Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be included as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, shortly I think we will have some agreement on an amendment that I will offer. I thought what I might do is take advantage of this time to briefly summarize this for colleagues. I appreciate the hard work of the majority leader and the bipartisan spirit of this. Senior citizens face a confusing world of rules, conditions, exceptions, limitations, and even outright scams when choosing their supplemental health insurance and grappling with the Medicare system. Congress recognized the difficulty seniors face when it established a program, which is really a wonderful program. It is sort of the best example of grant money going a long way, and is called the Insurance Information Counseling and Assistance Grant Program in OBRA 1990. This was a recognition by the Congress that Medicare beneficiaries need help, not help through a Washington agency, but person-to-person help at a local level. All 50 States have established insurance counseling and assistance programs with the help of Federal grant dollars. As a result, these programs provide local volunteer based assistance to Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, this grant program is a perfect example of a small program--it is basically seed money--that has produced big results. Let me repeat that--a small program that has produced big results. Over 10,000 volunteers have been trained through the program, and over $14 million is saved each year for beneficiaries just by good counseling for senior citizens who have a difficult time. I remember that both my mom and dad had Parkinson's disease and, in the latter years of their lives, among their struggles was the struggle of just wading through some of the paperwork that they had to do, and some of the forms that they found bewildering. In my own State of Minnesota, 300 volunteers have been trained, and 3,300 State of Minnesota--and $867,000 was saved on their behalf. Mr. President, I just simply want to make the case that what we are trying to do here is restore $5.5 million that is part of the proposed rescissions. What we are working on now is what the offset will be. This is $5.5 million to be added on to what I think is now being spent, which is also about $5.5 million, which wil go a long way. Again, this is not a program centered in Washington, DC. This is a program that uses a small amount of Federal dollars that goes a long, long way. We train volunteers in each of our States, and I say to my colleagues that I know if you just talk to people in your State, especially senior citizens, you will find that there is a tremendous appreciation for the Insurance Information Counseling and Assistance Grant Program. So I am just trying to restore $5.5 million. We are now working on an offset. As soon as we have that offset--and I think it will be soon--it is my hope that my amendment will have unanimous support. Mr. President, I also want to say to my colleagues, the reason that I have been working on this amendment is, at least for me, one of the better reasons to be in the U.S. Senate--the need for this program comes directly from a lot of senior citizens in the State of Minnesota. People are really committed to this program. They feel it is not very expensive. I am just trying to get $5.5 million back in here to provide counseling assistance to seniors all across the country, and people tell me it is a huge help to them. I think this is a good example of public policy that is not overly centralized, Mr. President, and not overly bureaucratized. It takes place back in our States and local communities, and constitutes the best example of using a small amount of money to get a lot of volunteers to provide a lot of help to senior citizens working their way through these forms, and it is a wonderful consumer protection and prevention program against some of the scams that all too often, unfortunately, happen to seniors. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I hope soon we will have some resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was pleased to submit today, along with my colleagues, Senators Simon, Jeffords, Daschle, Pryor, Rockefeller, Akaka, Reid, and Leahy, a Senate resolution to designate July 16, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the first detonation of an atomic bomb at Alamagordo, NM, as ``National Atomic Veterans Day.'' Atomic veterans, members of the armed forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of the detonation of a nuclear weapon or device, for 50 years have been one of the most neglected groups of veterans. While they served their country patriotically, unquestioningly, and proudly, they were not informed of the dangers they faced from exposure to ionizing radiation, often were provided with little or no protection from such exposure, and for many years were provided with no follow-up medical monitoring or care to determine the health effects of their exposure. In fact, for 40 years after World War II, there were no provisions in Federal law specifically providing veterans compensation or health care for atomic veterans for service- connected radiogenic diseases. Many atomic veterans who participated in atmospheric nuclear testing were forbidden from publicly revealing their participation for reasons of national security. Despite their valuable contributions to the United States and the Armed Forces, they have not received the recognition that is due them. The National Association of Atomic Veterans, AMVETS, and the Vietnam Veterans of America have expressed their strong and unequivocal support for this resolution. I urge my colleagues to show their support by cosponsoring National Atomic Veterans Day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, the background of the context seems to be the following. I do not have it precisely. First, we say, with Head Start, we intend to do exactly what the title of it is, give a head start to children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Second, even though we say that, we have never funded the program anywhere close to the level where those children who really could benefit from such support get such support. Third, my colleague says the fact that this is an increase over what is now, over the funding right now, means you cannot call it a cut. But if every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty in this country and the demographics are such and the trend line is such that by definition you have more and more children who are in need of Head Start and you are not funding it anywhere near up to the level to keep up with that increased need, then, in fact, that is a cut. That is a cut by any way in which I think you would imagine it. In other words, I say to my colleague, my family, we were living on a salary--take my salary when I was teaching, $40,000 a year. And by the same token, then the next year there was an increase in my salary, but it went up just a few percentage points, but the cost of living went up, in terms of food, in terms of utilities, in terms of housing, so in real dollar terms we would be a cut. If the trend line is many more children are eligible so we are now losing ground, is that not a cut from what the program is about?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me try--if my colleague will take another question. This gets to the semantics about cuts, because I do not think either one of us are trying to be clever. I think it is an honest difference of opinion.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Two questions to the Senator, and I appreciate the graciousness of my colleague. First of all, and I do not remember the exact statistics, maybe he can help me out on this, is it not true that right now, those children who are eligible to benefit from Head Start, we only right now, in current appropriations, cover maybe half or a little more than half of those young children?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate that. Actually, this will be the last question because I want to enable my colleague to go forward with his remarks. First of all, I would say to the people of Utah who have written the letter to you that I honestly and truthfully believe that they have a fine Senator. The Senator's reputation here for fairness is unsurpassed by anyone else. Second, I want to say to my colleague, I think that, however, he is deceiving himself in making the case, the semantic case about cuts. Because it does not seem to me to be that strong kind of high ground you are standing on here--though you are considerably taller than I am--when we understand first, that right now, though we say we want children from disadvantaged backgrounds to have a head start, we do not anywhere near come close to fully funding it and second, in addition, unfortunately, it is the reality that we continue to see a dramatic rise in the poverty of children. Every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty in our country, and then third, we have a budget which was going to increase the funding for Head Start and that now has been cut back. That is exactly what this rescission is, a cutback. So based upon a program that is inadequately funded, that deals with the most important goal we could have, a head start for disadvantaged children, with more and more children, unfortunately, being disadvantaged, I do not see how my colleague can take any comfort in the very remarks he has made. Why would you want to trim this back at all? Why would you not want to expand the funding? What is the case for any kind of rescission in the Head Start area?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I actually will be brief, Mr. President. I, between other work, had a chance to hear some of my colleagues speak on the floor. Since they are not here now, I do not choose to get into a major debate. Others Senators are not here. Hopefully, we can do that at the right time. Just a couple quick points for the record, Mr. President. We have for now, several days or at least the last day and a half, been at an impasse. I just want to set the record straight. One or two of my colleagues were talking about the delay and the, if you will, filibuster of this rescission bill. Actually, I think it was yesterday morning, I came out with a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I made it very clear that I was willing to vote on it, was more than willing to have a time agreement. But the majority leader then came out and second degreed that amendment. For those watching, second degree means that his amendment took precedence over my amendment. From that point in time, we really have been pretty much at an impasse. The amendment I brought to the floor of the Senate yesterday dealt with the Women, Infants, and Children Program, nutrition standards, all of which, by the way, is quite relevant to this rescissions bill, since there are proposed cuts in the WIC Program. The majority leader's second-degree amendment dealt with Jordan. At that point in time, Mr. President, we have been pretty much at an impasse, but it is certainly not because Senators like myself and others do not want to move forward. We do. There has been another amendment which has taken up a good deal of the time this week by my colleague from New York. That amendment deals with Mexico--financial assistance to Mexico. Mr. President, the rescissions bill of proposed cuts, we have had some debate about that. There has been some discussion of the minority leader's amendment which I think is a very important corrective step in restoring some funding for programs that are really not programs-- bureaucracy--but perhaps that really make a difference. Childrens' lives, senior citizens' lives--just name it. Mr. President, by and large the last 2 days have been pretty much an impasse, but it is not because on the part of Democratic Senators that there is not a willingness to move forward. We are more than willing to move forward. I did not second-degree my amendment. I wanted to have an up-or-down vote. I did not have an amendment that dealt with aid to Jordan on the rescissions package. That was not my decision. I just want the record to be clear when Senators come out here and say, well, where are they? Why are we not moving forward? I would be pleased to. I had an amendment that was in a sense only a sense-of-the- Senate amendment, but it did not deal with Women, Infants, and Children, did not deal with nutritional standards, did not deal with children, and those are some of the programs we are talking about and debating. Second point, Mr. President, some of the discussion about Medicare, tonight is not the night to really go into this in great detail or depth, but I feel like some of the comments of colleagues deserve a response--a brief response. I fear that it is just too easy for Senators to come to the floor about the statistics and data about Medicare, and then make the argument that this is the area that we really have to kind of make the cuts. Mr. President, a couple of points. In the State of Minnesota, with some of the projected cuts that we will be discussing if not today, certainly during this session, those cuts can amount to as much as $10 billion for Medicare and Medicaid. By the way, about 40 percent of Medicaid is for the elderly in nursing homes. I can just say, and I speak to my colleague from Minnesota, that if we talk to people in rural Minnesota and we ask them what that will mean either in terms of less reimbursement for some of the hospitals and clinics that already struggle because of the inadequate reimbursement, or if we add to copays or deductibles or make seniors pay more out of their pockets, we will across-the-board from senior citizens and the care givers, get the same response: Its impact will be devastating. Mr. President, I would just raise two points. Point one, I wonder why some of my colleagues who talked about the dangers of rationing when we were talking about universal health care coverage last Congress, now when we talk about just the focus on Medicare and Medicaid and the need for deep cuts in those programs, are not talking about rationing. Quite clearly, in the absence of overall health care reform, in the absence of some courage about how to contain costs--and by the way, I think we have to contain costs to have universal coverage--if we just target Medicare and Medicaid, then we are guaranteeing that there will be rationing: by age, by disability, and by income. I can assure Members that those citizens that would be most affected by these proposed cuts are going to be the citizens who are going to have a very bold and I think clear voice. Not because there are some awful special interests but because they have every reason to raise questions. The Medicare program, imperfections and all, passed in 1965, has made a huge difference for me. I can say that as a son of two parents with Parkinson's disease. For my mother and father, who were not exactly wealthy, Medicare was the difference between being able to survive and financial disaster. The Medicare program is not perfect. There are imperfections. There are imperfections to all public and private sector programs, but I think that most view Medicare and Medicaid, both passed in 1965, as steps forward, made our country a better country. Now, I am not opposed to reform at all. But I do want to make it crystal clear that in the projections that have been laid out here, and what is to be done, I have noticed a certain silence, and that silence is deafening on two counts. Number one, based upon the criteria of ``Well, aren't you going to then be rationing?'' And, number two, ``What about containing costs within the overall health care system?" When the Congressional Budget Office scored these different health care plans last Congress, the one proposal to contain costs that really got a very strong score, that really made sense, I say to my colleague from Utah whom I respect and who I know is immersed in this debate, the one proposal that did extremely well was to put some kind of limit on insurance company premiums. No question about it, in terms of the effectiveness of such a proposal as a off the table immediately. Taken off the table immediately. I wonder why? Sure, the insurance industry has a tremendous amount of power. I would just say to my colleagues before we start talking about all senior citizens herded into managed care plans, forgetting fee-for- service period, I thought choice was an important issue. And before we start talking about the way we contain health care costs is target Medicare and Medicaid, we should be sure that we are intellectually rigorous and that we are very honest in our policy choices. We also look at other ways of containing costs. I will just say to my colleagues, we can take a look at the CBO studies last Congress when they looked at a lot of different proposals, and I see no reason in the world why, in fact, insurance company premiums are not on the table as well in terms of where we try to put some kind of limit as a Senate strategy of cost containment. Last point, a discussion about welfare. I am just responding to some of what I heard on the floor today. I apologize to colleagues that are not here. When there will be time for debate there will be debate. Nothing that I will say will be personal. Nothing that I will say on the floor right now will be at all hard hitting because I think people should be on the floor to have a right to respond to whatever we say. I do think that the concern that I have, at least about some of what is in this rescissions package which is cuts in this year's budgets, much less some of the proposals in the future, vis-a-vis some of the block grant, is not flexibility. That is not the concern I have. The concern I have is that in real dollar terms, when we look at some of the proposed cuts, I really think that the effect of those cuts on too many citizens, and I will start with children, is too much in the negative. Again, whether it is the insurance companies and their premiums, that somehow that is not on the table when we talk about how to contain health care costs, but we want to target Medicare or Medicaid, same thing here. Whether it is school lunch or school breakfast or whether it is WIC, or whether it is just the child care block grants programs right now, all that is on the table, clear proposed cuts; but on the other hand, subsidies for oil companies or coal companies or tobacco companies or insurance companies are not on the table. I think there has to be some standard of fairness, Mr. President. I think that is what people in Minnesota and the country are interested in. I think everyone is aware we have to get our fiscal house in order, although I think there are different views about how to do that. I think we have to have balance. There has not been an effort on the floor of the Senate on my part, and I do not think on the part of Democrats, to slow anything up. I wanted a vote on the amendment I introduced yesterday. I will go back to that and end on this. I wanted a vote on the amendment I introduced yesterday morning, which was a long time ago. I did not choose to second-degree that amendment. That was not my amendment on Jordan and financial aid to Jordan. That was the majority leader, the Republican Party. That is his choice--skillful legislator-- he did so. Ever since, we have essentially been tied into a knot. That is really the story of the last 24 hours in the Senate. I look forward to when we get back to this debate. I hope that we can have some good debate on this rescissions package. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the majority leader--and I thank him for his graciousness--I would need no more than 3 or 4 minutes, just a brief comment in response to where we are, without the Senator losing his right to the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes would be fine. Does the Senator from Connecticut want any time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, just so my colleagues understand and the majority leader understands, I understand that Senators have a right to second- degree amendments and I am pleased for us to have this debate, and there will be a vote. But I will bring this amendment back to the floor after the vote on the second-degree amendment. I do not understand why my colleagues have any fear of an up-or-down vote on this amendment. I say to you, Mr. President, it is very relevant and timely. We are talking about the WIC Program. We are talking about nutrition programs. At the same time, we see the power of the food industry. We do not have competitive bidding on infant formula which would save money, money that could be used to feed more children. We are talking about an effort to strip away, I fear, some nutrition standards. We are talking about an effort to move in by the junk food market. And so my amendment is hardly, Mr. President, for show. It is very serious. It reads: It is the sense of the Senate that before the Senate is required to vote on the question of whether the WIC Program and other nutrition programs should be converted to block grant programs to be administered by the States, a full and complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national policy is the result of the improper influence of the food industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's behalf. Mr. President, this is not filibuster. I am quite willing to agree to a time limit. I just want an up-or-down vote on this amendment. Here we have these proposed cuts in nutrition programs, talking about block-granting, and, in addition, unfortunately, we have evidence of an industry and lobbyists having, I think, too much influence in developing some of this legislation as it moves along in the Congress. I am just simply saying: What happened to competitive bidding? What about nutrition standards for children? We should investigate before we move forward. I think the operative language is to investigate ``to what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national policy as the result of the improper influence of the food industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's behalf.'' Mr. President we ought to have an up-or-down vote. So I say to the majority leader, I understand the second-degree amendment. We will have that debate. But then I will come back with this amendment, and we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. And I will keep bringing this amendment to the floor until we do have that up-or-down vote. Mr. President, this amendment is germane to the debate of rescissions and cuts in nutrition programs. It is relevant to the debate about whether we go in the direction of block grants. It is very relevant to what is happening in the 104th Congress. I think the Senate sends a very positive message to the people of the country that we certainly want to make sure that the final nutrition legislation that we pass, I say to my colleague from Connecticut, has, first and foremost, the interests of children, not the interests of the food industry. That is what this amendment speaks to. Nobody should be afraid of this amendment. Everybody should want to vote for it up or down, and I would assume that we would have 100 votes in favor of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Not at all.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader yield for a brief comment, without his losing the floor--just a very brief comment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would simply say-- --

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is under a section titled ``Profit and Ideology,'' and I will have to be careful to make sure I leave out all names. The bill as the Republicans had drafted it left out any requirement that States use competitive bidding procedures when buying infant formula from the major companies supplying the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)--a nutritional program assisting 7 million people that had an effective record combating infant mortality and premature births. In the early days of the WIC program, infant formula was bought at market prices. Since the Federal Government began requiring competitive bidding 6 years ago, the prices had dropped dramatically, saving more than $1 billion last year alone and nearly $4 billion over the last 5 years. All of those savings were put back into the program, meaning that more needy infants and pregnant women could be served. ``When he noticed that competitive bidding had been left out of the Republican bill this year,'' and there is a blank, a colleague ``assumed that it was an unintentional omission, so he drafted an amendment restoring it. He took the amendment * * *'' and hoped that it would be accepted quickly, but that did not happen. Nothing was worked out. The philosophical commitment to not have competitive bidding --and I am now just kind of paraphrasing here, not using names--coincided with the desires of one of the major corporations, Gerber Products. This is a company which is the Nation's largest manufacturer of baby foods and is WIC's leading supplier of infant formulas. Unlike in the infant formula field, competitive bidding is not required of infant cereal suppliers, but the Government seemed to be moving in that direction and Gerber wanted to maintain the status quo. The company lobbied hard against competitive bidding requirements in the infant cereal industry, and was successful. Part 1. So you have Gerber and the whole question of whether there is going to be competitive bidding. I thought we were trying to be efficient, which would save money that can be plowed back into serving the poorest children in America. But apparently that did not happen, and I will have the amendment read again so my colleagues will know what we will have an up-or-down vote on. Then, part 2: The cereal giant from Battle Creek has fought for years to modify a federal limit on sugar content that excludes Raisin Bran, one of its top-selling products, from the nutrition program for needy pregnant women and their young children. Purchased separately, raisins and bran both fall within the sugar standard, but combined in Raisin Bran they represent twice the amount that government nutritionists consider healthy in a single serving. Until the Republican revolution in Washington, Kellogg's efforts to revise the standard and compete in the $285 million-a-year market for WIC adult cereals had proved futile--``like hitting a brick wall,'' in the words of company vice president. This year Kellogg saw an opportunity to accomplish on the state level what it could not do with the federal government. The firm employed-- Someone who did the effective lobbying, and the whole effort was, . . . to keep the block grants silent on the question of nutritional standards. The final part. So now we are talking about Kellogg and sugar content. The return of nutrition programs to the states would lift federal controls on the lunchtime sale of junk food in school cafeterias--a prospect that several corporate food giants are already anticipating. Coca-Cola Co., which last year fought off a legislative effort to extend the junk food ban to all high school grounds, is now showing signs of interest. Last month, as the devolution legislation was moving through the House, the company's law librarian called the national association of school cafeteria personnel for a breakdown of state laws on soft drink sales in schools. * * * * * ``If ever there was a case of narrow corporate interests over broad societal interests, this is it,'' said Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So, Mr. President, we have Gerber lobbying against competitive bidding on baby food. I thought we were interested in competitive bidding, efficiency. But no, there is no competitive bidding. Then we have Kellogg: We do not want any standards on sugar content having to do with what our children are eating, though there is not a nutritionist in the United States of America who would not tell you that is important. Then finally you have Coca-Cola eying junk food. Mr. President, let me simply read this amendment again to the underlying bill, I certainly hope and I plan to have an up-or-down vote on this. It is the Sense of the Senate that before the Senate is required to vote on the question of whether the WIC program and other nutrition programs should be converted to block grant programs to be administered by the states, a full and complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national policy is the result of the improper influence of the food industry and lobbyist acting on the industry's behalf. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and speak on this amendment because I was talking about distorted priorities earlier, and that was in the context of some the rescissions in the Dole substitute on top of what is already before us. I was arguing why the path of least resistance? Why is everybody so excited about star wars in space but unwilling to invest resources to feed children right here on Earth? Now we have a different kind of priority. We have a situation where you have your big lobbyists, large corporations, well represented: We do not want competitive bids on formula, although competitive bids held the price down and would enable us to feed more hungry children. We do not want to have any standards in relation to sugar content, or worrying about that, so we try to make sure the Federal Government does not set any kind of standards here. Then of course you have these companies eyeing the junk food market in our School Lunch Program. All Do you know what, Mr. President? I did not see mentioned anywhere in this lengthy piece in the Washington Post today of any of the women and men who are involved in these nutrition programs, who devote their lives to serving children--their voice, apparently, was not heard at all. Mr. President, I did not in this article read a word about any of the child advocates or, for that matter, any children who figured into this discussion at all. But, instead, what we have here is, unfortunately, an example of the tremendous influence of the food industry and lobbyists acting on behalf of the food industry on legislation, while children, those concerned with the needs of children, with the concerns and circumstances of children's lives, are left out of the loop. That is the ``why'' of this amendment. I ask the clerk to read this amendment one more time, if I could.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is an article by Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss, and it deals with our nutrition programs. I refer my colleagues to this article. It appears in today's Washington Post, and I would just like to read from excerpts that I think will give my colleagues the background for this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That would be in order. Let me, then, give my colleagues a little background for the ``why'' of this amendment. I refer to a piece today in the Washington Post that I believe is one of the best investigative pieces I have seen in a good many years. I speak as a political scientist. Mr. President, would it be in order for me to insert this article in the Record?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just so I can be clear on the ruling, if I were to read from an article and without using the names of any Members--would that be in order?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to ask the Chair, would it be in order to read excerpts from a newspaper article which refers to the other body and to Members of the other body?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia for his remarks and, in particular, I want to pick up on one point that he made which has to do with the investment deficit. I really do believe the Senator from West Virginia is correct, that sometimes, unless you invest, decline begets decline. I think it is myopic and shortsighted not to make an investment in education and children and in our infrastructure. Sometimes you make an investment in the short run and are much better off in the long run. I think that is what my colleague from West Virginia is really trying to say today. Mr. President, first of all, let me just simply take issue with the majority leader's substitute which is now before us and then talk a little bit about some The Dole substitute, as I understand it, contains all of the rescissions in the committee bill--in education, Head Start, in WIC, in child care. I want to talk about some of those rescissions. But above and beyond those rescissions, there are yet others. I would like to highlight a couple of areas where I do take very serious exception. I visited in Appleton, MN--southwest Minnesota--with Pioneer Public Television. I can assure you that Pioneer Public Television is not a sandbox for the rich. I can tell you that the people in greater Minnesota, in rural Minnesota, are very connected to Pioneer Public TV, and they are connected to public television, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they appreciate the focus on children's programming. I have to say to the Chair, whom I know has a strong and sincere concern about children, that as I look at what is on commercial TV in the name of children's programming, with precious few exceptions, I do not find anything there very positive and enriching. Public television has done a truly magnificent job of presenting those of us who are parents and grandparents with some wonderful children's programming. Second of all, Pioneer Public Television in southwest Minnesota is a real tool for education and empowerment for people in the community. It broadcasts programs that provide people with the kind of information that we encourage citizens to have to be more fully involved in their communities on the economic, political, and cultural issues. So I find the additional cuts proposed in this substitute for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be egregious. I also have to say KTCA channel 2--and also channel 17--in Minnesota has really been a flagship public television. Public television provides some superb public affairs programming. I do think people yearn for something more than the 10-second sound bites. I think they really do yearn for some substantive and thoughtful discussion of public issues. The effort to attack part of the cultural institution in this country, namely, public television or public radio, is a huge mistake. It takes us backwards. I am concerned about other proposed cuts as well. I heard some of my colleagues talk about AmeriCorps last night, so I will not, except to say that I was lucky enough to be at the founding gathering of AmeriCorps for the volunteers in Minnesota. I think there must have been about 300 young people. It was truly inspiring--the diversity of the young men and women that were there, the idealism, and their commitment to community. This is a program which encourages the very best ideals of this country, serving community, and providing young people, many of whom were from backgrounds that would not have enabled them to afford higher education, with some financial assistance to do so. Mr. President, there is a strong record of service to community already in this AmeriCorps program. I find it difficult to understand the effort to attack such a program. I find it difficult to understand why some of my colleagues spend so much time attacking a program which has barely begun which, calls upon young people, to be their own best selves. I think people yearn for models of community involvement. I think people yearn for alternatives to cynicism, and I think the AmeriCorps is an alternative to cynicism. Again, I find the Dole substitute very troubling on this count. Finally, there may be discussion of this section of the amendment later, but I am concerned about cuts to legal services. I have done a lot of work with low- and moderate-income people over the years, with many citizens in Minnesota. Whether or not it is protection vis-a-vis their rights as tenants or consumers--or on other issues--the Legal Services Program is the way in which we make sure our civil legal system is open and serves all citizens, regardless of income. It is a program that has never operated on a very large budget. This program provides dedicated legal services lawyers who do not make much money, but who make sure that those citizens who do not have the economic means to purchase or to have good legal representation are able to receive it. It has strong backing from the bar association in Minnesota; strong backing from the bar association nationally. Instead, we should be making cuts in programs like star wars, or programs that have to do with a variety of different tax dodges and loopholes and deductions which go to people who, in fact, do not need representation. But this focus on legal services makes very little sense. Mr. President, let me now turn to the initial rescission bill that we have in the Senate. I, first of all, would like to congratulate my colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, because I think that some of the work that he has done is extremely important. I fully appreciate his commitment and certainly his ability as a Senator. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a few programs where there are slated cuts in this rescission package which are simply a profound mistake for the country. I start out with the call for $35 million to be removed from the WIC Program. That is for this year, fiscal year 1995. This was a program that was authorized in the Congress in 1972 under the leadership of such able Senators as Senator Robert Dole, now the majority leader, and Senator Hubert Humphrey. I have said it on the floor before: Senator Humphrey's framework is a legacy that is very important to me. And the late Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota said that the test of a government and the test of a society is how we treat people in the dawn of life, our children; how we treat people in the twilight of their lives, the elderly; and how we treat people who are in the shadow of their lives, those that are sick, disabled, and needy. I think that is a pretty powerful framework for examining our actions. Mr. President, the WIC Program has been astonishingly successful. It works. The Women, Infants; and Children Program is an investment we make to make sure that women, while pregnant, receive adequate nutrition and newborn infants also receive adequate nutrition. Mr. President, I have had an amendment on the floor of the Senate over and over again, which was finally accepted a few days ago, that we would not take any action that would increase hunger and homelessness among children. It strikes me that proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, and Children Program, which has been a huge success, which decreases the number of low-birth-weight babies and the chances of infant mortality, goes precisely in the opposite direction. Mr. President, according to a GAO report, the Women, Infants, and Children Program averted 13,755 very low-weight births in 1990. Assuming that all the funds would be used, if the $35 million--this is the rescission cut--is distributed evenly throughout all of the categories (women, infants, and children)--then 138 very low-birth- weight babies will not be averted because of this rescission cut. Mr. President, the problem is that low birth weight greatly increases the chance of infant mortality and, in addition, a variety of different conditions, from high rates of cerebral palsy, mental retardation, serious congenital anomalies, and so forth. Let me just ask the question, if we go on record saying we will not take any action that will increase hunger or homelessness among children--and the Senate is now on record--why do we have proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, and Children Program when we know that the WIC Program speaks precisely to this problem in the Nation? Again, if you want to make sure that a child, at birth, has the same chance as every other child, the one thing you certainly do not want to do is cut into a program that makes sure that that expectant mother has a diet rich in minerals and protein. You want to make sure that you do not have rescissions in programs that will lead to more severely low-birth- weight infants, with the possibility of greater infant mortality as well a whole set of huge medical problems for those children. This is a program that reaches down to the poorest of the poor. This is a program that provides invaluable nutritional assistance for expectant women, children, and newborn infants. Mr. against the very best of what we are about in this Nation. In my home State of Minnesota, in 1993, over 3,000 people were on the waiting list for WIC benefits. Mr. President, we have all heard the statistics before. You invest $1 in WIC and you save yourselves $3 that you would be paying over the first 18 years in additional medical assistance. So we have waiting lists, we have children in need, women and children. I believe the WIC Program right now only serves about 60 percent of those that are eligible for such assistance. Yet in the initial rescission package we have cuts in the WIC Program. Mr. President, this debate really is about priorities. I simply have to argue that what we see in this package, in the Dole substitute, with cuts on top of cuts, is very distorted priorities. Yesterday, Senator Kennedy was on the floor talking about this expatriate tax dodge and I joined in. We were talking about a tax dodge that goes to individuals or families with, roughly speaking, over $5 million of net worth. We were talking of revenue losses to the tune of several billion dollars over the next 5 years. At the same time we have that kind of tax dodge, at the same time we are talking about spending more money on star wars, at the same time we continue to talk about more money for military weapons, in preparation for war with the Soviet Union which no longer exists, weapons which are not essential to our having a strong defense, we have all of these loopholes and deductions. Yet when we look to where the deficit reduction is going to come from, all of the tax dodges, and loopholes and star wars weapons are left untouched, because in this rescission package, we are talking about cutting into the WIC Program. I believe there is a contradiction between the Senate going on record that we will not do anything to increase more hunger or homelessness among children and talking about cuts in the WIC Program. Mr. President, I want to focus on one other rescission and then I will yield the floor. There are many I could talk about. But I would like to talk about the rescission package which includes an $8.4 million cut in the child care development block grant. Yet again, Mr. President, we have children bearing the brunt of a budget cut. This cut is painful to participants in a program with long waiting lists. No accusations of mismanagement. This is a program which subsidizes child care for the working poor. This child care increases the ability of low-income families to become or remain independent and to assure minimal uniform health and safety standards in the child care settings these children are in. Mr. President, it makes no sense to have cuts in a child care program. Cutting child care will hurt children. Mr. President, if parents cannot afford quality child care and we are talking about low- and moderate-income families, many of them hard-working families who are trying to, on the one hand, work and also afford child care, if they cannot afford quality child care, then we know what happens. Either you have very haphazard arrangements, because parents have no other choice, in which case, all too often their children may be placed in dangerous situations. Some reports have come out which should be extremely upsetting to all of us, which have pointed out that the conditions of child care, both home based and center based, in this country are all too often very dangerous, really quite deplorable. It is not a good picture. So if you are going to make it impossible for families to afford child care, either the children become latchkey children and nobody is taking care of them because they are home alone, or they are going to be receiving child care; but it will not live up to the standards that all of us would apply to our own and any other children. Mr. President, I do not think there is one Senator, Democrat or Republican, here in this Chamber who would desire for his or her child or grandchild anything less than good developmental child care. To have these cuts in child care programs when there are long waiting lists in the State, when it is a program that works well, when it is the key to independence is shortsighted. I will tell you right now it is also the key to welfare reform. I think it is a huge mistake. I would say to my colleagues, if we do not invest in children when they are young, if we do not provide a nurturing environment, if those children are not given encouragement, if those children are just receiving custodial care, if those children are in arrangements that sometimes are dangerous, then we have not served the children of this country well. Now, Mr. President, understand that we have a whole decade plus of history of abandonment of children in this country, if we just look at the state of children in America. We have been trying, slowly but surely, within tight budgets to invest a little bit more by way of resources in decent child care. Now we have these proposed cuts. Mr. President, Florida has about 19,000 on its working poor waiting list. Minnesota has a waiting list of 7,000. The State of Washington, 3,000. In Minneapolis alone, there is a waiting list of 2,100 families. In rural Minnesota, in proportion to need, there is even a greater waiting list. So, Mr. President, I believe that these cuts--and it is why indeed I support the Daschle amendment--are unacceptable. They are unacceptable. Once again, who pays the price? Children do. Why are we targeting children? Why are we making cuts in an affordable child care program, which already is severely underfunded, which we know will have the predicted results of: First, parents not being able to provide their children with decent child care; and second, families not being able to become independent. As a matter of fact, quite often what happens with welfare families, if we are talking about welfare families, but when we talk about child care, we are also talking about working families, as well--in the case of welfare families, about 75 percent of welfare mothers within 2 years, right now, go to work, but many of them go back to welfare. There are several reasons for that. One of those reasons is that, in the absence of affordable child care, and then quite often losing their health care coverage, their families are worse off by the mothers going to work. We cannot have welfare reform unless there is affordable child care. We cannot expect families to become more independent unless we have affordable child care. Here we have a proposed cut, Mr. President, which is an $8.4 million cut in the child care development block grants. Mr. President, I just do not understand. It seems to me that we would want to spend a lot less money on star wars in space, and we would want to spend a little more money taking care of our children right here on Earth. In that sense, I find this to be a distorted priority. I think the Daschle amendment is hugely important. For that reason, I support it. I think the Dole substitute, which is, as I said, in addition to all the rescissions that were in the committee bill in education--and I have not talked about some of the chapter I cuts; I have not talked about the Safe Schools Program, as well, in child care, in Head Start, in WIC, in addition to even more cuts--strikes me as being harsh, strikes me as being a distorted priority. Mr. President, this leads me to my last point. What we are doing here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in this rescissions package made far worse with the Dole substitute, is looking at this year's budget, but unfortunately this is exactly what some of my colleagues intend to do as they budget this out over the next several years: We are going to make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance. I have said this over and over again. That is why I brought this amendment out on children. I could see it happening. We are going to make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance. We are going to avoid the heavy hitters. That is why so far there has not been any discussion of reductions in subsidies for oil companies, or subsidies for tobacco companies or coal companies or pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies, and on and on and on. They are not asked to tighten their belts. When it comes to child care; the Women, Infants, and Children Program; education; Head Start, we are more than willing to move forward with cuts in programs that already do not even serve nearly as many children chances that we all want for our children. Mr. President, in this context of who has the power and who does not, in this context of who decides who benefits and who is asked to sacrifice, I do not see a standard of fairness operative here. Amendment No. 450