[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5168-S5170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WINNERS AND LOSERS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have heard from schoolteachers and I have 
had heard from parents and doctors and day care providers and advocates 
for children around the Nation. Many of them have called me because, 
during the past 20 years as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have been intimately involved 
with almost all nutrition legislation in this country.
  Certainly, during the last dozen years, there has not been any piece 
of nutrition legislation that has passed the Congress and has been 
signed into law by the President that has not either been authored by 
me or cosponsored by me.
  I have heard from many Vermonters, from dietitians, dairy farmers, 
the Governor of Vermont, and volunteers of Vermont food shelves. They 
feel worried and betrayed. They want welfare reform; they want able-
bodied adults to work, as do I. But they do not want to see hunger 
return in this country with a vengeance.
  They do not want to see a country, blessed as no other nation on 
Earth has ever been blessed with its ability to produce food, have 
millions of hungry Americans. And they do not want the Contract With 
America. They believe the Contract With America is antichild and 
antifamily, and so do I.
  The Contract With America is good for big corporations, for huge tax 
cuts for the rich, and for special interests. I thought we ought to see 
who are the top 10 winners under the Contract With America. So I put 
together a chart that explains the top 10 winners.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two lists of winners and 
losers, under the Contract With America, be printed in the Record.
        Top 10 Winners During the First 100 Days of the Contract

       10. The Coca-Cola Company and the Pepsi Cola Company--soft 
     drinks instead of milk could be served with school lunches. 
     Children and dairy farmers, in contrast, are very big losers.
       Pepsi is a big winner since its Taco Bell and Pizza Hut 
     subsidiaries could take over school lunch programs, and other 
     fast food companies are not far behind.
       9. Pesticide manufacturers--the chemical giants stand to 
     make millions of dollars with planned cuts in federal 
     regulations that protect the environment. I hope families 
     that drink water in rural areas like the taste of alachlor, 
     atrazine, and cyanazine.
       8. Criminals--Republicans plan to stop the President's 
     efforts to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. 
     All communities who would have gotten those new officers will 
     be big losers.
       In Houston, violent crimes have been reduced by 17 percent 
     because of cops on the beat; in New York City, community 
     policing has cut violent street crimes by 7 percent.
       7. Four drug giants--the House bill could transfer up to 
     $1.1 billion to infant formula manufacturers by eliminating 
     the requirement that infant formula be bought at the best 
     price for the WIC program.
       Current competitive bidding procedures keep 1.5 million 
     pregnant women, infants and children on WIC at no additional 
     cost to taxpayers. Those up to 1.5 million infants, women and 
     children are losers under the House bill.
       6. Locksmiths--funding for child day care is slashed, which 
     means that low-income mothers who want to work may have to 
     let tens of thousands of kids stay home by themselves.
       5. Water and air polluters, unwholesome meat and poultry 
     packers--House Republicans plan to cut regulations that 
     protect the environment, air quality, water quality and food 
     safety.
       Families that breath air, drink water and eat food are the 
     big losers.
       4. Large corporations--corporations will enjoy huge tax 
     loopholes (such as eliminating the alternative minimum tax 
     which will give corporations $35 billion over 10 years), 
     defense conglomerates will make large profits, and meat and 
     poultry plants will not have to worry about selling 
     contaminated meats since that will be allowed.
       3. The wealthiest 12 percent of Americans--over half the 
     benefits of the tax breaks in the Contract With America go to 
     the wealthiest 12 percent of Americans, those earning over 
     $100,000 a year.
       In contrast, children do not vote and have been targeted 
     for the worst cuts by the Contract With America. Included in 
     the list of Federal funding slashed or totally eliminated is 
     funding for: disabled children, food for homeless children 
     living in emergency shelters, day care for the children of 
     low-income parents who want to work, food for children in 
     over 150,000 day care homes, summer jobs and food service 
     programs, PBS children's programs, and other programs for 
     children.
       2. Lawyers--lawyers will make a fortune exploiting all the 
     environmental, tax, and worker protection loopholes in the 
     Contract.
       The Republicans create 101 new ways for lawyers to delay 
     environmental, health and food safety regulations.
       1. Anyone making over $349,000 a year--the House Republican 
     proposals give the wealthy an average tax break of $20,362 
     through huge capital gains tax cuts, estate tax breaks for 
     the wealthy, and corporate tax loopholes. In addition, U.S. 
     billionaires who renounce U.S. citizenship will be given huge 
     tax writeoffs--$3.9 billion worth over the next 10 years.
       These tax entitlements for the rich, and for corporations, 
     are provided while cutting aid to children, to low-income 
     students who want to stay in college, and to the national 
     service program that provides college scholarships.
                                                                    ____


        Top 10 Losers During the First 100 Days of the Contract

       10. Newborn children--the Contract throws up to 1.5 million 
     pregnant women, infants and children off the WIC program, 
     threatens to make millions go hungry, and provides for major 
     funding cuts for programs that help disabled children, 
     children in child care and homeless children.
       9. Children who drink tap water--the House delays 
     regulations that protect drinking water from being 
     contaminated with dangerous chemicals.
       8. Children who breathe--the House bill hampers clean air 
     protections which will especially hurt more vulnerable 
     populations such as children.
       7. Children who need child care--child care food program 
     funding is cut in half which will likely throw over 150,000 
     day care homes off the program.
       6. Children with mothers who work--the Contract slashes 
     funding for child care for low-income parents who are trying 
     to stay off welfare, get off welfare, or find a job.
       5. Children with fathers who work--the Contract eliminates 
     the safety net for families when they most need help during a 
     recession. Benefits to millions of children could be 
     significantly cut during hard times.
       4. Children who go to school--funding for educational 
     programs for grade school and secondary schools, funding for 
     the Learn and Serve Program, and funding for AmeriCorps 
     college scholarships is slashed.
       3. Children who eat hamburgers--The House bill delays rules 
     on food safety for at least one year. These rules are 
     designed to prevent foodborne illness outbreaks like the one 
     that killed several children in Western states in 1991.
       2. Children who are not rich--House tax cuts for wealthy 
     Americans and corporations will make it more difficult to 
     balance the budget, our children will have to pay the bill 
     [[Page S5169]] later, and low-income children will lose 
     benefits immediately.
       1. Children who eat--The House welfare bill will take food 
     away from hundreds of thousands of infants, homeless children 
     and school children. It says to them ``have a hungry day,'' 
     especially during recessions.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, No. 10 on the list are the Coca-Cola Co. 
and the Pepsi-Cola Co.--in fact, all junk food companies are winners. 
They are winners under the Contract With America because the House bill 
eliminates nutritional requirements for school lunch.
  I fought these fast food companies last year to make school lunches 
healthier. They did not want to allow us to make school lunches 
healthier for an obvious reason: their fast foods are not healthy 
foods. Congress reduced the saturated fat content in school meals and 
clarified that schools have a right to say no to junk food 
manufacturers.
  Under the Contract With America, we throw out those healthy meals 
requirements. Soft drinks can be sold to schoolchildren during lunch 
instead of milk. Can anybody here who has been a parent, has raised 
children as I have, tell me that Coca-Cola is more nutritious for them 
than milk?
  Candy companies, fast food giants, junk food purveyors--these are the 
big winners. Children and the producers of nutritious food in this 
country are the real losers.
  Who is next in line among the top 10 winners? Why, the pesticide 
manufacturers. The chemical giants can make millions of dollars with 
the planned cuts in Federal regulations to protect the environment. I 
hope that families who drink water in rural areas of Vermont or 
Colorado or Georgia or any other State like the taste of alachlor, 
atrazine, and cyanazine.
  Who else makes out? As a former prosecutor, I was very interested to 
see the contract provide benefits to criminals. The Republicans intend 
to stop the President's efforts to put 100,000 new police officers on 
the streets. They apparently do not want the President to get credit 
for anything. As one who spent almost a decade in law enforcement, I 
would like to see those cops on the streets. The Contract With America 
does not.
  Then we have the four giant drug manufacturers that make infant 
formula for WIC. Man, did they make out like bandits. Let me tell you 
what is happening. We have Nestle, which is not even an American 
company. It is a Swiss company. Its annual sales in 1993 were $37 
billion. The other companies also fared well: Bristol-Myers Squibb, $11 
billion; American Home Products, $8 billion; Abbott Laboratories, $8 
billion.
   How did they make out like bandits under the contract? I will tell 
you how. We have the Women, Infants, and Children Program. Some years 
ago I called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price-
fixing and bid-rigging regarding infant formula companies and the WIC 
Program. I drafted laws that required States to use competitive bidding 
when they buy formula under the WIC Program. I then worked to pass a 
law with bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate which imposes fines of 
up to $100 million for price-fixing by these giant drug companies.
  Now, this one simple rule saves taxpayers who pay for the WIC Program 
$1.1 billion a year. It keeps 1.5 million pregnant women, infants, and 
children on WIC at no additional cost to taxpayers.
  The people who tout the Contract With America--``We are profamily; we 
are prochildren''--they are probaloney because they voted to get rid of 
competitive bidding.
  That gives a windfall of up to $1 billion to four giant drug 
companies. I would like to know whom they contributed to among those 
who voted for this change.
  And what do they use to pay for this windfall in the profamily, 
prochild Contract With America? They take 1.5 million pregnant women 
and newborn children off WIC in order to give four drug companies that 
make $37 billion, $11 billion, $8 billion, and another $8 billion an 
additional windfall of $1 billion.
  Can you imagine what would happen if we voted on this change in the 
daylight? The amendment would say ``give $1 billion in tax dollars to 
these four giant drug companies, but take 1.5 million women and 
children, most of whom do not vote, off of WIC.''
  Maybe some of those who receive contributions from the drug companies 
still would want to vote that way, but they would be embarrassed to do 
it in the daytime.
  The Democrats offered an amendment to restore the competitive bidding 
requirement. It lost. Taking millions of pregnant women and small 
children off the WIC Program is now part of the Contract With America.
  The influence the large corporations have had on the contract was 
outlined in the Washington Post yesterday. The story tells of the 
influence of the Kellogg Co., Gerber's, Mead-Johnson, Abbott 
Laboratories, and Coca-Cola on the House legislative process. We in the 
Senate should not put corporate profits ahead of children.
  Maybe we should look at another one on the top 10 list: locksmiths. 
Funding for day care is slashed under this so-called profamily, 
prochild Contract With America. It is a Contract on America because 
they slashed child day care funding. Tens of thousands of low-income 
mothers who want to work, who want to get off welfare, may have to let 
their children stay home by themselves. Many of them are going to be 
latchkey children who have to let themselves in after grade school. 
Some are going to be locked-in children, whose parents, when they go 
off to work, have to lock them in. They have to lock them in the house 
because the parents cannot afford to miss work.
  Then look at the next big winners, the water and air polluters, and 
unsanitary meat and poultry packers. Thousands of consumers get ill 
each year from contaminated foods. In Washington State, several died 
from eating hamburgers that were tainted. We have the technology to 
prevent needless death. But the Contract With America would stall or 
stop the regulations that would bring that about.
  We ought to think about whether we want our children or our 
grandchildren to eat contaminated hamburger before we stand up and 
celebrate how we passed the Contract With America. I ask Americans to 
read the small type, read the small print. And those who want to vote 
for this, let them stand up, the next time a child dies from a 
contaminated hamburger, let them stand up and say, ``Tough luck; but am 
I not proud I voted for that.''
  Of course, you are not going to see that.
  The children do not vote. They do not send money to PAC's. They do 
not contribute.
  Then we have large corporations next on the list. Our working 
families are hurt by the contract. Large profitable corporations make 
out like bandits. They are going to get $35 billion over the next 10 
years because the contract eliminates the alternative minimum tax. The 
average Vermont family is going to get very little tax relief under the 
contract, and they will lose more than they gain. They are going to 
lose all these things I talked about--school lunches and child care.
  The wealthiest 12 percent of Americans, do they make out. Over half 
of the benefits of the tax breaks in the Contract With America go to 
the wealthiest 12 percent of Americans--those earning over $100,000 a 
year. Those earning over $200,000 a year will get over $11,000 in tax 
cuts. Families earning between $10,000 and $20,000 will get $90. Big 
deal.
  Lawyers are next. I should be happy. I am a lawyer. But I am not 
happy that lawyers are going to make a fortune exploiting all the 
environmental, tax, and worker protection loopholes in the contract. 
The contract creates 101 new ways for lawyers to delay food safety and 
environmental regulations.
  And now here's the big prize--the No. 1 winner under the Contract 
With America--is anybody making over $349,000 a year. They ought to be 
ready to send their checks to every wealthy PAC in this country because 
they make a killing. They get an average tax break of $20,362.
  In addition, these great patriots who are out there waving the 
American flag saying, ``Look at our Contract With America,'' do you 
know what they did? Do you know what their sense of patriotism is? They 
tell a bunch of billionaires in this country that if you make a billion 
dollars here in America under our laws and under the advantages of 
[[Page S5170]] being an American, if you just go out and renounce your 
citizenship, we will give you 3.9 billion dollars' worth of tax 
writeoffs.
  Can you imagine anything more obscene or antipatriotic? They stand up 
there and say, as they wave our flag, ``If you renounce your 
citizenship, Mr. Billionaire, we will give you under the table a few 
billion of American tax dollars.''
  They are about as patriotic as they were serious about term limits. 
The second they thought the bill might pass and they saw that term 
limits would apply to them, immediately they backed away.
  They were all out there calling for term limits. They said, ``We want 
term limits. I have been here 32 years, saying that we need term 
limits. I have been here 26 years, saying that we need term limits. I 
cannot understand why we don't get term limits. For decades I have been 
arguing we should have term limits.'' Somebody said, ``Here. We have 
enough votes to apply it to your next election, immediately, to you.'' 
``Wait a minute. I do not mean term limits for me. I am pretty good. It 
is for the next guy.'' It is the same here with this patriotism.
  We are giving these tax entitlements to the rich and to large 
corporations by cutting aid to children and to low-income students who 
want to stay in college, and by cutting the National Service Program, 
which provides scholarships. Children do not vote, and they have been 
targeted for the worst cuts.
  Who are the top 10 losers under the Contract With America? They are 
children. These are the people who lose: Newborn children, children who 
drink tap water which will more likely be contaminated, children who 
breathe air which will more likely be polluted, children who need child 
care, children with mothers who work, children whose fathers are at 
work, children who go to school, children who like hamburgers, children 
who are not rich, children who eat, period. Children are the losers. 
The contract is a contract not with America but against children.
  Children who eat--the contract takes away food from hundreds of 
thousands of infants, homeless children and schoolchildren.
  Children who are not rich--they are the ones who are going to pay for 
the tax breaks for the rich.
  Children who eat hamburgers are going to see the regulations on 
salmonella- or E. coli-free food taken away.
  Children who go to school will see their funding for educational 
programs cut, funding for the Learn and Serve Program, funding for 
AmeriCorps scholarships all cut.
  Children whose fathers work, if they lose their jobs, the safety net 
is gone.
  Children with mothers who work, funding for child care is gone.
  Children who need child care, their healthy food at child care is 
gone.
  Clean air protection is gone.
  Clean tap water, that is gone.
  Newborn children--what I would say one more time is probably one of 
the most egregious things in the Contract With America is they take 
away the requirement that the infant formula manufacturers have to be 
involved in competitive bidding. Some $1.1 billion is given to four 
giant drug companies. I expect they are going to buy the tables at the 
next big fundraiser which those who voted for that have. But as we give 
them $1 billion, we also say to a million and a half pregnant women, 
infants, and children, ``Sorry. We cannot afford to do anything for 
you. But then, heck, you don't vote. You don't contribute, so it is 
OK.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, would you advise me of the amount of 
time I am recognized for?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to speak for up to 
15 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you, Madam President.

                          ____________________