[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5097-S5108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 1158, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
        [[Page S5098]] Hatfield amendment No. 420, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       D'Amato amendment No. 427 (to amendment No. 420), to 
     require Congressional approval of aggregate annual assistance 
     to any foreign entity using the exchange stabilization fund 
     established under section 5302 of title 31, United States 
     Code, in an amount that exceeds $5 billion.
       Murkowski/D'Amato amendment No. 441 (to amendment No. 427), 
     of a perfecting nature.
       Daschle amendment No. 445 (to amendment No. 420), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield], the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, wishes to be on the floor when the debate 
starts and that he wishes a quorum call. I understand he is on his way.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, although there are a number of rescissions 
proposed in the amendment by Mr. Dole with which I agree, I am unable 
to vote for the amendment because of its rescissions of appropriations 
for the Nation's physical infrastructure, its proposed $100 million 
cuts in IRS personnel, and its additional rescission of funding for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  The Dole amendment would cut $323.7 million from appropriations for 
highway construction. Of this amount, $280 million would be cut on a 
pro rata basis from every State's allocation of Federal-aid highway 
funds. These Federal highway funds are used by the States for highway 
and bridge construction, as well as for reconstruction and repair. 
Federal highway spending is one of the most productive areas of Federal 
investment in the creation of new, well-paying jobs. The Dole 
amendment, by reducing highway spending by more than $320 million, 
would cause a loss of up to 20,000 highway construction jobs.
  Mr. President, while it is true that we have a horrific national debt 
and we must continue to cut Federal deficits, as the pending bill would 
do, we must simultaneously address our investment deficit in critical 
areas such as our Nation's highways and bridges.
  And I made this point at the budget summit in 1990, at which time I 
said we have not only a trade deficit, we have not only a fiscal 
deficit, but we also have an investment deficit.
  For a moment, I would like to recount some of the maladies we will 
pass to the next generation for our failure to invest in our 
transportation infrastructure. So we still have an investment deficit. 
According to the Department of Transportation, there are currently more 
than 234,000 miles of the nearly 1.2 million miles of paved, nonlocal 
roads which were in such bad condition that they require capital 
improvements either immediately or within the next 5 years. The 
Nation's backlog in the rehabilitation and maintenance of our Nation's 
bridges currently stands at $78 billion. According to the Federal 
Highway Administration 118,000 of the Nation's 575,000
 bridges--around one out of five--are structurally deficient. While 
most are not in danger of collapse, they are required to restrict 
heavier trucks from using them--an action that has an immediate adverse 
impact on the Nation's economy. Another 14 percent of the Nation's 
bridges are functionally obsolete, meaning they do not have the lane 
and shoulder widths or vertical clearance to handle the traffic they 
bear.

  No area of infrastructure investment is as critical as our Nation's 
highway system. The system carries nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate 
commerce and more than 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist 
traffic. I, therefore, strongly oppose the rescission of highway funds 
contained in the amendment by the majority leader.
  I am also seriously concerned about the proposed $100 million cut in 
the Internal Revenue Service Compliance Initiative. This initiative is 
designed to generate $9.2 billion in additional revenue over its 5-year 
life.
  The Internal Revenue Service advises that it would not be able to 
accommodate a $100 million reduction in personnel funding between now 
and September 30, without furloughing all 70,000 compliance personnel 
for up to 10 days. A furlough of this magnitude would cost the 
Government approximately $500 million in lost tax collections in 
addition to substantial losses in revenue from the 5-year initiative. 
All of these losses in tax revenues would have the effect of increasing 
the deficit.
  I am gravely concerned about the continued plundering of one of this 
Nation's cultural lifelines--the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  The majority leader's amendment would cut an additional $86 million 
below the committee-passed rescission of $55 million for public 
broadcasting. This is not thoughtful budget trimming. This is carnival-
cut politics. It is flash-and-glitter knife tossing. Its intent is to 
give the illusion that there is some threat to a real target--the 
massive budget deficit--while, in a great and noisy show, it is merely 
popping balloons around the edges.
  But, in the case of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we are 
not merely popping bright balloons.
  This knife has sailed into the heart of the crowd. It is hurtling 
toward children and adults whose lives are bettered by the exposure to 
the quality educational and cultural programming of public 
broadcasting.
  In many communities throughout the Nation, public broadcasting 
provides the only glimpse some citizens will ever have of faraway 
destinations, ancient civilizations, and the words of the great 
masters. It beams into the homes of children their first lessons, in 
many instances, concerning the alphabet, their first lessons about 
science and math, and of geography and English literature.
  Many in my own State of West Virginia, without local access to 
college-level classes, rely on public broadcasting for the courses they 
need to earn a college degree.
  It is shameful and arrogant for some to sit here in the grandeur of 
the Nation's Capitol surrounded by museums housing the works of great 
artists, with close-by theaters offering the plays of Shakespeare, 
opera, ballet, and the music of great orchestras and thoughtlessly snip 
away at the only access many of our constituents have to these 
treasures.
  So as we debate ways to address the Federal fiscal deficit, many of 
my colleagues have spoken tirelessly of the debt that we leave to our 
grandchildren, I am equally concerned with the state of the Nation that 
we leave behind to our grandchildren--the quality and value of our 
national assets--the ability of those national assets to provide the 
capability for sustained economic growth. The true challenge facing 
this Congress is how to address the Federal fiscal deficit and our 
Nation's infrastructure and education deficits simultaneously. The Dole 
amendment addresses only half of this equation, namely, the fiscal 
deficit. It, in fact, exacerbates our infrastructure and education 
deficits. In my view, it makes no sense to rob Peter in order to get 
the funds to pay Paul.
  So I urge when the time comes that the amendment be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my 
distinguished colleague from West Virginia for his remarks and, in 
particular, I want to pick up on one point that he made which has to do 
with the investment deficit. I really do believe the Senator from West 
Virginia is correct, that sometimes, unless you invest, decline begets 
decline. I think it is myopic and shortsighted not to make an 
investment in education and children and in our infrastructure. 
Sometimes you make an investment in the short run and are much better 
off in the long run. I think that is what my colleague from West 
Virginia is really trying to say today.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me just simply take issue with the 
majority leader's substitute which is now before us and then talk a 
little bit about some 
[[Page S5099]] of the rescissions that are also before us.
  The Dole substitute, as I understand it, contains all of the 
rescissions in the committee bill--in education, Head Start, in WIC, in 
child care. I want to talk about some of those rescissions. But above 
and beyond those rescissions, there are yet others. I would like to 
highlight a couple of areas where I do take very serious exception.
  I visited in Appleton, MN--southwest Minnesota--with Pioneer Public 
Television. I can assure you that Pioneer Public Television is not a 
sandbox for the rich. I can tell you that the people in greater 
Minnesota, in rural Minnesota, are very connected to Pioneer Public TV, 
and they are connected to public television, for a number of reasons.
  First and foremost, they appreciate the focus on children's 
programming. I have to say to the Chair, whom I know has a strong and 
sincere concern about children, that as I look at what is on commercial 
TV in the name of children's programming, with precious few exceptions, 
I do not find anything there very positive and enriching. Public 
television has done a truly magnificent job of presenting those of us 
who are parents and grandparents with some wonderful children's 
programming.
  Second of all, Pioneer Public Television in southwest Minnesota is a 
real tool for education and empowerment for people in the community. It 
broadcasts programs that provide people with the kind of information 
that we encourage citizens to have to be more fully involved in their 
communities on the economic, political, and cultural issues.
  So I find the additional cuts proposed in this substitute for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be egregious.
  I also have to say KTCA channel 2--and also channel 17--in Minnesota 
has really been a flagship public television.
  Public television provides some superb public affairs programming. I 
do think people yearn for something more than the 10-second sound 
bites. I think they really do yearn for some substantive and thoughtful 
discussion of public issues. The effort to attack part of the cultural 
institution in this country, namely, public television or public radio, 
is a huge mistake. It takes us backwards.
  I am concerned about other proposed cuts as well. I heard some of my 
colleagues talk about AmeriCorps last night, so I will not, except to 
say that I was lucky enough to be at the founding gathering of 
AmeriCorps for the volunteers in Minnesota. I think there must have 
been about 300 young people. It was truly inspiring--the diversity of 
the young men and women that were there, the idealism, and their 
commitment to community. This is a program which encourages the very 
best ideals of this country, serving community, and providing young 
people, many of whom were from backgrounds that would not have enabled 
them to afford higher education, with some financial assistance to do 
so.
  Mr. President, there is a strong record of service to community 
already in this AmeriCorps program. I find it difficult to understand 
the effort to attack such a program. I find it difficult to understand 
why some of my colleagues spend so much time attacking a program which 
has barely begun which, calls upon young people, to be their own best 
selves. I think people yearn for models of community involvement. I 
think people yearn for alternatives to cynicism, and I think the 
AmeriCorps is an alternative to cynicism. Again, I find the Dole 
substitute very troubling on this count.
  Finally, there may be discussion of this section of the amendment 
later, but I am concerned about cuts to legal services. I have done a 
lot of work with low- and moderate-income people over the years, with 
many citizens in Minnesota. Whether or not it is protection vis-a-vis 
their rights as tenants or consumers--or on other issues--the Legal 
Services Program is the way in which we make sure our civil legal 
system is open and serves all citizens, regardless of income. It is a 
program that has never operated on a very large budget.
  This program provides dedicated legal services lawyers who do not 
make much money, but who make sure that those citizens who do not have 
the economic means to purchase or to have good legal representation are 
able to receive it.
  It has strong backing from the bar association in Minnesota; strong 
backing from the bar association nationally. Instead, we should be 
making cuts in programs like star wars, or programs that have to do 
with a variety of different tax dodges and loopholes and deductions 
which go to people who, in fact, do not need representation. But this 
focus on legal services makes very little sense.
  Mr. President, let me now turn to the initial rescission bill that we 
have in the Senate. I, first of all, would like to congratulate my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, because I think that some of 
the work that he has done is extremely important. I fully appreciate 
his commitment and certainly his ability as a Senator.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk about a few programs where there 
are slated cuts in this rescission package which are simply a profound 
mistake for the country.
  I start out with the call for $35 million to be removed from the WIC 
Program. That is for this year, fiscal year 1995.
  This was a program that was authorized in the Congress in 1972 under 
the leadership of such able Senators as Senator Robert Dole, now the 
majority leader, and Senator Hubert Humphrey.
  I have said it on the floor before: Senator Humphrey's framework is a 
legacy that is very important to me.
 And the late Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota said that the test of a 
government and the test of a society is how we treat people in the dawn 
of life, our children; how we treat people in the twilight of their 
lives, the elderly; and how we treat people who are in the shadow of 
their lives, those that are sick, disabled, and needy. I think that is 
a pretty powerful framework for examining our actions.

  Mr. President, the WIC Program has been astonishingly successful. It 
works. The Women, Infants; and Children Program is an investment we 
make to make sure that women, while pregnant, receive adequate 
nutrition and newborn infants also receive adequate nutrition.
  Mr. President, I have had an amendment on the floor of the Senate 
over and over again, which was finally accepted a few days ago, that we 
would not take any action that would increase hunger and homelessness 
among children. It strikes me that proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, 
and Children Program, which has been a huge success, which decreases 
the number of low-birth-weight babies and the chances of infant 
mortality, goes precisely in the opposite direction.
  Mr. President, according to a GAO report, the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program averted 13,755 very low-weight births in 1990. 
Assuming that all the funds would be used, if the $35 million--this is 
the rescission cut--is distributed evenly throughout all of the 
categories (women, infants, and children)--then 138 very low-birth-
weight babies will not be averted because of this rescission cut.
  Mr. President, the problem is that low birth weight greatly increases 
the chance of infant mortality and, in addition, a variety of different 
conditions, from high rates of cerebral palsy, mental retardation, 
serious congenital anomalies, and so forth.
  Let me just ask the question, if we go on record saying we will not 
take any action that will increase hunger or homelessness among 
children--and the Senate is now on record--why do we have proposed cuts 
in the Women, Infants, and Children Program when we know that the WIC 
Program speaks precisely to this problem in the Nation? Again, if you 
want to make sure that a child, at birth, has the same chance as every 
other child, the one thing you certainly do not want to do is cut into 
a program that makes sure that that expectant mother has a diet rich in 
minerals and protein. You want to make sure that you do not have 
rescissions in programs that will lead to more severely low-birth-
weight infants, with the possibility of greater infant mortality as 
well a whole set of huge medical problems for those children. This is a 
program that reaches down to the poorest of the poor. This is a program 
that provides invaluable nutritional assistance for expectant women, 
children, and newborn infants. Mr. 
[[Page S5100]] President, it strikes me that these cuts simply go 
against the very best of what we are about in this Nation.
  In my home State of Minnesota, in 1993, over 3,000 people were on the 
waiting list for WIC benefits.
  Mr. President, we have all heard the statistics before. You invest $1 
in WIC and you save yourselves $3 that you would be paying over the 
first 18 years in additional medical assistance. So we have waiting 
lists, we have children in need, women and children. I believe the WIC 
Program right now only serves about 60 percent of those that are 
eligible for such assistance. Yet in the initial rescission package we 
have cuts in the WIC Program.
  Mr. President, this debate really is about priorities. I simply have 
to argue that what we see in this package, in the Dole substitute, with 
cuts on top of cuts, is very distorted priorities. Yesterday, Senator 
Kennedy was on the floor talking about this expatriate tax dodge and I 
joined in. We were talking about a tax dodge that goes to individuals 
or families with, roughly speaking, over $5 million of net worth. We 
were talking of revenue losses to the tune of several billion dollars 
over the next 5 years.
  At the same time we have that kind of tax dodge, at the same time we 
are talking about spending more money on star wars, at the same time we 
continue to talk about more money for military weapons, in preparation 
for war with the Soviet Union which no longer exists, weapons which are 
not essential to our having a strong defense, we have all of these 
loopholes and deductions. Yet when we look to where the deficit 
reduction is going to come from, all of the tax dodges, and loopholes 
and star wars weapons are left untouched, because in this rescission 
package, we are talking about cutting into the WIC Program.
  I believe there is a contradiction between the Senate going on record 
that we will not do anything to increase more hunger or homelessness 
among children and talking about cuts in the WIC Program.
  Mr. President, I want to focus on one other rescission and then I 
will yield the floor. There are many I could talk about. But I would 
like to talk about the rescission package which includes an $8.4 
million cut in the child care development block grant. Yet again, Mr. 
President, we have children bearing the brunt of a budget cut. This cut 
is painful to participants in a program with long waiting lists. No 
accusations of mismanagement. This is a program which subsidizes child 
care for the working poor. This child care increases the ability of 
low-income families to become or remain independent and to assure 
minimal uniform health and safety standards in the child care settings 
these children are in.
  Mr. President, it makes no sense to have cuts in a child care 
program. Cutting child care will hurt children. Mr. President, if 
parents cannot afford quality child care and we are talking about low- 
and moderate-income families, many of them hard-working families who 
are trying to, on the one hand, work and also afford child care, if 
they cannot afford quality child care, then we know what happens. 
Either you have very haphazard arrangements, because parents have no 
other choice, in which case, all too often their children may be placed 
in dangerous situations. Some reports have come out which should be 
extremely upsetting to all of us, which have pointed out that the 
conditions of child care, both home based and center based, in this 
country are all too often very dangerous, really quite deplorable. It 
is not a good picture.
  So if you are going to make it impossible for families to afford 
child care, either the children become latchkey children and nobody is 
taking care of them because they are home alone, or they are going to 
be receiving child care; but it will not live up to the standards that 
all of us would apply to our own and any other children.
  Mr. President, I do not think there is one Senator, Democrat or 
Republican, here in this Chamber who would desire for his or her child 
or grandchild anything less than good developmental child care. To have 
these cuts in child care programs when there are long waiting lists in 
the State, when it is a program that works well, when it is the key to 
independence is shortsighted. I will tell you right now it is also the 
key to welfare reform.
  I think it is a huge mistake.
  I would say to my colleagues, if we do not invest in children when 
they are young, if we do not provide a nurturing environment, if those 
children are not given encouragement, if those children are just 
receiving custodial care, if those children are in arrangements that 
sometimes are dangerous, then we have not served the children of this 
country well.
  Now, Mr. President, understand that we have a whole decade plus of 
history of abandonment of children in this country, if we just look at 
the state of children in America. We have been trying, slowly but 
surely, within tight budgets to invest a little bit more by way of 
resources in decent child care. Now we have these proposed cuts.
  Mr. President, Florida has about 19,000 on its working poor waiting 
list. Minnesota has a waiting list of 7,000. The State of Washington, 
3,000. In Minneapolis alone, there is a waiting list of 2,100 families. 
In rural Minnesota, in proportion to need, there is even a greater 
waiting list.
  So, Mr. President, I believe that these cuts--and it is why indeed I 
support the Daschle amendment--are unacceptable. They are unacceptable.
  Once again, who pays the price? Children do. Why are we targeting 
children? Why are we making cuts in an affordable child care program, 
which already is severely underfunded, which we know will have the 
predicted results of: First, parents not being able to provide their 
children with decent child care; and second, families not being able to 
become independent.
  As a matter of fact, quite often what happens with welfare families, 
if we are talking about welfare families, but when we talk about child 
care, we are also talking about working families, as well--in the case 
of welfare families, about 75 percent of welfare mothers within 2 
years, right now, go to work, but many of them go back to welfare.
  There are several reasons for that. One of those reasons is that, in 
the absence of affordable child care, and then quite often losing their 
health care coverage, their families are worse off by the mothers going 
to work. We cannot have welfare reform unless there is affordable child 
care. We cannot expect families to become more independent unless we 
have affordable child care.
  Here we have a proposed cut, Mr. President, which is an $8.4 million 
cut in the child care development block grants. Mr. President, I just 
do not understand. It seems to me that we would want to spend a lot 
less money on star wars in space, and we would want to spend a little 
more money taking care of our children right here on Earth.
  In that sense, I find this to be a distorted priority. I think the 
Daschle amendment is hugely important. For that reason, I support it.
  I think the Dole substitute, which is, as I said, in addition to all 
the rescissions that were in the committee bill in education--and I 
have not talked about some of the chapter I cuts; I have not talked 
about the Safe Schools Program, as well, in child care, in Head Start, 
in WIC, in addition to even more cuts--strikes me as being harsh, 
strikes me as being a distorted priority.
  Mr. President, this leads me to my last point. What we are doing here 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in this rescissions package made far 
worse with the Dole substitute, is looking at this year's budget, but 
unfortunately this is exactly what some of my colleagues intend to do 
as they budget this out over the next several years: We are going to 
make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance.
  I have said this over and over again. That is why I brought this 
amendment out on children. I could see it happening. We are going to 
make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance. We are 
going to avoid the heavy hitters. That is why so far there has not been 
any discussion of reductions in subsidies for oil companies, or 
subsidies for tobacco companies or coal companies or pharmaceutical 
companies or insurance companies, and on and on and on. They are not 
asked to tighten their belts.
  When it comes to child care; the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program; education; Head Start, we are more than willing to move 
forward with cuts in programs that already do not even serve nearly as 
many children 
[[Page S5101]] as need such assistance so they will have the same 
chances that we all want for our children.
  Mr. President, in this context of who has the power and who does not, 
in this context of who decides who benefits and who is asked to 
sacrifice, I do not see a standard of fairness operative here.


                           Amendment No. 450

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an amendment 
numbered 450.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At an appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that before the 
     Senate is required to vote on the question of whether the WIC 
     Program and other nutrition programs should be converted to 
     block grant programs to be administered by the States, a full 
     and complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to 
     what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national 
     policy is the result of the improper influence of the food 
     industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's behalf.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to ask the Chair, would it be in 
order to read excerpts from a newspaper article which refers to the 
other body and to Members of the other body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator, under the 
precedents, as it is, it is improper for a Senator to make reference to 
or reflect on the Members of the House, to refer to a Member of the 
House by name, to criticize the action of the Speaker, or to refer to 
debate of a Member of the House in terms that are imputative of 
unworthy motives.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just so I can be clear on the ruling, if I were to 
read from an article and without using the names of any Members--would 
that be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, that would be in 
order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That would be in order. Let me, then, give my 
colleagues a little background for the ``why'' of this amendment.
  I refer to a piece today in the Washington Post that I believe is one 
of the best investigative pieces I have seen in a good many years. I 
speak as a political scientist.
  Mr. President, would it be in order for me to insert this article in 
the Record?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it would be in 
order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is an article by Michael Weisskopf and David 
Maraniss, and it deals with our nutrition programs. I refer my 
colleagues to this article. It appears in today's Washington Post, and 
I would just like to read from excerpts that I think will give my 
colleagues the background for this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 1995]

  Inside the Revolution: A Moderate's Dilemma: Food Program Defender 
                          Becomes a Dismantler

               (By David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf)

       The congressional office of Bill Goodling, Room 2263 of the 
     Rayburn building, is a quaint and cozy place straight out of 
     the 1950s, with the ambiance of a small-town Pennsylvania 
     school principal's den. Portraits of Ike at Gettysburg grace 
     the front wall. In the far right corner stands a century-old 
     upright piano, a clangingly out-of-time instrument that 
     nonetheless brings the congressman great comfort when he 
     pounds out Methodist church hymns alone at midnight. Behind 
     his desk sit rows of potted African violets, which the 
     grandfatherly Goodling fondly refers to as his children.
       This old-fashioned hideway is hardly the first spot one 
     would look in search of leading characters in the House 
     Republican revolution, with its New Age rhetoric and 
     antigovernment fervor. Yet William F. Goodling somehow 
     reached center stage in one of the most compelling 
     productions of The First 100 Days, a drama that tested his 
     political soul as he struggled, at the twilight of an obscure 
     career, to attain and hold power in an institution dominated 
     by young partisans pushing him from the right.
       Since he entered Congress in 1975 after a career as an 
     educator in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, Goodling 
     had earned a reputation on the House Education and Labor 
     Committee as a moderate who worked in bipartisan fashion to 
     protect the federal role in food and nutrition programs for 
     needy children, infants and pregnant mothers. It was a 
     natural extension of his paternalistic personality: taking 
     care of his children, just as he
      had as father, public school teacher and administrator and 
     cultivator of African violets.
       When the Republicans took power this year, he suddenly 
     became chairman of a committee that had been repopulated with 
     antigovernment conservatives and went by a newfangled Third 
     Wave name, Economic and Educational Opportunities. His first 
     assignment from Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Majority 
     Leader Richard K. Armey (Tex.) was to carry out one of the 
     most controversial missions in the ``Contract With America.'' 
     They directed him to dismantle and send back to the states 
     the very nutritional programs that he had long championed.
       Goodling's personal dilemma--how to respond to the 
     pressures of the conservative leadership without repudiating 
     his past legislative career--illuminated a larger morality 
     play in the House: the struggle of the Republican majority to 
     maintain the populist appeal of antigovernment rhetoric 
     without appearing to acquiesce to special interests.
       On one side, pushing hard for more power and freedom, were 
     the nation's newly ascendant Republican governors, who 
     visited Washington so often to lobby for block grants that 
     they virtually set up a shadow White House two blocks from 
     Goodling's congressional office. On another side were major 
     cereal companies, infant formula manufacturers, 
     agribusinesses and fast-food giants for whom the federal 
     retreat from the nutrition field presented an opportunity for 
     new markets and less government regulation. And finally there 
     were the most vulnerable members of society, whose needs 
     historically had been met by a bipartisan coalition in 
     Congress under the precept that hunger in America was a 
     nationwide crisis too dire to be left to the states and was, 
     as President Richard M. Nixon had declared in a seminal 
     speech 26 years ago, a federal responsibility.


                          profit and ideology

       At first, Dale Kildee could not imagine that his friendly 
     adversary bill Goodling was changing. This must be a 
     technical error, the veteran Democratic congressman from 
     Michigan later remembered thinking to himself when he entered 
     the Opportunities Committee room one day late in February for 
     the vote to send the nutrition programs back, to the states.
       The bill as the Republicans had drafted it left out any 
     requirement that states use competitive bidding procedures 
     when buying infant formula from the major companies supplying 
     the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and 
     Children (WIC)--a nutritional program assisting 7 million 
     people that had an effective record combating infant 
     mortality and premature births.
       In the early days of the WIC program, infant formula was 
     bought at market prices. Since the federal government began 
     requiring competitive bidding six years ago, the prices had 
     dropped dramatically, saving more than $1 billion last year 
     alone and nearly $4 billion over the last five years. All of 
     those savings were put back into the program, meaning that 
     more needy infants and pregnant women could be served.
       When he noticed that competitive bidding had been left out 
     of the Republican bill this year, Kildee assumed that it was 
     an unintentional omission, so he drafted an amendment 
     restoring it. He took the amendment to Chairman Goodling 
     confident that it would be accepted quickly. But Goodling's 
     reaction was cool and distant. Go ``work out'' with Hoekstra, 
     he told Kildee, referring to Peter Hoekstra, a second-term 
     congressman from western Michigan, one of the youthful free-
     enterprise Republicans on the committee who was gaining 
     stature as a confidant of Speaker Gingrich.
       Nothing was to be worked out. Hoekstra had a strong 
     distrust of the federal government and was one of the 
     staunchest proponents of devolving power back to the states. 
     ``Philosophically,'' he said, ``it was a no-brainer'' that 
     Congress should eliminate federal mandates whenever 
     possible--even the competitive bidding requirements that had 
     saved money.
       Hoekstra's philosophical commitment in this case coincided 
     with the desires of one of the major corporations in his 
     congressional district--Gerber Products, a Fremont-based 
     company that is the nation's largest manufacturer of baby 
     foods and is WIC's leading supplier of infant cereals. Unlike 
     in the infant formula field, competitive bidding is not 
     required of infant cereal suppliers, but the government 
     seemed to be moving in the direction and Gerber wanted to 
     maintain the status quo. The company lobbied hard against 
     competitive bidding requirements in the infant cereal 
     industry and had consulted with Hoekstra in the drafting of 
     the legislation.
       When Kildee's amendment came to a vote in committee, it was 
     defeated on a near party-line vote, with only one Republican 
     supporting it, Marge Roukema, a veteran moderate from New 
     Jersey. Roukema said 
     [[Page S5102]] later that she was not even aware that 
     competitive bidding was omitted from the Republican bill 
     until the deliberations that day.
       In the committee room after the vote, Roukema asked several 
     Republican members seated near her why they had done what 
     they had done. Their responses, she said, were shrugs of the 
     shoulders and the words, ``We trust the governors.''


                              big winners

       Only a few blocks from the land of Opportunities sits a 
     venerable Republican redoubt called the Capitol Hill Club, 
     where members of Congress mix easily with important visitors 
     from back home and corporate lobbyists. It was there, beneath 
     crystal chandeliers and oil paintings of GOP stalwarts, that 
     key committee members met with the big winners in the 
     transfer of money back to the states, Republican governors 
     such as John Engler of Michigan, Tommy G. Thompson of 
     Wisconsin, Pete Wilson of California and William F. Weld of 
     Massachusetts.
       The governors, said Opportunities Committee member Steve 
     Gunderson, a moderate Republican from Wisconsin, had become 
     the loudest constituents. ``We can't give them more money,'' 
     Gunderson said. ``So we had to give them something else.''
       The state executives did not get everything they had 
     demanded. Their bid for a single enormous block grant for all 
     the programs was rebuffed by Goodling and Rep. Rady ``Duke'' 
     Cunningham (R-Calif.), the nutrition subcommittee chairman, 
     who thought they could define the terms of the transfer 
     better with two separate block grants. But the governors did 
     receive more power and flexibility to run the school lunch 
     and WIC programs. For years, some governors and corporate 
     interests had bristled at regulations that they considered 
     too intrusive--from dictating the amount of sugar allowed in 
     WIC foods to when and where soft drinks could be sold in 
     public schools.
       Michigan's Engler was among the loudest critics of federal 
     rules and regulations, which he derided at a committee 
     hearing as a ``crazy quilt.'' There were, as in the case of 
     fellow Michigander Hoekstra and the Gerber connection, 
     narrower economic consequences of devolution important to 
     engler as well, in this case involving another major 
     manufacturing constituent--the Kellogg Co.
       The cereal giant from Battle Creek has fought for years to 
     modify a federal limit on sugar content that excludes Raisin 
     Bran, one of its top-selling products, from the nutrition 
     program for needy pregnant women and their young children. 
     Purchased separately, raisins and bran both fall within the 
     sugar standard, but combined in Raisin Bran they represent 
     twice the amount that government nutritionists consider 
     healthy in a single serving.
       Until the Republican revolution in Washington, Kellogg's 
     efforts to revise the standard and compete in the $285 
     million-a-year market for WIC adult cereals had proved 
     futile--``like hitting a brick wall,'' in the words of 
     company vice-president James Stewart. This year Kellogg saw 
     an opportunity to accomplish on the state level what it could 
     not do with the federal government. The firm employed John 
     Ford, son of the former committee chairman, retired 
     Democratic Congressman William D. Ford of Michigan, to head 
     its lobbying effort. Kellogg also enlisted the support of 
     Gov. Engler and his staff, who pressed the committee to keep 
     the block grants silent on the question of nutritional 
     standards.
       Not even the harshest critics of block grants predict an 
     abandonment of sound nutrition by the states. But the 
     devolution process will create a long-sought opening for many 
     food industries to carve out larger niches in the annual $8.5 
     billion school lunch and WIC programs. Financially strapped 
     state governments and part-time legislatures, many 
     nutritionists believe, are ill-equipped to make sound public 
     health judgments and can be more easily swayed by corporate 
     lobbyists.
       The return of nutrition programs to the states would lift 
     federal controls on the lunchtime sale of junk food in school 
     cafeterias--a prospect that several corporate food giants are 
     already anticipating. Coca-Cola Co., which last year fought 
     off a legislative effort to extend the junk food ban to all 
     high school grounds, is now showing signs of interest. Last 
     month, as the devolution legislation was moving through the 
     House, the company's law librarian called the national 
     association of school cafeteria personnel for a breakdown of 
     state laws on soft drink sales in schools.
       Also at stake in the transfer of power to states is one of 
     the cornerstones of the war on hunger, a 1946 requirement 
     that school lunches provide one-third of the recommended 
     dietary allowance of protein, vitamins and minerals. The 
     dietary guideline is intended to assure at least one healthy 
     serving a day of milk, vegetables, grain, fruit and meat for 
     the 25 million children in the program. Federal agriculture 
     officials were planning this summer to add limits on fat, 
     saturated fat and sodium for school lunches.
       With standards defined by states, food companies and 
     agricultural interests with special regional standing would 
     have more power, some nutritionists contend. ``You could find 
     a battle going on in a state legislature over what drinks to 
     serve at school lunch,'' said Lynn Parker, a child 
     nutritionist for the Food Research and Action Center. ``In a 
     dairy state, it might go one way. If soda interests are 
     strong, it could go another way. Whatever way it goes, it may 
     not be fought out on the grounds of what's best for the 
     kids.''
       Goodling and his Republican colleagues on the Opportunities 
     Committee express confidence that the states will demonstrate 
     sound nutrition and financial practices in dealing with the 
     programs. Their critics are less certain, and cite the recent 
     history of the WIC program as evidence.
       The infant formula industry, dominated by Mead Johnson & 
     Co. and Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories, had 
     raised prices a dozen times from 1981 to 1989, gobbling up 
     more and more of the funds allocated for cereals, milk, eggs, 
     cheese, juice and other foods in the program. After 
     competitive bidding was imposed nationwide, with Goodling's 
     support, prices dropped enough to feed another 1.5 million 
     needy women and infants.
       In defending the decision to drop competitive bidding 
     language from the devolution legislation this year, Goodling 
     said governors would be ``idiots'' not to impose it 
     themselves. But as a recent case in California shows, states 
     are not always as cost-conscious or resistant to industry 
     pressures. When California's competitively awarded contract 
     with Ross expired last December, it sought to extend the deal 
     without rebidding it. The Agriculture Department said no, 
     forcing a new round of solicitations and a new low bid--half 
     the price of the old deal. The state ended up saving $22 
     million a year.
       If ever there was a case of narrow corporate interests over 
     broad societal interests, this is it,'' said Robert 
     Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy 
     Priorities.


                           The Transformation

       By the time he reached Washington two decades ago, Bill 
     Goodling already had a reputation for compassion and a deep 
     interest in children and nutrition. As superintendent of the 
     Spring Grove school district, he ate lunch every day in the 
     cafeteria with his students. When the truck from Harrisburg 
     pulled up with vegetables and meats from the federal 
     commodities program, he helped carry the food down to the 
     freezer in the basement of the administration building. When 
     the mother of one of his students dies, he taught the young 
     man how to cook dinner for himself and his father.
       Goodling's own father, George Goodling, ran an apple 
     orchard on the old Susquehanna Road and served in Congress 
     for six terms. When he retired, Bill Goodling replaced him. 
     The small-town educator transferred his interests to the 
     broader stage of the Education and Labor Committee. He became 
     known as one of the staunchest defenders of the nutrition and 
     school lunch programs on the GOP side of the aisle. In 1982, 
     he was the chief Republican cosponsor of a resolution 
     opposing a Reagan administration proposal to send nutrition 
     programs back to the states through block grants.
       Three years later, when conservative Republicans in the 
     House were considering ways to trim the budget and broached 
     the possibility of cutting back on the national school lunch 
     program, Goodling swiftly killed the idea before it advanced 
     beyond the discussion stage. According to Tom Humbert, then a 
     budget aid to then-Rep. Jack Kemp (R) of New York, Goodling 
     called him one day. ``Please come and see me,'' Goodling 
     said. Humbert soon appeared in Goodling's office, where he 
     found the congressman tending his African violets. ``Mr. 
     Humbert,'' Goodling said, ``I hear that you are considering 
     cutting the school lunch program. That would be a very bad 
     idea!''
       This same Tom Humbert, who came from Goodling's home 
     district, returned to York County in 1992 and ran against the 
     incumbent in a heated three-way general election contest--a 
     race that Humbert and others see as the beginning of 
     Goodling's political transformation. Humbert ran as an 
     independent, challenging Goodling from the right. He and the 
     Democratic candidate Paul Kilker, both blasted Goodling for 
     his role in the House Bank scandal--it came out that year 
     that Goodling had hundreds of overdrafts.
       In Goodling's moment of need, he received a visit and 
     timely endorsement from an unlikely friend--the leader of 
     House conservatives, Newt Gingrich. That visit formed a bond 
     between Goodling and Gingrich that grew stronger: Goodling 
     supported Gingrich in his rise to power, and Gingrich 
     elevated Goodling to the chairmanship after the revolution. 
     Former aides on the committee's minority staff say they 
     detected a noticeable shift in their boss's politics as he 
     linked his fortunes to Gingrich. Even his moderate colleague 
     on the committee, Steve Gunderson, said he noticed Goodling 
     moving to the right last year. Gunderson attributed it to 
     positioning by new members of Goodling's staff who wanted to 
     be in favor with Gingrich.
       The word inside the committee and around the nutrition 
     community was that Goodling was instructed by the leadership 
     to ``carry the water'' for the committee's portion of the 
     Contract With America, as one former aide put it.
       By the time he took over the committee this year, Goodling 
     had little choice in any case. The panel, once a haven for 
     moderates, had been transformed into a strong-hold of free-
     enterprise true believers, many recruited by their 
     intellectual leader, Richard Armey of Texas, who served on 
     the panel before becoming majority leader. The sense of these 
     committee conservatives, as expressed by Rep. Cass Ballenger 
     (R), a garrulous good 
     [[Page S5103]] old boy from North Carolina was ``to get rid 
     of Washington whenever and wherever we can.''
       Ballenger had a personal interest in trying to remove the 
     federal bureaucracy from the school lunch program. He and his 
     wife founded the Community Ridge Day Care Center in his home 
     town of Hickory, a federally subsidized program that serves 
     school breakfasts and lunches. The paperwork for 
     reimbursements, Ballenger said, now goes through Raleigh, 
     then Atlanta and finally Washington, a process that means 
     Ballenger's center ``has to underwrite'' the meals for a 
     month. He will get his money quicker, the congressman said, 
     with the federal government out of the way.
       The Opportunities panel, by Ballenger's account, is now 
     attracting what he proudly calls free-enterprise ``wild men'' 
     and ``nuts'' who have various similar frustrations with the 
     federal bureaucracy. They were in such a mood of cutting and 
     slashing, Ballenger declared, that they would ``kill 
     motherhood tomorrow if it was necessary.''
       Goodling would not go that far. He and Duke Cunningham, who 
     was once a teacher and coach himself, as well as a fighter 
     pilot who was the real-life model for Tom Cruise's character 
     in ``Top Gun,'' managed to prevent efforts by committee 
     conservatives to curb the school lunch program more 
     drastically. Hoeksta and Ballenger wanted to limit the 
     increase in the block grants to half the 4.5 percent that 
     eventually was allowed. Goodling and Cunningham also rebuffed 
     an attempt by governors and conservative committee members to 
     lump all the program in one block grant. ``I said, `No way, 
     Jose' to that one,'' Goodling boasted.
       Compared to projections for family and school nutrition 
     programs under current law, the two block grants shaped by 
     Goodling's committee and passed by the House represent a 
     reduction of $6.6 billion over five years, according to the 
     Agriculture Department. But Goodling said that the states 
     deserved the opportunity to run the programs--``We can't 
     dictate everything,'' he said--and that the reduced 
     bureaucracy would lead to savings that could be passed along 
     to those who need the programs.
       The sight of Bill Goodling leading the way for the end of 
     federal involvement in the anti-hunger programs surprised 
     some longtime colleagues. It seemed as though to some extent 
     he was being forced to eat something that he did not find 
     entirely palatable. His training as an educator might have 
     helped there, too. Once, while eating lunch with first-
     graders at one of the Spring Grove elementary schools, 
     Goodling found himself staring down at a steaming heap of 
     cooked spinach. He hated cooked spinach. But there was a 
     little boy staring at him, and he felt that he had no choice 
     but to ``push this slimy stuff down my throat to show that 
     I'm eating everything that's on the plate.''
       (About This Series: Propelled by a wave of populist 
     discontent with Congress and the Democrats, the new 
     Republican congressional majority now confronts the reality 
     of power. The struggle to fulfill the demands of the 
     Republican mandate while also responding to the special 
     interest groups traditionally allied with the party will be 
     examined in a series of occasional articles in the months 
     ahead.)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is under a section titled ``Profit 
and Ideology,'' and I will have to be careful to make sure I leave out 
all names.

       The bill as the Republicans had drafted it left out any 
     requirement that States use competitive bidding procedures 
     when buying infant formula from the major companies supplying 
     the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and 
     Children (WIC)--a nutritional program assisting 7 million 
     people that had an effective record combating infant 
     mortality and premature births.
       In the early days of the WIC program, infant formula was 
     bought at market prices. Since the Federal Government began 
     requiring competitive bidding 6 years ago, the prices had 
     dropped dramatically, saving more than $1 billion last year 
     alone and nearly $4 billion over the last 5 years. All of 
     those savings were put back into the program, meaning that 
     more needy infants and pregnant women could be served.

  ``When he noticed that competitive bidding had been left out of the 
Republican bill this year,'' and there is a blank, a colleague 
``assumed that it was an unintentional omission, so he drafted an 
amendment restoring it. He took the amendment * * *'' and hoped that it 
would be accepted quickly, but that did not happen. Nothing was worked 
out.
  The philosophical commitment to not have competitive bidding --and I 
am now just kind of paraphrasing here, not using names--coincided with 
the desires of one of the major corporations, Gerber Products. This is 
a company which is the Nation's largest manufacturer of baby foods and 
is WIC's leading supplier of infant formulas.
  Unlike in the infant formula field, competitive bidding is not 
required of infant cereal suppliers, but the Government seemed to be 
moving in that direction and Gerber wanted to maintain the status quo. 
The company lobbied hard against competitive bidding requirements in 
the infant cereal industry, and was successful.
  Part 1. So you have Gerber and the whole question of whether there is 
going to be competitive bidding. I thought we were trying to be 
efficient, which would save money that can be plowed back into serving 
the poorest children in America. But apparently that did not happen, 
and I will have the amendment read again so my colleagues will know 
what we will have an up-or-down vote on.
  Then, part 2:

       The cereal giant from Battle Creek has fought for years to 
     modify a federal limit on sugar content that excludes Raisin 
     Bran, one of its top-selling products, from the nutrition 
     program for needy pregnant women and their young children. 
     Purchased separately, raisins and bran both fall within the 
     sugar standard, but combined in Raisin Bran they represent 
     twice the amount that government nutritionists consider 
     healthy in a single serving.
       Until the Republican revolution in Washington, Kellogg's 
     efforts to revise the standard and compete in the $285 
     million-a-year market for WIC adult cereals had proved 
     futile--``like hitting a brick wall,'' in the words of 
     company vice president. This year Kellogg saw an opportunity 
     to accomplish on the state level what it could not do with 
     the federal government. The firm employed--

  Someone who did the effective lobbying, and the whole effort was,

     . . . to keep the block grants silent on the question of 
     nutritional standards.

  The final part.
  So now we are talking about Kellogg and sugar content.

       The return of nutrition programs to the states would lift 
     federal controls on the lunchtime sale of junk food in school 
     cafeterias--a prospect that several corporate food giants are 
     already anticipating. Coca-Cola Co., which last year fought 
     off a legislative effort to extend the junk food ban to all 
     high school grounds, is now showing signs of interest. Last 
     month, as the devolution legislation was moving through the 
     House, the company's law librarian called the national 
     association of school cafeteria personnel for a breakdown of 
     state laws on soft drink sales in schools.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``If ever there was a case of narrow corporate interests 
     over broad societal interests, this is it,'' said Robert 
     Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy 
     Priorities.

  So, Mr. President, we have Gerber lobbying against competitive 
bidding on baby food. I thought we were interested in competitive 
bidding, efficiency. But no, there is no competitive bidding. Then we 
have Kellogg: We do not want any standards on sugar content having to 
do with what our children are eating, though there is not a 
nutritionist in the United States of America who would not tell you 
that is important. Then finally you have Coca-Cola eying junk food.
  Mr. President, let me simply read this amendment again to the 
underlying bill, I certainly hope and I plan to have an up-or-down vote 
on this.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that before the Senate is 
     required to vote on the question of whether the WIC program 
     and other nutrition programs should be converted to block 
     grant programs to be administered by the states, a full and 
     complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to 
     what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national 
     policy is the result of the improper influence of the food 
     industry and lobbyist acting on the industry's behalf.

  Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and speak on this 
amendment because I was talking about distorted priorities earlier, and 
that was in the context of some the rescissions in the Dole substitute 
on top of what is already before us. I was arguing why the path of 
least resistance? Why is everybody so excited about star wars in space 
but unwilling to invest resources to feed children right here on Earth?
  Now we have a different kind of priority. We have a situation where 
you have your big lobbyists, large corporations, well represented: We 
do not want competitive bids on formula, although competitive bids held 
the price down and would enable us to feed more hungry children. We do 
not want to have any standards in relation to sugar content, or 
worrying about that, so we try to make sure the Federal Government does 
not set any kind of standards here. Then of course you have these 
companies eyeing the junk food market in our School Lunch Program. All 
[[Page S5104]] of them are apparently very well represented.
  Do you know what, Mr. President? I did not see mentioned anywhere in 
this lengthy piece in the Washington Post today of any of the women and 
men who are involved in these nutrition programs, who devote their 
lives to serving children--their voice, apparently, was not heard at 
all.
  Mr. President, I did not in this article read a word about any of the 
child advocates or, for that matter, any children who figured into this 
discussion at all. But, instead, what we have here is, unfortunately, 
an example of the tremendous influence of the food industry and 
lobbyists acting on behalf of the food industry on legislation, while 
children, those concerned with the needs of children, with the concerns 
and circumstances of children's lives, are left out of the loop. That 
is the ``why'' of this amendment. I ask the clerk to read this 
amendment one more time, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       At an appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that before the 
     Senate is required to vote on the question of whether the WIC 
     program and other nutrition programs should be converted to 
     block grant programs to be administered by the states, a full 
     and complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to 
     what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national 
     policy is the result of the improper influence of the food 
     industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's behalf.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would simply say--
--
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I am not certain I will 
object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that he does not 
have the right to reserve the right to object.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can object.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, if I could get the 
clarification of the procedures that we are undertaking, the Senator 
from Nebraska sought recognition a few moments ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that he may 
not reserve the right to object.
  Mr. EXON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. Speed up the call, and we will have a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk resumed the call of the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 451 to Amendment No. 450

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself and Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 451 to amendment 
     No. 450.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from 
Minnesota he does not have the right to do that when the clerk is 
reporting the amendment.
  The bill clerk continued with the reading of the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

       Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs


                     bilateral economic assistance

                  funds appropriated to the president

                           debt restructuring

                         debt relief for jordan

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     to Jordan issued by the Export-Import Bank or by the Agency 
     for International Development or by the Department of 
     Defense, or for the cost of modifying: (1) concessional loans 
     authorized under Title I of the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and (2) 
     credits owed by Jordan to the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     as a result of the Corporation's status as a guarantor of 
     credits in connection with export sales to Jordan; as 
     authorized under subsection (a) under the heading, ``Debt 
     Relief for Jordan'', in Title VI of Public Law 103-306, 
     $275,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That not more than $50,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph may be obligated prior to 
     October 1, 1995.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mr. President, last time I checked there were 70 amendments on that 
side pending. This may clarify the question of the Senator from 
Nebraska. We had 28. This is Tuesday. We hope to recess on Friday. And 
everybody is just dreaming up little amendments to try to make a few 
political points. I have talked with the White House this morning. If 
they do not want this bill, that is fine with me. But what we hope to 
do is to take Jordan aid off the first supplemental and add it to this 
bill. Then maybe that will get White House attention.
  This is a Jordan aid amendment that has wide support. It is supported 
by the President. Many of us met with King Hussein this year. It has 
broad bipartisan support. All I do in my amendment, in lieu of the 
matter proposed by the Senator from Minnesota, I insert the following. 
And if we are going to proceed with this bill, then we will have a vote 
on this amendment. Maybe then the White House will become interested in 
this bill because now I do not think the White House cares, and I do 
not see any reason to continue this spectacle on the Senate floor, have 
everybody offering some little amendment to score some political 
points. We will move on to something else.
  So I have asked Mr. Panetta, the White House Chief of Staff, to let 
me know after he has a discussion with the Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle, and then after lunch we decide whether we pull the bill down 
or whether we proceed to vote on this amendment and on the Daschle 
amendment and on the amendment offered by Senator Ashcroft of Missouri. 
But if there is no interest in passing this supplemental bill--there 
does not appear to be any in the White House--then it would be my 
intent to just take the bill down. Then we are not going to send the 
other supplemental to the White House either. If they do not want to be 
involved in this process, that is up to them. But they cannot have it 
both ways.
  So the amendment is simply the Jordan amendment, which we have 
discussed and which has been a matter of intense interest to the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and this amendment is offered by 
me on Senator McConnell's behalf.
  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Nebraska for an 
additional question.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator from Kansas yield without losing his right 
to the floor for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. I would say to the majority leader and other Senators on 
both sides of the aisle that it is not the intention of this Senator to 
cause any unnecessary delay. I think every Senator should be protected 
with his or her right to offer any amendments that they think are in 
order. I do happen to think this is an important piece of legislation.
  [[Page S5105]] I have an amendment that I talked about on Friday 
morning with regard to eliminating the mandates on the States with 
regard to funding of rape and incest that I talked about and ever since 
that time there seemed to be one roadblock or another to bringing this 
up. I had stood aside and said I just want to place this in the flow of 
business somewhere along the line. So I would certainly ask the 
majority leader to recognize the rights of the Senator from Nebraska, 
with the other amendments that the Senator said were being considered, 
as to whether or not the Senator was going to pull down the bill.
  I hope that maybe we could get together with some kind of a 
unanimous-consent agreement to protect the rights of every Member of 
this body and still expedite the process, which I assume is what the 
Senator, the majority leader would like to have. In other words, there 
may be some filibuster, minifilibuster, call it what you want. I have 
no objection to that. I would think though that if we are going to be 
able to have the recess we had scheduled for this weekend, we are all 
going to have to recognize there is going to have to be some give and 
take somewhere along the line on this. And if there are reasons why 
filibusters are going to be mounted, maybe we could reach a time 
agreement to expedite the cloture process after a reasonable time of 
debate and not have the 3-day rule.
  Basically, if we get into a 3-day rule with regard to a filibuster, 
it is pretty clear that we are not going to be able to finish this bill 
by the end of the week. And I share some of the concerns that the 
majority leader has, while I will fight, as I always have, for the 
rights of Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments as 
they are entitled to under the rules.
  I am just wondering. My question of the majority leader is, has there 
been a meeting recently between the majority leader and the minority 
leader with regard to the proposition of trying to come to some finite 
number of amendments, agree to a time limit on those; that if 
filibusters come up, we possibly could have an agreement that we would 
have expedited procedures where cloture could be recognized the same 
day, it could be considered the same day as a cloture motion would be 
filed, something to move this process along?
  Primarily, I think it is important that we do the business of the 
Senate, work our will and then let the rules apply as to whether or not 
we are going to pass this piece of legislation.
  I recognize the frustration of the majority leader, although I 
question whether it is wise to have foreign aid funds be added to this 
measure on top of all of the other consternation that obviously and 
justifiably surrounds this very important piece of legislation. But we 
have to move ahead.
  My question is: Has there been a recent meeting between the two 
leaders to see if something could not be worked out to scale down the 
number of amendments and at least get some unanimous consent agreements 
as to how much time we are going to spend on each amendment?
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  I would say we have been meeting at a staff level. Both Senator 
Daschle and I have talked about it on the Senate floor. He indicated he 
might be able to whittle down the 70 amendments.
  Well, it is Tuesday. I am certain we could whittle down the 28 
amendments. Maybe we will get it down to 50 amendments. If you took an 
hour or more on each one, plus rollcalls, it is not going to happen. It 
seems to me that rather than just let everybody bring up amendments 
here, posturing, doing whatever they are doing, it is best just to pull 
the bill down and have those debates at some other time.
  I know the Senator from Nebraska has an amendment. I know he is 
serious about it. It is a serious amendment. I would just guarantee 
him, if we reach an agreement, that amendment will be in the mix unless 
the Senator decides otherwise.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the leader.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader yield for a brief comment, 
without his losing the floor--just a very brief comment?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me explain the Jordan amendment. It is 
$275 million debt relief for Jordan, $50 million in fiscal 1995, $225 
million in fiscal 1996. And it is an effort by this administration, 
supported by bipartisan supporters on each side of the aisle, to 
support the peace process.
  The Senator from Kentucky has just arrived on the floor and can 
explain it in greater detail. But the purpose of it and the reason for 
it is the fact that Jordan has made peace with Israel. We hope there 
would be an overall peace in the Mideast at the earliest possible time. 
I know the White House supports the amendment. I hope they would 
support it on this bill and then help us bring this bill to a 
conclusion. It does not take any rocket scientist to figure out we are 
not going to deal with 100 amendments if we are going to have sense-of-
the-Senate amendments on everything. We had one from the Senator from 
Massachusetts, taking a couple hours on Friday, several hours 
yesterday, on a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that does not mean 
anything.
  Now we have another one by the Senator from Minnesota on the WIC 
Program. And we will probably have a lot of sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments. Maybe that means something somewhere, but I fail to see 
where.
  If we really want to get this bill done, if we are really concerned 
about reducing the debt, we ought to be voting to do it. This is $13.5 
billion in rescissions, a fairly substantial package, talking about 
real spending restraint.
  If the White House does not want to pass it, if they do not want any 
spending restraint--which, apparently, they do not--that is certainly 
the prerogative of the President.
  I assume we will be hearing from the Chief of Staff momentarily. In 
the meantime, I would ask the cosponsor of this amendment if I have 
forgotten anything in the process.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to commend the 
distinguished leader for offering the Jordanian debt relief amendment. 
This is exactly the same amendment which I offered earlier this year to 
the defense bill.
  Essentially what the leader's amendment would do, it would provide 
$50 million in debt relief, which would be obligated in fiscal year 
1995, and $225 million for 1996.
  The point is, this is the final installment in the agreement that we 
have with the Jordanians. The King was in town, as we all know, last 
week. Many of us met with him. He is making a good-faith effort to turn 
his country around and to be an important part of this growing peace 
movement in the Middle East.
  I think this is an extremely important measure. I commend the 
majority leader for offering it to this bill. Maybe it will make this 
bill a little sweeter for those who seem not to want it to go anywhere. 
I, obviously, hope this will be approved at the appropriate time.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  How much time does the Senator from Minnesota need?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the majority leader--and I thank him for his 
graciousness--I would need no more than 3 or 4 minutes, just a brief 
comment in response to where we are, without the Senator losing his 
right to the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Would the Senator want 5 minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes would be fine.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut want any time?
  Mr. DODD. Five or 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, after the Senator 
from Minnesota proceeds for 5 minutes and the Senator from Connecticut 
for 10 minutes, that we stand in recess under the previous order until 
2:15.
  Does the Senator from Kentucky want any more time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No. I would just make the point that this is 
completely paid for. This Jordanian debt relief is totally paid for.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me add, I failed to recognize that, with the adoption 
of the Shelby amendment, it actually raised the rescission package to 
$15 billion, not $13.5 billion. So I was in error.
  Is there objection to my request?
   [[Page S5106]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Not at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes, and the 
Senator from Connecticut will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, just so my colleagues understand and the majority 
leader understands, I understand that Senators have a right to second-
degree amendments and I am pleased for us to have this debate, and 
there will be a vote. But I will bring this amendment back to the floor 
after the vote on the second-degree amendment.
  I do not understand why my colleagues have any fear of an up-or-down 
vote on this amendment. I say to you, Mr. President, it is very 
relevant and timely. We are talking about the WIC Program. We are 
talking about nutrition programs.
  At the same time, we see the power of the food industry. We do not 
have competitive bidding on infant formula which would save money, 
money that could be used to feed more children.
  We are talking about an effort to strip away, I fear, some nutrition 
standards. We are talking about an effort to move in by the junk food 
market. And so my amendment is hardly, Mr. President, for show. It is 
very serious.
  It reads:

       It is the sense of the Senate that before the Senate is 
     required to vote on the question of whether the WIC Program 
     and other nutrition programs should be converted to block 
     grant programs to be administered by the States, a full and 
     complete investigation should be conducted by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture to determine whether, and if so, to 
     what extent, such a proposed substantial change in national 
     policy is the result of the improper influence of the food 
     industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's behalf.

  Mr. President, this is not filibuster. I am quite willing to agree to 
a time limit. I just want an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
  Here we have these proposed cuts in nutrition programs, talking about 
block-granting, and, in addition, unfortunately, we have evidence of an 
industry and lobbyists having, I think, too much influence in 
developing some of this legislation as it moves along in the Congress.
  I am just simply saying: What happened to competitive bidding? What 
about nutrition standards for children?
  We should investigate before we move forward. I think the operative 
language is to investigate ``to what extent, such a proposed 
substantial change in national policy as the result of the improper 
influence of the food industry and lobbyists acting on the industry's 
behalf.''
  Mr. President we ought to have an up-or-down vote.
  So I say to the majority leader, I understand the second-degree 
amendment. We will have that debate. But then I will come back with 
this amendment, and we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. 
And I will keep bringing this amendment to the floor until we do have 
that up-or-down vote.
  Mr. President, this amendment is germane to the debate of rescissions 
and cuts in nutrition programs. It is relevant to the debate about 
whether we go in the direction of block grants. It is very relevant to 
what is happening in the 104th Congress.
  I think the Senate sends a very positive message to the people of the 
country that we certainly want to make sure that the final nutrition 
legislation that we pass, I say to my colleague from Connecticut, has, 
first and foremost, the interests of children, not the interests of the 
food industry. That is what this amendment speaks to. Nobody should be 
afraid of this amendment. Everybody should want to vote for it up or 
down, and I would assume that we would have 100 votes in favor of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Under the unanimous-consent 
agreement, the Senator from Connecticut now has 10 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to return, if I could, to the basic 
thrust of the legislation before us, and that is the rescission bill.
  You are going to almost have to hire a mountain guide to find your 
way through the legislative process that is unfolding here, with 
various amendments that are now being offered to the underlying bill 
and to the substitutes that have been suggested.
  Let me, if I can, get back to the core set of issues here. What is 
primarily before us is the rescission bill that cuts into the heart of 
an awful lot of critically important programs that affect the most 
vulnerable of people in our society. It seems to me that we ought to 
try and keep our eye on that debate. Adding elements here that deal 
with Jordan and other issues, no matter how laudable and appropriate at 
some point for us to debate and discuss, I think it becomes rather 
obvious, patently obvious, to anyone who is following this debate that 
these are efforts to try and distract the attention from the central 
question.
  Certainly this body ought to vote on whether or not you think the 
cuts in nutrition programs and Head Start and drug free schools ought 
to take place or not--we should not have to dwell interminably on those 
questions--and cast your votes yes or no. If you think that these cuts 
are ones that ought to be made, then you vote for them. If you do not, 
then you vote otherwise.
  But I do not think we assist by doing this, since this is almost a 
self-imposed filibuster by the majority on these issues.
  Mr. President, I want to, first of all, begin by commending the 
majority to this extent; and that is, the bill, the rescission bill, is 
a lot better than what existed in the House. No question, this is an 
improvement over what was coming over from the House.
  But it is still a far cry from what I think most people in this 
country understand are valuable investments to the future of this 
Nation.
  I was responsible for Head Start, Mr. President, 2 years ago, to 
bring the reauthorization bill of Head Start to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. It was a comprehensive bill that called for many substantive 
changes in how Head Start was functioning, but it also called for full 
funding of Head Start.
  Frankly and very honestly, I prepared myself to come to the floor for 
an extensive debate--it was a fairly controversial bill, the Head Start 
Program--and to extend full funding and to make other changes, many of 
which had been suggested, I might point out, by the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas, now the chairperson of the Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum.
  In any event, I came over with leaflets, folders, and binders to 
defend this reauthorization bill. I was on the floor all of about 20 or 
30 minutes. There was not a single voice raised in opposition to the 
bill. It was unanimously adopted by this Chamber.
  It is ironic--maybe that is not the best word to be using here--that 
we find just a matter of months later a cut coming into the Head Start 
Program, again, a program that has never been the subject of much 
partisan debate and division over the many years that the program has 
existed because it works. It does the job that we need to be doing to 
try to see to it that the young children of this country get a good 
start in their educational life.
  It has been a program that has worked tremendously well. Regretfully, 
we are only getting 1 in 4 of the eligible children with it. So there 
it was the collective judgment that it made sense for us to try to 
reach as many of those eligible children as possible.
  So the reauthorization bill did that, unanimously adopted, not a 
single amendment offered on the floor. We had extensive hearings in the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee and worked out, I think, a good 
bill. I think the best evidence of the fact it was a good bill is that 
there was not a dissenting voice, and not a dissenting vote on that 
measure.
  Now we come back this year and find out all of a sudden not only are 
we not going to fund to the extent possible all eligible children in 
this country, but we are actually going to go after the resources that 
are only reaching 1 in 4 of the children in this Nation.
  There are a lot of messages and people have offered a lot of 
interpretations as to what happened on November 8 in the election, but 
I think it is a total 
[[Page S5107]] misreading of those electoral results to assume that the 
people who voted for the new majority anticipated that some of the very 
first actions we would be taking would be to go after the most 
vulnerable citizens in our society. The list goes on at some length in 
this $13 billion rescission package that really does cut into the 
investment programs that are critically important for America's 
children and America's families.
  I mentioned Head Start. There are also the nutrition programs and 
child care development. Again, here we are going to be debating 
shortly, I hope, welfare reform for the country. I do not know of 
anyone--in fact, I want to begin by commending my colleague from 
Connecticut, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, who is a leading Republican 
Member of the House. To her great credit, she was able to restore some 
of the funding for the child care block grant. She could only go so 
far, quite frankly, with her amendment to beef up the funding in that 
area in the House package, but we are still terribly short of the child 
care needs in this Nation.
  There are some 10 States that have waiting lists of over 10,000 
people for existing child care slots before we move people from welfare 
to work. In Florida, I think the number is 23,000 on the waiting list. 
In Georgia, it is in the neighborhood, I think, of 15,000, to cite two 
States that come to mind immediately.
  As we now try to move people from welfare to work, we have to try to 
come up with a decent approach to how we care for these children. And 
yet, in this rescission package, we find again several millions of 
dollars in cuts in the block grant going back to the States, despite 
the fact there are already literally hundreds of thousands of people on 
waiting lists. As we move people from welfare to work, then obviously 
there is a heightened degree of demand for those slots and additional 
slots. Again, without even expanding the present need out there, we are 
cutting into the present need as we move people in that direction.
  The WIC Program--Women, Infants, and Children--again, this is a 
program for which I do not know of dissenters, never heard of them 
here, because there is the general conclusion that investment in these 
nutrition programs in the earliest stages of a child's life--in fact, 
earlier for pregnant women--have made tremendous gains for us, not only 
ethically and morally, but fiscally in this country. We know today that 
a dollar invested in the proper care of a pregnant woman and an infant 
saves $4 later in health care costs. Those numbers are not being made 
up. Those are the facts. Why in the world would we be making a 
significant cut in the Women, Infants, and Children Program, 
recognizing that it is going to cost us that much more down the road if 
we do not make those kinds of investments?
  I might point out, I joined last year with 70 of our colleagues--70--
70 percent of this body joined as cosponsors for full funding of this 
program. Now we find, again, not only are we not reaching the full 
funding, we are cutting into the dollars that are necessary just to 
maintain the program at its present level.
  In education, again--I hardly think it needs repeating out here--the 
investment in the educational needs of our children are just going to 
be greater year after year. Here we had the Speaker of the House offer 
a suggestion that there ought to be a tax break given to people who 
make a donation of a computer to children. People laughed at it. They 
said, ``That's a silly idea.'' I do not think the Speaker was silly at 
all. You might argue about whether or not a tax-cut approach is the 
best way to go, but his instincts were absolutely correct.
  Today, if you are not computer literate coming out of an educational 
system, you are so disadvantaged, and I am not talking about jobs with 
investment banking firms or insurance companies or defense contractors. 
Even the most basic simple functions today require a literacy in 
computer technology. And here we are making a $100 million cut in a 
program to provide computers for children in our school systems.
  I do not understand what the thinking process is if we expect to grow 
economically. The best deficit reducer is a growing economy, people at 
work. That is the best way to cut into this deficit.
  If we deny these young people the tools they are going to have to 
have to get the best possible paying jobs in the future, then we are 
going to see the obvious effects.
  In Goals 2000, again, we had increases for disadvantaged children, 
Mr. President. To see 70,000 disadvantaged special-needs children being 
dropped off the list of getting help because of a $73 million cut in 
this $13 billion package, again, I do not understand the importance of 
that.
  In a sense, maybe this one particular issue has more poignancy for 
me. I have a sister, Mr. President, who is legally blind, who has been 
a teacher for 25 or 30 years. In growing up, my parents were fortunate 
enough to have the resources to make the investments so that my sister 
could get all the benefits of someone who was disabled.
  As a result of that, today she has made a significant contribution. 
She has taught in the largest inner-city elementary school in the State 
of Connecticut, helped provide the Montessori system of teaching in 
this country, has two master's degrees, has been a highly productive 
citizen, and has made a significant contribution. What would my 
sister's life be like today had she not grown up in a family that had 
the resources to make those kinds of investments for her? Would she be 
as productive? And what will happen to these children today that we are 
cutting out of these title I programs? What happens to them?
  Again, I thought most people in this country understood the value of 
investing in these kids so they maximize their potential, become self-
sufficient, become productive citizens to the maximum extent possible, 
and here we are now going to eliminate some 70,000 of these children 
and their families from that kind of assistance and support.
  Again, I do not think that is what the message was. I think people 
understand that those kinds of investments truly do make a difference 
in the wealth of the Nation.
  Let me if I can, Mr. President, move, because I know the time is 
moving fast here, to the national service issue.
  Again, there is a significant cut here. I want to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and others, because 
they did a lot better than what was in the House bill.
  I think it is important that people understand we are talking about a 
difference here between what was in the House and what is in the Senate 
package. Mr. President, I think this national service idea, the one 
that enjoyed such broad-based support only a year or so ago, deserves 
the strong backing of our colleagues.
  Again, let me cite a personal story if I can. Mr. President, 35 years 
ago another American President challenged a generation by serving in 
something called the Peace Corps. When I was finishing up my college, I 
heard that challenge and it excited me. And I served for 2 years as a 
Peace Corps volunteer in Latin America, in the Domincan Republic.
  I think it was a tremendously valuable experience. The total cost for 
my 2 years was about $5,000. That was about $100 a month I got paid as 
a volunteer, and whatever benefits they provided. I think the total 
amount was about that.
  This program here is a national service program, but not to serve 
overseas. This American President said, ``I think voluntarism and 
serving one's country has tremendous value, and I am going to link it 
with educational benefits. How about serving here at home, instead of 
going overseas.'' Lord knows, we could use the investment.
  It was exciting and generating a lot of enthusiasm, particularly 
among younger Americans, to answer the call. Presently 20,000 young 
Americans have answered the call to serve their country. That is a 
remarkable, remarkable return on such a call.
  In the Peace Corps days, we did not get anything like that, in the 
number of people stepping forward to volunteer. Here, 20,000 Americans 
already, in a little over a year, have stepped forward to volunteer, to 
try and make this a stronger and better country and reduce costs.
  They have taught or tutored some 9,000 preschool children. Mr. 
President, 9,000 preschool children have benefited as a result of the 
AmeriCorps Program. 
[[Page S5108]] They have established after-school and summer tutoring 
for more than 4,000 young children. That is just in the first year or 
so of this program. They have organized, and supervised community 
service projects for more than that 4,400 children, cleaning up 
neighborhoods, delivering food to the elderly.
  In return for their service, of course, these members earn an 
educational award worth about $4,700 to pay for college courses. What 
better tradeoff could we be getting, than asking Americans to step in 
and help out in needed communities, help needy citizens in our country, 
in return for which they get assistance to go on to higher education. 
Again, all of us recognizing, I think, the value of trying to defer 
those costs.
  Mr. President, the Daschle amendment includes funding for these 
programs, restoring them, in the areas of nutrition, education, and 
AmeriCorps, the volunteer program, that are critically important for 
disadvantaged children. These are small investments to be making, and 
yet the return to our country is invaluable.
  There are many people who remember the GI bill and VA mortgages. In 
early 1950 dollars those were expensive programs, they were not cheap. 
Yet, I do not know of anyone who would say it was a bad investment to 
make when we asked the taxpayers of this country to invest in the 
education needs of another generation of Americans. That is what we are 
doing here.
  To come out on the very first efforts, the very first targets, the 
very first constituencies that are being asked to bite the bullet are 
the ones that we will be counting on in the future to make this a 
stronger, a healthier, more vibrant country in the 21st century.
  Mr. President, I would hope that the Daschle amendment would be 
supported. I would hope that we could get an up-and-down vote on these 
matters, and not cloud and obfuscate the debate by engaging in 
procedural tactics here that avoid debate and discussion in votes on 
the issues that are the substance of the underlying bill.
  It seems to me no one is well served by that tactic. It only 
indicates to many Members that there is somehow some fear about having 
the kind of votes on these issues that this Chamber ought to, if we are 
going to accept the kind of cuts that have been proposed.
  Mr. President, I hope we can get back to this debate, that we can 
consider the Daschle amendment, and not see matters be brought up that 
properly belong on a foreign relations bill and not on a rescission 
bill dealing with the economic needs of our Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________