CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

February 18, 1969

Page 3690

Mr. COTTON. I understand. I listened to the colloquy between the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.

Mr. COTTON. The point of which I wanted to make sure is this: this $100,000, if the committee receives it, will be used to employ non-government agencies or firms to make this survey?

Mr. McGOVERN. That is essentially correct, except for about $9,000, which would be for a part of the committee's own field investigation work.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. Is it not a fact that a majority of the committee are thoroughly convinced that this outside survey is really indispensable?

Mr. McGOVERN. The Senator is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if I could have the attention of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Malnutrition and Hunger.

Would it be possible for the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, at this time, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the yeas and nays on the committee amendment, so that we may have a final vote on this matter immediately?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I am convinced that it is the will of the Senate that we reject the Rules Committee recommendation and restore the fund to the full $250,000. On that basis. I am perfectly willing to have it decided on a voice vote rather than further delay the Senate with a rollcall.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a yea and nay vote.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have no objection, but so that we may understand, I just want to be clear. I ask the Senator from South Dakota, the vote now would be “nay" in order to restore the $250,000; is that correct?

Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct. The parliamentary situation is that a nay vote would have the effect of rejecting the recommendation of the Rules Committee, and call for the restoration of the full $250,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from South Dakota?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment having been rejected, the question now is on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I wish to say just one thing. I am saying it with a smile, but I mean it.

I do not think there are any more compassionate Members of the Senate than the members of the Committee on Rules and Administration. I think they had good reason to suggest this cut. I do not think there is a more compassionate Senator than the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana. I think he had reason behind his stand.

I hope that the committee will be a little more practical and a little more reasonable than they indicate by the memorandum that is attached to the report.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Florida in the remarks he has just made. The mark of ALLEN ELLENDER is the food stamp program, the school lunch program, and all of the other programs which have come out of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry while he has been chairman or ranking minority member of that committee.

As far as the distinguished Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN) is concerned, I know what he did to raise the amount in committee, and I wish to say that he is just as humanitarian as they come, as is the Senator from Louisiana. I appreciate the cooperative attitude shown by both in connection with the request which I made of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the majority leader and of the distinguished Senator from Florida.

I can assure the Senate and everyone concerned that I have just as much concern for poor people, and poorly nourished people, as anyone else.

I wish to say just one further thing in this connection: As I stated a while ago, we did not single out this one committee. We cut $803,660 from the total amount the committees asked for. It was across the board, as far as we could make it.

We cut $145,400 off the Labor Committee, so it is a much larger cut than this one. We were simply trying to do what we thought it was the duty of the Rules Committee to do.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator has no need to apologize. We know him. We know where his heart is.

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

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I join with the Senator from Florida, the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from North Carolina in the statements they have made. There is no question of the depth of their concern. It was an honest difference on the question of money and figures, as to what was needed.

I am grateful to the Senator, on the contrary, for the generous way in which he has just handled this matter.

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

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I yield.

Mr. McGOVERN. I join with the other Senators in expressing my appreciation to the Senator from North Carolina. I happen to know what he did, which had the effect of raising the sum that other members of the committee were suggesting cutting very substantially. I know it was with some effort that he got the figure up to $150,000. So, while it fell somewhat short of what I thought it ought to be, I do appreciate the efforts of the Senator from North Carolina in trying to save a part of our request.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs has begun a task which Congress and the American people have shirked for too long. Because malnutrition saps the human spirit, its victims are quiet and easily forgotten. In a land where more people are concerned about obesity than starvation, hunger has been ignored.

Because of the work of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, the problems of hunger and malnutrition are finally receiving the attention they need. The committee has started information flowing to Congress and the Nation. It has given hope to people who have suffered so long and so unnecessarily from hunger.

The Rules Committee's action in reducing the select committee's budget by 40 percent is a serious blow to the effort to eradicate hunger. The budget cut would eliminate many of the select committee's most promising efforts at investigation and research.

Cutting the select committee's budget is false economy. Congress cannot afford to deny itself the information it needs to make a successful attack on hunger. The Nation cannot afford to back away from a human problem of such urgency.

As a cosigner of the resolution providing a full budget for the Select Committee, I asserted my belief that the problem of hunger is of the highest priority. I intend to reaffirm that belief by voting to restore the Select Committee's budget to the full amount of $250,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The resolution (S. Res. 68) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to, as follows:

Whereas the Senate has voted unanimously to establish a Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs to study the food, medical, and other related basic needs among the people of the United States: Therefore be it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion was agreed to.