Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in honor of Norma Sullivan, a great Californian who died on September 22 in San Diego. Norma Sullivan was a woman of many talents: a champion skier, an accomplished poet, a prolific essayist, a loving mother, and an inspirational teacher. But she was best known to her many friends and admirers as a tireless fighter for the environment. As a writer, activist, and spokesperson for the San Diego Audubon Society, Norma was one of Southern California's most dedicated and effective defenders of the natural world. San Diego County contains some of the nation's most beautiful landscapes and diverse habitat. The County is home to more endangered species per square mile than any other region in the continental United States. Thanks largely to Norma's prodigious efforts, many of these lands and their inhabitants have been preserved for future generations. She was instrumental in generating support for parks, establishing habitat conservation programs, and blocking projects that would harm the environment--including the proposal to build Pamo Dam near Ramona, which was withdrawn after Norma alerted the community to its dangers. One of Norma's greatest achievements was her role in creating a major wildlife refuge in southern San Diego Bay. For ten years she worked tirelessly to build support for the refuge among conservationists, landowners, local governments, community members, and federal wildlife agencies. She never shied away from confrontation, but she was always ready to cooperate. Finally, this spring, her long efforts bore fruit when the South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established and dedicated. This magnificent refuge--and many other pristine tracts of San Diego County--live on as part of Norma Sullivan's legacy. She has also left us a model of what it means to be an engaged citizen: a person who works for the public good with intelligence, humor, and love.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. What I said was I felt the program should be ratcheted up in a logical fashion, and that we are at the point where the Department of Education, Secretary Riley, has stated that $600 million is what he needs and what he can now handle to ratchet up the program. Eventually, I hope my friend shares the view that this ought to be a much bigger program than it is now. But we cannot go 1 day from $200 million to $2 billion. No, I do not support that, and I think my friend's attempt to make it look as if I do is simply not correct.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. He is so kind to me. What I said was, there are many more applications than were funded. I did not suggest that we fund all 2,000.

Mrs. BOXER. I should have yielded him an opportunity to ask a question. My friend did not hear me finish my point.

Mrs. BOXER. I did not say that.

Mrs. BOXER. Four hundred additional.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I think it gets back to what our colleague from Illinois said: There is a lot of chaos. Imagine the chaos. Last year we passed this school reduction effort, and then we turn around--the Republicans do--and walk away from it. Talk about chaos--chaos on Capitol Hill because we do not know what we are doing, chaos in the classrooms--a terrible message. I have two other areas I want to ask the Senator about. One that she mentioned is very near and dear to my heart, which is afterschool care. We know it works. We know that juvenile crime peaks at 3 o'clock and starts to go down at 6 or 7 in the evening when the kids go home. We know if they do not have a place to go after school, they get in trouble. All of these things are so obvious. The smaller class sizes--it does not take a degree in sociology or education or psychology to understand if a teacher can give you one-on-one help, you are going to do better. If you have a safe place to go after school, you are not going to get in trouble. Again, we can track academic performance. In this bill, the Republicans did put more money into afterschool care, but they underfunded it by $200 million less than the President's request. The President requested $600 million; they came in with $400 million. That $200 million affects thousands and thousands and thousands of children. I know my friend taught in the classroom. I know how she supports afterschool care. Is it not a fact, I say to my friend, that she was unable to offer an amendment on afterschool care or school construction or smaller class sizes, that she was prohibited by the Republicans under the rules of their markup?

Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield for a few questions?

Mrs. BOXER. If we do not make changes and if the President does not prevail with the Republicans and this bill passes as it is, we will not only lose 29,000 teachers out of the classrooms, but next year a lot of those kids who were in classroom sizes of 15 will now find themselves in classroom sizes of 30, and we are back to where we were and we have wiped out this advantage we have given some of our children. I have two more other questions.

Mrs. BOXER. First, I thank the Senator from Illinois for setting the stage for this conversation, and I thank him for yielding such time as she needed to the Senator from Washington because, as he has stated, she has been a leader in this whole area of education. Education, in my view, is the No. 1 issue in this country today. Why? Because we know that if we do not give our children a good education, a series of bad things happen: They will not be productive, they will drop out, they will get into trouble, and all the rest. We are now in the global marketplace. We all know this. I daresay everyone on both sides of the aisle says that education is important. I want to probe my friend a little bit because she sits on that all- important appropriations subcommittee on education. I want to make sure I understand exactly what she has told the Senate. My understanding is that the Senate, on paper, is spending more than the House and even exceeds the President's number on paper; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. But is it not true that out of that increase there is $1.2 billion for a program that does not exist and the funds will not be spent unless the program is authorized? And is it not true that $1.2 billion is supposed to replace the lower classroom size initiative that my friend has been pushing in the Senate?

Mrs. BOXER. So in my sum up, from what I get from the Senator from Washington, there is no money for school construction, there is no money for class size reduction, and there is $200 million less for afterschool care. I say to my friend, please, when you are in that committee this afternoon, do what you did on the floor; lay out the situation. I hope all of America is going to learn that despite the moving of the numbers and the smoke and mirrors and all the rest of it, the things that need to be done are not done in this bill. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mrs. BOXER. The last question I have for my friend is in regard to school construction. I read in the paper today that the President was in a school in Louisiana. It was a school that was built before the turn of the century. The school is falling down. The tiles are falling down from the ceiling. When it rains, the rain comes into the classrooms. It reminded me of a school I visited in Sacramento where the same thing was happening. I could not believe it. We were in the gym, I say to my friend from Washington, and I looked at the ceiling. Tiles were gone. I said to a construction worker: What has happened to the tiles on the ceiling? He said: They fell down. I said: Do they ever hit a student? He said: Yes. I have to ask my friend, what kind of message are we sending to our kids when, on the one hand, we say to them as parents that education is crucial to them in this incredibly important global marketplace where they are in competition with students from Europe and Asia and all over the world, and then we send them to a school where the tiles are falling on their heads? Can my friend tell me again, how much do the Republicans have in their education bill for this important and worthy project of school construction and fixing up our schools? How much do they put in?

Mrs. BOXER. So this bill that purports to do something for our children, in essence, is a pink slip for 29,000 teachers across this country who were hired under the Clinton-Murray initiative to lower classroom size; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. It seems as if there is a shell game being played with money that is not behind the piece of paper, and they have completely zeroed out this important class-size reduction plan which we began. Is my friend saying to me that unless we can change that, school districts are going to have to fire teachers? Can my friend elaborate on that? How many teachers is it, and is it all around the country?

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think we have reached a moment on the floor of the Senate that ought to be marked. Very sadly, it is a moment of failure for this Republican Congress, a moment of failure after promising a moment of success. Why do I say that? There were three promises made by the Republican leader to the people of the United States of America. The first promise was that the spending bills, all 13 of them, would pass on time and within the context of the balanced budget; the second promise was that the Republicans would not touch the Social Security trust fund to pay for their programs; the third promise was that they would stay under the spending caps that were approved before. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, all three of those promises are being broken. In the lead story in the New York Times today, we read about the shenanigans going on in trying to get this budget accomplished. I have proudly served on the Budget Committee in the Senate for 7 years; in the House, I served on the Budget Committee for a total of 6 years. I know there have been times when neither side has performed as it should. However, I never, ever remember it being this bad. I never, ever remember it being this chaotic. It is very sad because the rest of the country is doing great fiscally. This is the best economic recovery we have had. In my lifetime, these are the best statistics I can remember for low unemployment, low inflation, high home ownership. Things are going really well. Yet in that context, when things are going really well, we cannot get our act together around here. I have to say it is a failure of Republican leadership. What is before us today is a bill that will continue the functions of Government for the next 3 weeks because, out of the 13 spending bills, only 1--only 1--has received a signature from this President. Therefore, we have to have a continuing resolution or the Government will shut down. I understand that. But let me simply say this. I think the reason my Republican friends are in so much trouble--and I hope some of them will come to the floor because this is their continuing resolution; I assume they are on their way so we can have a little bit of a debate here--I think the reason the Republicans are in so much trouble is, they have locked out the President, they have locked out the Democrats, and they are coming up with plans that are out of touch with reality and with what the American people want. Let me give an example. Everyone around here says children are a priority and education is a priority. Yet the last bill my Senate friends have looked at in the Appropriations Committee, the one they saved until last, is education. HHS--Health and Human Services-- includes education. Why do I say the Republicans are out of step with the American people? I say it based on three simple facts. There is nothing in that bill, not one penny, to continue to put teachers in the schools and to lower class sizes--nothing, not a penny, not even to continue what we started last year when Senator Murray and the President of the United States of America put before us a very important program to place 100,000 teachers in the schools. Last year, as a result of our getting together, we compromised at 30,000 teachers. To be exact, 29,000 teachers have been hired under this program. There is not one penny in this education bill to continue that program. We were hoping we would have funding to continue the 29,000 and go forward with the rest of the 100,000. We know that when there are smaller class sizes, kids do much better. We know that. It is a fact. It is indisputable. Yet in their Republican budget, not only do they not expand this program but they do not put one penny in to pay for the 29,000 teachers all over the country who are already in the classroom. This Republican budget is a pink slip for 29,000 teachers. How does that comport with what the American people want? How does that comport with the reality the American people expect from us? It does not. Another thing the American people say they want from us is to rebuild our crumbling schools. You do not have to have a degree in education or sociology to understand our schools are falling down. What kind of message is it to our children when we say how important education is in this global marketplace and their parents are telling them how important it is, and they walk into school, and what happens? The ceiling tiles are falling down on their heads. I saw it in Sacramento, CA. I saw it in Los Angeles County. Yesterday, the President was in a Louisiana school. He saw the same thing. We need to make sure we rebuild our crumbling schools. That is another issue the American people want resolved. Third, after school; I have brought the issue of after school to the Senate for many years. I am very pleased to say we are moving forward. But we have thousands and hundreds of thousands of children on waiting lists for afterschool programs. Why are they important? Because we know in many cases parents work and kids get in trouble after school. We know when they have good afterschool programs, they learn, they get mentoring, the business community comes in, the police community comes in, they learn about the dangers of drugs, they can get help with their homework, and they do important things. I have been to some fantastic afterschool programs, and I have seen the look on the kids' faces. I tell you, they are doing well. Studies show they improve their academic performance--by 80 percent in one particular program in Sacramento--if they have afterschool. What does the Republican education budget do for after school? It comes in $200 million below the President's request. What that means is that 387,000 children will be denied after school. What I am saying is, we have a budget situation that is out of touch with what the American people want. I am just giving three examples-- teachers in the schools, school construction, afterschool programs. Those are just examples. Guess how they pay for it. As I understand it--and it keeps changing every day--essentially they tap into the Social Security trust fund. They do it in a dance, and a bob and a weave that is impressive, but I understand it. What I understand they are going to do is take $11 billion in authorizing funds out of the defense budget--OK?--and put it into education. Follow me on this. And then, as soon as they have done that, they declare that $11 billion of defense spending is an emergency. That is the way they get around the caps. There is only one problem: It comes out of the Social Security trust fund. All emergency spending comes out of the Social Security trust fund. So, yesterday what was not an emergency in the military budget today will become an emergency, and the Social Security fund will be raided. I have to say, this is gamesmanship. I think what we ought to do is pay as you go around here. If we want to spend more, we ought to pay for it. That is why the President's budget had well over $30 billion of offsets to handle the new requirements. It doesn't dip into the Social Security trust fund, and it doesn't play shell games between defense and domestic priorities. So here we are going to have a continuing resolution to get us through these next 3 weeks. I truly have not decided whether I am going to vote for it or not because, on the one hand, I understand we are coming down to the end of the fiscal year and we have to continue the Government; on the other hand, I believe, as the Senator from the largest State in the Union, the way they are doing this budget around here is something I do not want my fingerprints on. I really do not. I do not approve of it. I think it is wrong. I do not think it is honest. I do not think it is direct with the people. I do not think it is fiscally responsible. I think it takes us down the road we do not want to go down. I don't want more smoke and mirrors. We have had enough of that on both sides of the aisle. We are finally getting on our fiscal feet. We ought to stay on our fiscal feet. I just want to say to my friends, I have a solution to their problem--because they are having problems on this. If they will open the door to this President and work with him on some compromises here, we can finish our work and be proud and go home. Will everyone get what he or she wants? No. That is what compromise is. But we will each get maybe halfway there, and we can feel good about ourselves, that we have reached across the party lines. This President has his strong priorities. The Republican Congress has its strong priorities. I think if they add to that the Democratic leadership here, Senators Daschle and Reid, and then on the House side Congressman Gephardt, Congressman Bonior, and the other leaders, of both sides, I think we will find we can do business together. One of the reasons I hesitate to vote for this continuing resolution is, as I said, I am not sure I want my fingerprints on what has happened so far. On the other hand, it is not too late. In the next 3 weeks, we could open up the doors. We could have a summit. We could bring everyone to it. We could all lay out what we want to have happen, show the American people we are willing to put them in front of politics, and come out with something we can be proud of, a true education plan that is going to meet their needs, a budget that is in balance, both in its actual numbers and in its priorities. I think we can go home and be very proud of ourselves. I was on my feet for many hours last week over an issue called oil royalties. It is very interesting, in this continuing resolution, that moratorium on fixing the oil royalty problem is nonexistent. It is possible that the Interior Department could issue rules and stop the thievery that is going on. I hope they will do it. I really hope they will do it. Talk about needing money. We estimate that $66 million a year is being lost out of the coffers because the oil companies are not paying their fair share in oil royalties. We had a vote on this, a very close vote. Senator Hutchison was able to defeat me by 1 vote on the cloture vote, and I think the final vote was 51-47. I was unable to defeat her on the substance of her amendment. But John McCain wrote in and said he would have voted with me, which would have made it 51-48. I hope Bruce Babbitt is watching this and he will take advantage of this 3-week hiatus we have in front of us where he is now able to fix this problem. I hope he will do it. I really appreciate the editorials across the country saying we have exposed a real scam and it ought to be fixed. I hope, again, if Secretary Babbitt is listening, perhaps he will do something good in these 3 weeks and move forward to resolve that issue. Be that as it may, that is a relatively small issue compared to keeping this Government going. I know we will keep this Government going with or without my vote. We will move it forward. I once more appeal to my colleagues: You made three promises, you have not kept them. Why not open the door and see if we can help you out because you cannot obviously come to this decision on your own. You have not done the bills on time, you are dipping into Social Security, and, in essence, you are bypassing the caps by calling things emergency spending today that did not warrant emergency spending yesterday. Why don't we stop the smoke and mirrors and shell games? Why don't we pass a budget that reflects all of us to a certain degree. In the House of Representatives, there are only 11 votes that separate Republicans and Democrats. I have been over there. I was over there when we were in the majority. We probably had a 50-, 60-seat majority. The Republicans have an 11-seat majority in the House and a 10-seat majority in the Senate. They run the place. That is the way it is. Even if they had a 1-vote majority, they would run the place. I accept that. That is how the voters wanted it. But it is kind of tough when it is that close to do the right thing unless we all sit down together. We have good people on both sides of the aisle. I have so many friends on the other side of the aisle whom I respect very much, including the Presiding Officer with whom I have worked on many issues. There is no reason why we cannot sit down in these next 3 weeks and find the answers and make the compromises. But we are never going to do it if we put politics ahead of bipartisanship. That is my plea before we have a vote. I thank the Chair very much for his patience. I know it is sometimes hard to sit there and listen, and he has done that in a very fine way. I yield the floor and, of course, retain the remainder of the leader's time on this side. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I do. I yield myself such time as I may consume from the Democratic leader's time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, that resolution is the continuing resolution that will keep the Government running for the next 3 weeks based on the 1999 spending figures; am I correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer explain what is before the Senate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the amendment offered last Friday by Senator Kerry to fund 50,000 new Section 8 vouchers. Had the Senate voted on this amendment, I would have voted in favor of it. I am pleased that Senator Mikulski and others have committed to work on this issue in conference. The Kerry amendment is particularly important to my home state in light of the current affordable housing crisis in California. Eleven of the twenty-five least affordable metropolitan areas are located in California. The homeownership rate is 47th among the 50 states. More than one-third of homeowners and one-half of renters pay more than thirty percent of their income for housing in California. On average, it takes more than three years to receive a Section 8 voucher in California. In Los Angeles, approximately 8,000 families are currently on the Section 8 waiting list and it can take as long as eight years to get a voucher. That is just too long for a family to wait for affordable housing. It is clear that in California, and indeed throughout the country, there is a definite need for further housing assistance. Section 8 housing assistance serves the poorest of the poor, persons with incomes averaging approximately $7,500 per year. Last year, Congress made available almost 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers. No new vouchers had been made available in the past five years. That was an important first step--but it is time to do more. In my own state of California, almost 13,000 families would receive Section 8 assistance under the Kerry amendment. Our economy is booming: unemployment is at historically low levels, nearly 18 million jobs have been created since 1993, and the inflation rate has averaged just 2.5 percent since 1993--the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration. In these economic good times, however, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. We must continue to assure that everyone in this country has affordable housing. I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to provide additional Section 8 vouchers to America's families in need of housing assistance. Mr. President, I also want to talk about the provision in this bill that would eliminate HUD's Community Builder program. Community Builders act as liaison between HUD and local governments and non-profit organizations. They help local authorities identify the programs in HUD that best serve the needs of their neighborhoods. Many experts have affirmed that HUD is becoming the model of reinvention. I believe that HUD's Community Builder program has been a key component of HUD's reinvention efforts. The Community Builder program is working. Ernst & Young's initial audit found that the Builders are knowledgeable about HUD programs, are making customer service more efficient, assisting communities, and using their expertise to make government work better. A similar survey by Andersen Consulting found that ``Community Builders have had a positive effect on the ability of [HUD] customers . . . to conduct business.''--and recommended an expansion of the Community Builder program to cover more communities. In addition, I have received numerous letters from elected officials and nonprofit organizations throughout California expressing support for the Community Builder program. Approximately twenty HUD offices would be forced to close if the Community Builder program were eliminated--including one in Fresno, California. I ask that my colleagues on the conference committee work together to find funding for this important program.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have seen so many tears on behalf of the mom-and-pop oil companies that will be impacted if the Department of the Interior can do their job and collect the fair royalties. I looked at my chart again to make sure I was not misunderstanding. I will talk about the top seven companies that will be impacted by this rule: Shell: Their total revenues are $29 billion. I cannot remember when they were mom and pop. Maybe someday way back they were. Exxon: The real mom and pop, $134 billion in revenues. Chevron: $43 billion in revenues. Texaco: $45 billion in revenues. Marathon: $16 billion in revenues. Mobil Exploration and Production, U.S.: $81 billion. Conoco: $20 billion. And it goes on. The good news is that the small oil companies my friend from Kansas talked about are doing the right thing. Ninety-five percent of the oil companies are doing the right thing and paying their fair share of royalties. It is 5 percent of the companies, the largest companies, the vertically integrated companies, that are failing to pay their fair share. When we see these tears for the oil companies, I assure my friends, the small companies are doing the right thing; they are paying their fair share. It is the big ones that are not. We know they are involved in a deliberate scheme. We have that in testimony. All we are trying to do is stop them from continuing to rip off the taxpayers. The Hutchison amendment so far has lost taxpayers $88 million. This one will lose them $66 million. That is $154 million, and there is no end in sight. If you think this one will not be back next year--I don't know. We know the Senator originally had a much longer period of time on her amendment. She cut it back to about a year, but this thing has no end. This is the fourth time it has come up. There is no effort to resolve this situation. I want to talk about some of the comments made by some of my colleagues, and I ask that the Record show Democrats lodged no objection when the Senator from Oklahoma started to talk about the Presidential pardon of a few weeks ago. What does that have to do with this? We did not object. He made his point. It was fine. We know when you start talking about something off the topic, it is because you really are using the debate time. We are happy. You can talk about what you want. But five times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted when he tried to tie this amendment to oil company contributions. He did not do that; the New York Times did it. USA Today, which I would like to show, did it. The Los Angeles Times tied oil contributions to this amendment. And then, oh, they were shocked and Republican colleagues tried to stop Senator Feingold from talking about it. I will read what USA Today says. They say: Big oil has contributed more than $35 million to national political committees and congressional candidates . . . a modest investment in protecting the royalty-pricing arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2 billion. Senator Feingold was simply talking about what USA Today talked about and what the New York Times on September 20 talked about. I will read what they say. New York Times: Battle Waged in the Senate Over Royalties by Oil Firms Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of habitually underpaying royalties they owe the Government. Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to pay $5 billion. The Interior Department wants to rectify the situation by making the companies pay royalties based on the market price of the oil, instead of on a lower price set by the oil companies themselves. They say: A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate. And they track oil company contributions. All I can say is, it is a legitimate thing to talk about, but five times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted making the point. I also want to respond to the fact that royalties are not a tax. If they were a tax, they would be in the Finance Committee. Royalties are an agreement the oil companies sign voluntarily for the privilege of drilling on land that belongs to the people of the United States of America. And for that privilege, they pay a small portion over to us, the taxpayers, to be used for parks and recreation, historical preservation, and in the States for education. Royalties are not a tax. If they were a tax, it would be in the Finance Committee. Let me also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing up the States. They argue for States rights day in and day out. You know what. I agree with them on this one. Let's hear what the States are saying. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I just received--or that just came to my attention--from the Western States Land Commissioners Association.

Mrs. BOXER. This letter is signed by the State Lands Commissioners from these States: California, South Dakota, New Mexico, Arkansas, Montana, Washington State, Colorado, and Wisconsin. That is a sample. That is just this letter. What do they want? They want the Interior Department to be able to correct this problem. They oppose the Hutchison amendment, these people from these States. We also have comments by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, who says: The approach taken by MMS [Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service] . . . will better protect Alaska's interests. They oppose the Hutchison amendment. We heard from the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands in a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle: The Department's comprehensive proposal is the logical alternative to posted prices. They oppose the Hutchison amendment. California, the city of Long Beach: I urge you . . . to support [MMS] regulations . . . They oppose the Hutchison amendment. Colorado, Mark Davis, Minerals Director: This delay is costing taxpayers $5 million per month. He opposes the Hutchison amendment. Louisiana: To sum up, [the department in Louisiana] is supportive of MMS' attempt to value . . . production in a more certain, timely, and accurate manner . . . . Montana, a letter from the Supervisor of the Federal Royalty Program: . . . Montana believes that the rule is ready and should be finalized. That was in 1998. New Mexico: It is our fervent hope that Congress will act so as not to extend the current moratorium prohibiting the Department of Interior from issuing a final rulemaking. North Dakota: This is from Robert Olheiser, North Dakota Commissioner of University and School Lands, in a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle: The Department's Minerals Management Service has been eminently fair in proposing [these] regulations. It goes on. We have a letter from Texas. We have a letter from South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin. I see that my friend from Florida is on the floor. I will stop when he is prepared to begin his remarks. Let me just say at this time--and then I will make concluding arguments when the Senator from Florida has completed in the remainder of the time--that we have a problem on our hands with 5 percent of the oil companies. We have to do justice. We have to do what is right. We have to listen to the whistleblowers who are risking themselves to come out and tell us there are schemes going on to deprive taxpayers of these royalty payments. We have to do the right thing. We have to listen to the States, the Consumer Federation of America--and how many groups? more than 50 groups--that stand in the public interest and say no to the Hutchison amendment. Now I yield the remainder of the time until a quarter of to the good Senator from Florida, Mr. Bob Graham.

Mrs. BOXER. Ask for a quorum call.