Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, I am pleased he raised this question. I certainly want to speak about this amendment. I think it goes to the heart of the question of what the budget is about. But I think it is important to take a few moments right now in the Chamber to speak about this. I say to the Senator from North Dakota I know how hard he has worked on this for people in North Dakota. I know how hard Senator Conrad has worked. I know how hard Senator Grams, the other Senator from Minnesota, has worked and Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle. I just think that would be unconscionable. I hope this does not happen, the House of Representatives going into recess without getting the work done. Because in this particular case --it is quite one thing to say we want to get the work done, for example, on the budget, though the truth of the matter is 10 days from now the budget could be done and it really would make no difference. In this particular piece of legislation, we are talking about emergency assistance for people. This needs to be done right away. So I say to my colleague, we cannot adjourn. I mean there is no way we can adjourn until this work is done. He is quite right in the question that he put to me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment assumes increases in funding for Head Start and early start, child nutrition programs, school construction, and this additional funding will be paid for by reducing the tax benefits to the top 2 percent of income earners in the United States as well as by reducing tax benefits that are commonly characterized as corporate welfare tax loopholes. Mr. President, it has been said about this budget--I might ask my colleague from North Dakota, does he have an inquiry?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a typographical error. I believe we sent it to the staff earlier. Mr. President, I am pleased to work this out. We had given it to Senator Domenici's staff several hours ago. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 313.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 313, as modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be my preference. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I think I will be here. I thank him for his courtesy. If I am not, a 1-minute quorum call will do the job and I will be ready to go.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I just inquire of the Senator from New Mexico, I believe my colleague from Missouri is planning to take the full half-hour?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will have an opportunity to have an amendment and speak on it a little later this afternoon, so let me be very brief. I rise to support this amendment that Senator Kerry has introduced. I think more than anything else it is an amendment that almost asks us to engage in some reflection. It does not call for spending any additional money. It asks us to pause and think deeply about our priorities and at least consider the possibility that we might eventually be able as we go through this reconciliation process to make some significant investment in these very critical and very important early years. As a former college teacher, and I think more importantly as a parent and grandparent, I am absolutely convinced from my own experience and from spending time in a school in Minnesota about every 2 or 3 weeks during the school year we have to get to the point where every child who comes to kindergarten has been read to widely, that we have to get to the point where every child who comes to kindergarten knows the alphabet and knows how to spell his or her name, knows colors, shapes, and sizes. And we have to get to the point where every child who comes to kindergarten comes with that sort of wonderful readiness to learn. The critical challenge for all of us, which kind of speaks to what we are really about, speaks to what our goodness is, is to make sure that each and every child enters kindergarten with this wonderful readiness to learn. The problem is that for all too many children this does not happen. I am sure that Senator Kerry has referenced so much the neuroscience evidence that is coming out now. I think we know what to do. I do not think it is true we do not know what to do. And we just have to get it right. There is sort of an interconnection of the nutrition part and the health care part and the intellectual development and child care part and we have to do much better for children in this country. Hopefully this amendment will be an amendment that will generate bipartisan support. I think it is a plea. I think it is a call upon all of us to reflect. It is an effort to say to all of us, think deeply and let us, at least, hold out the possibility as we move through this reconciliation process we can invest in these children and their opportunities. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I see the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me also thank Senator Moseley-Braun for bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate. And I am very proud to support her and be an original cosponsor. Mr. President, I am just going to build on a few remarks that have been made. There are 14 million children learning in substandard schools; and 7 million children attending schools with asbestos, lead paint, or radon in the ceilings or walls. Mr. President, this really is a scandal. This is really unconscionable. And this amendment goes to the heart of the question of priorities. What this amendment says is that rather than continuing to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars in a variety of different loopholes and deductions, billionaire tax breaks and all, transfer $5 billion over 5 years and put that into investing to rebuild our schools that are crumbling all across America. I suggest to my colleague from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, or Senator Durbin, that I really believe that in many ways this is the priority vote. I really do, because it is just too dear a price to pay to refuse to go after some of these loopholes and deductions, never mind the fact that behind the loopholes and deductions are the heavy hitters and the people who are connected and the people who have the clout. This is all about who gets represented in the Senate. It is too dear a price to pay to not ask for a little bit of sacrifice over here and plug some of these loopholes or deductions and not make this investment. As I look at this budget agreement right now--I will be speaking about it more this afternoon with an amendment that I have on the floor of the Senate; so I want to stay within the framework of Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment--I just ask the question, where are the funds to rebuild schools that are crumbling all across our Nation? There is not one penny. Where are the funds--we went through this yesterday--to get health care coverage to every child who lacks it? We are still not willing to do that. And I say that any budget that does not provide at least some funds to begin to rebuild some of the schools in our country, schools that are crumbling all across the Nation, is hardly a budget that represents a bridge to the next century. This is not a budget that represents a bridge to the next century. Not one penny is invested in our crumbling schools. Mr. President, this is wrong. I wish we could just do an instantaneous poll and get the results in, because I know that people in the country would say it is wrong that 14 million children learn in substandard schools, it is wrong that 12 million children go to school under leaky roofs, it is wrong that 7 million children attend schools with asbestos, lead paint. How well could we do our jobs if we were here and the toilets did not work and the heating systems did not work or the air-conditioning did not work, and we were cold during the winter, hot during the summer, if there was asbestos or lead paint, the ceilings and the walls were decrepit? It is not that way here. This is splendor. And thank God that it is. This is the Nation's Capitol. Can't we have some of this splendor for children in America? In all due respect, we are getting way ahead of the curve with $35 billion that goes to tax credits, deductions for college. I was a college teacher. Fine. But we have to get our children to the point where they are able to attend higher education. That does not happen unless we make this investment. This is the amendment. Do we continue to just fork out lavish subsidies to billionaires and large multinational corporations that do not need them or do we at least begin to make the investment in the schools that are crumbling all across this country? This speaks to the very issue of justice and fairness. This is a critically important amendment. I hope we will pass it. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with and the amendment be temporarily set aside.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, in 4 minutes it is difficult to really make a major argument on the floor of the Senate. Let me just try to pick up on a couple of comments that I heard made in the last 15 minutes of the debate. One of my colleagues has argued that we have to think about the future and we have to think about reducing the debt to our children in the future. I think all of us agree with that. Then another colleague talked about the budget agreement--the budget agreement that ``is a deal, is a deal, is a deal.'' The debate seems a little bit too abstract for me as a Senator from Minnesota. I would like to ask colleagues to confront the fierce urgency of now. The fierce urgency of now for too many children in our country is as follows: A child with poor vision, with no health care coverage and not able to get any assistance cannot see the blackboard and, in all likelihood, will not be able to do well in school and have a chance. The fierce urgency of now is that a child who is suffering from asthma and spending too much time in the emergency room--I have met children like this in Minnesota--though we have done a good job of covering many children with our own separate health care plan, a child who suffers from asthma with extreme attacks, unable to be able to see a physician, winding up in the emergency room too often, misses too much time from school, and he or she will not have the same chance to do well as all of our children. In the fierce urgency of now, I think that we ought to look at, as opposed to all of these abstractions, a child who has an abscessed tooth coming to school because her family can't afford dental care. I have met children like this. That child who is in so much pain and discomfort cannot do well in school. She doesn't have the same chance as our children. This budget agreement has been much lauded, and Senators have worked hard on it. But the fact of the matter is, using a conservative estimate, we are only covering half the children who are without health care coverage. This amendment is the right thing to do. I will not talk about the tobacco industry. I will not talk about why the tax makes good public-policy sense to me. But I want to say the fierce urgency of now is that this is compelling, and, if it is so compelling that our children should have the coverage, and, if it is so compelling that all the children in our country should have good health care coverage, it seems to me then that it doesn't make a lot of sense to applaud and celebrate a budget agreement that only covers half those children. This bipartisan effort of Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy is so important. This speaks to the goodness of our country. There is nothing that we could do that would be more important than to support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will do so. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues from South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota in co-sponsoring Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1977, and I do so with great enthusiasm for what this project could mean to the people in southwestern Minnesota, as well as those in Iowa and South Dakota who have serious problems finding adequate drinking water supplies. Many of us never really have to think about where our water comes from, but for the people in Luverne and Worthington, Minnesota, it is a constantly nagging question, Helping provide for this sort of basic need is what I think government ought to be doing. In a project like Lewis and Clark, governments at all levels have to work together. Municipalities, states, and the federal government each will have important roles to play, and each will have to carry a significant burden. And that is as it should be--in tough situations like this, not only is there no free lunch, but there is also no free water. So today I am pleased to formally state my support for the Lewis and Clark project by cosponsoring its authorization legislation. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System project is sorely needed to provide safe drinking water on a consistent basis for citizens in the tri-state region of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa. For far too long communities in this region have faced great and sometimes overwhelming challenges in finding safe and reliable sources of water for their citizens. While many communities in our country have ample supplies of drinking water, twenty-two communities in this tri-state area are not so lucky. Shallow aquifers and high water tables have left many water systems in the region constantly searching for potable water. Even when these communities have managed to find sources of water, many times the water has been contaminated with unsafe levels of nitrates and bacteria, as well as high levels of naturally occurring iron and manganese. While the lack of water, reliable water sources affects the health of these citizens in the short-term, the economic vitality of these communities is adversely affected in the long-term. Rural communities cannot plan economic growth when they do not possess long-term sources of safe drinking water. Businesses are reluctant to locate in an area where such necessities are not guaranteed. Therefore, as a strong supporter of rural economic development. I believe that this project will benefit the economic welfare of citizens who live in this region. I recognize that some concerns still exist about the impacts of this project. I intend to work to improve the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process, and believe the concerns which some have raised regarding the environmental impacts of this project will be addressed as the project moves forward. Work on this important bill will likely be going on for some time, and I look forward to helping shape the final legislation and making the project a reality.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues from South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota in co-sponsoring Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1977, and I do so with great enthusiasm for what this project could mean to the people in southwestern Minnesota, as well as those in Iowa and South Dakota who have serious problems finding adequate drinking water supplies. Many of us never really have to think about where our water comes from, but for the people in Luverne and Worthington, Minnesota, it is a constantly nagging question, Helping provide for this sort of basic need is what I think government ought to be doing. In a project like Lewis and Clark, governments at all levels have to work together. Municipalities, states, and the federal government each will have important roles to play, and each will have to carry a significant burden. And that is as it should be--in tough situations like this, not only is there no free lunch, but there is also no free water. So today I am pleased to formally state my support for the Lewis and Clark project by cosponsoring its authorization legislation. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System project is sorely needed to provide safe drinking water on a consistent basis for citizens in the tri-state region of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa. For far too long communities in this region have faced great and sometimes overwhelming challenges in finding safe and reliable sources of water for their citizens. While many communities in our country have ample supplies of drinking water, twenty-two communities in this tri-state area are not so lucky. Shallow aquifers and high water tables have left many water systems in the region constantly searching for potable water. Even when these communities have managed to find sources of water, many times the water has been contaminated with unsafe levels of nitrates and bacteria, as well as high levels of naturally occurring iron and manganese. While the lack of water, reliable water sources affects the health of these citizens in the short-term, the economic vitality of these communities is adversely affected in the long-term. Rural communities cannot plan economic growth when they do not possess long-term sources of safe drinking water. Businesses are reluctant to locate in an area where such necessities are not guaranteed. Therefore, as a strong supporter of rural economic development. I believe that this project will benefit the economic welfare of citizens who live in this region. I recognize that some concerns still exist about the impacts of this project. I intend to work to improve the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process, and believe the concerns which some have raised regarding the environmental impacts of this project will be addressed as the project moves forward. Work on this important bill will likely be going on for some time, and I look forward to helping shape the final legislation and making the project a reality.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from Oregon. I appreciate his remarks, but I want to point out that this amendment says that the offset comes from corporate welfare, as I understand it. Some we are looking at. The Joint Tax Committee and others have carefully studied hundreds of billions of dollars of tax loopholes that usually go to some of the largest corporations and some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. We are saying, can you not take a little bit from that, and instead, wouldn't you invest this in Head Start? And wouldn't you invest this in affordable child care? And wouldn't you invest this in Early Start? And wouldn't this make much more of a difference in children's lives? And wouldn't this better represent the standard of fairness of the people in the country? So, Madam President, this is not about breaking any deficit reduction plan. This is about whether or not this budget agreement reflects the priorities of people in this country. With all due respect to my colleagues, I think that if the choice for people in this country is between eliminating some of these egregious loopholes and deductions and instead investing more in children, and especially investing in this critical area of early childhood development, I say absolutely we ought to be doing that. Madam President, I would like to talk just a little bit about these programs and a little bit about the sort of overall context of this amendment. First of all, I have heard it so stated--and I say to my colleague from Oregon I will be willing to be critical of my own colleagues. I actually say this in a scrupulously, if you will, nonpartisan way. We talk about how we are expanding Head Start and, therefore, we are going to serve an additional 1 million children. But are we doing enough to reach the 2 million children who are not now participating? My colleague from Connecticut points out that in addition there is going to be some early Head Start funding, frankly, above and beyond the 1 million children who still are not receiving any assistance; that is, Head Start 3 to 5. If I was to include early Head Start, which is very consistent with very compelling scientific evidence that these are the really critical years, you know, right after birth, 1, 2, up to age 3, we are not coming even close to providing many children in this country with a head start. I far prefer to do that than to continue with a variety of different loopholes and deductions and breaks for some of the largest corporations in this country and wealthiest individuals who do not need it. I mean, I would be more than willing to lay out this proposition for people in the country over and over again and say, you know, whose side are you on? Cargo Continental Grain Co. or vulnerable children who are just looking for a break by way of Head Start to get them prepared for school or good child care or, as I was talking about earlier, though not in this amendment, adequate nutrition? That is what this is all about. That is what this amendment is all about. So the issue is not whether or not Senators are going to vote against this amendment because they are opposed to a budget agreement. I think my colleague from Connecticut and I may have different views on the overall budget agreement. I do not know yet. I guess he reserves final judgment. But you can be for the budget agreement and vote for this amendment because this amendment still keeps us within this path of a balanced budget. It just says: Couldn't we do a little bit better for children? I am aware of the fact that colleagues feel some time constraint, and I promise not to take more than a couple more minutes, but this is, I think, such an important amendment. I am proud to join in with the Senator from Connecticut and Senator Jeffords from Vermont and Senator Murray from Washington. Another way of looking at this for just a moment, with all due respect--and this is my hard-hitting point; I might have said it before on the floor of the Senate but it just feels right to say it at 10 to 6 on Tuesday evening--a real heroine to me--she is no longer alive--was a woman named Fannie Lou Hamer. She was a share cropper from Mississippi, an African-American woman. She once said, ``I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' She was a great civil rights leader. I just get a little sick and tired of everybody who says they are for children and investment in children and we are now going to build a bridge going to the next century and we are all for these children-- except when it comes to investment. On the one hand, we say it is so important that children who come from really difficult circumstances get a head start. I mean, that is what we try to do. We do what the name of the program suggests, give these children a head start. And we talk about how unfair it is that so many children do not have this head start. And then we seem to be so comfortable with the fact that we still are not providing enough funding for 1 million children who are not going to receive it, ages 3 to 5, and God knows how many more children under the age of 3. Can't we do better? Can't we do better? Can't we have just a little bit less by way of tax breaks, loopholes, deductions, whatever you want to call it, for large multinational corporations? I mean, Lord, we are just talking about $15 billion out of studies that have talked about hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't we just provide them with a little less so we can provide a little more for these children? Second point. It will just be the last one, which is the child care piece. I believe my colleague from Connecticut, in this overall over 5 years, $15 billion, is saying we can do better. I think many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agrees with this. You look at the child care picture, and whether or not you want to talk about family-based child care or center-based child care or figure out ways you can have child care available for parent or parents at place of work, however you do it, however you do it, Madam President, it is just amazing, it is stunning how little we have done and how much we have to do. David Packard, who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, and his wife Lucile Packard have a foundation. They issued a report this past summer, and they talk about child care. They make the point, look, it is not just nutrition, it is not just health care, but in addition, if these children do not get the kind of nurturing and intellectual stimulation that affects the way the brain is wired, that affects whether or not they are going to have a chance. So many families--if we want to talk about working families, this is not just a poor people's issue. So many working families, so many of our children of parents in their thirties with two small children themselves, you look at their salaries, they cannot afford really good child care. What Senator Dodd is trying to do is at least expand some funding for good developmental child care. This is critical. This is the critical time. If the medical evidence is so compelling, if it is so irreducible, if it is irrefutable, and if we know we have to do this for children, why cannot we in this budget agreement take a little bit away from or have a little less by way of tax breaks, loopholes, deductions, you name it, for large multinational corporations and wealthy people at the top of the economic ladder in our country and instead do a little better by way of investment in children, so each and every child can finish this way, each and every child? I think we should be able to get good, strong bipartisan support. Each and every child in America, regardless of color of skin, regardless of income, regardless of religion, regardless of rural or urban, regardless of whether they be in Oregon or Connecticut or Maine or New Jersey or Minnesota, each and every child, regardless of religion, should have the same chance to reach her full potential, have a full chance to reach his full potential. That is the essence of the American dream. That is the goodness of our country. That is what we believe in. This amendment takes us just a little bit--but, boy, it really matters to many children in many families--takes us a little bit further in that wonderful direction. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I could respond to my colleague from New Jersey, I think it would be difficult to do so. I think it is a very important amendment. I did not go into the specifics of what this amendment was about earlier because I thought we would have a chance to speak to it. I think it speaks to a fundamental question of priorities. I could not cover this in 5 minutes. I certainly will do whatever I can to stay within a reasonable limit but 5 minutes would not be a sufficient time. I do not know about Senator Murray.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleague from New Mexico is correct. I join with him on his amendment.