[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5176-S5179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am down here on the floor of the Senate 
this morning, almost this afternoon, to talk about the celebration that 
is going to take place here at the Capitol by the Republicans on the 
House side, based on the 100 days after their so-called contract for 
America.
  They are bringing the circus to town for this celebration. In one 
way, I think it is appropriate that they bring the circus to town 
because, as I watch the proceedings, part of my heart is still in the 
House of Representatives. I served their proudly for 10 years. It has 
been pandemonium over there, in one Senator's view; a barrage of 
activity into the wee hours of the morning. And, in my view, in many of 
these areas they have just gone too far, too fast, too sloppily. I 
think proof of that is the fact that the Senate has slowed down their 
momentum and I believe we will continue to do this as reasonable people 
in this body, regardless of party, look at their activity, think about 
their activity, review their decisions, and come up with more 
reasonable legislation.
  An example of that, they sent over a moratorium bill which would have 
stopped regulations--all kinds of important safety regulations, for 
example--from going into effect. And this Senate never even took it up. 
They put forward a very sensible approach to regulations. That is just 
one example of how the Senate is slowing down the contract for America.
  So in one way it is appropriate that the circus is coming to town. 
But on another level it is inappropriate because who loves the circus 
the most? Kids. And who gets hurt the most by the contract? Kids.
  So, in some ways, to me, there is a real irony in bringing the circus 
to town and the kids to the circus to celebrate the contract which 
hurts the kids--perhaps more than any other group, although many of us 
get hurt by this contract.
  Why do I say it is the kids had who get hurt? This is not rhetoric. 
This is not overstatement. This is fact.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the cuts just 
in these rescission bills that are asked for, by the Republicans, that 
cut out kids, that hurt kids.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record 
at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement on S. 617, Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions--
                          Impact on California

                       (By Senator Barbara Boxer)

       S. 617 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     is a classic Hobson's Choice for California. My state stands 
     in line at the livery stable, waiting for a horse to hire. 
     When she gets to the stable door, the man in charge says 
     ``take this one or none''. The problem is, the horse offered 
     is a dangerous and destructive outlaw, one that's sure to 
     throw her. So what does she do? Take the one offered so that 
     she can get where she's going? Or reject it and walk? Mr. 
     President, I conclude that California should reject this nag 
     and take a walk.
       The amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, Senator 
     Mikulski, is a far better alternative, and I am happy to have 
     the chance to support it.
       Let me explain for the record a few of the most egregious 
     examples of why the bill as reported is a bad deal for my 
     state.


          community development financial institutions (CDFI)

       The bill would rescind $124 million of the Fund's $125 
     million appropriation for FY 1995.
       The CDFI Fund is important to California. More than 20 
     established CDFIs serve California citizens that otherwise 
     would have no access to lending or financial services.
       For example, the Low Income Housing Fund (LIHF), a large 
     CDFI based in San Francisco, works to increase the amount of 
     capital available for the development of affordable housing. 
     The LIHF serves a wide range of financing needs that are not 
     typically met by other lenders, including construction and 
     gap financing and interest rate subsidies.
       There are several new California CDFI's that are currently 
     in the process of formation. For example, the Neighborhood 
     Bancorp., a San Diego CDFI, was recently granted a charter 
     from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and is 
     raising capital from private investors.
       The Fund helps these institutions raise the capital they 
     need to provide services to distressed communities in 
     California and across the nation.
       The Fund was established last year. It got unanimous 
     approval in the Senate and was passed by a vote of 410-12 in 
     the House.
       The Senate bill also rescinds:
       $47 million from the Economic Development Administration 
     (EDA). This program funds general economic development 
     planning and infrastructure. Historically, California 
     receives about 15% of EDA funds, or about $6 million. 
     Communities use EDA grants to improve economic 
     competitiveness and create jobs.
       $27 million from the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology (NIST). Funds would be cut from the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership Program (MEP), which provides small and 
     medium sized companies with manufacturing assistance. The MEP 
     is based on the highly successful Agriculture Extension 
     program. There are currently MEP centers in Southern 
     California that provide assistance to defense contractors 
     seeking to diversify their businesses. Also, we hope to 
     introduce a MEP in the Bay Area soon.
       $93.5 million from the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
     Account for 1993. This program funds closure related expenses 
     for bases scheduled for closure in 1993. In California, such 
     bases include the Alameda Naval Complex and the Mare Island 
     Shipyard. The BRAC account funds environmental cleanup costs, 
     moving costs, and new construction costs at bases receiving 
     workload. The exact impact of this rescission is impossible 
     to determine, but it is reasonable to worry that this 
     rescission could delay the closing of California military 
     bases.


                        environmental protection

       The Committee bill would cut $1.2 billion from water 
     cleanup infrastructure funding. $799 million of this cut 
     would come from grant money to the States to help them 
     establish revolving loan funds to finance drinking water 
     improvements. This funding would be available to the states 
     once Congress authorizes such state funds in a new Safe 
     Drinking Water Act. The remaining $433 million would come 
     from funds set aside for specific projects.
       California's share of the drinking water fund under the 
     current allocation formula would be $57 million. Specific 
     California projects that would loose their FY95 funding 
     include City of LA ($50 million), Mojave Water Agency ($10 
     million), Lake County ($2 million). California communities 
     whose projects would be spared include San Diego, San 
     Francisco, County of LA, Tijuana, and border cleanup near the 
     New River.
       The Committee bill would cut $100 million from the 
     Superfund program. This cut would significantly slow cleanups 
     at many of California's 96 Superfund sites, including the 18 
     closing and operational military bases on the Superfund list.


                              agriculture

       The Committee bill would cut $1.5 million from a new USDA 
     salinity research lab at the University of California at 
     Riverside. This lab is designed to grapple with salinity and 
     other runoff problems endemic to the kind of irrigated 
     agriculture that dominates California agriculture. Such a 
     funding cut would prevent the installation of the new labs 
     equipment.


                           natural resources

       The Committee bill would cut $3 million from the Fish & 
     Wildlife Service, effectively barring new listings of animal 
     and plant species as ``endangered'' or ``threatened'' under 
     the Endangered Species Act.
       Timber Rider: An amendment attached to the bill would 
     require the Forest Service (under USDA) and the Bureau of 
     Land Management (under the DoI) to sharply increase ``salvage 
     logging'' in western forests. Unlike the House version of 
     this language, the Committee bill would not require a 
     particular cut level. It would, however, effectively waive 
     several important environmental safeguards.
       Forest health is a problem in California and throughout the 
     west, but this extreme approach threatens both forest ecology 
     and cooperative efforts like the Quincy Library Group.


                                 energy

       The Committee bill would cut $48 million from the 
     Department of Energy's programs to boost energy efficiency. 
     DoE cannot give a precise breakdown of how much of this 
     funding California would loose, but the amount would be 
     significant because of California's leadership position on 
     the development and use of these technologies.
       This includes a proposed $10 million cut from the program 
     used by federal agencies to weatherize low income homes--a 
     cut that will mean about 240 fewer weatherized homes under 
     this program in California.
       This also includes a $5 million cut from the Clean Cities 
     Program which supports the purchase of clean vehicles by 
     federal agencies to match such purchases by cities. The 
     California cities affected by this lost funding include, 
     Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, and 
     Long Beach.
       The Committee bill would cut $35 million from solar and 
     renewable energy research 
     [[Page S5177]] and commercialization programs. DOE cannot 
     give a precise breakdown of how much of this funding 
     California would lose, but the amount would be significant 
     because of California's leadership position on the 
     development and use of these technologies.


                               Education

       $55.8 million would be rescinded from grants for state 
     reform initiatives under the Goals 2000 law. California would 
     lose over $6 million in federal funds which were to be used 
     for innovative programs emphasizing math and reading.
       $72.5 million in Title I finds for educating disadvantaged 
     children. Title I funds are distributed by formula according 
     to the number of poor children in a school district. 
     California would lose $8.7 million in federal funds, 
     affecting services to approximately 8,500 California 
     students.
       $100 million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools program for 
     drug prevention and safety measures. California would lose 
     $10 million. 97% of all school districts in California 
     benefit from this program.
       $69 million for teacher training under the Eisenhower 
     Professional Development Program, which has a special 
     emphasis on training in the areas of math and science. 
     California would lose $7.6 million in funds.
       $5 million for education technology programs to bring more 
     computers to the classroom and help schools purchase 
     software. California ranks 50th in the nation on the number 
     of schools with computers in the classroom. California loses 
     $500,000 in funds.


                                Children

       $42 million for Head Start, a comprehensive preschool 
     program for low-income children that combines learning with 
     social services and parental involvement. Approximately 9,000 
     children nationwide would lose services.
       $8.4 million for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     which provides funding to states to increase the 
     availability, affordability and quality of child care. 
     California would lose approximately $840,000 and 240 
     California families would not get child care.
       In San Diego County alone there are 11,633 families
        eligible for child care assistance under the block grant, 
     but only funding for 1,646 children. The odds of getting 
     off the child care waiting list are 1 in 14.
       $35 million for WIC which provides nutrition counseling and 
     food packages to pregnant and post partum women and young 
     children through age 4. This cut won't remove any women and 
     children from the rolls, but it will impede the expansion of 
     the program. California would lose $6.7 million in funds and 
     would be unable to expand the program to serve an additional 
     20,000 women and children.


                            national service

       $210 million for national service programs, the largest of 
     which is AmeriCorps. Federal funds go directly to the states 
     to support locally designed and operated programs addressing 
     unmet needs in the areas of education, public safety, health, 
     housing and the environment.
       AmeriCorps members serve roughly 1,700 hours full-time over 
     a year and receive an education award worth $4,725 which may 
     be used to pay for current or future college and graduate 
     school tuition, job training, or to repay existing student 
     loans.
       A cut of this size would severely impact the AmeriCorps 
     program by eliminating over 2,000 slots nationwide. In 
     California alone there are 2500 AmeriCorps members serving in 
     approximately 18 programs throughout the state.


                     housing and urban development

                           Rental assistance

       The Senate bill would rescind $2.4 billion from incremental 
     Section 8 vouchers and certificates. California would receive 
     a rescission of approximately $300 million--denying 
     approximately 6,000 low-income families in the state housing 
     assistance. Many of these families have been on wait lists 
     for years.
       The money rescinded was to be used for incremental 
     increases in housing vouchers and certificates--nationally, 
     62,000 new households would have been able to get housing 
     with this funding. HUD had set aside 12,000 certificates for 
     women with children who are homeless--the fastest growing 
     part of the homeless population. An additional 3,000 
     certificates (nationally) were to be used for housing 
     assistance for homeless people suffering from the AIDS virus.
                      Public housing modernization

       The Senate would rescind $835 million for public housing 
     modernization. HUD estimates that Public Housing Authorities 
     in California would lose $37.9 million under the rescission. 
     Without the modernization money Public Housing authorities 
     would be unable to upgrade below-standard housing.


                       health and human services

          State legalization impact assistance grants (SLIAG)

       $6 million would be rescinded under the Senate bill--no 
     similar rescission was made in the House bill. It is 
     estimated that California would likely receive at least 40 
     percent of the money. The money would be used to promote 
     naturalization and citizenship for the immigrants legalized 
     under IRCA, by providing for civics and English education.

                          Immigrant education

       Immigrant education programs would be cut by $11 million 
     nationally. No similar rescission was made in the House bill. 
     California would receive $4.4 million of this amount. The 
     money is used to provide assistance to local educational 
     agencies that have large numbers of recently arrived 
     immigrant children--this includes legal and illegal immigrant 
     children. States like California are the large beneficiaries 
     of the program because of the large influx of immigrant 
     populations. No ``head counting'' of children is required for 
     the local educational agency to receive funding. In a sense, 
     this program is a reimbursement to states to help offset the 
     cost of providing education to illegal immigrant children 
     since no distinction is made between them and legal immigrant 
     children.


                                  jobs

       The Senate makes bigger cuts in Job Corps than the House, 
     eliminating 12 new centers, including those planned in San 
     Francisco and Long Beach.
       The Senate bill does not rescind money for the 1995 summer 
     youth jobs, but does eliminate $871.5 million for 1996 summer 
     youth jobs. California is due to receive $147 million for 
     next summer.
       Both House and Senate bills eliminate the Youth Fair Chance 
     program, which provides grants for education and job training 
     to poor youth in communities with high poverty. Los Angeles 
     was due to receive $2 million and Fresno $1 million under the 
     $24.8 million program nationwide.
       Both House and Senate bills cut adult job training programs
        by $33 million of which $5.5 million would be rescinded 
     from California programs.
       The Senate bill rescinds $472 million from the year-round 
     program for youth job training, higher than the House 
     rescission of $310 million. Based on the impact to California 
     from the House level ($53 million), the impact to the state 
     from the higher Senate level would be about $80 million.


                      Department of transportation

       The bill cuts $1.3 billion in airport improvement funds, 
     which are used for runway construction, signals and other 
     airport improvements. The funds are fully discretionary so no 
     specific California project is targeted. However, California 
     received about 8.7 percent in FY93. Applying that proportion 
     for FY95 would mean $113 million less for California.
       Although the Senate bill eliminates fewer California 
     transit projects than the House bill, it would still take 
     $1.9 million from San Diego commuter rail, $8 million from 
     San Jose commuter rail and $1.76 million for the Vallejo 
     Ferry.
       The Senate bill rescinds $2 million from the Vessel Traffic 
     System, an updated traffic control system that would be 
     installed in San Francisco and Los Angeles-Long Beach. A $4 
     million Coast Guard support center at the LA-Long Beach ports 
     complex is also rescinded.


                           corps of engineers

       The Senate bill increases the amount rescinded for Corps of 
     Engineers construction from $40 million to $50 million. No 
     state breakdown is available but this is a major account for 
     California.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let us look at some of them. Head Start? I 
thought we had a national consensus in this country that Head Start 
works. I thought we had a bipartisan agreement that investing in our 
children at a young and tender age to get them on the right road to 
learning worked.
  Well, they cut Head Start. They cut the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program. As a matter of fact, they basically end the program. What did 
this program do? It gave nutrition to pregnant women who could not get 
that nutrition.
  I said on the floor yesterday, I am so proud I am going to become a 
grandmother for the first time.
  I call my daughter every day. ``Did you take your vitamins? Are you 
eating well? Are you gaining weight? Are you taking care of yourself?'' 
She has the best care because she is fortunate to have insurance.
  What about the other pregnant women? They are bringing children into 
this world, into America. Do we not want them to be strong to avoid 
having to be in an incubator, to avoid having to have learning 
disabilities because they did not have prenatal care? I thought we had 
a consensus, a bipartisan lead, on that question. But no. They actually 
end the WIC Program as a national program, and they will let the States 
decide how they are going to do this. And by the way, competitive 
bidding goes out the window. It is a giveaway to the largest infant 
formula companies--the winners in that one.
  Drug free schools? I thought we had consensus on drug free schools. 
The police come in and they work in the Dare Program and teach the kids 
to say no to drugs. They cut that. They are proud of that. They are 
bringing the circus to town to celebrate that they are cutting drug 
free schools.
   [[Page S5178]] School-to-Work Program--getting kids ready to go to 
work, those who do not go off to college. They cut that. They cut 
AmeriCorps. They kill the AmeriCorps Program. What is it? National 
youth service. I thought we had bipartisan consensus here in the Senate 
when we voted for AmeriCorps. Our young people go into the community. I 
have met these AmeriCorps volunteers. They work with the children. They 
work with the elderly. I even got a letter from the Red Cross saying, 
``Please don't cut the AmeriCorps program.'' I am forwarding that to 
the majority leader because I know he likes the Red Cross. They use 
AmeriCorps volunteers. But they are going to eliminate AmeriCorps.
  Summer youth jobs--jobs to teach our young people how important it is 
to be responsible. They cut that. They even want to do away with the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting where our little kids could get 
quality programming like ``Sesame Street'', and ``Barney'', and the 
others, and zero out the National Endowment for the Arts that teaches 
those kids the arts, ballet, and music instruction. They are bringing 
the circus to town to celebrate their attack on the kids.
  Do you know what the cruelest one of all is, throwing hundreds of 
thousands of disabled kids right off the roll, kids that would bring 
tears to your eyes. But they are bringing the circus to town.
  Who is benefiting from all of these cuts?
  I went to one school lunch program. A little kid came up to me. I 
will never forget it as long as I live. She said ``Senator, when they 
cut my school lunch program, where is the money going that they are 
saving?'' What a smart kid. What a smart kid. That is the question all 
of America should ask.
  Where is the money going when you cut these programs? I have the 
answer. It is being voted on, as we speak, in the House. Do you know 
what the answer is? It is tax breaks for the wealthiest people in 
America. Hurt the kids, help the rich. That is the Republican contract. 
I will show you the chart. More than 50 percent of their tax cut goes 
to people over $100,000. A third of the tax cut goes to those earning 
over $200,000 a year. Who gets hurt? The kids, the middle class, the 
poor, Robin Hood in reverse, my friend.
  How about the billionaire tax loophole? I have to tell you about this 
one. The Senate voted to eliminate a tax loophole that went like this. 
If you are a millionaire or a billionaire under the current Tax Code 
you can take all the money you earned and all the assets you have that 
you earned in America, you can renounce your citizenship, give up your 
citizenship as a citizen of the United States of America, get out of 
town and not pay a tax--tax dodgers who are millionaires, billionaires, 
and trillionaires. Those folks ought to go to the circus. They have a 
lot to celebrate--not the kids. But I do not think they are going to 
come out because they do not want anyone to know about this contract. 
It is not in their best interest. It is unbelievable to me that people 
would celebrate such a program.
  Let us talk about some of the other winners and losers. How about the 
so-called legal reform? You know about the doctor who cut off the wrong 
leg of a patient? You read about that. You know about corporations?
  You know about corporations that produce dangerous products like 
silicon breast implants, the Dalkon shield, intrauterine devices that 
make women sterile. Devices that hurt women, maim them, kill them. 
Well, under the so-called Reform Act, we cap the punitive damages on 
those corporations, so there will no longer be a deterrent out there to 
stop this.
  How about the other legal reform? You all know about Charles Keating, 
how he called the senior citizens in and sold them a bill of goods. 
They thought their investments were secure. They thought their 
investments were federally insured. They were not, and they lost 
everything.
  Well, under the so-called Legal Reform Act, by the Republicans, the 
victims of Charles Keating could never even get into the courtroom. 
Fortunately, for them, when Charles Keating stole their life savings, 
the Democrats were in charge of the Congress and we allowed them in the 
courtroom, and they collected. But now, under this contract, if you are 
a small investor, you can forget it. Your rights, if this Republican 
bill goes forward, will have been trampled. I think we will stop it in 
the Senate, but that is what they are celebrating over there, with the 
circus.
  Corporate polluters are celebrating, too, because in that contract 
there is hidden language about a moratorium on regulations that will 
make our water safe and our air clean. We have had people die of a 
bacteria called cryptosporidium that got into the water supply. We have 
rules to control the water supply so no one else will die from that 
bacteria. Those controls would be stopped by the Republican contract, 
and they could keep on with these practices.
  You know about the kids who ate hamburger meat and died from E. coli 
bacteria. There are rules to stop that. And the Republican contract 
says forget about those rules; let us have a moratorium.
  So who wins? The polluters. Who loses? The people. And the 
Republicans are celebrating with the circus.
  How about the flying public? We fly a lot here in airplanes. That 
moratorium over there in the contract would stop the FAA from issuing 
safety regulations.
  We know that the safety of certain commuter airlines must be 
improved. There are several rules that have been proposed to bring them 
up to the standards of the larger planes, and in the Republican 
contract and what passed in the House, those rules would be stopped.
  Let me tell you what else would be stopped:

       Inspection and repair of landing gear brakes for certain 
     Airbus aircraft.

  Airbus is an aircraft that is made in France. This rule was prompted 
by an accident in which an aircraft was unable to stop on a wet runway. 
The proposed regulation would ensure the safety of these aircraft, but 
the Republicans want it stopped. Who is the winner if that regulation 
is blocked? Airbus. Who is the loser? Any of us who get on those 
planes.
  How about this regulation that would have been stopped:

       Replacement of certain bolts, nuts, washers that hold 
     together parts of the wing flap.

  They are celebrating with the circus while they want to stop these 
kinds of regulations.
  Here is a good one. You do not have to have a degree in engineering 
to understand this one:

       Requiring measures to prevent the sliding cockpit side 
     windows from rupturing in certain Airbus models. Failure to 
     prevent the sliding cockpit side windows from rupture can 
     potentially result in rapid decompression of the aircraft.

  ``Rapid decompression of the aircraft.'' Do you want to be on an 
aircraft when that happens? The Republicans are celebrating with a 
circus, while they try to stop those kinds of safety regulations.
  Who loses there? The flying public. Anyone who goes in an aircraft. 
Who wins? Irresponsible companies that do not take care of their 
products.
  I could go on, Mr. President, about the winners and losers in this 
contract. Deficit reduction surely is a loser, if they go ahead with 
this tax break. It is going to cost $680 billion over 10 years to the 
Federal treasury. I thought we had a bipartisan consensus for deficit 
reduction. It was a most important thing, but who are they are going to 
give that tax break to? The richest among us. Loser? The deficit 
reduction effort. Loser? The children.
  The contract does not stop there. I thought we had a bipartisan 
consensus last year to put cops on the street. I thought we all agreed 
to put cops on the beat in the community; it was the cornerstone of the 
crime bill. But in the contract the Republicans want to slash all that, 
put it in a block grant, and let someone else decide. Who loses when 
there are fewer cops on the street? You and I, members of the 
community, the neighborhoods.
  And while they are at it, they want to repeal the ban on assault 
weapons. How is that one? They want assault weapons back on the 
streets. Who loses? Only God knows who will be the next victim. My son 
lost his best friend at 101 California Street, an attorney with 
promise, a young man, married, hoping to have a family, shot down by a 
crazed gunman who went in and got 
[[Page S5179]] an assault weapon and shot eight people and killed my 
son's best friend John Scully. On that day, I swore to ban these 
weapons. Now we have to have the fight all over again, a fight that we 
thought was over, a divisive, difficult fight. And they are celebrating 
with the circus. I do not understand it.
  Who else loses with the contract? Have you ever heard of the gag 
rule? That is another fight we already had--the gag rule. A poor woman 
goes into a family planning clinic and cannot be told her options if 
she is pregnant, cannot be told her options, cannot be told that she 
has a right to choose in this country. We fought that fight, and 
President Clinton lifted the gag rule. He said he thought women should 
have all the facts known and they should make their own choice. It is 
up to them to decide. It is a difficult choice, but a woman should be 
able to make that decision. They are celebrating over there. In their 
contract, they are bringing back the gag rule, treating women like 
second-class citizens, as if we do not know what could hurt us.
  So it is very clear who the winners and who the losers are. The 
winners? The very wealthy who get tax breaks, the corporate polluters, 
the big infant formula companies, the criminals, those who oppose the 
right to choose. They win in this contract. Really, the billionaires 
who will walk out and renounce their citizenship to get a tax break are 
the big winners because we ended that tax break. And what happened in 
the Republican conference committee? They took that out. Who else wins? 
The broker-dealers who cheat, who do not take their fiduciary 
responsibility to their clients seriously.
  Those consumers, those investors will have a court system that 
probably does not let them in the front door.
  I believe in a system where David can meet Goliath in the courtroom 
and let the system work.
  They believe in a system where David cannot get in the door. They 
have something in that contract called ``loser pays.'' It is an English 
system. It is not the American system. It says if you go into court and 
you lose, you pay the other guy's attorney's fees. How many of us as 
small investors would take that chance?
  We are going to stop that here in the Senate, but it is in the 
contract. And the Republicans are celebrating with the circus.
  So I hope, in this brief time, I have expressed clearly who the 
winners are and who the losers are. I can add to the losers the senior 
citizens, who will see Medicare cuts, huge Medicare cuts. And senior 
housing cuts.
  We could not even get our Republican colleagues to protect Social 
Security when we took up the balanced budget amendment. We said, ``Take 
Social Security out of that and protect it.'' We could not get a vote. 
We lost it on a party-line vote.
  So while the celebration is going on there with the circus, I just 
hope the American people will ask a question like that little girl 
asked me in school: ``Senator, what happens if you cut my school lunch? 
Who gets that money?"
  I ask the American people to ask the question: Who benefits from this 
contract? And read the fine print, because they are not going to show 
it to you. You are going to have to work to find it out.
  I hope that I have been of help in making the point that overall, 
this contract is not helpful to the American people.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  [Disturbance in the galleries.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries will restrain.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________