Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 5 minutes to speak before we adjourn.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield for one final question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator agree with me that some of the issues that he just highlighted tonight have a great deal to do with 60 years of history, and to an extent this agenda we see right now is an attempt to really turn the clock back in a way people of the United States of America, when they see it, will just not support? It is beyond the goodness of people. It is beyond what people are about in our country. Will the Senator agree that this really calls for, tomorrow, a full debate? This really calls for a day of real debate on this question? So it will be our hope that Senators will be out here and we will have a chance to go through these issues in great depth.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator, my colleague from Massachusetts, agree that actually tomorrow will be a very important day for the Senate and for the country, because we really will have a full opportunity to talk about the concerns and circumstances of working families? That this really will be an opportunity to talk about wages, to talk about jobs, talk about opportunities--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I look forward to that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. To talk about children, that is correct. To really talk about what is being attempted right now in the House of Representatives, and over here in the Senate, and to try to take all of this discussion about strategy--I really respect the way the Senator put it just a moment ago--all this talk of strategy and which buttons to push, to put it in personal terms: families, people's lives, opportunities. I think tomorrow will be a day--I ask the Senator--where we will take the opportunity to really spell out in great detail what the meaning of all this is.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I speak today in remembrance of 19-year-old Army Pvt. Tracie Joy McBride of Centerville, MN, who reportedly was abducted nearly 3 weeks ago from Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas and then murdered. Private McBride joined the Army last April because she wanted to serve her country. She had just finished basic training in California and had only been on the base in Texas for about 2 weeks for advanced intelligence training at the time of her death. Private McBride brought pride and dedication to her military service, and I want to take this occasion to recognize her honorable service to our country. Mr. President, as Private McBride is being laid to rest today in Fort Snelling National Cemetery in Minnesota, my wife Sheila and I extend our deepest sympathy to Private McBride's family and friends.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I quote from that article: The Republican jihad against the poor, the young and the helpless rolls on. So far no legislative assault has been too cruel, no budget cut too loathsome for the party that took control of Congress at the beginning of the year and has spent all its time since then stomping on the last dying embers of idealism and compassion in government. This week Republicans in the House began approving measures that would take food off the trays of hungry schoolchildren and out of the mouths of needy infants. With reckless disregard for the human toll that is sure to follow, they have also aimed their newly powerful budget-reducing weapons at programs that provide aid to handicapped youngsters, that support foster care and adoption, that fight drug abuse in schools and that provide summer jobs for needy youths. Mr. President, 1 day in the life of American children: 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children: 801 babies are born at low birthweight; by the way, to many women who never had any proper nutrition, and we now have proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, and Children Program. One day in the life of American children: 1,234 children run away from their homes. One day in the life of American children: 2,255 teenagers drop out of school each school day. One day in the life of American children: 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children: 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children: 100,000 children are homeless. One day in the life of American children: Three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children: 9 children are murdered; 13 children die from guns; 27 children--a classroomful--die from poverty; 63 babies die before they are 1 month old--63 babies die before they are 1 month old; and 101 babies die before their 1st birthday. Mr. President, it is just time for the U.S. Senate to go on record. Let me just make it clear again what this amendment does. This amendment on the paperwork reduction bill is just a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. We are not going to do anything that creates more hunger or homelessness among children. There is no excuse not to go on record. The U.S. Senate needs to take this position. Mr. President, a little bit more in context, I have a report: ``Unshared Sacrifice; The House of Representatives' Shameful Assault on America's Children,'' March 1995, the Children's Defense Fund, that I ask be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi, and I would just say I appreciate that. Rest assured, I will be out in the Chamber with other colleagues with this amendment and keep pushing this, and hopefully we will all do this together.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday, I had reserved time for another slot and had considered an amendment, which is the gift ban amendment, and again the connection I make over and over again today, it just strikes me as being more than ironic; I think it is unconscionable that, apparently, as I look at what the House of Representatives is doing right now, we are willing to cut free lunches for children but we are not willing to pass a gift ban that ends free lunches for Senators and Representatives. However, Mr. President, while I think there has to be action on this, I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and certainly the majority leader, who has gone on record in favor of this. So this amendment will be in the Chamber, though not today, and we will have a vote on it. I will not propose this amendment today. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Let me just be really clear about, first of all, what this vote is on. I do take exception to some of what my colleague had to say. But I am not even debating today whether or not some of what has been proposed in block grants will work better or not. I take what the Senator has said to be said in good faith. What this amendment says is the Senate goes on record that we will not enact or adopt any legislation which will increase the number of children hungry or homeless. So the Senator from Mississippi would agree with me on that. He has not proposed that we do make cuts that would increase hunger and homelessness. This does not cast judgment on any particular proposal. Given what is moving through and given some of the discussion, let us go on record that we are not going to do anything that would do that. I should think the Senator would agree. That is my first point. To vote for this means that Senators are willing to go on record saying certainly one thing that is important to us is not to increase any hunger or homelessness among children. That is all this says. That is point one. Point two--and I say this with some sense of sadness to my colleague--actually there is a considerable amount of empirical data about the cuts. I have before me a Department of Agriculture study, and actually there are many other studies that are now coming out about the cuts that are being proposed, cuts I say to my colleague, in child nutrition programs State by State. Alabama, school-age children, fiscal year 1996, $1,972,000; preschool children, $15,098,000; Mississippi-- but I will get to Minnesota so you do not think it is just Mississippi--$2,421,000 for school-age children and $14 million cuts for preschool children in nutrition programs. In my State of Minnesota, cuts of $1,627,000 for school-age children and $15,189,000 for preschool children. That is why I am worried about this, I say to my colleague from Mississippi. So, first, there is no one any longer who is really arguing we are not facing deep cuts that will have a harmful effect on children. But, even if I was to agree with what my colleague just said, that is not what this amendment is about. We should together vote for our disagreement about specific policies, one thing we are in agreement on is that the Senate as an institution certainly is not going to take any action that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not know how my colleagues can continue to vote against this. Finally, I would like to say this by way of an apology because I agree with my colleague from Mississippi about this. I think this is a powerful story, but in no way, shape or form did I intend to pick on Mississippi. I believe that one of the things we do over and over again is that we look everywhere but home. It is so easy for those of us in Pennsylvania or Minnesota to focus on Mississippi, and I fully understand the sentiment of my colleague from Mississippi. Unfortunately, Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I can point to children that are struggling in Minnesota. I am sure that the Presiding Officer can in Pennsylvania. The kind of issues that concern me are all across the United States of America, not just in the State of Mississippi, which, indeed, is a wonderful State. But this is a wonderful story because it puts faces, it puts real people, it puts real children behind all the statistics, and that is why I use this as an example. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I really hope I will have support from colleagues on this. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might just ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Can I ask the Senator before he moves to table if I could have a couple minutes to respond?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I do, and while my colleague is on the floor, I would like to get his attention just for a moment. I will be pleased to do so, and I understand the votes will all take place after our caucus meetings this afternoon. I have a lot of respect for the whip. I think we have a good friendship, agree or disagree, on all issues. But I want my colleague to know why I continue to bring this amendment to the floor. It certainly is not for ink because there has not been a lot of coverage for this amendment. I said at the beginning I was going to do it, and every day as I read the papers and hear what is happening on the House side, I realize that it is really going to be up to the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, in a careful nonpartisan way to take certain action that I think 90 percent of the people in the country want us to take. Part of that action is to certainly not, for example, cut nutrition programs for children. I refer the Senator from Mississippi to this article today regarding Fayette, MS, and there were some of the parents and some of the women who work at the cafeteria and teachers who work with children about the tremendous fear. The headline is ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat','' not ``Johnny Can't Read.'' Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi. The Senator may have been off the floor. It starts out with this quote. I find this quote to be, at a personal level--it moves me and really worries me. ``I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many of these children get their only meals right here at school. Lord, it'll be cruel to change that.'' And then there are some teachers, I say to my colleague from Mississippi. This is in Fayette, MS, and they say, ``Listen, these children just cannot learn, if they are not going to have at least one good meal a day, they can't learn, they can't do well in school.'' Mr. President, we all say we are for the children in America. As I have said on the floor before, I think that includes all God's children, not just our children, and that includes the children that are poor and, unfortunately, a sizable percentage of children in America are poor. I say to my colleague from Mississippi, if there is no further debate, I would be pleased to yield back the remainder of my time, but I am hoping that in the absence of debate today that finally the Senate is willing to go on record: It is the sense of 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 think there should be one Senator who should have a problem voting for this. I think it is time we go on record as an institution. If there is no debate, I take that silence as consent, and I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just read a couple of operative paragraphs. In a ``revolution'' that so far has spared just about everyone else, the House leadership and key committee majorities have targeted America's children for the earliest, broadest, and by far the deepest pain in budget cuts, program restructuring, and rescissions. In less than two weeks key committees and subcommittees have voted to cut $40 billion from crucial child survival programs, and to end the federal safety net for children and their families. This is a wholly unshared sacrifice: the House seems to be postponing for a later day, if ever, any contemplation of major cuts for other constituencies. Savings from savage cuts in program for needy and helpless children would be used to fund a new and unnecessary defense build-up; to pay for a capital gains tax cut of which 71 percent goes to the richest 1 percent of Americans; and to reduce a tax on the richest 13 percent of the elderly by $56 billion (over 10 years) when that tax goes to pay part of Medicare's cost. Mr. President, when I go to gatherings of senior citizens, they list children and their grandchildren right at the top of their concerns. We talk about their concerns about block granting congregate dining and Meals on Wheels, which older Americans made sure did not happen in the House. The first thing they say to me is, ``Senator, we also want to make sure that the school lunch program is not eliminated or cut back. We want to make sure that there are not cuts in childhood nutrition programs.'' Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that we do not have, in this Contract With America, we have not seen in any of these rescissions, we have not seen in any of the action on the House side, one word about oil company subsidies being cut, one word about coal company subsidies being cut, one word about pharmaceutical company subsidies being cut, one word about the privileged, about the powerful, about Pentagon contractors having to sacrifice at all. Instead, those citizens who are being asked to sacrifice and tighten their belts are the very citizens who cannot--the children in this country. I suggest today that there is a reason for that. They are the citizens who are not the heavy hitters. They are the citizens who are not the well connected. They are the citizens who do not have all the of political power. I do not think we should be making decisions on that basis. How interesting it is, Mr. President, that we are willing to cut free lunches for children, but we are not willing to ban gifts and cut free lunches for Senators and Representatives. Let me repeat that once again: How interesting it is that in the U.S. Congress, on the House side, there is a willingness to cut free lunches for hungry children, but no commitment to have a gift ban and end free lunches for Representatives and Senators. That small example tells a large story about what is going on here right now in the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, people voted for change. But it always begged the question, What kind of change? With these cuts in nutrition programs, now we have to have fear, in the schools of Ohio, Minnesota, Mississippi, and all across the land, not that Johnny cannot read, but that Johnny cannot eat. These cuts go beyond the goodness of people in this country. This is not what people voted for. And when we see the rescissions coming over, and some of these block grants and mean-spirited cutbacks in child nutrition programs, and mean-spirited cuts in other children's programs that will lead to more homeless, all I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to do today is to go on record with a mild sense-of- the-Senate resolution that we will not do anything that will increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Now, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues--because I have had this amendment on the floor over and over again--that I do not think they can hide any longer. First, at the beginning of the session, it was all about prerogative, not on the Congressional Accountability Act. I also heard about this type of rationale and even read in the New York Times Magazine about this the other day in relation to gift ban. No, we do not want to do that because we want to show that we are in control. Or we do not want to give a Senator ink. I did not think we made decisions on that basis, but the gift ban amendment was voted down. This amendment was voted down also. Then I brought it up again on unfunded mandates--it was voted down. Then I brought it up as just a motion to refer to the Budget Committee, not as an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Senator Hatch was on the floor, a Senator whom I deeply respect, and he said, ``Look, Senator Wellstone, I really think that this is based upon your opposition to the balanced budget amendment, and these amendments are not going to be amendments we will accept.'' Fine. But now we have a bill that is sailing through the Senate. There is tremendous support for it. I support it. And all I am doing, since this bill is out here, is asking for a sense of the Senate. We see the front page stories; we hear it on the radio; we see it on television. Sometimes, I think, Mr. President, if I had time, I would retrace the hunger tour that Senator Robert Kennedy took. I really would. I almost feel as though Senators need to see it themselves. All I am saying is, the writing is on the wall. We see where the deep cuts are. We see what its effects on children are going to be. Everybody agrees that these programs are harsh, that these programs will have a very serious impact on children, the most vulnerable of our citizens, the poor children of America. I am saying, because all eyes are on the Senate to put a stop to this, today is the day. Let Members go on record. We can do this on a nonpartisan basis. We should have Democrats and Republicans in a resounding vote go on record that we will not do anything to create more hunger or homelessness among children. Let Members agree on that. Let Members agree when it comes to deficit reduction, there will be a standard of fairness. Let Members agree we will represent children in America and we will represent them well. Let Members agree this is a part of the priorities of what we stand for. Let Members put to rest the fears that so many people have in this country that what is happening right now in the Congress is a juggernaut that is mean spirited, that will hurt so many children in the country. We, today, can go on record saying we are not going to do that. That is what I ask my colleagues to do. Mr. President, I do not really understand. One of the things that has been interesting to me is the silence on the other side of the aisle. We know rescissions are coming over here. We know the kind of cuts that have already taken place in committee and on the floor in the House of Representatives. So there is not one Senator who can look me in the eye and say any longer, ``Senator Wellstone, you're crying Chicken Little.'' That is what some of my colleagues had to say to me at the beginning of the session. But now the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible. We know the proposed cuts. We know what is coming over here. I do not think there is one Senator who can come out on the floor and say to me today ``You are wrong, we don't need to go on record with this statement, because no one will do this to children in America.'' The evidence is clear it is being done. Nor are there any excuses any longer about it being the beginning of the session or about it being the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is all very clear. One more time, Mr. President: 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. Is that too much to ask of my colleagues? Moments in America for children, a Children's Defense Fund study last year: Every 5 seconds of the school day a student drops out of public school; Every 30 seconds a baby is born into poverty; Every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had late or no prenatal care; Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime; Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; Every 2 hours a child is murdered; Every 4 hours a child commits suicide. Mr. President, we cannot savage children in America today. It is unconscionable, as I look at what the House of Representatives is doing right now, that we in the U.S. Congress seem to be willing to cut free lunches for poor children in America, but we have not yet passed a gift ban that would end free lunches for Representatives and Senators. Today I ask the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, to go on record, ``It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that would increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless.'' How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start out with a definition for my colleagues. The definition of hunger. This amendment talks about hunger among children. The mental and physical condition that comes from not eating enough food due to insufficient economic, family or community resources. Mr. President, the way in which this is measured would be if there was a ``yes'' on at least five of the following eight questions. Does your household ever run out of money to buy food to make a meal? Do you or other adult members of your household ever eat less than you feel you should because there is not enough money to buy food? Do you or other adult members of your household ever cut the size of meals or skip meals because there is not enough money for food? Do your children ever eat less than you feel they should because there is not enough money for food? Do you ever cut the size of your children's meals or do they ever skip meals because there is not enough money for food? Do your children ever say they are hungry because there is not enough food in the house? Do you ever rely on a limited number of foods to feed your children because you are running out of money to buy food for a meal? Do any of your children ever go to bed hungry because there is not enough money to buy food? Mr. President, the Food Research Action Council Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project, estimated in 1991 that there are 5.5 million children under 12 years of age who are hungry in the United States. Let me repeat that. There are 5.5 million children today, with existing programs of support, who are hungry in the United States of America. Mr. President, the U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in American Cities in 1994 found that 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. I could go on with other definitions and would be pleased to do so as we move forward with this amendment. Homelessness. The U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in American Cities estimated that 26 percent of the requests at the emergency shelters were for children, homeless children. In 1988, the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, estimated that there were 100,000 children who are homeless each day-- 100,000 children, Mr. President, homeless in the United States of America. Mr. President, on the very first day or the second day of this session, going back to the Congressional Accountability Act, I brought this amendment to the floor. I said that I feared that what was going to happen in the 104th Congress would go way beyond the goodness of people and that part of the safety net would be eviscerated, in particular, support for children in America. That was voted down. I could not get the Senate to go on record. Then, Mr. President, with the unfunded mandates bill, I came out and said, ``Why don't we at least do a child impact statement so we know what we are doing with these cuts, be they rescissions or proposed cuts in the budget and reconciliation bill?'' That was voted down. Then I brought a motion to refer which was a direction back to the Budget Committee as a part of the balanced budget amendment. At that time, I held up some headlines, and I said, ``I have been told by colleagues, `Senator Wellstone, there is no reason for you to come out here with scare tactics because we are not going to cut nutrition programs for children. We are not going to do anything that could lead to more hunger or homelessness among children.''' I came out here just last week with several headlines, one from February 23, ``House Panel Votes Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition and Housing.'' Another one, ``House Panel Moves to Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Fund.'' Mr. President, today, just by way of background, what is the headline in the Washington Post, Tuesday, March 7? It is a front-page story about a school in Fayette, MS. The headline is ``School Fearful That Johnny Can't Eat''--not ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Read'''-- ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat.''' The Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi. I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many of these children get their only meals right here at school. Lord, it'll be cruel to change that. That, Mr. President, is a front-page story from the Washington Post. Now we are moving to the point where we are not worried about whether ``Johnny can't read.'' We are worried about whether or not ``Johnny can't eat''--cuts in School Lunch Programs and School Breakfast Programs and Child Nutrition Programs. Mr. President, the same Washington Post piece, page A-4, headline: ``House Panel Votes to Curtail Program for Disabled Children.'' excuses here on the Senate side. Let me just give a little bit more context. Last week we had charts out on the importance of the debt and the annual budget deficits. I have brought some charts out about the importance of children in America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Bob Herbert, ``Inflicting Pain on Children,'' in a New York Times op-ed piece, Saturday, February 25.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, over the course of the last 3 weeks, we have heard many arguments for and against the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Those arguments were made in good faith, and I know they reflect a broad commitment by those on both sides of this question to bringing the deficit down to reasonable levels. But the balanced budget amendment is an empty promise, not a policy. It has little immediate political cost and very high poll ratings--hence its popularity. But enacting it would be a serious mistake. We should reject it in favor of a real, long-term deficit reduction program. Since 1936, when Minnesota's own Harold Knutson revived the idea of a balanced budget constitutional amendment that has been originally rejected by the Constitution's Framers, Congress has debated various versions. The real question before us today, as it was 50 years ago, is whether we should weld onto the Founding document of our democracy, the U.S. Constitution, a budget gimmick that would do more harm than good to the economic well-being of our Nation, and our citizens. As I have consistently argued, in my judgment we do not need to amend the U.S. Constitution to balance the Federal budget. Instead, we must continue to make tough choices on actual legislative proposals, as I have done, to cut wasteful and unnecessary post-cold-war defense spending, to continue to reduce low priority domestic spending, to completely restructure the way we finance and deliver health care in this country--in both the public and private sector--and to scale back special tax breaks for very wealthy interests in our society who have for a long time not been required to pay their fair share. That approach is the only responsible, fair way to bring our annual Federal deficits, and the much larger Federal debt, under control. For the last 15 years or so, that is what the Congress has been unwilling to do, and that is the source of a lot of frustration in the country. Congress has been unable to muster and sustain a majority to make difficult budget choices. We have seen illustrated here in the Senate over and over again a central problem: The political gap between the promise to cut spending, and actual followthrough on that promise. I make this point because I want to underscore that many of those who have been beating their chests the hardest about a balanced budget amendment have often been among those who have consistently voted against these actual deficit reduction proposals. We cannot give over our budget-balancing responsibilities to a machine, a mechanism. That responsibility is ours. Of course, I support balancing the Federal budget in a responsible, fair way. Despite all of the rhetoric today, we all at least agree on that basic goal. That's why some of us have voted consistently to reduce actual Federal spending when we've had the chance over the last few years on this floor. Not gimmicks, not smoke and mirrors, not deficit reduction formulas that never identify precise cuts, but actual reductions in Federal spending contained in actual amendments to appropriations bills. Votes on those proposed cuts have been important indicators of our willingness to make tough choices. This is where the budget rubber has met the road. The President's $500 billion deficit reduction package in the 103d Congress, which I supported and which was approved without a single Republican vote, was a major downpayment toward balancing the budget. But Democrats had to do it alone. When we cut, the Republicans ran. While we acted, they talked. Still, much more must be done. But now, instead of real budget choices we are presented with a gimmick that I do not believe will work to balance the budget, and that if it does work as it's designed, could do serious harm to the U.S. economy. It will also serve to reduce pressure in the next few years to actually reduce the deficit further, allowing Members of Congress to declare a temporary victory without cutting significantly from the Federal deficit. And then the reckoning will come, when we are up against the wall at the end of this century and have to balance the budget in just a few short years with massive spending cuts in all Federal spending, including Social Security and Medicare. at least in the abstract? In recent years, the borrow-and-spend policies of the 1980's and early 1990's have come home to roost, rekindling public support for drastic measures. But just so that we don't lose our historical perspective in this debate, I think it's important to recognize that the problem of huge Federal budget deficits is a relatively recent one, going back only to the early 1980's. It's just not true, as some amendment proponents imply, that the Federal Government has been spending way beyond its means for decades. The Reagan and Bush administrations gave America by far its 10 largest budget deficits in our history. The huge tax cuts and large defense increases of that era are still costing us. Whatever your party affiliation or perspective on enacting this amendment, that is indisputable. If it were not for the interest costs on the debt accumulated during the 1981-92 period, the Federal budget would be in balance in 1996 and headed toward surplus thereafter. I am not trying to explain away large deficits over the last decade or so, but simply to point out that they are, more than anything else, a direct result of the misguided and now thoroughly discredited fiscal policy called supply side economics. Despite the urgings of some of our colleagues in the new House leadership, and some of the provisions of the Republican Contract for America, we must not turn down that supply- side road again. Opposing the amendment has not been easy, or politically popular. But since I have spoken several times on various amendments that have been proposed over the course of the last few weeks, let me try to summarize one last time my major reasons for voting against this amendment. americans have a right to know how the amendment will affect them Throughout this debate, I've argued that the people of Minnesota--and all Americans--have an enormous stake in the outcome of this debate, and that they have a right to know how the spending cuts required by the amendment could affect them and their families. I offered an amendment to one of the first bills before the Senate this year urging proponents of the constitutional amendment to detail the over a trillion dollars in cuts they would make to balance the budget by 2002, before it is sent to the States for ratification. This is simple ``truth-in-budgeting;'' it's the least we could have expected from proponents. Indeed, the Minnesota State Legislature and Governor Carlson agree. And they sent a Minnesota mandate to Washington to prove the point. The legislature recently passed overwhelmingly a resolution, signed by the Governor, urging those of us here in Congress to continue our efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit, and requesting financial information on the impact the balanced budget amendment would have on our State. By rejecting the amendment, which I introduced to provide the information to all the States that the Minnesota Legislature was seeking, the Senate sent States a chilling message. Another major right-to-know amendment, offered by Senator Daschle, was also defeated. Despite the straightforward logic of this approach, these amendments were rejected on virtual party-line votes. And so if we pass this constitutional amendment today, we would be sending it to the State legislatures for ratification without giving them, or the millions of American families whom they represent in each State, any idea of how we intend to cut over a trillion dollars from the Federal budget between now and the year 2002, or how it will affect their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren. Families will not be told how deep the Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch, higher education, or Social Security cuts will be; at least not before we vote on the amendment. That is, I think, a gross abdication of our sworn responsibility to serve those we represent, and a slap in the face to those who count on us for truth-in-budgeting. Recent polls show that over 80 percent of Americans believe we should be straight with them about how we intend to balance the budget under this amendment before we act on it. Even so, balanced budget proponents have rejected the right-to-know and instead offered Americans a ruse, an exercise in budget deception. In so doing, they have seriously breached the standard of public accountability that Americans should be able to expect from their leaders. In addition, there are a number of sound fiscal policy arguments against the amendment; I will raise just two examples. amendment would deepen economic recessions and worsen disasters Consider the potential risk that the spending cuts required by the amendment could push soft economy into a recession, or in a worse case, deepen an existing recession and push us into a depression. Now when the economy slips into recession, Federal spending helps to cushion the fall by increasing unemployment insurance and other assistance programs for low- and moderate-income people. At the same time, income tax collections drop because people and businesses are making less money in a recession. But under the amendment, Congress would be forced, perversely, to do the opposite: raise taxes, cut spending, and push the economy into an economic freefall. The so-called automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment insurance that have proven so useful in recent decades would be gone, and we would instead effectively enshrine in the constitution the economic policies of Herbert Hoover. With fiscal policy enjoined by the amendment, sole responsibility for stabilizing the economy would rest with the Federal Reserve. And with their almost exclusive focus on fighting inflation these days, more often than not they end up protecting Wall Street investors--not average working families. As I have suggested, the amendment is an attempt to enshrine an economic dogma which would cripple our ability to offer pragmatic responses to changing economic conditions. Because our efforts to change the balanced budget amendment to take this problem into account also failed, this serious flaw remains. Coupled with the absence of any exception for emergency disaster spending, that was included in a proposed amendment defeated last week, the lack of economic foresight this reflects is almost breathtaking to me. In just a few days, we will consider an emergency spending bill to help pay the Federal share of the California earthquake last year. The cost of this disaster is now up to $15 billion. In the last two decades, the Federal Government has spent $134 billion in Federal disaster relief, including $33 billion in the last 5 years alone. Under a balanced budget requirement, what would we do in the face of a huge flood, earthquake, or other disaster that cost scores of billions of dollars in relief aid? How long would it take to garner the three-fifths votes necessary in both Houses to pay for it? And what special legislative prizes would opponents require for their votes? Those are all open to questions. amendment could put federal deposit insurance at risk Another open question is the impact of the amendment on bank deposits. I am sure balanced budget amendment supporters don't intend to put the life savings of American families at risk, or to threaten the stability of the banking system. And yet that is precisely what this amendment would do. Since the Depression, the FDIC has insured depositors against bank failures. That limit is now up to $100,000 per account. And right now those guarantees cover private savings of about $2.7 trillion--that's a whole lot of money that's guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Some have observed that the balanced budget amendment could put the full faith and credit of the United States embodied in such guarantees at risk. amendment does not separate day-to-day expenses from investments Most Americans believe that a balanced budget, like a balanced checkbook, is a good idea. They argue that America, like a family, should always balance its budget. But this overlooks a key fact: The household budgets of most middle class Americans have substantial debt, either for a car, a home, or a college education for their kids. This reflects a central problem with the amendment. It ignores the difference between two different types of spending: investments for the future, mortgage on a home is investing in your family's future; taking one out to pay for next year's vacation is not. This is acknowledged by most State governments, many of whom are required to balance their operating budgets--but not their investment budgets. American business agrees; incurring debt to invest and expand a business has long been a hallmark of business strategies for sustained growth. With governments, as with families or businesses, borrowing isn't inherently bad; it depends what you're borrowing for. With families, businesses or State governments, the central question is: Will the debt we incur improve our long-term economic prospects? If this principle applies to household or business budgets, why shouldn't it apply to the Federal budget? Nonetheless, an amendment to address this problem was rejected. No protections for the social security trust funds This balanced budget amendment fails to protect the Social Security trust funds from being raided to balance the Federal budget. We tried to make sure that for the purpose of calculating the deficit under the balanced budget amendment, the huge surpluses in the Social Security trust fund would not be counted. In that effort, too, we failed; our proposed Social Security amendment was defeated. Make no mistake what this means: Despite the promises of the proponents that they will not balance the budget on the backs of Social Security recipients, they have refused to explicitly protect this program in the language of the constitutional amendment itself. In fact, they fought hard to defeat our Social Security amendment. That is as good an indication of their future intentions regarding Social Security as anything we have seen. A shell game that will require states to raise taxes There is another problem with this constitutional amendment. For many in Minnesota, it will likely mean an increase in personal income, sales, and property taxes needed to offset the loss in Federal aid from crime control to higher education, roads and bridges to farm programs, rural economic development to Medicare. This shell game, in which costs are simply shifted from the Federal Government onto the States, would force Minnesota to fund these efforts on its own. A recent Treasury Department study concluded that an increase of between 9 and 13 percent in Minnesota taxes would be required to make up the difference. In reality, a vote for the balanced budget amendment is really a vote for a trickle-down tax increase. a standard of fairness I think it's a simple question of fairness. If this constitutional amendment passes, in the next 7 years we are going to have to make $1.48 trillion in spending cuts and other policy changes--assuming that we enact Republican-proposed tax cuts for the wealthy and defense increases. If we don't, we'll still have to make about $1.2 trillion in cuts. If we make these cuts to meet the balanced budget amendment requirement and timetable, then we should make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those who hire lobbyists to make their case every day here in Washington, will be asked to pay their fair share. At least they should bear as much of the burden as regular middle class folks that we represent, who receive Social Security or Medicare or Veterans benefits, or who receive student loans to send their kids to college and offer them a better future. That's just common sense, and I had hoped that during this debate we would signal that we would apply such a standard of fairness. For example, too often in discussions about low-priority Federal spending which ought to be cut, one set of expenditures has been notoriously absent. That is tax breaks for wealthy and well-positioned special interests. But that, too, was rejected by the constitutional amendment's proponents when I offered an amendment urging simply that we make sure such special tax breaks are on the table as we move forward in our deficit reduction efforts. Tax subsidies are heavily skewed to corporations and the relatively few people with very high incomes, while Government benefits and services go in far larger proportions to the middle class and the poor. In the last few weeks, this issue of fairness has emerged more and more clearly to me, more by its absence than by its presence. It looks to me as though the current standard, at least as it has been applied so far in the published plans of balanced budget proponents, will not require much, if any, sacrifice from special interests in our society who have enjoyed certain tax breaks, benefits, preferences, deductions and credits that most regular middle-class taxpayers don't enjoy. efforts to scrutinize tax breaks for wealthy blocked But while the constitutional amendment's proponents don't seem to mind that it could require States to raise State taxes by large margins, they are adamantly opposed to making sure that wealthy corporations and others pay their fair share of the deficit reduction burden. It is a fact, often overlooked, that 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 accelerated depreciation for this type of investment or that. These tax expenditures--in some cases they are tax loopholes--allow some taxpayers to escape paying their fair share, and thus make everyone else pay at higher rates. These arcane tax breaks are simply special exceptions to the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the burdens of citizenship by paying our taxes. The General Accounting Office issued a report last year titled, ``Tax Policy: Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' It makes a compelling case for subjecting these tax expenditures to greater congressional and administration scrutiny, just as direct spending is scrutinized. The GAO noted that most of these tax expenditures currently in the Tax Code are not subject to any annual reauthorization or other kind of systematic periodic review. They observed that many of these special tax breaks were enacted in response to economic conditions that no longer exist. In fact, they found that of the 124 tax expenditures identified by the committee in 1993, about half were enacted before 1950. Now that does not automatically call them into question. It just illustrates the problem of their not being very carefully looked at in any systematic way over very long periods of time. Many of these industry-specific breaks get embedded in the Tax Code, and are not looked at again for years. And yet we refused by roll call vote to even commit to consider them as we move forward in our efforts to balance the Federal books. When we begin to weigh, for example, scaling back the special treatment for percentage depletion allowances for the oil and gas industry against cutting food and nutrition programs for hungry children, we may come out with quite different answers than we have in the past about whether we can still afford to subsidize this industry. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating this particular tax break would save $4.9 billion in Federal revenues over 5 years. And this is not an isolated example. The Congressional Joint Tax Committee has estimated that tax expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury over $420 billion every single year. And they estimate that if we don't hold them in check, that amount will grow by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 1999. Now some tax expenditures serve important public purposes, like supporting charitable organizations, and should be retained. But many of these must be on the table along with other spending as we look for places to cut the deficit. I could not find any hint of interest in cutting corporate tax breaks in the Republican contract, I think because many of the benefits of these tax breaks go to very high-income people with wealth and power and clout in our society, and to corporations with high-powered lobbyists. They're the ones for whom the contract provides an estimated $169 billion windfall that would resurrect the tax-shelter industry and effectively slash corporate rates. At a time when we are talking about potentially huge spending cuts in meat inspections designed to insure against 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, we should be willing to weigh these cuts against special tax loopholes on which we spend billions each year. And yet we could not even agree to put these on the table along with everything else as we move forward in our efforts to reduce the deficit.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do want to point out for the record on the floor of the U.S. Senate, as I listened to my colleague from Texas speak about special interests, that I introduced an amendment several weeks ago, with Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, which said that when we go forward with deficit reduction and continue on this path of deficit reduction and reach the goal of balancing the budget, we should consider $425 billion--that is in any given year--of tax expenditures, many of which are loopholes and deductions and sometimes outright giveaways to the largest corporations and financial institutions in America. That amendment was voted down on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So it is interesting how children are a special interest, somehow with a negative connotation. Older Americans are a special interest, somehow with a negative connotation. Students who are trying to afford higher education are a special interest, sometimes with a negative connotation. But, on the other hand, subsidies for oil companies, the subsidies for coal companies, subsidies for pharmaceutical companies-- they are not special interests at all. I think that has something to do with who are the heavy hitters, who has the representation, who does the lobbying, who has the power, who is well represented and who is left out. I have been very involved in this debate and today there is just time for a few concluding remarks or reflections. At the very beginning of this 104th Congress I came to the floor with an amendment from my State of Minnesota. This amendment essentially said, based upon a resolution passed by my State legislature and signed by Governor Carlson, which urged that before we send a balanced budget amendment to the States, if it is passed, we ought to do an analysis for States of the impact on our States and of the people back in Minnesota and across the country. That was voted down. Similar amendments were also voted down. There are other amendments that were very important to this effort to improve this constitutional amendment to balance the budget--very important. There was an amendment to make sure that there would not be a raid on the Social Security trust funds. That was voted down. There was an amendment, as I mentioned, that Senator Feingold and I introduced, that urged that we at least consider some of the tax subsidies and giveaways to the largest corporations of America, the wealthiest people, as part of what we do in deficit reduction. Let us not just cut nutrition programs for children or Medicare. That was voted down. There Senate that said--and it makes good, rigorous economic sense--let us separate capital budgets from operating budgets. If we are going to make a comparison to family budgets, then let's really look closely at the similarities and differences. Sheila and I have never cash flowed the homes we've bought. We did not cash flow education for our children, higher education. And we did not cash flow cars. Those were investments in the future. We certainly have done a good job of balancing our budget every month, if that means keeping up with our payments. The same thing is true of most of the State legislatures in this country. So the point was to make some separation. There was an important amendment that said in times of recession let us not have those recessions become depressions. This is rigorous economic analysis. I say this as someone with an interest and a background in political economy. That was voted down. We do have to be concerned about the economics and the economic management of our Nation. There were other amendments as well. I had a sense of the Senate amendment that we would not do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. That was voted down. I have to say, I am acutely aware of what is politically popular at the moment. This constitutional amendment to balance the budget is politically popular at the moment. It is politically popular in the abstract. But people do not yet know what the specifics are. There has not been any truth in budgeting with this. I do not believe people have yet had a chance to look at all of the consequences of it. So my position remains the same position. I was sent to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota to listen closely to people. I was sent to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota to stay close to people. But I also said to people in Minnesota that I would always vote my conscience. I would always vote what I believed was right for my Nation. I would always vote what I believed was right for the people I represented--even if it was a difficult political vote, even if it was politically unpopular at the moment, even if I was subject to attack ads and other criticism for my vote. I will not back down from that. I will continue to go by that code. And it is my honest view, it is my profound sense that this constitutional amendment to balance the budget is a very serious mistake for a Nation that I love and for a State that I love. And therefore for all the reasons I have outlined during this debate over the last month, I will vote no. (Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I address a subject that has received too little attention here. I'm talking about nuclear waste. Since the Senate's last major action on this issue, 8 years have passed, extremely little progress has been made, and more questions have been raised than resolved. I propose an approach designed to keep us from ending up embroiled in another nuclear waste crisis, and to that end today I introduce the Nuclear Energy Policy Act of 1995. The nuclear waste issue is coming to a boil throughout our country. We all know that--and hear every day about--the Department of Energy's difficulties in figuring out what to do with our high-level nuclear wastes. My own State of Minnesota has been at the forefront of this complex issue. The legislature last year decided to allow some dry-cask storage of high-level nuclear waste on the site of the Prairie Island nuclear plant. During the debate, people were confused by the advertisements and varying claims the different sides made about the permanency and safety of such a waste dump, and about alternatives to nuclear power electricity generation. And the Federal Government did not help Minnesotans make that decision. In fact, while the battle was raging in Minnesota, the Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was telling the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that if Minnesota was to allow dry-casks at Prairie Island, he could not guarantee that the waste would ever leave. And Minnesotans were then and still are all too aware that if Yucca Mountain fails to qualify as a permanent repository, there is no Federal policy for what to do with the waste then. And we also have no policy concerning future nuclear power plants. We have no policy protecting us from a second nuclear waste crisis. Today I introduce a bill that provides that policy. It should have been the first law Congress passed upon entering the Atomic Age. It is nothing short of common sense. The bill I introduce today simply requires that we build no more nuclear power plants until we have some place to permanently store the waste they will generate. That's all there is to it. There is nothing radical about this idea. It is not a partisan idea-- just look at the list of original cosponsors: two Democrats and two Republicans. All this bill does is put the nuclear cart back behind the horse, where it belongs. It is true that no utility has yet stepped forward to site a new nuclear power plant, and that is exactly why now is the time to pass this law. Once utilities make a huge investment in siting, licensing, and building new plants, the pressure upon Congress to provide a waste- disposal option for them becomes immense. Unfortunately, if Congress acts under such pressure, it might not come up with the best resolution. Let's ensure that for future plants, we deal with the waste issue in a deliberate way, free from pressure applied by utilities with vested interests. I want to make this point crystal clear: this bill would not impact any existing plants. It would apply only to plants that would be constructed after the date of enactment. It would, therefore, not apply to renewal of existing licenses. Here is the current commercial high-level nuclear waste situation in a nutshell: we have DOE, by Congressional mandate, putting all of its eggs in the Yucca Mountain basket. Even when Yucca Mountain is on- line--if ever--it will be able to hold only the waste that has been and will be generated by our current generation of reactors. Where will the waste from a new generation of reactors be disposed of? This bill requires that we answer this question before that second generation is born. This bill does not judge the deep geologic repository approach that the DOE is currently pursuing. Nor does it make any mention of a monitored retrievable storage facility. It only says that we ought to always have enough permanent storage capacity to take care of the waste that will be generated by a new nuclear power plant. It is not enough to have a plan for adequate storage. It is also not enough to have begun construction on a storage facility. It is not even enough to have finished building but not yet licensed a storage facility. The permanent storage facility must be sited, built, and licensed for operation before construction may begin on a new plant under this bill. The bill is written that way because of the huge difference between the hand, and its actually accepting waste on the other. With politically charged issues like nuclear waste, it is wise to make absolutely certain that there is water in the pool before jumping in, rather than just turning on the spigot, taking a deep breath, and diving. I urge Senators to support this important legislation. It is time to use a little common sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. Unanimous-Consent Agreements

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This has nothing to do with the vote Tuesday. It is not linked to this constitutional amendment, but it does make it clear that the Senate should go on record that we will take no action that will result in significant reductions in assistance to students who want the opportunity to attend college. Just yesterday the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor-HHS slashed a student aid grant program, an education program for dropouts and homeless people, and the vocational education grant program. Please remember all those who signed the Contract With America have signed a document that says they intend to support cuts in student aid. This motion really comes from my own background as a college teacher. So many of us talk about the importance of doing a good job of representing the middle class. My prior amendment dealt with hungry and homeless children. I think they are a very special interest. They do not have a lot of people lobbying for them here. But now I really am talking about the middle class. I would just like to say to my colleagues, there really is nothing more important that we could do to do well for the people we represent, including middle-class people, than to make sure, through good public policy, that higher education is affordable. What this amendment says is we go on record we are not going to take any action that will result in reductions in assistance to students who want an opportunity to attend college. I do not think that is too much to ask. I was a college teacher for 20 years and I had an opportunity teaching--I guess you could say 5 generations of students. You know, you count them 4 years at a time. I had an opportunity to see how a spark of learning, if ignited, can take a student from any background to a life of creativity and accomplishment. The worst thing we could do would be to pour cold water on that spark. We always talk about higher education as key to a successful economy, to a literate, high morale, trained work force. That is true. I also think John Dewey, the great educational philosopher, was right that higher education, for that matter K-12 education, is critical to representative democracy because we have to have men and women who can think on their own two feet, who have conceptual tools that they can use to understand the world that they live in and who understand the courses of action that are available to them to contribute to our country and to their communities. But if you talk to families in Idaho or Minnesota or Utah or Wyoming, I know that listed among their top three concerns is how are we going to be able to send our sons and daughters on to college? I want to be very clear. I spend a lot of time on campuses and all too often I will meet students who sell their plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy a textbook. Let me repeat that. All too often I meet students who sell plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy their textbooks. All too often I meet students who are working 40 hours a week while going to school--that is not uncommon. That is why it takes many students 6 years to complete their undergraduate work rather than 4 years. I think the nontraditional students have become the traditional students. Students are no longer out of the ``Brady Bunch.'' They are no longer 19 years of age and living in the dorm. I think almost the majority of students are older, they have gone back to school, many of them are single parents, many of them have children. It is terribly important that we go on record that we will not take any action that could result in significant reduction to assistance to students who want an opportunity to attend college. I do not think that is too much to ask. I remember a gathering at Moorhead State, Moorhead, MN. A student said to me, in front of everyone, ``You know, my mother and father, they told me that the college years would be the best years of my life.'' Then he looked at a really crowded forum. He looked at everybody, and he hesitated, and he said, ``These are not the best years of my life. I am working three minimum-wage jobs, 40 hours a week, and trying to go to school. These don't feel like the best years of my life.'' This whole question of how we make higher education affordable is key to what our Nation is all about, which is a nation of opportunity for every person from every background. The total cost of attending a 4-year public institution averages about $7,600 a year. The average cost to go to a 4-year private institution is around $16,000 a year. Tuition alone has increased more than 120 percent over the last 10 years. Mr. President, today I am going to be formally requesting of the General Accounting Office that they do a study of the increase in tuition costs, the magnitude of it, and the way it affects our young people, or not so young people. At this cost, higher education is out of reach for many middle-class families. For the 1993-94 academic year, students borrowed a record amount, $23 billion, from federally guaranteed loan programs, and the average loan exceeded $2,700 annually. By the way, understand that because the whole ratio of grants to loans has shifted to the loans, students graduate in enormous debt when they are getting ready to start out their life. I feel very, very lucky. It was just a matter of accident of when I was born that I was able to go to the University of North Carolina. Above and beyond wrestling, and I think I had some academic scholarship, I was able to receive a National Defense Act low-interest loan because I was going to go into education. I did not graduate saddled with that kind of debt. But that is not the case today. Krista--I will not use her last name--is a sophomore who will be graduating from community college and going to Mankato State University to get a B.A. She is 24 years old and married. She writes: I do not receive State or Federal grants, nor do I receive any scholarships. In order to pay for my 2 years at a community college, I had to take out over $5,000 in student loans. Last year, I was receiving help through the State Work-Study Program. When that was cut, I suffered again. I realize that part of education is receiving some debt and that it should not be a free ride. But neither should it be a weight tied around my neck. So I ask that whatever decision you make, you consider that many students like myself are choking with this weight. Congress should go on record. We will not do anything that will result in significant reductions to students who want an opportunity to attend college. Is that too much to ask; that we go on record on this basic question that affects a huge, broad section of the population? As I said earlier, the typical student these days is not the Brady Bunch kid who graduates from high school and goes straight on to college: 45 percent of the student bodies these days are over 25 years of age; 45 percent of the students are over 25 years old. In fact, nearly 20 percent of all students are Mr. President, many of them are students of color. And by the way, we want to talk about, with welfare reform, single parents being able to be on their own and going to school. It has to be affordable. We cannot be cutting these grant programs and low-interest loan programs. But we are going to. You bet we are going to, because there is no other way we can get to $1.481 trillion by 2002. We know it. I hear discussion about we want to take this debt burden off the shoulders of the young. What are we doing to the young right now? Denise, from a suburb of Minneapolis, writes: I am a 29-year-old single parent, currently enrolled as a junior at the University of Minnesota. Because of the excellent support of financial aid and other programs, I have been successfully maintaining a 3.76 GPA. That is pretty good. That is out of 4.0. Before returning to school, from the time my son was 6 weeks old, I worked as a medical assistant making $9 an hour. Without the needed assistance, the rug would be pulled out from under me. I cannot make it otherwise. Don't cut grant and loan assistance that would deny me my opportunity to pursue my higher education and my dream in life, Senators. That is what Denise writes. Sandra, from St. Louis Park, another suburb: I am devastated at the idea of any financial aid cuts. Not only would I need to drop out of college--I am a sophomore-- but it would leave me with only two options. First, I could obtain an entry-level position; second, I could remain a public assistance recipient for awhile. At any rate, the best I could do for myself and my son in society is to maintain at the below-poverty level. I faced these obstacles after a miserable divorce, which left me without home or money or even credit to plan for the future. I have goals not only for myself, but to be allowed to contribute and replace whatever I have used. By the time I graduate in 1997, I will be financially independent. Likewise, I am setting an example for my son to achieve independence and pride, which are invaluable to our society. Sandra is saying to us: Senators, please, when you do your deficit reduction, and I want you to, and you go to balance the budget, whether this amendment is passed, please do not make any significant reductions in higher education programs that would deny me my opportunity to attend college. Our Federal commitment to higher education should be strengthened, not cut. But we are going to cut it. In 1990, about 5 million students received Federal student aid under one or more Federal programs. In the 1993-94 academic year, about 3.8 million students received Pell grants, 4.5 million received Stafford loans, 991,000 received supplementary education opportunity grants, 697,000 received Perkins loans, 713,000 received Federal work-study awards, and 650,000 received State student incentive grants. Most of this financial aid is based upon need. Pell grants are targeted to the neediest students and the campus State programs give financial aid offices the flexibility to respond to unique student needs. And they are needed. These programs help low-income and middle- income families. Of the Pell grants awarded to dependent students, those who are financially dependent on their parents, 41 percent go to students with families with incomes less than $12,000 a year and 91 percent go to students with families of incomes below $30,000. This is a critical lifeline program. Among Pell recipients who were financially independent, 73 percent have incomes below $12,000 a year. I could go on and on. Let me just assure you that all the low- interest loans and on campus work-study programs are all targeted toward students that come from low- and moderate-income families. Mr. President, we say that we are for the young and we are for opportunity. We cannot give lie to that commitment. We have to be willing to make some investment. I just have to tell you, Mr. President, the most shortsighted thing we could do would be to now cut in these very programs. By the way, there is a huge difference in the future of those who go to college and those who do not. I could go through the statistics. But I do not think I will because I think we all know. If you graduate from college, you have a much better chance than if you graduate from high school, a much better chance to be able to do well economically for yourself and for your family. Mr. President, if there is anything to the American dream--I can say this as a son of a Jewish immigrant from Russia who loved books and ideas--the biggest thing in our family was that children go on to higher education; they could do better than their parents; they could have a rewarding life. But let us be clear about it. We are going to have to cut $1.4 trillion from the budget. We have to pay the interest on the debt. I think there is a commitment to not touch Social Security, as there should be. We are going to increase the Pentagon budget. We are going to do the tax cuts. So where else is there to cut? If you just take what is left on the table, you would have to cut 30 percent across the board from domestic discretionary spending. I do not know whether that is going to be Medicare or veterans' benefits. It looks from the House for sure that it is going to be nutrition programs and child care programs. I do not know whether it is going to be Pell grants, Stafford loans, what loan programs, but it is going to happen--30 percent across the board, maybe more in some, maybe less in others. So let us talk a little bit about what this means. Pell grants would be slashed by one-third, from a maximum of $2,230 to $1,560. Alternatively, if we did not do that, we could just slash the number of students receiving Pell grants. So some 1.1 million students would not receive Federal aid at all to attend college. Mr. President, there are proposals to no longer exempt the interest that students accumulate--I believe Chairman Kasich of the House Budget Committee said--while they are at college or university. Find out how the students in Idaho or Minnesota like that. Interest that accumulates on their loans while in school will no longer be forgiven, and then that gets added on. I think for a typical family that ends up to over $3,000 more in interest. Mr. President, the campus-based programs also would include supplementary education opportunity grant programs. And the contract talks about the termination of some of these programs. That is $583 million. The work study program, that is $616 million; and the Perkins Loan Program, that is $176 million. If these programs are cut, that is a $1.4 billion cut in financial aid. So, Mr. President, let me go back to this motion. Let us be straightforward. Are we going to, in balancing this budget, put into effect deep cuts in a Pell Grant Program which right now is hugely inadequate in relation to those students that need this grant assistance? Are we going to put into effect deep cuts, 30 percent or more, in needs-based, work-study or low-interest loan programs? Is that what we are going to do? Well, Mr. President, my motion just simply says that we go on record, a sense of the Senate that we will take no action that would result in significant reductions in assistance to students who want the opportunity to attend college. That is what this motion says. Mr. President, might I ask how much time I have remaining?