Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. On the issue of the President, which is a discussion that many of us are scratching our head about with respect to the rhetoric we are hearing from the White House on issues--very, very important issues--that face this country, where Republicans here in the Congress and in many places, on a bipartisan basis, are trying to move forward with programs we believe will move this country forward. We have been met with very stiff resistance from the White House. Yet when the campaign that has now commenced--the speeches; the President is out, making the campaign speeches--you would think from the speeches that he gives that all of the things that we are pursuing, that the American public is in general agreement with, like balancing the budget, like cutting taxes, like having smaller Government, like giving more power back to State and local governments, like welfare reform, all of those things that are very much supported by the American public and have been stopped, clearly been stopped by this White House, because we have passed all of those things, and they have been vetoed down at the Oval Office, the President is now campaigning in his speeches that he is for all of this. In fact, he is the one who is trying to make these things happen. It is particularly difficult for me, as someone who has worked extensively in the area of welfare reform, to hear the President of the United States not only giving speeches on the issue about how he is in support of the welfare system, but we have a President of the United States running ads on television talking about his welfare plan. Let me remind the President and my colleagues that the President of the United States has introduced one welfare reform proposal. It was introduced in June 1994, some 18 months into the President's term. As you may recall, in 1992 when he ran for election, he promised to end welfare as we know it and made it a centerpiece of the campaign--he was a new Democrat, someone who understood that big Government policies of the Great Society were, in fact, hurting the very people they intended to help, and that we had to do something different. We had to do something dramatically different. As a Governor from Arkansas, he saw the need for decentralizing welfare back to the States, into the communities, where antipoverty programs have been more effective and more tailored to the needs of the people in those communities. So he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. I think that was a very significant component of putting together the Clinton majority that earned him the electoral votes necessary to win the Presidency. Mr. President, 18 months later, he introduced in that interim period of time massive health reform, tax increases, further spending increases, new entitlement programs, a whole lot of other things were introduced in the first 18 months. He tried to do the gays in the military and other things that were obviously higher in priority because they certainly came before any initiative on welfare. He took no initiative. The 103d Congress, from 1993 and 1994, introduced no legislation, the Democratic majority in both Houses introduced no legislation to move the welfare debate forward. In June 1994, it was introduced. It was a pathetic bill by everyone's estimate. It was panned by both sides as being no significant reform at all. In fact, they had trouble finding Democratic cosponsors of the bill. Someone even introduced the legislation for the President because it was considered such a minimal, incremental, insignificant reform of a system that was in terrible need of reform. This is the plan--I assume this is the plan--that the President now is going around the country suggesting ends to welfare as we know it. No one from the left or the right, whether you are for welfare as it is or would like to see substantial changes, would indicate that the President's plan of 1994 ended welfare as we know it. Yet, we have the President of the United States out on television, out in speeches, suggesting that he is trying to end welfare as we know it. He had an opportunity to end welfare as we know it. Last year, we worked on a bipartisan basis here in the U.S. Senate and passed, I think, a very strong bill, one that attacked the significant problems in the welfare system, began to attack them. I do not see this as the final solution, by any stretch. But, in fact, it began to take us into a new course, where we focus more on allowing individual communities and States to fashion their own welfare programs with more flexibility. We put some work requirements in there, because we believe that is absolutely essential to transition people off of welfare. If you are going to transition people off of welfare, you have to give them work experience and teach them the skills necessary to work, and you have to put in time limits. If you do not put time limits in, you have a system that perpetuates nonwork, perpetuates a whole lot of values which I do not believe make for successful Americans. We worked together on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate and came up with a bill that got 87 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate--87 out of 99 votes; there were 12 who voted against it. That is an enormous bipartisan effort. In a year or two, now, where you have seen claims and disgust from the public about the intense partisanship, about the serious issues that face the country, here in the U.S. Senate, the issue that I think is one of the most pressing and important issues to this country and to our culture, to helping those who are in need, we were able to get 87 votes for a bipartisan bill. The President of the United States, who originally said, ``This is a great bill and I like it,'' as time went by, as we were working on this bill in conference, the President said he would veto, in fact, the Senate bill, that he would not support the Senate bill, even though it got 87 votes here in the U.S. Senate. So the President again very clearly signaled to the other side that he was not for anything that looked like the Senate bill or certainly not the House bill, and sent the signal to block whatever came out of conference as unacceptable welfare reform, even though there were 87 votes here. Now, this is the President who is running ads saying he wants to end welfare as we know it, having torpedoed a bill that got 87 votes here in the U.S. Senate, having not offered any substantive proposal in this session of Congress, having offered a weak proposal in 1994 that, again, was panned by both left and right as insignificant. This is the President who now wants you to believe that he is for us; he is for the same things that we are for and that you are for in welfare reform. The fact is on this ``me, too'' he is not ``me.'' He is not ``us.'' He is ``them.'' He is the status quo. He is for perpetuating a system that while well meaning in its inception--and certainly the people who put these programs together did not put these programs together because they thought they were going to hurt the poor, or because they thought they were going to hurt the children, or they thought were going to destroy communities, or thought they were going to create a culture of despair, or thought that they were going to really begin to tear apart families, or thought they were going to see fathers becoming less and less responsible for their children. None of those things were intended consequences of the Great Society programs and the other welfare programs we passed. But they surely have contributed to all of those things. What we are saying is that it is time to do things differently that we know work in rebuilding those institutions. The institutions of family, of parental responsibility to children, of community organization that builds values in the communities like churches and nonprofit organizations, and civic associations that build a sense of community and set standards and values for this community so people can relate to--in fact, not only do they relate to but they participate in establishing. We believe that sending welfare back down is not just substituting a State bureaucrat for a Federal bureaucrat, but substituting the neighbor down the street who works at the local community center, or the pastor of the church, or the social worker at the nonprofit mission helping the poor. That is what we are talking about in the welfare reform that is envisioned in the bills. I am hopeful that we can see that kind of progress in this area. I am also hopeful that the President will own up to the fact that he is not for welfare reform as that envisioned that I have just given you. That is not his vision of welfare reform. His vision of welfare reform is ensuring Federal control over these programs, guaranteeing that you will hear very much, ``Well the Republican plan didn't guarantee this; it cannot guarantee that.'' I can tell you what all of these Federal guarantees have gotten us over the past 30 years: Guaranteed failure, Federal guarantees failures of families and communities and culture. We want to get rid of the Federal guarantees. Yes, because we believe it is much more important that instead of having the bureaucrat guarantee that someone gets a check passed out by someone who sits behind bulletproof glass and you receive the check because the number that you have on your card is the number that matches that computer. Who you are does not matter. What your concerns are, does not matter. What your needs are, does not matter. You are a number in a computer and you get processed like it. That is not the kind of guarantee that I think the poor want in this country. What they want is the guarantee that someone loves them, cares for them, who sees them as a neighbor, who sees them as part of what they are in a community, and has the resources available to them to help them. That is the guarantee that we want to provide. That is the kind of program envisioned that we see for helping the poor in this country, and it is not about the Federal Government taking care of people. It is about neighbors taking care of each other which is about the goodness of America and the culture that we so much want to rebuild in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the Senator from Kansas. The significance of this day should not be diminished by reference to or discussion of the gentleman's future pursuits. They should more importantly reflect the tenure and service that he has already given his State of Kansas, the office of majority leader, the institution of Congress, and this country as a whole. Mr. President, I remember my first direct interaction with Bob Dole in 1993 as we crafted fundamental entitlement reform to the supplemental security income system. I could talk today of our work in shaping the direction of our Nation's social policies, more recently during a very intense debate here last fall on a comprehensive welfare reform package. I was honored to have been of assistance to him in managing the floor discussion, and it was during this debate that Senator Dole's guiding hand was once again exhibited in maneuvering this body through one of the more contentious and important discussions of national policy. As the youngest member of this body, however, it is with a different perspective that I would like to focus my remarks today. Many of Bob Dole's most significant experiences, especially his service in defending this country in World War II, largely precede my 38 years. His 35 years of service and leadership in Congress roughly bridges the span of my life. And while I have only had the honor to serve under his direct leadership in the Senate for a year and a half, I have indirectly benefited from Bob Dole's sacrifices, courage, and convictions for the better part of my life. Today's speeches have been filled with personal reflections, tributes to service, and legislative and policy histories that all have been influenced by the gentleman from Kansas. As moving and genuine as these reflections have been, time and history will truly capture and attest to the magnitude of Senator Dole's service and the importance of his departure. Rapid change in the character and makeup of both Chambers has marked my 6-year service in the U.S. Congress. Since my election in 1990, the U.S. Congress has experienced not only one of the largest single year turnovers since the 1974 elections, but has also ushered in a historic change in the majority parties of both houses. And in the midst of this profound change, individuals like the Senator from Kansas have remained a stabilizing force to this institution. As it is far too easy to get lost in the direction of our own careers, we must not allow ourselves to lose sense of those who have shaped the institution of Congress and those who have left a lasting imprint on the direction of our Nation. History will undoubtedly record Senator Dole as one of those people. As the longest serving majority leader in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dole possesses an instinctive ability to navigate the Senate's process of forced compromise. While at times during this session these abilities have served as a source of personal consternation, I readily acknowledge that these are qualities that a leader must exhibit to carry out the duties and responsibilities of this Chamber. These are qualities that a leader must espouse to bridge the ideological differences that manifest themselves in the direction of our policies. Clearly, the history and service of Senator Dole's 35 years in Congress is an inspiration to all of us and a challenge as we, in his absence, try to foster and maintain the integrity and direction of the institution of the Senate. The hallways of the Senate will long be filled with the images of Senator Dole's presence and the echoes of his trademark late night walks from this Chamber, through the Vice President's lobby, and to the majority leaders office overlooking America's Mall of monuments to this Nation--the view across what will now be known as the Bob Dole balcony. Mr. President, it is indeed a distinct honor to congratulate and thank the Senator from Kansas for his service to our country. I rise with the distinction of being a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and the honor of being a colleague of the Senator from Kansas. I rise with the privilege of representing 12 million Pennsylvanians in the rich tradition and history of Senators Hugh Scott, John Heinz, and Harris Wofford, who have had the honor to serve with Senator Dole at this very desk before me, and have been enriched by the shared service and experiences. But most importantly, I rise as a personal beneficiary of the Senator's sacrifice, his service, his steadfastness, and his wisdom. In closing, Mr. President, I stand today with the privilege of speaking in some small way for those Pennsylvania voices in sharing our blessing for the continued strength, courage, and conviction in life's pursuits for Mr. Dole and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I call attention to a very special honor bestowed upon the West Philadelphia Catholic High School of Philadelphia, PA. West Philadelphia Catholic High School is among 266 secondary schools to be selected as a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. The U.S. Department of Education's Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Program nationally recognizes public and private schools that are effective in meeting local, State, and national goals and in educating their students. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate West Philadelphia Catholic High School on this distinguished achievement. I am also proud to say that the West Philadelphia Catholic High School is a two-time winner of this prestigious honor and is the only Archdiocesan school to have received this award. As the U.S. Department of Education notes, these Blue Ribbon Schools are not only centers of educational excellence in their communities, but are often visited by educators from across the country who study their success. The West Philadelphia Catholic High School is a Blue Ribbon Award winner because of the hard work of its students, the continued support of parents and graduates, and the dedication of its faculty and administration. This hard work and dedication to excellence can also be seen in the high number of graduating students who pursue higher education. Again Mr. President, the Blue Ribbon Award is an honor to the students, faculty, and administration of the West Philadelphia Catholic High School as well as the city of Philadelphia. At this time I would like to extend my best wishes to West Philadelphia Catholic High School and congratulate this academic community on a job well done.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today so that I might call special attention to Mr. James B. Golden, Jr. of Philadelphia, PA, most recently sworn in as the new chief of police for Saginaw, MI. Prior to assuming this new position in Michigan, Mr. Golden served as the executive officer of the Philadelphia Police Department. Mr. President, I would like to take the time to salute Mr. Golden for his quarter century of service to both the Philadelphia Police Department and to the residents of our city. I would like to call attention to this distinguished record of service by asking that a proclamation honoring Mr. Golden be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: Proclamation To honor James B. Golden, Jr. on his distinguished record of service to the City of Philadelphia and on his appointment as Chief of Police of Saginaw, Michigan. Whereas James B. Golden, Jr. served as Executive Officer of the Philadelphia Police Department, overseeing the Human Resources, Strategic Planning, Supplemental Police Services, and Management Review Bureaus for the Department; Whereas James B. Golden, Jr., as Executive Officer of the Philadelphia Police Department, had management oversight responsibilities over 8,000 sworn and civilian personnel as well as command over an annual budget of $325 million; Whereas prior to his appointment as Executive Officer, James B. Golden, Jr. held the position of captain and served as Administrative Officer to Former Police Commissioner Willie L. Williams; Whereas James B. Golden, Jr. was appointed to the Office of the First Deputy Police Commissioner, responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Philadelphia Police Study Task Force, thereby bringing about a complete change in the focus and strategy of the Philadelphia Police Department; Whereas James B. Golden, Jr. earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Management from the Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, is a graduate of the 179th Session of the FBI National Academy, and has completed executive development programs at Temple and Harvard Universities; Whereas James B. Golden, Jr. has risen from the rank of police officer in the 23rd Police District of Philadelphia to the rank of Police Chief with the Saginaw, Michigan Police Department; Now therefore, The Senate congratulates James B. Golden, Jr. on his distinguished service to the City of Philadelphia, on his many achievements and honors in the field of law enforcement, and wishes him a successful tenure as the Chief of Police for Saginaw, Michigan. Again Mr. President, this appointment is an honor to both Mr. Golden and to the people of Saginaw, MI. At this time I would like to extend my best wishes to Mr. Golden as he embarks upon his new role as Chief of Police for Saginaw, MI.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my friend from Wyoming, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my friend from Minnesota, who is ready to talk. This is an important debate. It almost is anticlimatic. The fact is that it is widely reported in the press that we do not have enough votes to pass the balanced budget amendment, an amendment that passed the House of Representatives, that this is just an exercise. Unfortunately, it has been minimized as a result of that. I think it is important. I am glad the Senator from Wyoming has been our leader on the floor on these issues, has taken the time to get the freshman on the Republican side--the freshmen Members are all Republicans; I guess that would be the Republican side--to get up and talk about why we think this is important and why the public should be, again, focused on this issue. I do not think there is anything more fundamental for the Government to do than to run an operation that is balanced. Almost every State government runs an operation that balances the budget every year. It is incumbent upon Government to act in a responsible fashion with the taxpayers' dollars and do so in setting priorities. It is hard to do. You have heard a lot about all the money that needs to be spent on a lot of different programs. There are a lot of things we need to do. I see the pages down here and young people up in the gallery. I visited high schools and colleges just over the last week during the break, and it is hard to look into the faces of the young people in this country and say to them, ``Look, it is much more important for us to get reelected. It is more important for us to have an issue to scare people on things like Medicare and education spending. It is more important for us to play politics, for our political career, than it is to solve the problems that face this country that are going to be burdening you to even a greater degree than it is burdening this generation of Americans.'' I think we need to do a little soul searching at this point. One thing I found when I got in the Congress, you can always find a reason to vote no. There is always something in every piece of legislation, even if it is one sentence, you can always find a reason, an excuse, to be opposed to something and walk away from taking the responsibility. I remember when I was in the minority in the House, it was very easy to walk away and say, ``I am in the minority. It is not really my job to move legislation here. Yes, it is a good bill, but maybe I will take a pass on this because I am afraid of one little political twist.'' That is what we have done here on the balanced budget amendment. We found there are several Members who have found a reason to vote ``no''. That is the Social Security issue. That is the reason to vote ``no'' on something they say they are for. And they protest, ``We want a balanced budget,'' but it is the Social Security issue holding us back. I think that balancing the Federal budget is bigger than any one single program in Washington. A lot of great programs have passed here, a lot of not so good programs have passed here, but nothing rises to the level of doing the basic fundamental requirement of any government, and that is to balance its books. For those who hide behind Social Security, I say to them: Where were you and where are you when it comes to doing something for these young people on Social Security? Where are the brave souls who stride to the well and say, ``We need to do Social Security reform because these young people who are paying taxes right now have absolutely no hope of seeing Social Security payments when they retire.'' Where are the brave people who want to preserve Social Security, not as a political issue for their next election, but as a real issue for the next generation? I ask everyone who is hiding behind that issue, and I ask all the people who are listening right now, to examine those Members and examine the people who are using this issue and find out how truly they want to protect Social Security. I believe this is just a political issue they can hide behind so they can vote no on something they really do not want to do, which is the bottom line, balance our books, constrain Government spending. I am hopeful at some point we will pass this. I have a lot of faith in the American public that when elections come around in November, they will send more Members to the U.S. Senate and Members of the House of Representatives, who will support a balanced budget--hopefully, from both parties. They will send a clear message that, yes, we understand that tough decisions have to be made, but that is why we sent you to Washington--to make the tough decisions to move this country forward. So I am not discouraged at all. This is something that is going to happen. We are going to balance this budget. We have passed one balanced budget, which was not signed by the President. We passed major entitlement reform. Twice we passed welfare. We passed Medicare reform and Medicaid reform. We have done the heavy lifting to balance the budget. People say that we can do it today. We have done it today. We passed the balanced budget. So do not talk to me about we do not need this balanced budget because we can do it already. We did it already, and the same people who said we do not need the balanced budget amendment voted against the balanced budget proposal we sent to the President. The same President who says we do not need a balanced budget amendment vetoed the balanced budget resolution that we sent to him, which was the act to do that. So, again, if you look at the Social Security issue, you know, it is just, we are for it, but we are going to hide behind Social Security. The other argument is that we do not need the balanced budget amendment because we can do it ourselves. We did it ourselves, and they were against that, too. So I think we just have to question what the real motive is here. Do these people really want to balance the budget, or do they just want to tell you they want to balance the budget? I think the answer is pretty clear. When the rubber hits the road, when it is either ``yes'' or ``no'' on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, the answer is ``no,'' and their excuse is Social Security. When it comes to reforming Social Security, the answer to reform is, ``No, we cannot do that, we cannot touch it.'' The other excuse is that we do not need this because we can balance it ourselves. When we put one on the floor specifying where the changes need to be made in order to put the budget in balance, the answer was ``no.'' So it is ``no'' to a constitutional amendment, ``no'' to Social Security reform, ``no'' to a balanced budget act. But, ``Yes, we are for it. In general, we are all for this.'' Well, you cannot be for it and vote ``no,'' ``no,'' ``no'' when it comes time to put your words into actions. I hope that at some point we do put the words into actions and that we do it soon. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure to add 51.7 miles of Pennsylvania's Clarion River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This bill, which Senator Specter has joined as an original cosponsor, is companion legislation to a measure being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Bill Clinger. Our bill designates segments of the main stem of the Clarion River from the Allegheny National Forest-State Game Lands No. 44 boundary to the backwaters of Piney Dam as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This designation will help to preserve and protect the significant scenic and recreational values of these segments of the Clarion River. This measure will conclude work begun by the late Senator John Heinz. It was his legislation to add a portion of the Allegheny River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that also authorized the study of the Clarion River to determine its eligibility. The study was concluded earlier this year. And enactment of the bill that Senator Specter and I are offering today will bring Senator Heinz's efforts full circle. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill appear in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we just voted on whether there should be repeal of Davis-Bacon. Many of us are not for repeal of that. We believe that there needs to be reform of the Davis-Bacon law and that we, in fact, should assume that for the purposes of the budget. I think there is bipartisan support for reform of Davis-Bacon. I wanted the Senate to go on record for that reform measure.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill and submitting a concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 59, that are identical to legislation I introduced in the House of Representatives in both the 102d and 103d Congresses. As this particular issue remains unresolved, I again urge my colleagues' consideration and support. The legislation I introduce today is an effort to secure the Congressional Medal of Honor for a Pennsylvania resident, Mr. Wayne T. Alderson. The legislation itself speaks to the background and experiences of Wayne Alderson and equally to the need and merit in extending the Congressional Medal of Honor. As you can see from a review of the bill, Mr. Alderson acted meritoriously in the line of duty as a private in Germany during World War II and was recommended by his commander for a Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, his papers were destroyed in a fire. The Department of Defense has said that since the statute of limitations expired in 1952, and that without a statement from one of Mr. Alderson's commanders, they cannot award him the medal. An affidavit by Pfc. Daniel Parisi, which verifies that Mr. Alderson's commanders did indeed recommend him for the medal, was not considered by the Department as sufficient for them to act. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that Mr. Alderson should receive a Medal of Honor. I am joined by several of my colleagues in calling for the extension of congressional recognition to Wayne for his service, valor, and commitment to defending our country in time of war and acting meritoriously in the line of duty. I appreciate Senators Specter, Dole, Craig, Helms, and Thurmond joining with me as sponsors of this legislation. I thank my colleagues for their attention and consideration of this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill and submitting a concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 59, that are identical to legislation I introduced in the House of Representatives in both the 102d and 103d Congresses. As this particular issue remains unresolved, I again urge my colleagues' consideration and support. The legislation I introduce today is an effort to secure the Congressional Medal of Honor for a Pennsylvania resident, Mr. Wayne T. Alderson. The legislation itself speaks to the background and experiences of Wayne Alderson and equally to the need and merit in extending the Congressional Medal of Honor. As you can see from a review of the bill, Mr. Alderson acted meritoriously in the line of duty as a private in Germany during World War II and was recommended by his commander for a Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, his papers were destroyed in a fire. The Department of Defense has said that since the statute of limitations expired in 1952, and that without a statement from one of Mr. Alderson's commanders, they cannot award him the medal. An affidavit by Pfc. Daniel Parisi, which verifies that Mr. Alderson's commanders did indeed recommend him for the medal, was not considered by the Department as sufficient for them to act. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that Mr. Alderson should receive a Medal of Honor. I am joined by several of my colleagues in calling for the extension of congressional recognition to Wayne for his service, valor, and commitment to defending our country in time of war and acting meritoriously in the line of duty. I appreciate Senators Specter, Dole, Craig, Helms, and Thurmond joining with me as sponsors of this legislation. I thank my colleagues for their attention and consideration of this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes of Senate business today to talk about chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome [CFIDS]. Mr. President, this past Sunday, May 12, marked the observance of International CFIDS Awareness Day. While the CFIDS Association of America coordinated a national awareness and educational campaign with respect to CFIDS, I'd like to make particular mention of the efforts of an organization in Pennsylvania, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley. The severity of chronic fatigue syndrome is largely unknown to the American public, and the observance on May 12th served as a very important and worthwhile opportunity to inform, educate, and increase the awareness of the illness. I commend the Lehigh Valley organization for their tireless efforts in combating CFIDS and for their participation and coordination of activities on May 12. In recognition of their efforts, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the following proclamation, and I encourage the Senate's consideration and endorsement. Proclamation Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley joins the CFIDS Association of America in observing May 12, 1996 as International Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Awareness Day; and Whereas, chronic fatigue syndrome is a complex illness affecting many different body systems and is characterized by neurological, rheumatological and immunological problems; incapacitating fatigue; and numerous other long-term severely debilitating symptoms; and Whereas, while there has been increased activity at the national, State and local levels, continued education and training of health professionals is imperative in garnering greater public awareness of this serious health problem and in supporting patients and their families; and Whereas, although research has been strengthened by the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and other private research institutions, the CFS Association of the Lehigh Valley recognizes that much more must be done to encourage further research so that the mission we share with the CFIDS Association of America, ``to conquer CFIDS and related disorders'', can be achieved. Therefore, be it Resolved, that the United States Senate hereby commends the designation of May 12, 1996 as CFIDS Awareness Day and applauds the efforts of those battling the illness. I appreciate the Senate's consideration of this issue, and thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, I say to the Senator. I just remind Senators that 87 Members of this Chamber voted for a welfare reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate that said all legal- sponsored immigrants receive no deeming. We eliminate deeming. Under the welfare bill we passed there is no deeming. If you are a legal immigrant in this country, sponsored, you are not eligible for welfare benefits until you become a citizen. And 87 Members of the Senate voted for that. This is a much weaker version. What this keeps in place is a deeming provision that says that you are not eligible for benefits unless your sponsor cannot pay for it. We had no provision like that. There was no fallback. You just were not eligible, period. Under the Simpson bill we are considering, at least there is a fallback that says if your sponsor can no longer help you, then we will. So this is a weaker provision under the existing Simpson language than what 87 Members of the Senate voted for previously. So understand that you are falling back already, and those who were support this amendment would be falling back even further from the changes 87 Members voted for.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. As I always like to say, I was one of the first Members of Congress in either the House or Senate to introduce a medical savings account bill. I introduced a bill with John Kasich, Tom DeLay and John Miller, a former Member from Washington, back in January 1992. I have followed it for a long, long time prior to corporate lobbyists being up here on the Hill, and I believe very strongly in its concept. Let me explain. I guess we had a lot of talk about what is going on here with this specific MSA bill. Let me explain the concept behind medical savings accounts and the fear many of us have with, the best way I can put it, the ``corporatization'' of the health care field and how we see medical savings account as, really, the last chance for patient choice and for compassion in an industry that is becoming more and more regulated by third parties in the fundamental relationship between doctors and patients. If I can, let me just walk back to the system we had before managed care came into place. What we had was a doctor/patient relationship. That was the problem. There was nobody in this relationship who had any incentive to control costs. As a rule, costs escalated out of control. Why? If you were the patient and had first-dollar coverage, who asked how much things cost? Who asked whether you needed one or two or five of these? You took whatever the doctor suggested and you did not pay for it, so why did you care? So, on the other side is the doctor, and what is the doctor's incentive in this doctor/patient transaction? The more the doctor does, the more money he gets paid. The more the doctor does, the less chance the doctor gets sued. So you have a doctor who gets more money, with less chance of being sued, and you have a patient who does not pay for anything. Then we sat back and wondered several years ago, gee, why are health care costs going up? It was very simple. There was nobody with any incentive to control costs. We understood that and companies understood that and insurance companies understood that, and they did a very logical thing. They brought someone in to control costs, the gatekeeper, the insurance company, who came in; and now they are governing the relationship between the doctor and patient. If you want something done, you go through the insurance company. You get approval, and it can be done. That is now the governor, the one who is in charge of this relationship. What many of us believe is that that is not the most compassionate, and some would suggest that it may not result in the best quality of care. It certainly does not result in the maximization of patient choice. So what we have put forward is a concept called medical savings. I think it is really misnamed. I think we should call it ``patient choice accounts,'' because that is what is left. If we do not do medical savings accounts, if we do not do patient choice accounts, the doctor-patient relationship which we know will disappear in America. It will disappear. It is disappearing, has disappeared, in a lot of communities already in this country. We hear so much from so many people on both sides of the aisle about being compassionate, about caring for people, about doing things to give people choices and to give people the ability to do what is best for them and their families. What we have here is a situation going on in the private sector in America where that choice is going away. Private practice is almost a thing of the past in many communities and is growing more apparent in all States across this country. What medical savings accounts do is provide a chance, an opportunity, for the traditional doctor-patient relationship to be restored where now the incentive is on the patient to be cost conscious. How? Because, instead of the old system where you had first-dollar coverage and the insurance company pays for everything, we are going to say, look, we are going to take a higher deductible policy like an auto insurance policy--we do not pay, as Senator Nickles said, for gasoline or oil changes--but you pay for the incidental costs of health care, the day- to-day costs, and we insure you for the catastrophic illness or for a year where you had a lot of serious problems. So you take a high-deductible policy and you pay for the out-of- pocket expense and you afford that because, when you take a higher deductible policy, the cost of that policy is less. Senator Craig gave an example earlier where a policy with a $250 deductible and a $500 cap and a 20-percent copay cost $458 a month for a family. A $3,000 deductible policy, same coverages, no copay, costs two-thirds less, costs under $200 a month. Where did that savings go between the $200 and $450? It went into the pocket of the person who had the medical savings account. It would go, under this bill, tax free into an account you set up at your bank. You get a little debit card. You could then use it to purchase health care. You could use it to make choices about what doctor you wanted to go to, what hospital, and how much you wanted to spend. I always ask people, ``Who are the lowest paid doctors in this country?'' Well, they are pediatricians and family practitioners and dentists because they are not covered under insurance. Why? They have to charge people who pay out of pocket, so they have to keep their costs down. Just imagine if we did that to most of the health care sector in this country. It would be an enormous contraction, I believe, in costs in our society. It would not lead to higher costs in other areas, in other insurance pools. I think this is a dramatic step forward. This is the reason that I applaud Senator Dole for fighting to the end because this is the kind of dramatic reform that this country needs to preserve freedom of choice for patients. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take some time to discuss a specific provision included in the majority leader's amendment. I have had the pleasure of working with the long term care industry in Pennsylvania during my service in Congress. I am extremely pleased that the leadership amendment included long-term-care provisions which will fill a void in the security of older Americans. I wrote my Senate colleagues this past week as well as the majority leader directly urging the inclusion of the long-term-care language. The long-term-care section will improve this bill by giving long-term-care insurance the same Federal tax treatment as health insurance and by establishing Federal long-term-care insurance standards and consumer protections. The cost of long-term care is easily the biggest financial threat facing elderly Americans. The average cost of nursing home care has risen to $38,000 per year. We also know that more than 40 percent of those who turn 65 this year will require nursing facility care at some point in their lives. Medicaid does pay for nursing home care, but only after the costs of long-term care makes the recipient destitute. Basically, people in need of long-term-care services must pay for the care out of pocket until they spend down all their assets to the point of poverty. Then and only then do they qualify for Medicaid. The real crime here is that people do not know that they will have to lose all their assets to obtain long-term-care services. They think Medicare covers it. Even after 30 years of Medicare, many Americans remain confused regarding what Medicare does and does not cover--particularly regarding long-term care. Year after year, public surveys show that nearly half of Americans believe that Medicare covers long-term care. Because of this misconception, many Americans come to a rude awakening when they need long-term care for which they have not prepared. Helping individuals and families understand the limits on Government long- term-care assistance and giving them incentive to prepare for their needs will encourage more Americans to plan for, save for, and insure against the costs of long-term care. We currently allow acute health care expenses and insurance premiums to be deducted. State laws require car insurance, home or flood insurance, and other protections for individuals and families. Yet we do not require, much less encourage, people to plan for something that more than likely will impact them--the need for long-term-care services. The language in the leadership amendment would correct this. Specifically, the provisions will give long-term-care insurance the same Federal tax treatment as health insurance and link tax provisions to Federal long-term-care insurance consumer protections. This second part is so important because it ensures that policies offer value to consumers and pay appropriately and adequately for quality long-term care when needed. Not only would greater use of long-term-care insurance help protect individuals and families from impoverishment due to long-term-care costs, but it would also help control Medicaid costs. Mr. President, in the long run this will save money for the Medicaid program. In a 1994 article in Health Affairs, Marc Cohen, Nanda Kumar, and Stanley Wallack estimated that having a long-term-care insurance policy reduces the probability of spending down to Medicaid eligibility levels by some 39 percent. The authors estimate that, in the aggregate, Medicaid expenditures would be reduced by $8,000 to $15,000 for every nursing home entrant who had a long-term-care insurance policy. According to the analysis, this translates into cutting what Medicaid pays per nursing home entrant in half for long-term-care policy purchasers. It is in our best interest to encourage people who can meet their long-term-care needs to do so. Medicaid will then take care of truly needy individuals. The majority leader's amendment assists America's elderly and their families with long-term care by putting policies in place that help assure the affordability and value of long-term-care insurance. Giving Americans tax incentives to insure against the potential costs of long- term care will also save Medicaid dollars in the long run. Since we cannot continue to rely so heavily on scarce Government dollars to pay for long-term care, individuals and families should be encouraged to plan for, save for, and insure against the potential long-term-care costs. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and to support this specific language. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few additional minutes today to talk through my recent discussions with veterans' organization from Pennsylvania about legislation recently introduced by Senator Simpson. Senator Simpson, at the request of four major veterans organizations, has introduced legislation addressing various inequities in the manner in which we treat the health of our Nation's veterans. Many of those issues addressed in the bill speak to issues I have witnessed, discussed, and worked on during my 5 years in Congress and as a former member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Issues relating to the care and treatment of veterans and efforts to improve the veterans' health delivery system are very familiar and important to me. Mr. President, I was born and raised on the grounds of a VA hospital facility, and I understand the concerns of veterans in this matter. My mother and father spent their careers working for veterans in Veterans' Administration hospitals. Our veterans fought on many battlefields to preserve the liberty of succeeding generations of Americans. Today, one of the greatest threats to our children and grandchildren is not as much the imminent outbreak of war and the subsequent call to service, but rather the massive national debt and annual Federal deficits. If nothing is done, the next generation will face a future of diminished opportunity and a declining standard of living. While service to our country has entitled veterans to very unique benefits that are available to no other single group of Americans, these benefits are by no means the root cause of our huge Federal deficits. I have fought against unnecessary cuts in veterans' programs that would have compromised our Nation's commitment to those who have served in defense of our freedom. At the same time, however, any new spending on veterans' programs or benefits must be treated with an equal eye toward fiscal responsibility--sufficient spending reductions must occur within the Veterans' Administration itself or in other areas of Federal spending. At this time, the Simpson bill carries with it a revenue effect of $13 billion in new spending. I believe that the sponsor and I would both acknowledge that this bill should not move through the legislative process without a corresponding $13 billion in spending reductions. These rules and budget realities are the same that I have operated under during my entire service in Congress. Recently, I fought on the Senate floor for sufficient spending reductions of $1.2 billion to cover and offset the costs of Federal disaster assistance, a large portion of which would benefit Pennsylvania communities as we rebuild from a blizzard and flood-ravaged winter. And in continuing to address the needs of our Nation's veterans, I will maintain this same standard. Until such spending reductions are finalized and presented, Mr. President, I will temporarily withhold my own efforts and development on S. 1543. I understand that the administration is working on a legislative proposal similar to the Simpson bill, and that they are working through the same budget realities in producing a revenue neutral package. I remain committed to supporting our Nation's veterans. I support the direction and concept of the Simpson bill, and I will work with the sponsor to find cuts to pay for the costs of the bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the tax burden that American families feel today and the drastic need for fundamental and comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. During our brief break from legislative business over the past 2 weeks, I had the opportunity to visit with constituents in various communities in my State to discuss the effects of Federal tax policies on families. Quite clearly, the tax burden over the past few decades has greatly increased; the inequities of the Code have been exacerbated; and the incentives for savings have largely diminished. If it was anything that I heard during the course of nine town meetings, it was the demand for a fairer, simpler tax system and an even greater demand by taxpayers to keep more of what they earn. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I served on the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax legislation. I recognize that our current system of taxation is burdensome and intrusive, and I think we are all aware how complex our system is, given the large amount of time Americans spend in computing and filing their taxes each year. On Monday, I had the pleasure of traveling through Pennsylvania with Senator Specter, along with our Governor, Tom Ridge, as we hosted the distinguished majority leader, Senator Bob Dole. The significance of traveling across my State on tax day brings with it a renewed commitment to fight for Federal policies addressing and correcting not only the many inequities in our system, but demanding a fundamental reexamination by this Congress of the Federal Tax Code as a whole. I strongly believe that Congress must continue to explore comprehensive simplification of our Tax Code. Several of my colleagues have introduced legislation to institute various alternative tax systems as well as proposals to provide varying degrees of tax relief to American families. To reaffirm this commitment to tax fairness, I am pleased today to join Senator Dan Coats as a cosponsor of his legislation to provide not only for middle-class tax relief, but also to encourage increased personal investment and savings while balancing the growth of Federal spending in general. This Congress, as a direct result of the Republican majority, has come as close as a veto pen to enacting tax fairness for American families--fairness and relief that many would have realized in preparing their tax returns by Monday evening's filing deadline. A year after the political battle over tax relief and a year later on tax day, the same challenges and needs remain in devising a tax structure that provides greater balance, incentives, and benefits to American families and taxpayers. These next few weeks in the Senate are critical and serve as another opportunity to readdress, pass, and finally enact these changes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today so that I might call attention to a special honor bestowed upon Dr. Kieren P. Knapp of Seven Valleys, PA. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Dr. Knapp on his upcoming installation as the 81st president of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association. Dr. Knapp will be installed as president at the 88th Annual POMA Clinical Assembly in Philadelphia on April 26, 1996. I would like to call attention to this distinction by asking that a proclamation honoring Dr. Knapp be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: Proclamation To honor Kieren P. Knapp, D.O., on his installation as the 81st President of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association. Whereas, Kieren P. Knapp has been Vice-President and delegate to the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, and is a member of the House of Delegates to the American Osteopathic Association; Whereas, Kieren P. Knapp has served on the Board of Trustees of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic General Practitioners Society; Whereas, Kieren P. Knapp is a graduate of Iowa State University and the College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery in Des Moines, Iowa: and Whereas, Kieren P. Knapp has distinguished himself as a dedicated physician continuing the osteopathic tradition of providing quality and compassionate health care to his community; Now, therefore, the Senate congratulates Kieren P. Knapp, D.O., on his installation as the 81st President of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, and wishes him the best for a successful and rewarding tenure. Again Mr. President, this is a special achievement for Dr. Knapp, and I would like to congratulate him on this honor and extend my best wishes to the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association on a successful conference.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. So the problem is, he will have to go out and short the market; in other words, he will have to have a lower quota than they actually expect so they do not end up buying a bunch of peanuts and being stuck with the cost. We had two provisions in there that actually penalized farmers 5 percent every time they sold their peanuts to the Government when they had a price equal to the quota price available on the market. Well, they gutted that provision. They gutted that provision completely. How do they do it? First, they said the farmer has to put up his entire crop. What do you mean ``entire''? You put up 99 percent of your crop and you sell 1 percent on the open market, and you avoid all penalties. That is No. 1. There is a big loophole here, No. 1. No. 2, it says that you have to sell your entire crop to the Government for 2 consecutive years, and then you get penalized. One year one producer sells it all to the Government, the next year another one does, and you play games with producers so nobody gets caught. That is another big loophole in this. I can go on with a whole variety of other gutting amendments that occurred in conference. But the fact of the matter is this program is not reformed in this bill. We are going to have plenty of opportunities on the floor of the Senate over the next 6 months to reform it, and I am looking forward to that debate.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do so enthusiastically, although I must say I do have some reservations about a few of the titles which I will talk about later. Overall, this bill does move in the right direction. It moves toward freedom to farm, which I think is absolutely important for agriculture in America, to be not only profitable for the farmer but to be able to produce goods that can be sold all over the world. I am very proud of the conservation title in this legislation. I think the dairy title takes a step in the right direction. Dairy, as has been said by various people on the floor, is probably the toughest area to reform, but we have taken steps in the right direction. It is going to take a little bit longer to get the kind of reforms in dairy that are necessary to be more free market oriented, but I think we have moved substantially in the right direction, and I support this bill. I have some problems with respect to sugar and peanuts, but they will not keep me from voting in favor of this legislation and to commend both Chairman Lugar and Senator Leahy, the ranking member, for a job well done in putting this agreement together under fairly serious time constraints as we approach the planting season. Let me first focus on the conservation title because this Congress has been excoriated by many in the national media for being an anti- environmental Congress. I suggest this farm bill is the most proenvironmental farm bill ever passed. It makes some terrific reforms by focusing on incentive-based programs, where we encourage farmers to be good stewards of the land. Farmers are good stewards of the land, by and large. We should have programs to complement their natural tendency, which is to take good care of the land that they need to grow their crops or to raise their cattle or sheep or whatever the case may be. This is a very important step in the right direction. We should commend the leaders here, and the Congress, for putting this bill forward in an area, as I said before, where we are being criticized for not being sensitive to the environment. We have established new programs, incentive-based programs, that I believe will have a tremendously positive effect on the environment in rural America. As a sponsor of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program that Senators Lugar and Leahy introduced and incorporated into this bill, I am particularly encouraged by the cost-shared assistance that will be available for livestock and crop farmers. Senator Lugar mentioned the Farms for the Future Program earlier. This is an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate to provide $35 million for farmland preservation. It is an incredibly successful program in Pennsylvania. In fact, we have an overwhelming demand for this program in Pennsylvania that we simply cannot meet. This is an attempt to have the Federal Government help out to preserve high- quality farmland that happens to be located in an area near an urban area that is under very intense pressure for development. What we are seeing happen, obviously, as the urban sprawl continues to move out into the rural area, we are losing very valuable farmland. In fact, in many of my counties, particularly in southeastern Pennsylvania, we are seeing the whole farm economy destroyed because of the pressure of development. I know it is not just happening in Pennsylvania. It is happening across the country. Farmland preservation is a way to recognize that the farm economies in these areas where we have such high quality farmlands and we have a good agriculture base are worth preserving and protecting. This is a way to do it. So I am very excited about this aspect of the conservation title. Finally, the whole freedom to farm concept is important with respect to the environment. Instead of dictating our farm policy from Washington, we are now giving flexibility to farmers. So they are not going to plant the same crop on the same ground, year after year. This practice requires increased uses of pesticides and fertilizers, because you are draining the ground of nutrients every year because you are planting the same crops. Now, you will see different crops planted and a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides. That is a very important, environmentally positive aspect to the freedom to farm approach. So, there are a lot of things in this farm bill we should be very excited about from that perspective. I want to congratulate, again, the Agriculture Committee and the conferees, for keeping these programs strong and crafting a good title. Let me now move to an area I am concerned about and that, obviously, is sugar and peanuts. But one other thing before that. I am disappointed we were not able to eliminate permanent law. Permanent law is from 1949. It is a law that is obviously not in use. It is superseded every few years when we do a farm bill, as we will this time. We will suspend permanent law, but it is still on the books. We say, ``What does it matter if it does not come into effect? Why is it so important that you want to get rid of this?'' Permanent law is really the hammer held over our heads, that if we do not pass a farm bill, if we do not keep these farm programs going and we do not repeal permanent law, we kick back to this permanent law which means we have outrageously-priced commodities. This is, really, one of the reasons I believe we continue to pass farm bills and we continue to have an interfering Government hand in agriculture. If we got rid of permanent law, then the farm bill would have to be passed based on its merits as a bill, not because there is a hammer out there that would throw the economy into disruption if we did not pass a farm bill. So, retaining the permanent law hammer gives me a little bit of trepidation that, when this farm bill comes up again for reauthorization, the transition to more free markets could be hampered because of that hammer. So I am disappointed in that. But, again, it is another fight for another day. Finally, on the sugar and peanuts--I could talk at length about both, but I am going to focus my attention on what I see is the more egregious of the two programs and that is the peanut program. I stood on the floor right at this spot and offered an amendment on peanuts, which was a gradual phase-down of support price. The opponents of that amendment got up here and demanded--they said, ``Look, you guys do not understand. We have real reform in here.'' They just said, ``This is substantially reformed in the original bill. You do not have to go this far. This is outrageous reform, the Senator from Pennsylvania is talking about. This is just too severe. We have real reform in this underlying bill. As a result, you can be for reform of the peanut program and not vote for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.'' Well, as I knew at the time and as I said at the time, I said: Yes, there are some reforms in here. They are not substantial. It is lipstick on a pig. But, yes, you can argue there are reforms here. But you know what is going to happen. These folks, who are advocates of this program, they are going to get in conference and they are going to gut all the reforms and they will come back and it is business as usual. Surprise, what happened? They get to conference and almost all the minimal reforms that occurred in the original bill are gone. They are gutted. There is almost no reform in this bill anymore with respect to the peanut program in particular. That is fine. I should have known better. In a sense, I did know better. But I will state right here, that this program, while it is only reauthorized every few years--5, 7, whatever years it is--may be only reauthorized that often, but we are going to have another vote on the peanut program this year, maybe more than one vote. We are going to do it on appropriation bills. We may do it on who knows what other bills. We are not going to continue to sandbag reform on peanuts and then go to conference and gut it and have it included in the big bill where you cannot get to it anymore. This battle is not over. There will not be any argument anymore from the other side that we actually reformed it because you did not reform it. Now we are going to talk about the merits of this program, as to whether it should go forward. Let me talk about the merits of this program. Yes, we cut the support price of peanuts from $678 a ton down to $610 a ton for quota peanuts. By the way, the world price for peanuts is $350 a ton, but we are now at the tough, mean-spirited rate of $610 a ton, if you are on quota. We have two classes of citizens in peanuts, who grow peanuts. We have people who are lucky enough that their granddaddy was able to get a quota or license from the Government to grow them, and you get $610 a ton. If your granddaddy was not around when they were giving out the quotas, you only get, if you sell them on the additional market to the Government, $132 a ton. It is the same quality peanuts, maybe grown by the same farmer, some are quota some are additional. But you get $132 versus $610. OK? The world market is $350. So we have two classes of people out here. You say, ``Well, yeah, you reduce the price.'' ``Well, yes, we reduce the price. Guess what? We now have made this a no-cost program.'' That is the way they sort of got around it. No, it is not reform. It is not going to cost money anymore. How do they do that? Every year the Secretary of Agriculture estimates what the consumption of peanuts will be in this country and sets the quota. Let us say it is 1.2 million tons of peanuts, and he sets the quota. The Secretary cannot allow the Government to be a big buyer of peanuts, and the reason is because we cannot get stuck with a lot of expensive peanuts and not be able to sell them. Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the People's Republic of China has conducted a series of missile tests in the last few weeks in a clear attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan as they prepare for the first direct democratic election of President. These military exercises are not in the spirit of the three United States China Joint Communiques and serve as a threat to the peace, security, and stability of Taiwan. I join my other colleagues who have cosponsored H. Con. Res. 148 in condemning the recent actions of the Chinese Government. This action severely tests the assumption that was set when we normalized relations with the People's Republic of China in 1979. We did so on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be settled solely by peaceful means. We codified this commitment and understanding in the Taiwan Relations Act. In this legislation, we state clearly that America believes that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security and economy interests of the United States. This Act also commits the United States to reset any resort to force or other coercion that would jeopardize the security of Taiwan's people. I urge the Chinese Government to honor the intent of the Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act by seeking a peaceful solution to this situation through dialog with Taiwan, and by ceasing their military actions.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that my amendments Nos. 3484 and 3488 be withdrawn. The subject of my amendments has been taken care of within the managers' amendment. I want to thank the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for his cooperation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute for the purpose of withdrawing some amendments.