Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and the Senate resume consideration of amendment No. 186, which I offered yesterday.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is no other Senator on the floor to offer an amendment, I ask unanimous consent to speak no more than 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be less than 2 or 3 minutes. I know the Senator from Washington would want this amendment set aside, but if I could give the background for just a couple of minutes. I met with the legislative leadership back in Minnesota several weeks ago, and the legislature passed a resolution. I just want to read one paragraph: Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it urges the Congress of the United States to continue its progress at reducing the annual Federal deficit, and when the Congress proposes to the States the balanced budget amendment, to accompany it with financial information on its impact on the budget of the State of Minnesota for budget planning purposes. Mr. President, this resolution was also signed by the Governor on January 20. And, again, this is very much in the spirit of what the Senator from Connecticut was talking about and the Senator from South Carolina. I will, of course, take the opportunity to speak about this amendment at some length but not today. I yield the floor. Amendment Nos. 187 and 188, en bloc Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I just asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just asking for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I first would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia. I am really intending to make the same request. I think the Senator from Washington has the same interest. I would like the opportunity, now that I think I have clarification on this unanimous- consent agreement, to at least be able to offer the amendment and have it laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not think that I will, Mr. President, I have an amendment that is similar. It is very much within the same framework, though without reference to date. I do not think it would take me more than 10 or 15 minutes to offer this. I wonder whether I could, as a part of this unanimous-consent agreement, have the opportunity to offer this amendment after this debate since it is exactly within the same framework. I would not take a great deal of time with it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was about to ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered as a second-degree amendment to the Gorton amendment. I do make that request.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, this amendment is a children's impact statement that Senator Dodd and I proposed. This amendment says, and I quote for my colleagues: Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the probable impact of the bill or resolution on children, including whether such bill or joint resolution will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless, shall not be in order. Mr. President, this essentially says--and it is very consistent with this overall piece of legislation--that if a committee with legislation reports out a separate report, as we often do, then that report should include an impact [[Page S1195]] statement of the impact of that piece of legislation will have on children, and if it does not, then that piece of legislation will not be in order on the floor. Mr. President, that is the same point of order that is the methodology of this piece of legislation. Mr. President, I want to be clear with my colleagues that this is very different from the amendment that I proposed last week. The amendment I proposed last week said that if we were going to be moving forward on an agenda that I believe is going to be very mean spirited, it is important that we go on record with an assurance to people that we will not be passing any piece of legislation, any cut, any amendment, which could lead to an increase in homelessness or an increase in hunger among children. That amendment was voted down. I will bring that amendment back to the floor for a separate vote. I will continue to do so because I think this is something on which all of us, Democrats and Republicans, should go on record. Mr. President, this particular amendment, this children's impact statement, is a little bit different. What I am essentially saying is that if we are going to be talking about the impact of legislation on State governments, the impact of legislation on local governments, the impact of legislation on large corporations, or for that matter small businesses, then we ought to be willing to look carefully at the impact of legislation on our children. By the way, I say to my colleagues, this is a very moderate proposal. I am just simply trying to require that when committees have a report, that included in that report there be a children's impact statement. We will all look carefully at the impact of what we are doing with our legislation on children. In context, Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund just came out with a study. Unfortunately, this closely parallels some fairly rigorous analysis that is being done right now about where we are heading by the year 2002, if in fact we move forward with a balanced budget amendment. But part of the balanced budget amendment equation is that we increase Pentagon spending, we engage in this continuing war for more and more tax cuts, and in addition we leave other major spending categories out or we put them in parentheses. The question becomes, then, what do you need to do to cut $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion? The assumption is, we may very well, with what is left in the budget, be talking about a 30-percent cut in programs that help children and families. If that is the case the Children's Defense Fund estimates that in the United States, just looking at fiscal year 2002, we would be talking about overall 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women losing infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements. Mr. President, this is an estimate of how many children would be affected in fiscal year 2002. This is very well the direction we could be going in. By the way, Mr. President, I think one of the reasons some of leadership that has been pushing so hard on a balanced budget amendment is unwilling to talk about where the cuts will be before they get a vote on this amendment is because the arithmetic is so compelling. And in many, many ways, by the way, we are going very much against the mandates from people in this country. I thought we were trying to act on that mandate, because one of the things people have said to us is to be truthful, be straightforward, and be honest with us, do not try and finesse us. I think one of the reasons--and I am only taking one part of this agenda--a good part of the leadership--Mr. Armey is just one--that is unwilling to talk specifically about where the cuts are going to take place before people vote up or down on this proposal is because of where the cuts will take place. While I cannot be certain, given what has been taken off the table, given what Senators do not seem to be willing to look at by way of cuts, then we can only look at that part of the budget which is on the table. And when we look at that part of the budget which is on the table, unfortunately, we are talking about cuts in programs that are extremely important for the most vulnerable citizens in this country, and I am talking specifically about children, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, within that context, let me simply move forward and talk a little bit about some of these projections, because they are frightening. I want people in the country to know about them, and I want my colleagues to understand the context of this amendment. The context of this amendment, again, is that by 2002, on present course, we could very well see 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women who would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements. Women, Infants, and Children is what WIC stands for. By the way, as a former teacher, I argue that the most important education program in the United States of America is to make sure that every woman expecting child has a diet rich in vitamins, minerals, and protein. Otherwise, that child, at birth, will not have the same chance. These are the kind of cuts: 4,258,450 children would lose food stamps; 7,564,550 children would lose free or subsidized school lunch program lunches. Mr. President, it is not very easy for children to do well in school if they are hungry. It is a stark reality that all too many children go to school hungry. Mr. President, 6,604,450 children would lose Medicaid health coverage; 231,100 blind and disabled children would lose supplemental security income, SSI; 209,050 or more children would lose the Federal child care subsidies that enable parents to work or get education and training; 222,150 children would lose Head Start early childhood services. Mr. President, how interesting it is--I am not going to go through all the figures--that all of us in public service want to have our photos taken next to children, and the only thing I am trying to do with this amendment is to simply say that before we go too far, why do we not at least--consistent with the overall framework of this legislation--as long as we are talking about impact statements, why do we not at least say that committees, when they have their accompanying report--and quite often that is the case--have as a part of that report a child impact statement so that we at least know what we are doing. This is, from my point of view, a very moderate proposal.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.