Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are other Senators here. I do not know whether they want to speak on this or not. I have more to say on this. I think the Senator from Wyoming wants to respond. Let me just reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I might respond, I must say that the Senator's last remark makes me extremely nervous, when he states these motions--again, these are not amendments to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget--these motions really make the case for why we need a balanced budget amendment. The Senator said a little earlier that no one wants to hurt the most vulnerable citizens, so I do not know why a motion that we go on record as we move to balancing the budget we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children makes the case for a balanced budget amendment. My colleague from Utah keeps talking about these exemptions, and I just would say to my colleague, if the proponents of this amendment would have provided some detailed analysis as to where we are going to make the cuts, then I would not have to be in the Chamber saying let us at least go on record we are not going to do this to children or we are going to make sure that higher education is not affordable, let us make sure of that. If there was a detailed analysis, there would be no reason for any of us to come out to the floor to make these motions. There is no detailed analysis. We have tried over and over again to get Senators to step up to the plate. They have been unwilling to do so. The credibility gap is huge--so far I have heard $277 billion of budget cuts outlined by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That takes us a little bit toward $1.481 trillion, not very far. Mr. President, I have to say one more time the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] said it well. We can go forward every single year with more deficit reduction. I voted for I think the largest deficit reduction we have had probably in the last decade and a half. I stepped up to the plate and we can do much more on deficit reduction and we can balance the budget. I do not know that it can be done in 2002. I think that is an unrealistic date. I think it is a political date. But we absolutely have to do it. Mr. President, you do not need to have a balanced budget amendment in the constitution, locking us into all these cuts without telling anybody in the country what we are going to do in order for us to step up to the plate every single year and do the necessary deficit reduction. I might add, there is another deficit. There is an investment deficit, especially in education and children and young people. We can do that now. Finally, I do not understand this discussion about special interests. My view is that, yes, children and young people are very special interests. But, I say to my colleague, it simply is not the case--I hope he is not arguing: Look, the reason we cannot vote for these motions is we know we are going to make cuts in this area because we have to make cuts in this area if we are going to balance the budget. That is not true. We do not have to make cuts in these areas if we are going to balance the budget. Mr. President, $420 billion of tax expenditures--we do not have to raise the Pentagon budget, we do not have to do all the tax as opposed to focusing on the young, focusing on education, or focusing on the most vulnerable citizens. My final point. The reason I have been so insistent today on the floor of the Senate about these motions--and I am going to wear my political science hat for a moment; I am a political scientist--is my sad but true judgment that all too often the actual deficit reduction and cuts are made based upon the path of least political resistance. Those citizens who do not have a lobbyist, do not make the large contributions, are not the heavy hitters, are not the big players, are the very citizens who are asked to tighten their belts. The very citizens we ask to tighten their belts are the very citizens that cannot. I have been out here saying we ought to consider cutting subsidies for oil companies, subsidies for pharmaceutical companies, all sorts of other subsidies for large corporations and financial institutions and the silence on the other side of the aisle has been deafening. It has been voted down.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have about 15 seconds left. Let me be clear. Neither of these motions say anything about voting for or against the balanced budget amendment. I hope my colleagues will support me on the question if the choices we have to make are we are not going to take any action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children and we are not going to make higher education not affordable for young people who want to go on to colleges and universities. That is all it says. It is a sense of the Senate. We ought to be able to vote for that right now, advocates for the balanced budget amendment and those who are opposed. I yield the remainder of my time if I have any time to yield back.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague from Wyoming. Part of the reason I have so much respect for the Senator is because of his directness. I must say to my colleague, at the moment I find myself in profound disagreement with his remarks. First of all, given what the Senator from Wyoming has said, he ought to support both of these motions. It sounds like we are in agreement on at least one part of the equation. I really appreciate the fact that he has come out here and said that there is a huge disconnect between our rhetoric and the speeches we give and our support of young people. I think the Senator from Wyoming has been clear about that. In a sense I think he would be supportive especially of the first motion-- that is No. 1--which makes it clear when we sort out these priorities and make the tough decisions, the most vulnerable citizens are the homeless and hungry children. There is nothing the Senator from Wyoming said that would prevent him think, would make him want to support that. Second of all, my own view about these deficits and this debt that we have built up, is that I at least can say that when we went back to the early 1980's and decided that we would go forward with what President Bush once called voodoo economics, what was called euphemistically, the Economic Recovery Act, huge tax cuts for the wealthiest, dramatic increases in the Pentagon budget. And remember, all of that was going to lead to productivity and jobs--this was the Laffer curve--and it would reduce deficits. It did not work out that way, did it? We really got ourselves into a mess. I was not here during that time. We have to work ourselves out of that mess. I must say I think the 2002, I think that the direction we are going in right now does not add up. Now, Mr. President, getting back to the issue here. I appreciate my colleague's concern about children because before I was told that I was out here for the special interests. I think children are a very special interest. I disagree that our only choice is between older people, elderly citizens and the children. My colleague said this way, now we get to the stereotype of the greedy geezers that are out there in the golf courses living high on the hog. Mr. President, I believe--and it is off the top of my head--that the average income of a man 65 years of age and over is $15,000 a year. For a woman, it is $8,000 a year. Now, Mr. President, that is hardly the profile of these older people, that they are the problem. I was at a gathering in Rosedale, Fairview Senior Center, the other day. I think it was a very interesting gathering. I asked the people there--and of every gathering of senior citizens--what are the top three issues you care about. They always put children at the top. We are talking about the children and the grandchildren of the elderly in this country. It is not true that the elderly are so wealthy and have such high incomes. I would say to my colleague here that if we want to talk about why there should be a subsidy on part B Medicare for older people making incomes of $100,000 a year and over, I agree. The problem is there are not very many older people that make $100,000 a year and over. It just is not true. Senator Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota said the test of a society and a government is the way we treat people in the dawn of life, children; the way we treat people in the twilight of their lives, the elderly; and the way we treat people in the shadow of their lives, those struggling with an illness or a disability and those who are needy or poor. I believe that. The choices are not between our going on record that we will not do anything that will increase hunger or homelessness among children, or going on record to do anything that would cut programs that enable people to be able to go on and afford higher education, versus we have to cut benefits for the elderly across the board. Mr. President, there are other options. We did not need to get into this bidding war on tax cuts. But we have. And the projections on that--and again I am speaking off the top of my head--I believe it was $500 billion, up to 2002 and then another $700 billion beyond. Going in the opposite direction of deficit reduction. I would say to my colleagues, if you are so concerned about deficit reduction, why are you talking about these broad-based tax cuts? Mr. President, there are other choices. It is not children versus the elderly. I do not accept this tradeoff. I do not believe a rigorous analysis supports this tradeoff. We do not have to be increasing the Pentagon budget. We could be cutting it. I cosponsored a bill with Senators Bumpers and Bradley that dealt with about $30 billion in military cuts over 5 years based on some GAO studies of some wasteful weaponry. Weapons and programs that make no sense. But the military contractors are not being asked to tighten their belts. Finally, Mr. President, let me just say two other things. First, Senator Feingold and I have examined a book from the Joint Tax Committee, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, it must have been this thick on tax expenditures, some of which go back before 1950, some of which are necessary, but many of which are just outright tax dodges for corporations in America, and the U.S. Senate would not vote for a motion that said we should at least consider some of these subsidies. And, second, even though we do not need to get into the debate today about single payer, which the General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office said would save over $100 billion in expenses every year with universal coverage, I must remind my colleagues that the big entitlement programs that are skyrocketing are health care programs, but the insurance companies did not like that. I introduced a bill that dealt with the Medicare entitlement program, but rather than cut it, it was a way of really being able to afford these programs. So let us not have some false choice in dichotomy out here on the floor that a Senator from Minnesota can only come out here fighting for children and fighting for affordable higher education if that Senator from Minnesota is willing to say, ``We've got to have deep, drastic cuts in programs that support elderly citizens in this Nation.'' No. 1, it is not true that they have such high income and wealth, and they are all greedy geezers out on the golf course. That is a cultural stereotype and, two, those are not the only choices. I just outlined four other options, none of which are being considered. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me make one other point and then I will yield the floor to the Senator from Montana, reserving, after that, the remainder of my time. Mr. President, let me one more time focus attention on these two motions. The first motion is a motion to refer to the Budget Committee a sense of the Senate that when we do deficit reduction and balance the budget that we are not going to do anything to increase the number of homeless and hungry children. This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget at all. It does not say the vote on the amendment is put off. It is separate. It just says when we do the deficit reduction and move forward to balancing the budget-- all of us are in favor of doing that; not all are in favor of this constitutional amendment --that we go on record that we are not going to do anything to increase hunger and homelessness. I say to my friend from South Carolina, part of reason I do this are these headlines: ``House Panel Moves to Cut Child School Lunch Program,'' ``House Panel Trims Nutrition Programs and Housing Programs,'' the WIC Program. The second motion is very similar. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is just a sense of the Senate that we go on record ``that we take no action that would result in significant reductions in assistance to students who want an opportunity to attend college.'' My colleague from Wyoming talked about how he heard me read some letters from students in Minnesota and he thought too many students were viewing themselves as victims. I do not think that is what the students are saying. The alarm clock has gone off, students and young people in the country; it is time to get engaged because you need to understand there are going to be deep cuts on the present course in Pell grants and low- interest loans, not in a lot of other areas that I mentioned. The only way you are going to be able to do something about it is to get involved in politics. We need to have an education day all across this Nation, within the next month, where all congressional delegations are called back home-- Democrats and Republicans alike--and meet with younger people, college students, high school students, teachers, parents in which we need to go on record as to whether or not we are or are not going to support affordable higher education. They are not feeling like victims, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, Mr. President. That was not the point of those letters. What those letters were saying is, we want you to do a good job of representing us, and we believe that one of the most important is to make sure higher education is affordable. Of course, we are willing to contribute; of course, we do, but we feel like that is some thing that is a part of what this country is about: Affordable education. That is all that meant. That is all this motion is about. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Montana, after which I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That will be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Montana for his fine work. Mr. President, I wonder whether or not the Senator from Utah might want to respond. We will wait for just a moment. I do not think, Mr. President, there is any reason to repeat arguments, but I wish to wait for my colleague. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be considered as one of my relevant amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak. I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to call up a motion.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with this motion. I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children? Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no. Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; and you have these low-income children's programs. Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I visited with those families. These issues are real to them. But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions in America, they voted it down. So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt. May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt. I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now as they are about the children in the future. Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues----

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking. Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in the United States of America?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand that?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless children. That is all this motion says. The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self- explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important. What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the Budget Committee: That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on this question. Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in the United States of America today? Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be the reason for voting no? Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the most vulnerable group in this Nation? The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the same thing. Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are homeless each day. Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report disease. Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we are not going to take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on record supporting this? I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What about these children? One out of every four children in America is poor. Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House yesterday. One 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, 1,234 children run away from home. 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. I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are real people. These are children in the United States of America. These children, all of these children, are our children. Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug- related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the United States of America. Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or not. Ona is 8. My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this? How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you change your mind. Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so right. Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. ``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the headlines: ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.'' ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Washington Post, front page story: House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by previous Democratic Congresses * * *. Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and pregnant women * * *. Let me repeat: * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and elderly for protecting their homes against the cold. That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is a cold weather State--who depend on they have a choice between heat or eat? It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 1995. I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today. The article reads: After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and children and replace them with a block grant to the States. The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] charged that because the number of needy children is expected to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more than 377,000 children in the year 2000. By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is needed. It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the support. It is simple. ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he needs it, or I will yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the Senate floor today, one of my colleagues challenged my concern shared by thousands of Minnesotans that S. 219, a bill that would create a moratorium on new regulations, would have the effect of limiting or eliminating the 1995 migratory bird hunting season. I take strong exception to my colleague's comments and will continue to The divergence in our two views apparently comes down to this: The junior Senator from Texas apparently believes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's annual rulemaking process required by current law to open the hunt fits under some exclusion in S. 219 for routine administrative matters. I see no such exclusion. Presumably, the language in S. 219 that my colleague thinks exempts the annual migratory bird hunting rulemaking from the strictures of the moratorium is found in the section which excludes ``any agency action that the head of the agency certifies is limited to repealing, narrowing, or streamlining a rule, regulation, or administrative process, * * * or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens * * *.'' Clearly, the duck hunting rulemaking does not ``repeal[], narrow[], or streamlin[e] * * * [an] administrative process.'' In my view, reading this language to exempt the duck hunting rulemaking is forced, at best. I might point out that my colleague is from a southern State, where the normal duck hunting season opens later than it does in Minnesota. If the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimated best-case scenario proves correct, S. 219 would serve to delay the necessary rulemaking, and thus the opening of the season in Minnesota, by no less than 30 days. Since Minnesotans do the majority of their hunting at the local shoot early in the season--beginning around the beginning of October--before the local ducks fly south, such a delay would effectively cancel this part of the season. On the other hand, in Texas the regular duck season opens in mid-to-late November. Therefore, the Texas season may not be as affected by the delay in the rulemaking process. If S. 219 becomes law without being changed to clearly exempt the 1995 duck hunting rulemaking from the moratorium, here is a possible-- perhaps even likely--scenario: The Fish and Wildlife Service proceeds, as it has been, with rulemaking action to open the 1995 season on time. Somebody opposed to duck hunting sues to stop the hunt--that's right, the moratorium bill also allows lawsuits for people adversely affected by an agency violation of the moratorium. The whole thing winds up in court. Yesterday, I introduced a bill to protect the 1995 hunting season from S. 219's moratorium provision. If the sponsors of S. 219 do not mean to threaten the 1995 duck hunt, then why don't they come on board my bill? I say S. 219 is perfectly clear--it would negatively impact the 1995 season in Minnesota. So I challenge the sponsors of S. 219 to ask the Governmental Affairs Committee to adopt explicit language exempting the 1995 duck hunting season rulemaking from the moratorium. The language of my bill would do that nicely. If they would just fix the problem they created in the moratorium bill, then this whole issue would go away. If it is not the intent of the sponsors of S. 219 to impact the 1995 duck hunting season, then surely they should have no objection to my request.