Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do have a question of the Senator. Let me state something first. I stated before in my opening comments that the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from New York said and repeated that what they care about is the children. I suggest the current system reflects that all the care that has been expressed for children, here, has not panned out into a reality that children are cared for. That is the real issue. We can all care about children. The question is, are children cared for and by whom? What we are trying to do here, in this bill, is to make sure, not that we feel good about caring for children--I am sure the Senator from Connecticut knows that everybody in this Chamber cares for children; that is not the issue, to measure our care--it is to measure whether children are cared for and by whom. What we do here in our bill is to try to rebuild a culture that has been systematically destroyed by the welfare system to make sure that there are families to care for children; that there are communities where children are safe again. As long as you continue the welfare entitlement, the dependency structure of unlimited welfare, you will not get care for children. You will not get caring neighborhoods. You will not get caring communities. You will not have stable families. It is a reality. You are looking at it today. That is why we are here.

Mr. SANTORUM. I just ask this question of my friend from Connecticut. Does your bill create a day care entitlement?

Mr. SANTORUM. You say in your bill that ``all children will receive day care.''

Mr. SANTORUM. You say all children will receive day care. I will read from it. ``To help recipients get and keep a job, child care will be made available to all those required to work.'' That sounds like a quasi-entitlement.

Mr. SANTORUM. As the Senator from Connecticut knows, under the Republican bill before you, we spent $4 billion--``b'' billion--$4 billion more on child care than under current law and almost $2 billion more than what the President believes he needs for day care. So we spend a lot more money. The question----

Mr. SANTORUM. I am sure the Senator from Connecticut knows that what it forbids is Federal dollars to be used for vouchers after 5 years. States can give vouchers using their own dollars for an unlimited period of time. Obviously, if they do not, if they use their money-- there is a discrete amount of money here. What we are saying is you have to focus that money on the 5 years. If you want to extend beyond the 5 years, then use your own dollars. Conversely, what you would say is, look, you can use our dollars after 5 years, which means you would necessarily have to take it out of the first 5 years. We do not think that money should come out of the first 5 years. We think there should be an intensive effort in 5 years, committing every Federal resource possible to that 5-year transition period, to get those people to work and not hold out money, Federal dollars, for a continuation of welfare into the future. That is the philosophical difference.

Mr. SANTORUM. It is a new entitlement?

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for 1 additional minute to respond.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would respond by saying, as the Senator from Connecticut knows, we are talking about originally 25 percent of the AFDC population, able-bodied AFDC population----

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I speak about the welfare bill, I just want to express my condolences to the people of Montoursville, PA. As many of you know, the crash of TWA Flight 800 included French students from that high school in Montoursville, along with five chaperones. I talked with some people in Montoursville today. To say the people are shocked and overwhelmed does not quite, I think, relay the feelings that are going through that small town in north central Pennsylvania, near Williamsport, PA. Senator Specter and I have pledged to do all we can to aid the people of that community in getting information that is necessary to begin the healing process, which is a very difficult one. We will do whatever we can to assist them in that process. Obviously, we will be vigilant in making sure the U.S. Government follows up and makes a thorough investigation of this and to the cause of this accident, hopefully accident.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment for a couple of reasons. No. 1, there is no offset identified in the Murray amendment. For the information of Members, what that means is we have $214 million of savings that the Agriculture Committee was required to come up with that now we are going to have to come up with savings somewhere else, in some other program, which, given where the big money is in the agriculture bill, we are talking about looking at the Food Stamp Program. We have already heard from many Members on the other side that the Food Stamp Program already has been squeezed, so we are back to a very tough decision. That is a very important reason to oppose this amendment. No. 2, really, this amendment is not necessary to continue to meet the needs of the summer feeding programs for children. The reason I say that is because the rates that are in the underlying bill for the Summer Food Service Program for lunch is $1.93 a meal. The ordinary rate for a lunch, a school lunch, in an ordinary school in America during the year is $1.79. Let me repeat that: The ordinary rate for a school lunch during the year, during the school year, is $1.79. The rate in the bill for a lunch during the summer is $1.93 for that lunch. That, by the way, that reimbursement rate is roughly equivalent to the amount we pay to severe-need schools. Those are schools that have at least 60 percent of their children at the school who are in poverty. So we are paying a rate, actually, slightly above the rate that we pay during the school year for severe-need schools. Now, I understand that the Summer Food Service Program for Children is targeted at poor communities, but we are paying a reimbursement rate here which is equal to the rate we pay to poor communities during the school year. So I guess we believe that this was a responsible place to find a reduction, that we are still paying enough money for school lunches, to encourage venders to participate, schools to participate in providing the service for children throughout the summer. If we do not make a reduction in this program, and I think it is a judicious reduction, then we have to come up with money from someplace else in the budget, which may, in fact, be tougher on children than the reduction proposed in the underlying bill. I encourage Members to oppose the Murray amendment for those reasons. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. My response to that, Mr. President, first, the Senator from Washington knows the fact is that the Agriculture Committee was given a reconciliation instruction, and by removing this part from that portion of the bill we will have to come up with money elsewhere. It is not like Medicaid is part of that instruction. It is not. It is a separate instruction, a separate area, an area that is gone for now. We are deeming with this portion of the bill. We cannot just say we cut something somewhere else, and, therefore, we should not worry about it here. It is apples and oranges. We do have to come up with the money somewhere else. I think this is a reasonable place to come up with it. The rate of $1.93 was increased in the committee by Senator Leahy. He sought to increase it more himself, but he recognized that to do that he would have had to find savings somewhere else. It was his judgment--obviously, by his amendment--that this was an area that could afford a reduction more than other areas of the agriculture budget. And so I think, going from the attempt that he made in committee, that this was probably the best place to find the reduction at the time. So I ask, again, that Members oppose the amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, this is a nice idea that is unnecessary. The current legislation very well takes care of what problem the Senator from Louisiana has laid out in his vouchers for children amendment. The Senator from Louisiana suggests, and correctly suggests, in the first 5 years of the program, when someone enters the program, under the Republican bill the States are allowed--are allowed to provide a voucher program for those who disqualify themselves, usually, in most cases, because they refuse to comply with the law there, by not working. I should say those are people who are still eligible for a voucher. The States can use Federal dollars to provide those vouchers. OK? So it allows the State to provide a voucher using Federal dollars. What the Senator from Louisiana wants to do is, frankly, an additional cost to the State and not a requirement of the State. What he requires the State to do is an assessment after someone has broken their eligibility for welfare within the 5-year time period. He requires the State to do an assessment of the family to determine whether the children in that family are in need now, now that mom has decided not to go to work. So, an additional assessment is necessary under his plan. So they are required to do the assessment. What they are not required to do is provide a voucher. It is up to the State whether they want to provide that voucher or not. That, to me, is a cost and the State will say: Look, if you are going to make us do the assessment we will spend the money we would have spent maybe providing the vouchers, doing the assessment and not help anybody. So I think it is well intentioned but it could actually have the reverse effect, of getting fewer vouchers approved for those people within that 5-year window. On the other side of the 5-year window, again I think the Senator from Louisiana has missed the mark. He is correct, his amendment allows States to use the block grant funds for the AFDC block grant. It allows them to use those funds for vouchers after 5 years. That is what his amendment does. Our bill does not allow you to use the block grant funds in the AFDC block grant, now it is called the TANF block grant, for vouchers. But what we do allow under current law is to use title 20 block grant money for that provision of services. So there are several block grants we are giving to the State. One is the block grant to the States for social services. It is an existing block grant and there is nothing in this law--in fact I will read it. ``Services which are directed at the goals set forth in this section, 2001, include, but are not limited to . . .'' and it includes child care services and a whole bunch of other things. It is very clear within this block grant, the Governors, the legislature if they want to provide it, can give Federal dollars for a voucher program after the 5- year time limit is expired. They have Federal dollars right here to do it. We are all talking about the same pot of money. The Senator from Louisiana does not put up more money to provide vouchers after 5 years. We have the same pots of money here. All we are suggesting is we want-- and here is the difference. If you want to know the difference between what the Senator from Louisiana wants to do and what the Republican bill wants to do--I should put it this way. The Republicans want all the block-granted funds for AFDC to go in the first 5 years, to concentrate that money to get people off welfare. We do not want any of those funds diverted to maintain people on welfare. We want all that money spent in the first 5 years. We believe we want every conceivable dollar we can get to get people up and going and off so we do not have to worry about the next 5 years. By spending less the first 5 you guarantee people will be there at the end, and we do not want to do that. We want to make sure it is all spent. If there is a problem after the 5-year period, then we will say: Look, there are some other Federal dollars out here. If you want to use those dollars, you are certainly welcome to use those dollars. In addition, obviously there is nothing in either of these bills that prohibits the State from using State dollars to fund a voucher program after the 5-year period.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. You have two questions there, actually, in order to give the answer.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to make two quick responses. No. 1, the Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right, it was in the conference report, but I tell the Senator from Kentucky, it was not in the House bill, it was not in the Senate bill, and I have been informed by staff it was a drafting error in the conference report. It was a mistake on the part of the drafters in putting that in. It was not intended policy by either body to include what the Breaux amendment does. I think one of the reasons is--and I get back to the fact that there are Federal dollars out there for the States to use for that last 5 years, and I think that is more than generous and complies with what the Governors want to do, which is to have Federal dollars available for the voucher program after the 5-year period.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Harkin amendment. The underlying provision that the Harkin amendment attempts to amend actually has some commonality here, bipartisan support, I should say. The President, in his most recent welfare reform proposal, contained a provision to repeal the expansion grants, the grants that the Senator from Iowa wants to put back in. In addition, the Democratic substitute which we voted on earlier today also repealed expansion grants. And I think the reason was that these expansion grants, at least for the school breakfast program, have been around for 6 or 7 years. With 6 or 7 years, that is a fair amount of time to have those grants on the table to use to grow the program. If they have not grown by now, they are probably not going to grow with respect to the summer food program. It has not been widely used. The Senator from Iowa mentioned 31 States. But these are not State grants. They are grants to very small discreet schools. If you only have 31 in the entire country, that is hardly a significant expansion of the program. I think most everyone has recognized that we have sort of reached the end of the road with respect to expanding this program. And this money can be more efficiently spent elsewhere. I remind Senators that this provision saves a substantial amount of money. What it is is $112 million that we were required to come up with in our reconciliation portion of the agriculture budget. And there is no offset provided for in this legislation. So if in fact we put these grants back, we are going to have to find other places, food stamps, other kinds of programs that I think have more political support, and for good reason, than these expansion grants. So I would urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Just one of the reasons we had more savings than the ag bill is because we had to meet a specific target in the last year. And to meet that target, we had to cut a little bit more than we needed to in the first few years to meet the outyear number. That is why if you change the numbers, then we do not have the numbers in the outyears. I say that in response. I am willing to get the yeas and nays on this.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Iowa, in discussing the matter with the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to accept the first Harkin amendment, the one that was pushed off until Tuesday and accept the amendment without the need for a vote, if that is acceptable to the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the first Harkin amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Likewise. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not see anything in this amendment that is necessary. We already get a variety of information from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and a whole lot of other agencies with respect to statistical information with respect to poverty rates and a whole variety of other factors dealing with children in poverty. That information is compiled regularly and is made available to the Congress. So to have the Secretary of Health and Human Services redo that in some report as requested by the Senator from Minnesota seems to me to be unnecessary. If, in fact, the poverty statistics over the 2-year-period, as described in this legislation, show an increase in the poverty rate among children, I guarantee you that there will be Members, maybe from both sides of the aisle if it is dramatic, who will come here to the floor and will be looking to make some changes in the welfare program. I suggest we have seen increases in poverty with the current system on many occasions, almost continually over the past 30 years, and we have never done anything as dramatic as what the Senator from Minnesota is suggesting with this proposal. I think what we are seeing here is really nothing more than putting in some sort of structure in some very limited and constrained timing. Why not 2 years? Why not 5 years? Why not 1 year? It is hard to pull a number like 2 years out of the hat. This is a program that, once implemented, will be implemented differently across this country because of the flexibility given in this bill. There will be programs that I think will be dramatically successful which will have tremendous impact on the poor in this country. There are those, in all likelihood, that will have modest success. I think it is important to let that play out. It is important to give the Congress the flexibility to be able to deal with that in a rational, measured way, by debate, instead of forcing them into a rather tight timeframe that is being designed here by the Senator from Minnesota. For those reasons, I oppose the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator from Minnesota. The answer simply is, like every other welfare program that has been instituted in this country, there are volumes of studies as to its impact by a variety of organizations from the left to the right, including the Government. I do not think there will be any shortage of information as to the efficacy of this new direction in welfare. That is No. 1. No. 2, what your amendment provides for is not only reports, and I suggest duplicative reports, but congressional action, discharge for consideration, an expedited procedure, very expedited procedure for legislation, which is, again, I think, an overreaction and just not necessary.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield back all our time on the amendment. The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation bill pursuant to 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. I raise a point of order against the pending amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.