Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 4 minutes is not a lot of time, but let me just rise to support the powerful words of my colleague from Massachusetts. We are talking about capital gains over $600,000, that is the only real tax we are talking about. And we are talking about expatriates with incomes over $5 million. We are just simply saying that if you are going to be making these gains over $600,000 a year and you are going to renounce your citizenship as a tax dodge, then, in fact, you are going to have to pay above and beyond that $600,000. It just seems to me that that does meet some standard of fairness, and my colleague has pointed out the juxtaposition of these proposed cuts in drug-free schools, the Women, Infants, and Children Program, the Head Start Program, Child Care Program. Mr. President, I have been on the floor over and over and over again with an amendment that speaks to the concerns and circumstances of children's lives. If we are going to be talking about cuts that dramatically affect the quality of life for children in America, quite often the most vulnerable citizens, and at the same time we are going to be talking about trying to let this kind of tax dodge go through, I just think that people in the country ought to understand what, in fact, really is going on. I do not think anybody intended to filibuster. None of us did. So it will be an overwhelming cloture vote. I do not think there is any question about that. But I do think that a little bit of sunshine is important, and I do think people in the country do need to understand the significance of what the Senator from Massachusetts has had to say. I think the significance of it--and we will have time this week as we get into what I think is a real important debate for the country--has to do with priorities. What in the world are we doing enabling people to have this huge tax dodge that really runs up into the billions of dollars for people who make over $5 million and, at the same time that we have this tax dodge going on, we are willing to be so generous with all too often the suffering of children in this country. That seems a little bit like just a speech on the floor. I probably have less than 20 seconds now, but we are going to have a debate on all of these programs. When the language, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, is programs, it seems abstract. But we are going to talk about what all this means in personal terms, in human terms to our communities, working families, and children. That will be the debate that we will get to. I look forward to that debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the order of business?

Mr. WELLSTONE. And at 12 noon, Mr. President?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Cloture vote is under the order at 12 noon. Mr. President, so we have how much more time?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could ask the Senator to yield, and I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey might want to respond as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know there are other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak on this, and we have had some prior discussion with the Senator from Arizona. I think we have an agreement on how to proceed. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with the Senator from Arizona. Let me just make a couple of points. The first point is that I think that sometimes the profound mistake we make on the floor of the Senate is that there just are no people and no faces behind the statistics. I met at home with Alida Larson, and there were a number of other low- income citizens from Minnesota--understand full well, Minnesota is a cold-weather State--and each of them told their stories. In my State of Minnesota, there are around 330,000 low-income people who really depend upon this small amount of support averaging about $330 a year which for them quite often can be the difference between being able to stay in their home or not. Mr. President, 110,000 households, 30 percent of which the head of household is elderly, 40 percent of which households have a child, over 50 percent of which have someone working but working at low wages, 40 percent of whom after a year no longer receive this. In the State of Minnesota, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is not an income supplement. It is a survival supplement. For many, many families without this assistance, it is the choice between heat or eat. My colleague says, ``Well, the cost of energy has gone down.'' I say to my colleague, we have seen a dramatic increase in poverty in the United States of America. We are talking about elderly people, we are talking about families with wage earners but low wages, we are talking about children. And in the State of Minnesota, there is tremendous support for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--tremendous support. I think that my colleague will find that Senators from the Northeast and Midwest, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, feel very strongly about this. Mr. President, finally, because I am going to stay within 5 minutes or less, as to the choices that we need to make, yes, let us move forward on deficit reduction and, yes, let us move forward to balancing the budget.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually would be willing to except that I only have about 2 minutes before I have to literally leave the Chamber, but I will go ahead real quick.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague came in, I made it clear I was going to stay within 5 minutes or so because I know there are other colleagues who wish to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. Mr. President, by way of conclusion, if we are going to be talking about cuts, look to subsidies for oil companies, look to subsidies for pharmaceutical companies, look to all sorts of deductions and loopholes and dodges that affect large corporations and large financial institutions in America. For God's sake, Mr. President, let us not cut a program that for many, many Americans in the cold-weather States is not an income supplement but a survival supplement. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oregon that I appreciate his remarks. Let me make a couple of points. I am fully aware of the fine work he has done. Let me tell you, I also had dramatic meetings with people back in Minnesota who were terrified about the zeroing out of LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. They, and I, are very appreciative for what the Senator has done. I appreciate some of the fine work he has done. That is why I am actually referencing this amendment based upon what was done in the House of Representatives last week. any number of different vehicles because I fear the worst is yet to come, and I am trying to get us, the U.S. Senate, to provide some reassurance to the Nation by going on record that we do not intend to take action that will create more hunger and homelessness. This is not meant to be a direct critique or criticism of this rescissions package.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe it was 20 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I will also say to my colleague, there will be, as we go along this week, maybe this week, some alternatives and discussion about some of the specific rescissions. But this amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, is an amendment to which I am very committed. I am taking a look at what has happened in the House of Representatives. I believe that really all eyes of the Nation are on the U.S. Senate. I think it is our responsibility to make sure that what we do as we move toward deficit reduction, as we move toward the goal of balancing the budget, though I have always argued that 2002 is an unrealistic date. I have never heard anybody, especially once you take Social Security and put it aside, talk about how you really could take $1.7 trillion out of this economy over 6 or 7 years without an enormous contraction and without inflicting widespread pain across a broad section of the population. But I believe in the goal of balancing the budget. I certainly think we have to do better on deficit reduction. But what I am saying today, I say to my colleague from Oregon--a Senator I admire and respect and whose vote I hope to get on this--as I look at what is happening in the House of Representatives, as I analyze where these cuts are taking place, I see a tremendous amount of meanness and harshness, and there is tremendous concern in the country. So when I read the Children's Defense Fund report, No. 1, about the state of children, when I see Minnesota children at risk, when I have come to know my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, and believe that is not what we are about but it is, in fact, worsening the situation of children in America, when I then see some of the action that has taken place in the House of Representatives and I look at the economic analysis of that action, I realize full well that if there ever was a time that people in the United States of America are looking to the U.S. Senate for balance, it is now. If there was ever a time that people in the United States of America are looking to the U.S. Senate to make sure the Congress does not go too far, it is now. If there ever was a time that people in the United States of America are looking for some reassurance that, in the name of deficit reduction, in the name of reducing debt for our children today, who will be adults in the future, we do not savage children now, it is now. That is the why of this amendment. I say to my colleague that as I look at the proposed cuts coming out of the House of Representatives, I ask the basic question, which is a question near and dear to people in this country, and it has to do with fairness. I said this the other day. There is a budget deficit, but there now is a spiritual deficit. Who decided that we were going to cut into nutrition programs for children but we are not going to cut subsidies for oil companies? Who decided that we were going to eliminate benefits or dramatically reduce benefits for disabled children? I am now meeting with their families from Minnesota, and they are terrified. I do not want anybody in the Senate to say I have tried to frighten people. People are calling me and people are terrified on the basis of what they read. Who decided to cut into support for disabled children in this country but not to cut subsidies for pharmaceutical companies? Who decided to cut into educational programs for children but not to cut into subsidies for coal companies? I will say it one more time, some people are very generous with the suffering of others. So I say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, this is the fifth time that I have brought this sense-of- the-Senate amendment to the floor. When I brought this amendment to the floor at the beginning of the Congress, there were colleagues who said this is just symbolic. Each time I have brought this amendment to the floor of the Senate, I have referred to the House of Representatives. This does not directly reference the work of the Senator from Oregon in this rescissions bill. I have some concerns about some of the housing cuts, to be sure. But I understand the job that you have done, and I respect what you have done. But this is an amendment that fits in with what is going on in this Congress. I say to my colleagues, my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Mississippi, both of whom I respect, that I really believe that people are looking to us for balance. People are really looking to the U.S. Senate to make sure we do not go too far. People are really looking to the U.S. Senate to make sure that this does not become a mean season on children. People are looking for reassurance. I have tried to get a majority vote. I made a promise to myself, I made a promise to my colleagues, I made a promise to children's advocates, I made a promise to children that I will keep bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate to have votes. I will conclude by reading this one more time: It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. I do not know why we cannot support that. The last time, Mr. President, there were a number of my colleagues from the other side who supported this amendment. It is my fervent hope that today I can get a majority vote. I think it would be a wonderful message. I think it would be reassuring to people in the country. I have no ``hidden agenda.'' I just feel strongly about what these statistics mean in personal terms. I just feel strongly that part of what we are doing in this Congress is going in the wrong direction. I just feel strongly that if there is going to be deficit reduction and we are going to move toward balancing the budget, we ought not go the path of least political resistance. You have been a leader, I say this to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, on these issues. This is no lecture aimed at you. You are somebody who I look up to. But my concern is that what is going to happen, Mr. President, is that when it gets down to where these cuts take place, we are going to go the path of least political resistance. That is to say, all too often the cuts are going to be aimed disproportionately at those citizens who are least able to tighten their belts. But the reason they are going to be aimed disproportionately at citizens least able to tighten their belts, starting with children--I can also include the elderly and also include other citizens--is because they do not have the political clout. They are not considered to be the heavy hitters. They are not considered to be the players. They are not the big campaign contributors. They are all too often invisible. They are all too often faceless. They are all too often voiceless. But there is a lot of goodness in this country, and there is a lot of goodness in this Chamber. I think that if the U.S. Senate goes on record just supporting the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I have offered today, it will be a positive, unifying vote for this Nation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, actually, what I would like to do is I would like to get to this vote. But first I would like to 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. President, I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee. I have been at this a long time with this amendment, and I am very, very pleased with this result.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President; and I thank the clerk for reading the amendment. It is very simple and straightforward. floor, I believe we have had four votes, and this will be the fifth vote. The last vote, I believe, received 47 or 48 votes for the amendment. This is my effort to just make a personal, from-the-heart appeal to my colleagues. I want to give it context. I do not think I will need more than 20 minutes because I have spoken about this amendment before, except for the fact that I think I can bring it up to date with some more evidence which is based upon what has happened in the House of Representatives, which is why I believe people in the country are looking for the U.S. Senate to really go on record to give them some assurance about what we are going to do and not do here. Again, this amendment says: It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber, please?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Amendment No. 422 to Amendment No. 420

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, yesterday, the Children's Defense Fund issued their annual report, ``The State of America's Children Yearbook, 1995.'' And, by the way, I say to my colleagues, there is a quote on the front of this report that captures the spirit of this amendment. Dear Lord, be good to me. The sea is so wide and my boat is so small. Mr. President, yesterday I went over these statistics. In my State of Minnesota, Minnesota's children at risk, 1989 to 1991, 60,615 children lacked health insurance. There were 27,462 reported cases of child abuse and neglect, 1992; 116 young men died by violence, 1991; 48 children were killed by guns, 1992; only 71.4 percent of 2-year-olds were fully immunized, 1990: 35 percent of the fourth grade public school students lacked basic reading proficiency, 1992. Mr. President, I am absolutely convinced that the ultimate indictment of what we have been doing during the decade of the 1980's and, on present course, part of the decade of the 1990's, is the ways in which we have abandoned children in this Nation, not invested in children, and devalued the work of adults that work with children. In this report, ``The State of America's Children Yearbook, 1995,'' some key facts on hunger speak directly to this amendment. The U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 30 cities found that emergency food requests from families with children increased by an average of 14 percent between 1993 and 1994. Emergency food requests from families with children increased by an average of 14 percent between 1993 and 1994. A record level of 14.2 million children received food stamp benefits in 1993, up 51 percent from 1989. Please remember, Mr. President, we are now moving toward about one out of every four children being poor in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty in our country, and one out of every two children of color are poor in the United States of America. The Women, Infants, and Children Programs provided nutrition assistance to 6.5 million women, infants, and children in 1994, only 65 percent of those who are eligible. Here we have a program, Mr. President, if we are going to talk about hunger and malnutrition, that makes sure that women who are expecting children have a good diet. It is a program that makes sure that children at birth, infants, have adequate nutrition, and only 65 percent of the women and children who are eligible are receiving this assistance right now. That is why I want the U.S. Senate to go on record that surely we will not take any action that will increase the number of hungry or homelessness among children in America. At least 2.1 million children were served by the Summer Food Service Program in 1994, less than 9 percent of those who participated in the School Lunch Program. Mr. President, on homelessness, one in four people reported as homeless is a child younger than 18. One in four people reported as homeless is a child younger than 18. Nearly half of poor households pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. An estimated 1.2 million families are on waiting lists for public housing and claims of discrimination against families with children account for 23 percent of all housing discrimination complaints. I bring this amendment to the floor of the Senate for the fifth time with a sense of history in the making right now. Mr. President, I want to give it in context. Last week in the House of Representatives--and let me just read, if I may, from some major newspaper stories about what was done in the House of Representatives in the name of welfare reform. The Washington Post, Saturday, March 25, 1995. Introduction: ``It was, perhaps, an unfortunate choice of images.'' Representative--I will not use his name on the floor of the Senate--from Florida ``held up a sign on the House floor yesterday bearing the admonition `Don't Feed the Alligators'--wise advice in his State, he said, because ``if left in their natural state, alligators can take care of themselves.'' Welfare worked the same way, he explained, because ``unnatural feeding and artificial care create dependency. ``Now people are not alligators,'' he added, ``but I submit that with our current handout, nonwork welfare system we've upset the natural order.'' Mr. President, from the Philadelphia Inquirer, ``Debate in House Gets Emotional and Nasty.'' And here, right at the side bar, ``Those receiving welfare were likened to animals.'' Mr. President, let us be clear who we are talking about when we are talking about welfare families, the AFDC Program. We are talking about women and children--sometimes men, but in the main, single parents and children. Likening women and children to animals is pretty vicious. In fact, I think there is no place for it. But, Mr. President, this was the harsh rhetoric that led to some very frightening cuts. And I would again cite another source, authoritative source, lest anybody think this amendment is just symbolic. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this welfare reform bill would provide $2.3 billion less for the School Lunch Program than under current law. That would mean that 2 million children would lose their school lunch in the year 2000. For Minnesota alone, 7,280 children could lose their child care by the year 2000. By the way, I have met, I say to my colleague from Oregon, with child care providers. I had a very dramatic meeting, heartfelt testimony. They were saying to me, ``Senator, don't cut into this nutrition assistance because if we do not get that kind of funding, if we do not get that kind of funding, we are not going to be able to make sure these children have adequate nutrition.''

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from West Virginia whether I am in fact interrupting? I was going to take about 5 minutes, but if I am in the Senator's way--would it be all right, if I had 5 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, I actually do not know what I am going to say. I just heard about Judge Heflin's announcement. I do not have any prepared text. Maybe later on I can come out on the floor of deserves. But I would like to just say a couple of things from the heart and from the head. First of all, I knew about Judge Heflin before I came to the U.S. Senate, but I did not know him personally. That is the second part I want to get into in a moment, the personal part. But as to what I knew about Judge Heflin, I am Jewish but I would identify my baptism to politics being the civil rights movement. There were certain heroes and heroines in the South who had the courage to take on what was a system of apartheid. It was apartheid. There were some great, great, great men and women who had the courage to speak up for civil rights for all people. By the way, I think that what happened in the civil rights movement enriched our country. It made the United States of America a better country for all people; not just black people, but white people, people of all colors. Mr. President, Judge Heflin, Senator Howell Heflin, was one of those great heroes. He used his skills and has always used his skills as a lawyer to serve people and he served justice in the South and in our country. He lit a candle and he had the courage to speak out. The prophetic tradition of my faith is that to love God is to love justice. If that is the case, Judge Howell Heflin is truly a Senator, a judge, and an American who loves God. Mr. President, at a personal level, I just want to stand on the floor of the Senate and try to say: ``No. No. No. You cannot do this. I am opposed.'' I wish it was in my power, or I was able to have the persuasion to say to Judge Heflin: ``You cannot do this.'' I am going to miss him. He is somebody I look up to--not just because I am 5 foot 5\1/2\. He is somebody I look up to; somebody I believe in. He is the alternative to cynicism. He is hope. And he is honor. Judge, I am going to really miss you. Thank you for everything you have done for this country. I might cry, so I am leaving.