, fewer good libraries, and too many hospitals and clinics that are unable to provide the best care. This budget does not build a bridge to the next century. We do not invest in these critical areas of life. Mr. President, what is not on the table, perhaps most of all, is a set of social arrangements that allows children to be the most poverty stricken group in America. There is no concept of justice or virtue that justifies our willingness to allow millions of children to suffer involuntary poverty. What principle can we possibly invoke to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the fate of children too young to comprehend their expulsion from the American promise, denied the pleasures of childhood, their natural capacity stifled, their mind and spirit under attack from birth? Their impoverishment is our disgrace and it is a betrayal of our Nation's heritage. Mr. President, if this balanced budget agreement is to be the great accomplishment of 8 years of a Democratic Presidency, then history will judge us harshly. This agreement is a triumph of the past. This is not a bridge to the century to come. Mr. President, we have lost our way. I say this to the Democratic Party, to some of my colleagues I think we have lost our way. Our party, from Jefferson to Jackson to Roosevelt to Kennedy was a party that stood for justice, a party that expanded opportunities for citizens. We have always been at our best when our party has been there for people. Mr. President, this budget does not represent the best of the Democratic Party. This budgets turns our Nation's gaze away from too much of what is important about America--equality of opportunity, justice, the very essence of our Nation. Mr. President, for that reason, I will vote against this budget resolution. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. Amendment No. 313, as Further Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues, and I appreciate their graciousness. I think that what both my colleagues are trying to say is we have an emergency now, and, Mr. President, I just do not think there is any way that this Congress can go into recess without passing this disaster relief bill. I mean, it is just too important. I mean, it truly is an emergency measure, and both my colleagues were speaking to that. I have told them I am in complete agreement. So let us hope that the House will be able to do the work. We have had great cooperation over here on the Senate side. Mr. President, the discussion about the budget, much of the discussion is about the balance, that this is a responsible budget, this is the responsible thing to do. Mr. President, let me just be really clear. I have some good friends who believe that. I respect their work. I have tremendous respect for their work. But from my point of view, as a Senator from Minnesota, when you do not invest to rebuild schools that are crumbling across this country--7 million children's schools with asbestos and lead--I do not think that is the responsible thing to do. When there are not the funds to assure that every child who now goes without health care still does not receive that health care, to me, that is not responsible. And when there are not the funds and there is not the investment to make sure that, in fact, there is a school breakfast program for children, for whom that really is their only nutritious meal in the morning so that they are not going to school hungry, when there is not the investment in nutrition programs to make sure children are not malnourished in America--there are some 13 million children that are now malnourished in America--that does not seem balanced or responsible to me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent Senator Moynihan be added as a cosponsor, along with Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Bingaman.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I respond to both my colleagues--and please understand I think about what is happening to the people in Grand Forks. Everybody had to leave their homes. Those people were refugees. I know the pain of the people in East Grand Forks and other communities of Minnesota. I say to both my colleagues that this is a nightmare. I just--this is a nightmare. I guess I never would have believed it, that we are on the floor right now--this is away from the amendment. We will get back to it, I say to the Senator from New Jersey. But my colleagues come to the floor and raise these questions. This is a nightmare. I never would have dreamed that there would even be any thought that we would go into recess without finally providing this assistance to people. People need this. These people are trying to figure out how to get back to their homes. People are homeless. We cannot--we cannot--leave without doing this. I have heard that over in the House there is some discussion they are going to just adjourn. I just make a plea to Democrats, Republicans, and the independent in the House, everybody, every breed of political person, regardless of your point of view, please do not do this. I think from our point of view, it is just unacceptable. I mean, I think all three of us are saying, we just cannot have a Congress going into recess without passing through at least this emergency assistance. What people do not agree on, I say to both my colleagues, they can set aside; but what we cannot set aside is this emergency. Let me emphasize that word again, ``emergency'' assistance that people need. They need it now. It would be the worst possible thing for this Congress to go into recess without providing this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 314.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is fine. I want to go on with this amendment, but I see my other colleague from North Dakota on the floor. If he has an inquiry to put to me, I would be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly.