Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object. [[Page S8481]]

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, we in the Labor Committee held a single hearing on Senator Kassebaum's legislation to repeal outright Davis-Bacon, which has been in law for over 60 years. Last year, we worked long and hard on an alternative Davis-Bacon reform bill on which there had been bipartisan support. That was a responsible effort to deal with this issue and update the law. Today, with little warning, the highway bill is being brought to the floor, which contains a provision to repeal Federal prevailing wage- rate requirements for highway construction, known as the Davis-Bacon law. This is part of the larger assault on working families, in this case, families of highway construction workers who make between $20,000 to $30,000 a year. This is central to the Republican agenda, and it is all in the name of deficit reduction--all while we protect the large military contractors, big corporations with huge tax breaks, oil companies, and others who have long been subsidized by the Federal Government. Today, without any additional hearings or time for reflection or careful consideration of reform alternatives--and my colleague from Massachusetts will be speaking on this in just a moment--we are faced with a bill that would overturn 60 years of labor law related to Federal highway construction in a single moment. Why is that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the large trade association of mostly noncontract, nonunion contractors is in town this week? And this measure is suddenly brought to the floor now, simply to fly the flag for anti-Davis-Bacon forces who would try to turn the clock altogether on prevailing fair-wage standards. I do not know, Mr. President, but I am surprised by how suddenly the Senate's schedule was changed to bring this up. I thought we were going to turn to regulatory reform or Bosnia or welfare reform. Apparently the majority leader has other priorities. Mr. President, as a Senator from Minnesota, I am opposed to this attempt to slash wages of working families, families who dig our roadbeds, pour our tar, flag us to a stop at construction sites or do any other number of hard and sweaty jobs at construction sites and highway sites across this country. That is not a priority that I am willing to go along with. I will fight any effort to cut the wages of working families as hard as I can. I imagine over the next several days, we will have a considerable amount of discussion on this issue. We should be clear. This repeal effort is part of a larger systematic assault on the wages and living standards of working families. Mr. President, it is a mistake. We have cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in job training, cuts in school lunches, education, and now cuts in the wages of working families. Just name it, the majority has proposed it and are trying to program it through the Congress at a breakneck speed. We intend to slow it down. We intend to oppose it. This highway bill on its own merits ought to be debated and is an important piece of legislation. To try to put this amendment into the highway bill and essentially overturn over 60 years of people's history I think it is a huge mistake. Of course, that is what this debate will be about. Mr. President, let me just say a few words specifically on Davis- Bacon itself and prevailing wage rates that it requires on certain Federal projects.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, and I thank him for his remarks, that I just want to be clear I am speaking for myself, that I am very interested in this highway bill. It is an important piece of legislation. We have been working for several years on reform of Davis-Bacon, not repeal. A lot of work has gone into that. But all of a sudden to have this become a part of this piece of legislation, I say to my colleague, I think is a profound mistake. Speaking just for myself, I would point out that only today did I hear that this was going to be the bill before the U.S. Senate. Before, I thought we were going to go to regulatory reform, then I heard we were going to go to welfare reform, then I heard we might be debating Bosnia. I know my colleague from Virginia is interested in full debate. That is what we will have and certainly we will make sure that it is not personal or acrimonious. I want to be clear as to why we have objected to the motion to proceed and why we intend to have a very thorough discussion about Davis-Bacon and about this effort not only to repeal Davis-Bacon, but I think it goes beyond that. I think it is an effort to roll back 60 years of hard-earned history that have a lot to do with people being able to have a decent wage, 60 years that have a lot to do with people being able to have jobs that pay them a middle-class wage. I think the stakes are very high. For that reason, with my colleague from Massachusetts, we intend to have a full discussion on that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think in a moment I would yield to my colleague from Massachusetts, who will take the lead in this debate. I will be very proud to be a part of it. Again, let me say in this Congress I think we have had a single hearing on legislation to repeal outright the Davis-Bacon. We will surely have a quarrel about the figures and amount of money lost. And we certainly will have a full discussion about the meaning of prevailing wages and what that means to this country, what that means to this society, what that means to communities across the country. That I think will be the important part of this debate. There is no reason to argue any longer about the timing of it, but I want to make it crystal clear that we [[Page S8482]] intend to focus on this effort in this bill. And this bill is an important piece of legislation. But this particular provision to repeal Davis-Bacon is, of course, where we intend to focus our attention. I will yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, no, I am not prepared to yield the floor yet. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, why do I not go forward with some remarks. But if my colleague has a question, I do not want to interrupt the flow of that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. On Davis-Bacon?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. As I understand the debate about what was S. 55, which was a ban on permanent replacement of striking workers, I would say to my colleague, it was not an amendment on another piece of legislation. That was a separate bill that went through extensive hearings, that was scheduled for debate, that came up at the time scheduled, and then led to full debate. So I do think it is a rather different proposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. As always he is very gracious. My point was not that we have not debated the Davis-Bacon before. We certainly have. My point simply was that this bill was just scheduled to come to the floor--we thought there were going to be any number of other pieces of legislation. It has come to the floor. Unfortunately, as a part of this piece of legislation, there is the provision for repeal of Davis-Bacon. That is why we objected to the motion to proceed. That is why we will have extensive debate. That is my only point.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague from Nebraska for his very eloquent and strong voice on the floor of the Senate for the past several days, especially in behalf of consumers in this country; especially in behalf of making sure there is, in fact, real competition. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address what I consider the merits and the faults of what may be one of the most important economic development bills this session of Congress will consider, namely, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act. Mr. President, we have had some enlightening discussions and some solid disagreements on this bill. But this much, I think, all of my colleagues could agree on: The debate we have had on this bill has opened all our eyes to the dazzling world of possibilities provided by our emerging information technologies. It is a world that, at least from my perspective, appears to have virtually no limits in terms of the potential for bettering the health, education, and economy of the residents of my State of Minnesota. I can imagine workers in rural Minnesota telecommuting to and from work as far away as New York or Washington without ever having to leave their homes or families. Or schoolchildren in a distressed Minneapolis school district reading the latest publications at the Library of Congress via thin glowing fiber cables. That excites me as a teacher. Or rural health care providers on the Iron Range, consulting with the top medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester to better treat their patients. I can imagine, Mr. President, things like these, but I do not have to. Already, communication miracles like these are occurring with greater frequency across our Nation. It is fascinating to live in such exciting times. I think there is a consensus among Senators on both sides of the aisle on this question. Mr. President, this bill presents the elected representatives of our States with a particularly exciting and at times daunting responsibility. How do we help dissolve the current artificially divided and fragmented telecommunications industry to nurture the rapid development of these types of communications, while ensuring that these services remain available, and I think the Senator from Nebraska has said this over and over again, and affordable to everyone in the Nation, not merely the most privileged and wealthy. How do we ensure that this bill benefits not just the multibillion- dollar alphabet soup of corporations--IBM, MCI, AT&T, TCI, GTE, ABC, and the rest--but the consumers of St. Paul, and Mankato, Fergus Falls, and Duluth, MN. How do we guarantee, Mr. President, fairness, access, and affordability in the telecommunications industry? We have had several opportunities already. For example, last week the Senate, to its great credit, refused to strip away provisions to keep telecommunication rates low for schools and hospitals. I am proud to say that I and a majority of my distinguished colleagues voted to defend those protections. With that vote I believe we took a major step toward keeping our communication technologies affordable for future generations, as well as reaffirming the primacy of the consumer in this debate. Monday night the Senate voted to approve an amendment that I believe will help keep adult-oriented cable video programs away from children. Again, I am proud to say I cast my vote in support of a measure to ensure that such programming be fully scrambled before entering the consumer's household, giving those who know best, the parents, the ability to control the flow of new services into the home. I am saddened, however, Mr. President, that the Senate has chosen now to table a measure that I and many of my colleagues believe is central, absolutely central, to this entire debate of [[Page S8317]] competition and consumer protection: Providing a role for the Department of Justice to keep telephone monopolies from reassembling themselves. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on this issue and I thank my colleagues for some stimulating and insightful comments on this subject. Some of my colleagues say that these protections, such as providing consumers a voice in the process through the Department of Justice, or other amendments that my colleague from Nebraska has introduced over and over again to make sure that the consumers are at the table and that there is a voice for consumers, some of my colleagues have said that this is too much, too bureaucratic, too inefficient to enable businesses to compete. I ask these same colleagues, after you remove the protections against huge rate increases, against monopoly, against service just for the privileged, what would you replace them with? Words, Mr. President. Promises, guarantees, reassurances that this time, although many of these companies have misbehaved in the past, and have been fined repeatedly for violating promises to protect consumers, this time the corporations promise to behave themselves and to conduct themselves in the consumer's best interest. Mr. President, I have said it before, and I will say it again. I do not buy it. I would rather put my trust in solid protections, written in law, to make sure that rates remain affordable, services are available for everyone, and no one is left behind in the stampede for corporate profits. This extends across the board: Let me make it clear that I intend to fight efforts to strip out of this bill any consumer protections that ensure affordability, fairness, and access in local and long distance phone service and cable TV. Unfortunately, many of the strongest consumer protection amendments have been defeated to date. I have noticed a lot of lobbyists out in the halls these days; lobbyists that as my colleagues know too well are just outside those doors. For the benefit of the Record, Mr. President, let me take a moment and tell America who is out there: NYNEX is out there, Mr. President, and so is Time-Warner, and Ameritech, and Northern Telecomm, Bell South and Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell, Sprint and General Electric and Gannett--they are all out there, Mr. President. It has been called Gucci Gulch in the past, maybe this time we should call it Cell-Phone Canyon. There can be no mistaking it; there are billions and billions and billions of dollars at stake in this bill. But there is something else at stake here--something much more important than all the billions and billions and billions of dollars. The fate of the American consumer is at stake here, I urge my colleagues to remember their needs, and their voice, in the coming debate and amendments. For this reason I support this Kerrey amendment, as I have past Kerrey amendments. I believe that what is lacking is where do the consumers fit in? Where is their voice? Where are their advocates? Do they get an opportunity to sit down at the table? And will, in fact, we have true competition as opposed to monopoly? I hope the Cell-Phone Canyon out there does not dominate the final vote on these key amendments and the final vote on this piece of legislation. I hope the vast majority of consumers who are not out in these halls are the ones who in the last analysis we listen to. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to speak today in support of the Dorgan amendment, an amendment, I firmly believe, that is so key for the protection of consumers that frankly I must wonder how this bill got out of committee without its inclusion. Now Mr. President, on the substance of the amendment, I could do no better than to defer to the comments already made on this issue by my two colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Nebraska and North Dakota, both of whom demonstrate a penetrating understanding of this very difficult topic. I would, however, like to take a moment to address this amendment from a perspective we've only occasionally heard in the debate on this bill--that of telephone and cable-TV rate-payers, both in my State of Minnesota and across this Nation. I would hazard a guess that all of my colleagues would join with me in supporting the stated goal of this legislation: increasing competition in local phone service as well as cable TV. All of us likely agree that if competition is allowed to flourish, the biggest winners will be the consumers, the ratepayers, the millions of citizens who power the entire industry. But, and here's where some of my colleagues and I part company, not all of us are ready simply to throw our trust to the companies that stand to profit from deregulation. Competition doesn't just happen, sometimes it must be nurtured to protect consumers against monopoly control. The Dorgan amendment, by providing a role for the Department of Justice, recognizes this economic fact: this amendment is nothing more than a circuit breaker which will trip only if--let me repeat, only if--it is found that it would not be in the consumer's interest for a local phone company to begin to expand its service. That's all that it is. Mr. President, the need for the continuation of consumer protections and antitrust circuit breakers is clear. With every passing day, we see more integration in the telecommunications and information marketplace. On Sunday, Mr. President, we saw the Lotus Corp. agree to a friendly takeover by IBM. AT&T and McCaw Cellular will be joining forces, as will other companies, in preparing for this newly de-regulated telecommunications environment. This integration at the top corporate level and the market position of many of these companies demands that consumers be given a voice--a trusted voice--to speak for them in the coming years. No more trusted voice could be found on this subject than that of the Department of Justice. It was through that Department's courageous leadership that the old AT&T Ma Bell monopoly of old was broken apart--it was a long, tough fight, but this experience gained by the DOJ has been invaluable in guiding the breakup of the Bell system, and the development of competition in long distance and other services. It only makes sense that we allow the DOJ to put this experience to use risky, new market. The Dorgan amendment, as modified by the Thurmond second-degree amendment, prescribes how this experience will be put to use. The amendment uses the expertise of both the FCC and the DOJ to their best advantage. Under the amendment, the FCC will conduct a more focused public interest test to review whether the Bell companies face competition and adequately meet the checklist of services called for in this bill--topics the FCC is well accustomed to dealing with. The DOJ will conduct an analysis to ensure that a monopoly will not be created--again, a task that the DOJ is particularly qualified for. In this way, responsibilities are clarified and redundancies between the FCC and the DOJ are elminated, and the consumer is protected. Now for those who say this is a partisan issue, or those who would charge that such protections are no longer needed, Mr. President I turn to the comments of Judge Robert Bork, a distinguished jurist and conservative commentator of the highest regard. Mr. President, Judge Bork writes: These restrictions [on the Bell companies] are still supported by antitrust law and economic theory and should be retained. The Bell companies' argument is that the decree's line-of-business restrictions are relics of the 1970's, the industry has changed dramatically, and the restrictions are the product of outmoded thinking. To the contrary, the basic facts of the industry that required the decree in the first place, basically the monopolies of local service held by the Bell companies, have not changed at all. Without this amendment, Mr. President, this bill asks the Senate to announce the equivalent of unilateral disarmament--the disarmament of the consumer. As it stands right now, this bill says: Mr. and Ms. Consumer, you should give up the rate protections you've had over the years, you should give up any Department of Justice role in this process, you should give up the years of antitrust experience built by those who slew the multitentacled AT&T monopoly in the first place. And what are we going to replace them with? The promise made to consumers by all these unregulated, multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations, that they will do what's in your best interest. A promise that the monopolies of old will behave. A promise that consumers will be protected, that service will be good and that rates will be reasonable. Mr. President, I don't buy it. Without this amendment, the public will be stripped of one of the key consumer protections they will ever have in the coming years--the voice of the Department of Justice.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I have to catch a flight back to Minnesota, and I understand the majority leader is going to be coming out in a moment, I just wanted to say to all who have been involved in these negotiations I am very pleased. I know that Senator Levin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg join me. I thank Senator Ford from Kentucky and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It seems as if what we are going to have is an announcement that will make it clear that in July, and certainly no later than the end of the month, we will have an opportunity to have both lobby disclosure and the gift ban in this Chamber, and we will have the debate and we will have votes. I think that is the way it should be. I am very pleased with what I understand is certainly going to be an agreement. The majority leader will go into this in more detail, and he will read the terms of the agreement, but this is what we have all been working for. It is what we have all been negotiating about. And from my own point of view, I think the most important thing is that this will be an opportunity for the Senate to go on record, this will be an opportunity for the Senate to, I think, really lead the way on a measure that has everything to do with openness in the political process, with accountability, with changing matters for the better. People in the country really believe in public service, want to believe in public service. All of us do, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think this moment in July and this debate, this discussion and the final action by the Senate will be a very strong and positive reform. So I am very pleased that finally these negotiations have borne fruit, and I am pleased that the majority leader will be out here to announce this. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came in at the very end to hear the remarks of my colleague from Wisconsin. I would like to thank him for his eloquence. I am not a lawyer, but I do believe that the Senator from Wisconsin has made an essential point. I think his point about habeas is as follows: Actually, regardless of your position about capital punishment--I think all of us in very good faith can have profoundly different views on this question--what you certainly do not want to ever see happen is that someone innocent is executed, and to in any way, shape, or form move away from the very rights that people have in the appeal process, which is a frightening possibility. I think the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken to this in a very eloquent way. I thank him for his remarks. Amendment No. 1252 to Amendment No. 1199

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment as part of a series designed to highlight clearly my budget priorities, as opposed to those provided for in the pending budget resolution. While I believe our Nation must be kept free and secure, and I do not overlook the many risks we face, I am deeply troubled that of all the huge spending cuts in this budget, none come from the military budget. That must change. Defense, like everything else, must bear its share of the deficit reduction burden. This amendment is designed to begin to address that problem, at least for the coming year. Even with the ethnic and nationalist conflicts that have spawned terrible human tragedies in Bosnia, Somalia, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, Haiti, and elsewhere, requiring increased peacekeeping and other forms of assistance from the United States, we can and should scale back our post-cold-war defense spending substantially. Likewise, continued concerns about the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are real. But they require us to think in new and imaginative ways about the possibilities of using smart diplomacy rather than smart bombs, of placing a greater emphasis on multilateral efforts to keep the peace, of relying more on a strengthened United Nations, and other multilateral bodies like NATO, to maintain a safe, secure, and prosperous world. Instead of this approach, what we have been too often from defense policymakers is bureaucratic inertia, a residual unilateralism, and a clinging to the cold war status quo. Despite huge cuts elsewhere in the budget, there are no cuts provided for in military spending. Defense spending continues to grow, even in the face of our new post-cold-war reality. This budget provides for no cuts from huge and expensive weapons systems that are now obsolete. None from post-cold-war intelligence spending that should be curtailed. None from increased contributions from our allies, or burdensharing. None from the billions in wasteful spending that the Pentagon can't even account for, as widely reported recently by the Federal Government's own watchdogs, and in the press. In recent years, they've spent so much money over at the Department of Defense, with such sloppy bookkeeping, that they can no longer even keep track of it all. The other day a major Pentagon procurement and contracting official declared that he was giving up on even trying to account for it all. That speaks volumes about how much wasteful and unnecessary defense spending could still be wrung from this system. These reports reveal clearly that the Pentagon is still one of the largest sources of wasteful and unnecessary spending in the Federal Government. The U.S. military needs will-trained and well-equipped forces tailored to the threats and risks of today. Excessively large forces that were based on war-fighting strategies of another era, or on implausible assumptions that the United States could be required to fight two regional wars of about the same size as the Persian Gulf, simultaneously, with no help from our allies, cannot be responsibly maintained at high levels of military readiness. The Pentagon's current budget projections, including elements of the much-touted Bottom-Up Review, too often fail to question these kinds of basic assumptions. And the result is wasteful and unnecessary weapons or delivery systems like the B-2 bomber, star wars, the C-17, the Seawolf submarine, the Trident missile, the Milstar satellite system, and a host of other low- priority post-cold-war programs, many of which are now obsolete. Under current budget constraints, we simply can no longer afford these, if ever we could. Scaling them back would save billions in the coming years. But we must have the courage to make these tough decisions now. Mr. President, my amendment would require a modest cut of $10 billion from the military budget in 1996. That's only $10 billion out of a projected defense budget of over $260 billion. While many other Federal programs are being slashed by 30, 40, even 50 percent, or more, the defense budget cannot remain immune to budget pressures. The amendment would apply all of the savings from these account to deficit reduction. It is designed to: First, ensure that the modest cuts it provides for will be made in low-priority programs; second, protect the readiness of our forces, and third, preserve the living standards of servicemenbers and their families. Adopting this amendment would be a small but important step toward a more responsible Federal budget in which all sectors of society bear their fair share of deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on March 29 of this year, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution I offered opposing any measure that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Now, less than 2 months later, here we are considering a budget resolution that would drastically cut funding for important nutrition programs, including the Food Stamp Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The cut would be $20 billion over 5 years in these programs. This budget represents a massive set-back in fighting hunger in this country. We do know the following about who is hungry in this country: In 1991 FRAC's Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project estimated that there are 5.5 million children under 12 years of age who are hungry in the United States. The group Second Harvest estimated that in 1993, the emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council on Mayor's Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1994 found that 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. A Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy Study estimated that 12 million children were hungry in the United States in 1991. A Carnegie Foundation study found that 68 percent of public school teachers in 1987 reported that undernourished children/youths are a problem in school. There is a serious problem with hunger in this country--particularly for children. Our reaction should be outrage, but instead we are responding by cutting the most important nutritional program this country has. These two programs are critical supports to children's nutrition. The Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP] is designed to ensure that children up to age 12 enrolled in child care centers, family care centers, [[Page S7458]] before-and-after school programs, as well as Head Start centers receive nutritious meals. In 1994 the program cost about $1.3 billion and served slightly more than two million children. The budget proposal will cut at least $1.9 billion over 5 years and $3.21 billion over 7 years. This is the only program that is easily accessible to family day care centers, the majority of day care providers in this country. The CACFP is the single biggest incentive for family day care providers to become licensed or registered. The chairman's assumption is that the savings will come from targeting lower income children through census tract eligibility. I worry how such a strategy will work in Minnesota, where rural districts can be rich or poor depending upon a very small number of people. The alternative that these homes will have is to means test each family monthly, an appalling paperwork morass for such small operations. We are afraid these homes may go back underground by leaving the program. An even larger concern is the impact of this budget resolution on the Food Stamps Program. Food Stamps is the program that feeds the hungry in this country. Who are the people on Food Stamps? Well, we know that over half of Food Stamp recipients are children. Some 13 million children received benefits in 1992. Families with children received 81.9 percent of food stamp benefits. Elderly and disabled households received 12.9 percent of food stamp benefits. The program targets the population in need very well with 56 percent of food stamps benefits going to households with gross incomes below half of the poverty line and 76 percent are at or below the poverty level. So you see, most of the people we will be cutting off or restricting benefits to will be the most vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And yet again we are making poor children pay. Over half of these benefits go to poor children, but that is the program we pick to slash. The Food Stamp Program works. A recent overview of the literature indicated there is considerable evidence that the Food Stamp Program is an important factor in helping low-income households have better nutrition intakes. Participants have a higher level of recommended dietary allowances than do eligible nonparticipants. Under-nutrition has serious health consequences and is associated with an array of medical problems including longer healing of wounds and injuries, susceptibility to disease and extended recovery time when contracted. In children, under-nutrition is associated with cognitive deficits and impaired development. This is a temporary program for the majority of recipients. Half of all food stamp recipients leave the program within 6 months and two- thirds leave within 1 year. This is not a dependency-producing subsidy, a point of great concern to many. Yet the program does this with very little money. In 1994, the program provided an average benefit of $69 per person per month, or 76 cents per person per meal. The maximum benefit--received by less than 23 percent of households--is $368 for a family of four or $1.06 per person per meal. All food assistance programs represent only 2.4 percent of Federal outlays and this percentage is expected to decline slightly in the future as a share of total spending. This is not to say that the Food Stamps Program does not have its problems. There is evidence of fraud and waste, yet one estimate is that the amount of money saved by fraud will only make up 0.1 percent of the savings the House welfare reform bill intends to gain by cutting the food program. I certainly agree with those who would like to reduce fraud through reasonable means. Those who waste these benefits or who fraudulently use them are wasting taxpayers' money. I am afraid that the desire to cut this program is too strongly influenced by a run-away desire to correct this wrong-doing, with little examination of the consequences to those in need. People will go without because of the reductions proposed in this resolution, and we need to recognize that. These cuts are massive, and will dramatically reduce the money available to feed hungry people. Given the very real possibility that this body will pass a welfare reform bill which ends the AFDC entitlement, food stamps will be the only program with entitlement status that will cushion our poor families against recessions. We are shortsighted in taking food from those who need it to pay for tax cut primarily for wealthy people and corporations. I urge my colleagues to oppose these unwise reductions, and to support amendments to restore critically needed food assistance to children and others who rely on these programs.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment which would direct the Finance Committee to close $70 billion of narrowly focused tax breaks and loopholes over the next 7 years, and apply the savings solely to deficit reduction. This $70 billion figure is more than double the amount of savings from tax expenditures assumed in the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. Unfortunately, the Senate Budget Committee did not include any savings from tax expenditures in the budget resolution we are debating today. I believe that is a serious mistake, because unless it is changed it virtually ensures that powerful, well-heeled special interests who have fought so hard for so long to protect their special tax breaks could be held harmless under this budget. We must take steps now to reduce the Federal budget deficit in a way that is fair, responsible, and that requires shared sacrifice. This amendment would help us along that path. The amendment requires the closing of $70 billion of special interest tax loopholes and other breaks which have received far too little scrutiny in this budget process. Senator Bradley, Senator Feingold, and others have described in detail the problems posed by these huge tax breaks, and the savings which could be generated from these sources. Since a number of amendments have been defeated which would apply at least some of the savings generated by closing corporate loopholes and other tax breaks to other priority domestic programs, the time has now come to put to the test the proposition that at least some of these savings ought to be used exclusively for deficit reduction. That is why the savings generated by this amendment would be used exclusively to reduce the deficit. When this budget resolution slashes funding for Medicare and Medicaid, when we are cutting education programs and student loans, when we are slashing Federal spending for veterans and farmers, when we are causing great pain for children and the most vulnerable in our society, it seems only fair that we should ask wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share. That is why we should plug many of the narrowly focused tax breaks and loopholes which allow the privileged few to escape paying their fair share, forcing everyone else to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. It is a simple question of fairness. Let me make a simple point here that is often overlooked. We can spend money just as easily through the tax code, through what are called tax expenditures, as we can through the normal appropriations process. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a Government check or in the form of a tax break for some special purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, a deduction, or an accelerated depreciation for this type of investment or that. Some tax expenditures are justified, and should be retained. But some are special interest tax breaks that should be eliminated, or loopholes that should be plugged. These are what this amendment is design to go after. These special interest tax expenditures are simply special exceptions to the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the burden of citizenship by paying our taxes. All of these special tax breaks distort, to one degree or another, economic investment decisions, usually in favor of wealthy individuals and corporations with the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. It is time to end these special interest tax breaks and close these tax loopholes. Various groups from all ideological perspectives--from the National Taxpayers Union and the CATO Institute to the Progressive Policy Institute to the Citizens for Tax Justice--have prepared lists of tax expenditures which they believe should be eliminated. Special interest tax breaks are simply a subcategory of the larger group of tax provisions called tax expenditures. The Congressional Joint Tax Committee has estimated that tax expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury over $420 billion every single year. And they also estimate that if we don't hold them in check, that amount will grow by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 1999. That's why tax breaks must be on the table along with other defense and domestic spending as we look for places to cut the deficit. But despite the logic of this approach, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to even consider the possibility of cutting tax breaks for wealthy corporate and other interests, making them bear their fair share of the deficit reduction burden. Instead, they have chosen to pursue the path of least political resistance, slashing programs for the broad middle class, the vulnerable elderly, and the poor. Now, not all tax expenditures are bad. Not all should be eliminated. Some serve a real public purpose, such as providing incentives to investment, bolstering the nonprofit sector, encouraging charitable contributions, allowing people to deduct State and local taxes, and helping people to be able to afford to buy a home through the mortgage deduction. But some of them are simply tax dodges that can no longer be justified. At the very least, all of these should undergo the same scrutiny as other Federal spending, and should bear their fair share of deficit reduction. It is only fair, since these special tax breaks for certain companies and industries force other companies and individuals to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Some of these tax breaks allow privileged industries such as the oil and gas industry to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. All distort, to one degree or another, economic investment decisions, usually in favor of companies with the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. In many cases, doing away with these special tax breaks for certain industries would allow a more efficient allocation of economic resources. I think it is a simple question of fairness. If Congress is really going to make the over $1.4 trillion in spending cuts and other policy changes that would have to be made to balance the Federal budget by 2002, then those on the other side of the aisle should make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their case every day here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much as regular middle class folks whom you and I represent. We should represent those who receive Social Security or Medicare or veterans benefits, and not just those special interests who can afford to pay high-priced hired guns to lobby for them. I am amazed that many in the majority party have proposed, among other things, expanding corporate tax breaks at the very same time that they are slashing Government spending on programs for the poor, for children, for education, and for the most vulnerable in our society. They have proposed tax cuts for the wealthy which, according to the Treasury Department, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and at the same time they refuse to subject a broad range of new tax breaks to scrutiny in the budget process. And these are the ones who call themselves deficit hawks? Some will charge that by closing tax loopholes and restricting special interest tax breaks we re somehow proposing to raise taxes. And they will say that over and over and over until some will begin to believe it. They are wrong. What they fail to understand is that even with the reforms of the mid-1980's, which closed many of the most egregious tax loopholes, the presence of the tax breaks in the current tax system forces middle class and working people to pay more in taxes than they otherwise would have to pay. While some are paying less then their fair share in taxes because of these special tax subsidies, others are being forced to pay more in taxes to make up the difference. Closing tax loopholes is not raising taxes. Of course, these subsidies are hidden in the tax code because it would be too hard to get the votes in [[Page S7439]] Congress, in the full light of day, to directly subsidize these industries--especially under current budget constraints. It is a simple matter of fairness. In our attempts to reduce the federal deficit, all sectors of our society must make some sacrifices. Specific industries and the wealthy are the ones who often benefit most from special interest tax breaks and loopholes. If we do not treat tax breaks the same as direct spending, the wealthy will avoid making any sacrifices as we cut spending programs for the middle class and the poor. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a high- priced tax lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation does not give them the right to avoid sharing in whatever sacrifices are necessary to reduce the budget deficit. The General Accounting Office issued a report last year, and has issued several others on tax expenditures. It was titled ``Tax Policy: Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' I commend it to my colleagues' attention. It makes a compelling case for subjecting these tax expenditures to greater congressional scrutiny, just as direct spending is scrutinized. The GAO report reminds us that spending through special provisions in the tax code should be treated in the same way as other spending provisions. At a time when we are talking about potentially huge spending cuts in meat inspections designed to insure against outbreaks of disease; or in higher education aid for middle class families; or in protection for our air, our lakes, and our land; or in highways; or in community development programs for states and localities; or in sewer and water projects for our big cities; or in safety net programs for vulnerable children; or to eliminate the school lunch program, we should be willing to weigh these cuts against special tax loopholes that could cost hundreds of billions each year. This amendment will have the Finance Committee close merely $70 billion worth of these special interest tax breaks and loopholes--a modest $10 billion per year for the next 7 years. Under congressional budget rules, the details of which specific tax breaks to eliminate must be left to the Finance Committee. That is the way it should be. But even though I am not a tax lawyer, I have been able to identify a number of tax breaks for elimination, and loopholes which should be closed. For example, for much too long the oil and gas industry has enjoyed special tax breaks not available to other industries. These special tax loopholes include the ability to expense oil and gas exploration costs and the so-called Special Percentage Depletion Allowances. It is time to end these costly special tax privileges for a single industry. Why should the oil and gas industry receive special treatment in the tax code which is not available to other kinds of companies? Closing these special interest tax loopholes could save as much as $10.6 billion over 5 years. Other tax loopholes which should be closed relate to the taxation of multinational corporations. Through complex accounting shell games involving their foreign subsidiaries, and by locating their plants overseas, multinational corporations can avoid paying most of their U.S. taxes. According to some estimates, closing these loopholes could save as much as $10 to $15 billion over 5 years. Still other special tax breaks allow Americans working overseas to receive their first $70,000 of income absolutely tax free, at a cost of $8.6 billion over 5 years. We should also close the loophole which allows billionaires to renounce their U.S. citizenship and avoid paying taxes on the value of property which increased while they were U.S. citizens. The savings from closing this loophole would be at least $1.7 billion over 5 years. Finally, we should stop the fancy stock swap loophole which allowed DuPont and Seagrams to avoid paying over $1.5 billion in taxes that would otherwise be due to the Treasury. And we should consider further scaling back, or eliminating outright, section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code designed to subsidize certain investments in Puerto Rico. That provision alone would generate an estimated $19.7 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Eliminating these provisions alone would generate about $50 billion in savings over the next 5 years, with billions more to be saved from other sources. As I have said, it is a simple question of tax fairness. If Congress is really serious about making the painful spending cuts and other policy changes that would have to be made under this budget resolution, than those on the other side of the aisle should join us in voting to make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their case every day here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much as regular middle class folks whom you and I represent. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a high-priced tax lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation does not give them the right to avoid sharing in whatever sacrifices are necessary to reduce the budget deficit. In our efforts to shrink the Federal budget deficit, we just cannot let these special interest tax dodges continue. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing is simple and straightforward, but vital to Minnesota veterans and veterans around the country. It calls for using $74 million in fiscal year 1996 funds earmarked for tax expenditures--in plain English, tax breaks, loopholes, and even giveaways to oil and tobacco companies, and other corporate behemoths--to restore projected cuts in VA spending that would have damaging, if not devastating effects, on timely delivery of important services to veterans. According to the VA, if these cuts should occur there would be a sharp rise in claims backlogs and delays in resolving veterans' claims for benefits, increases in already excessive time lags in providing disabled veterans with vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and an inability to provide veterans with timely education benefits earned under the GI bill. For this to happen to those who have served our Nation bravely and without question while corporate welfare remains untouched would be unconscionable and clearly unacceptably to the American people. Mr. President, while I deplore the damage that would be done to service for our veterans in each of these areas, I would like to focus particularly on the potential negative impact on the timely processing of veterans claims. In the countless meetings I have had with Minnesota veterans over the last 4 years the issue of unacceptably long delays in VA claims processing has consistently been at or near the top of their list of priority concerns. As a consequence, it has been and continues to be a major concern of mine. In 1993, I introduced a bill to improve and streamline VA's system of processing and adjudicating claims which was particularly aimed at reducing delays which had then reached crisis proportions. Fortunately, as a result of the leadership of Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jessie Brown, the VA has made progress recently in reducing backlogs in processing veterans claims for compensation. At the end of 1993 the VA had an overall backlog of 575,000 claims which is expected to be reduced by the end of this year to 400,000 claims--a decline of over 30 percent. Similarly the average time for a VA regional office to process an original claim dropped from 212 days in May 1994 to 166 days in March 1995, a decline of about 22 percent in just 10 months. And I'm pleased to note that the St. Paul, MN VA Regional Office has made significant gains over the past 18 months, reducing claims backlogs from approximately 7,500 to 5,000 and average claims processing times from 214 days to 122 days. I would like to see the St. Paul VA Regional Office and others like it around the country given the support they need from Congress to continue to improve timeliness--to improve services for veterans. I hope to see the St. Paul office process claims in under 100 days on average. That's a worthy goal. What I don't want to see is Congress cutting funding for claims processing at a time when it is needed most to continue improving services and when it can only nullify the gains the VA has made in this area. Unfortunately, the progress the VA has made in addressing this difficult and complex problem is being seriously imperiled by the estimated $74 million cut in funding for the operating budget of the VA's Veterans Benefit Administration in fiscal year 1996. In fact, it would reverse the recent progress that has been made in this area, with the VA estimating that if the cut is implemented the claims backlog would revert to over 500,000 cases and average claims processing times would soar to over 1 year. Mr. President, there is much more to this issue than the cold statistics I've cited. There are sometimes enormous human costs too-- cost that I can only describe as heart rending. About 18 months ago we distributed a questionnaire to Minnesotans to elicit their views about the backlogs in the veterans claims and adjudication process. I found and still find many of the comments received with the questionnaire to be terribly disturbing and I want to share a few of these with you. One veteran, for example, stressed that the issue of backlogs was a crucial one ``because it sometimes leads to the death of a veteran by suicide over frustration and injustices suffered.'' In other words, this veteran believes that some veterans are committing suicide because they are so frustrated by waiting long periods of time for their claim to be resolved. In a similar vein, a county veterans service officer lamented that some ``veterans * * * die before their claims have been adjudicated,'' and a VA psychologist reported that ``veterans are losing their homes, selling personal belongings, and committing suicide while waiting * * * for their claims to be adjudicated.'' This is what I was told a year and a half ago by people who work every day with the VA adjudication system. Since then, as I have said, timeliness has improved at local VA regional offices. So, the last thing we should do is cause the backlogs to increase and reverse the trend of progress, re-creating the crisis from which we are just emerging. In addition to the personal trauma, excessive delays in processing veterans claims represent a breach of faith with our veterans who while serving in our Armed Forces are led to believe they will receive fair and timely compensation if they incur a service-connected disability. Should this cut be implemented, we would be moving in precisely the wrong direction in terms of improving timeliness. We all know that justice deferred is justice denied. Let us not do anything to make the adjudication system any slower or to add to the claims backlog. Mr. President, permit me to quote from an eloquent letter recently sent by the National Commander of the American Legion to Chairman Domenici, copies of which all of my colleagues should have received: Mr. Chairman, reducing General Operating Expenses (GOE) within the Veterans Benefits Administration will seriously handicap VA's [[Page S7436]] ability to reduce the extraordinary backlog in veterans claims and appeals cases. VA has made some improvements in this area over the past year. To reduce GOE funding will setback all of the progress VA had made and further delay benefit decisions for veterans and their dependents. A significant part of the problem that has existed in the processing of claims was caused by budget- related staff reductions. I could not agree more. If the budget cuts are implemented we will be taking a giant step backward, canceling the progress that has been made and returning to a situation wholly unacceptable to our veterans, their families, and to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, thereby keeping faith with the men and women who have served this country faithfully and ensuring that welfare for corporations doesn't come at the expense of the welfare of our veterans.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like today to make a very simple point. It is a point that I and other of my colleagues have been making over the course of recent weeks since the ``Chairman's Mark'' of this fiscal year 1996 budget resolution was issued. My point is this. The cuts to the agriculture category of spending in this budget resolution will cause significant harm--harm both to rural America and to low-income Americans throughout the country. That is why I have been voting for a number of amendments to reduce the size of the cuts to agriculture spending in this resolution. As my colleagues know, the resolution proposes dramatic cuts to the agriculture category of the Federal budget. It proposes cuts of $28 billion over 5 years to the agriculture category, and suggests cuts of $45 billion over 7 years. Mr. President, these cuts will seriously reduce farm income, and they will damage our rural economy. They will drive down agricultural land values, and they will diminish conservation benefits that are important to our quality of life--both in the present and in the future. Reductions of this magnitude will take from $380 to $400 million from farmers in my State over just 5 years. Furthermore, if we pass cuts this dramatic, we will devastate nutrition programs such as food stamps, the WIC Program, and the Child Adult Care Feeding Program. Cuts to nutrition programs are contained in the same budget category as cuts to farm programs. As a result, it is clear that reductions as drastic as those in this resolution--$28 billion over 5 years, to be found by the Agriculture Committee--will pit struggling farmers against low- and moderate-income families for increasingly scarce Federal dollars. We all support Federal deficit reduction. Every farmer knows the value of lower interest rates, which would be one result of Federal fiscal responsibility. Indeed American agriculture and rural America have contributed a heavy share to deficit reduction. They and they will do so willingly. But why must this budget impose the most pain on those for whom it will be most difficult to bear? Why are we not cutting more unneeded military and corporate-welfare spending? Why are we not eliminating lucrative tax breaks for special interests? Why are we, in fact, considering a tax cut for wealthy Americans? This resolution makes the wrong choices and takes our country in the wrong direction. Mr. President, now is not the time to abandon rural America or the nutritional needs of struggling families. I share with the President and the Secretary of Agriculture a desire to have a real debate on a real 1995 farm bill--not just a budget-cutting exercise. There are exciting prospects for rural America, and we are at a crucial historic moment for the social and economic health of our rural communities. We cannot simply slash and burn in such an important area of Federal policy and the Federal budget.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while I was an original cosponsor of the Hatfield amendment to restore critical funding to the National Institutes of Health, I would like to offer a sense of the Senate that would ensure that we do not jeopardize other valued programs in order to accomplish this goal. In the budget resolution, funding for the NIH would have been reduced by nearly $8 billion over 7 years. Such a reduction would have decimated the biomedical research effort of this country and could not be permitted. But the offsets necessary to restore funding to the NIH as proposed by Mr. Hatfield should be taken from low-priority domestic discretionary programs like the Space Station, and not from high-priority programs like food and nutrition programs for low-income children, anticrime efforts, veterans programs infrastructure, and other such investment programs. Education, health care, and labor accounts have been protected by the Hatfield amendment but I include further protection for them in my amendment as well. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to point out that the NIH serves as the focal point for health research in this country. It supports the work of over 50,000 scientists at over 1,700 institutions, as well as conducting biomedical and behavioral research and research training in its own facilities. The mission of the NIH is the pursuit of science ``to expand fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems, to apply that knowledge to extend the health of human lives, and to reduce the burdens mission, which is one that is essential to the future of America, requires adequate financial resources, scientists, and infrastructure. The Hatfield amendment will assure that these functions will be able to continue to improve the lives of the American people. What would the impact have been if the originally proposed reductions in NIH funding had been permitted to occur? The NIH is now able to fund about 24 percent of all research proposals submitted each year. A 5- percent budget cut would have resulted in an ability to fund between 12 and 18 percent of such proposals, according to Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of NIH. A 10-percent cut, as proposed in the Senate budget resolution, would have meant that fewer than 1 proposal in 10 submitted to the NIH would have received funding. In some areas, where funding is already tight, such as mental health, fewer than 1 proposal in 20 would have received funding. This would have clearly been a tragedy. With such a low rate of funding for research, clearly less and less research would have been performed. Just as important, however, would have been the effect on the research work force. Young people considering a career in biomedical research are unlikely to choose to do so when they realize that they only have 1 chance in 10 or 20 to be funded to do their work. The loss of young, creative researchers, once it had occured, would taken decades to replace. The NIH agenda for the coming years includes a focus on HIV/AIDS, breast cancer and other women's health issues, minority health, tuberculosis, brain disorders, gene therapy, drug design, and disease prevention, among other topics. Are these important national problems? Is progress being made through research? Let's look at some examples: First, breast cancer continues to be the cancer most frequently diagnosed in the United States. In the decade of the 1990s, it is estimated that more than 1.5 million new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and nearly 500,000 American women will die of breast cancer. Recent research, however, has led to the discovery of a gene linked to breast cancer, and the development of more precise screening techniques to detect breast cancer. Between 1989 and 1992, the overall death rate for breast cancer in American women declined 4.7 percent--in large measure due to these and other associated breakthroughs. Vital and successful programs that must be continued. Second, Parkinson's disease and other neurologic diseases are continuing to devastate the lives of sufferers and their families. Parkinson's disease currently afflicts over one million Americans, and I have seen its effects firsthand. Both my mother and father had Parkinson's disease, and its manifestations seemed incredibly cruel to me. My father was a writer, and at the very end of his life I remember seeing him in the study trying to type with his hand just shaking--he was unable to do it. Soon thereafter he was unable to walk, and was barely able to speak. At the time of his death, he was confined to bed, unable to communicate, and drained of the dignity with which he lived. What is encouraging is that Parkinson's disease is on the threshold of substantial scientific breakthroughs. The new science of molecular biology has brought forth dramatic and exciting developments that have given Parkinson's patients new hope. Scientists are closer to discovering the cause--or causes--of this disease * * * tissue implants into the brain have been shown to replace the dopamine that is missing in the brain of afflicted patients * * * genetically engineered medication or even gene therapy might provide long-lasting, sustainable, side-effect-free improvements, or even a cure. Similar dramatic advances have occurred in the understanding and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Restoring funding to the NIH, as accomplished by the Hatfield amendment, will help assure that these breakthroughs will be pursued, so that no person, and no family need to suffer as my parents, and my family did, with neurodegenerative diseases. These are just two examples, and there are many others that illustrate the value of the biomedical research effort, and the tragedy and human suffering that would occur if it is not supported. A little appreciated benefit of NIH work is a reduction of health care costs, by early diagnosis, more effective treatment, and disease prevention. For example, the NIH recently developed a vaccine against a common bacterial infection--Haemophilus influ- enzae type B--that afflicts children. When severe, this infection can cause meningitis, and result in mental retardation, at a great cost in suffering to the patient and family, and financially to society as well. The vaccine that was developed will prevent this illness. It is projected that this breakthrough alone will save Americans over $400 million a year. Critics of the NIH note that funding has doubled in the past 10 years, and, therefore, claim that cuts could be made without harming programs. Although NIH's budget has increased almost every year, the available money has not grown as rapidly as the demand for it to conduct research, largely because of the opening up of so many new, promising fields of research in biomedical sciences over the past two decades. Between 1984 and 1993, for example, applications for research projects support increased 33 percent. The number of awards made during this time, however, fluctuated greatly from year to year. The result has been unpredictable variability, with a downward trend, in the fraction of projects submitted, that are awarded grants. In 1987, 34.8 percent of grants were funded, but this has steadily fallen to 25 percent in 1994 overall, and lower in some Institutes of the NIH. In addition to the disastrous effects on investigators, cuts in the NIH budget of the magnitude proposed would have had an equally devastating effect on the Nation's medical schools. About half of NIH's extramural budget ends up in medical schools, directly to support research, and indirectly to help maintain the infrastructure necessary to carry out the research. The Hatfield amendment will assure that medical schools have the resources they need to continue their efforts in research. I hope that my colleagues will also support my amendment to assure that low- priority discretionary funding is used to restore the critically needed funds to the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank you, Mr. President. [[Page S7324]] Later on, we will be voting on an amendment offered by Senator Exon and, I believe, Senators Daschle and Dorgan, and I am an original cosponsor. This amendment would restore $15 billion from the tax cuts to agriculture and nutrition programs. Mr. President, I will tell you, a minute and a half is not enough time to talk about nutrition programs, but I want to just remind my colleagues that some 13 million children received food stamp benefits in 1992. Families with children receive 1.9 percent of food stamp benefits. In addition, we are talking about the child and adult care food program which is nutritional assistance for children at child care centers--and I have visited those centers--we are talking about $20 billion-plus of cuts in the Food Stamp Program. And I say to my colleagues, not that long ago, the Senate unanimously supported an amendment that I offered that we would take no action that would increase hunger among children in America. Three times I tried to get a vote on that and lost. The fourth time we went on record supporting it. I just simply want to say that these cuts in these nutrition programs will lead to increased hunger among children. The food stamp program in the United States of America is not perfect, but, given the tremendous disparities of welfare benefits, very low benefits, way below poverty level in many States, it is the true safety net for children. To have these kinds of reductions in this food assistance program is one of the cruelest things we could do. And this summer, well before that final reconciliation bill, I am going to be on the floor over and over and over again reminding my colleagues of the consequences of what we are doing with these cuts. These are real children, real faces, real people, in our country. They do not have the political clout but they deserve much more of our support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I asked the Senator from Oregon only for a minute because I am one of those Senators who later on wants to speak to other amendments, and I know we are in a time crunch. I say to the Senator from Oregon I certainly want to be included as an original cosponsor, but I do it with some sadness because I believe that the military-defense part of the budget [[Page S7299]] ought to have been included in the offset. I understand why the Senator was not able to do so. Second of all, I am very worried about cuts in some of the other nondefense discretionary programs. Therefore, later on I am going to have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment making clear it does not have to be in each of those areas because each deserve a high priority, and I am going to try to point out the direction in which we should be directing our priorities. But it is with a sense of equity and fairness I proudly support this amendment.