Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thirty seconds. You cannot have it both ways, Senator. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a life-of-the-mother exception, claim her life is in jeopardy and say our bill does not take care of that. If you are going to claim life-of-the-mother in her case, our bill covers that. If you are going to claim that she had alternative procedures, like a cesarean or other kinds of procedures where she could have had an alternative, you cannot argue both sides of the story, Senator. You have to argue the facts, just one side at a time. [[Page S 18189]]

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, that picture is not factual, right? That picture is not factual, is it?

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield. So the second picture the Senator from California has up there is also not factual, is that true?

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from California will yield.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the use of United States military forces to enforce the Bosnian peace agreement and the role of NATO and other foreign nations in the implementation force.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 28, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing regarding intelligence matters.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes today to address a few specifics of the Balanced Budget Act passed yesterday by this Chamber. With the time available today, I wanted to offer a few specific thoughts on the agriculture provisions contained in the conference report. As I have said on previous occasions during this debate, the balanced budget [[Page S 17459]] measure we approved yesterday is a historic moment. I feel strongly that this is among the most important votes that I will cast here, and I am proud that this Congress has the courage and conviction to enact a plan to achieve a true balanced budget. This is a good plan, and in my estimation, it is a very fair plan; but it is not entirely a perfect plan. An area, for example, that I believe that this Congress has abdicated its responsibility is the reforms of the peanut program that are contained in this bill. My desire to reform programs such as peanuts and sugar is certainly well known among my colleagues. It is my view that we must curb these subsidies for farmers and investors and bring these programs into line with other, more market oriented agricultural commodities. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have been fighting for reforms in both of these programs. I assure my colleagues that the provisions in this bill are not true reform. The peanut industry is in a state of serious decline. Consumption and production are falling as a direct result of a failed Government policy that excessively inflates the price of U.S. peanuts to almost twice the world price. It is my goal to make the peanut program operate like other farm programs so peanut farmers will grow peanuts for the market, and not for the Federal Government. Under the current peanut program, artificially high-priced peanuts simply end up being forfeited to the Federal Government. The peanut provisions contained in the budget reconciliation bill not only fail to reform the peanut quota system, but make a bad program worse by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture to further shrink national production to avoid Government forfeitures. This summer I introduced S. 1188, a bill that provides for a phasedown of the excessive support price for quota peanuts in order to move the program toward a market orientation. In year 2000, my bill would end the quota system and replace it with a loan program, much like the program we have for soybeans. The Agriculture Committee, however, chose to include the general commodity programs in the budget reconciliation bill rather than have a farm bill fully debated on the Senate floor. At the time of Agriculture Committee deliberations, I agreed not to oppose the package of peanut provision for inclusion in budget reconciliation in return for some minor reforms in the program. One of the chief concessions I obtained in the Agriculture Committee reported bill, was a new provision for the release of additional peanuts when market prices for domestic edible peanuts exceeded 120 percent of the quota loan rate. This provision would have placed some cap on the price of peanuts when the Government creates an artificial shortage. Unfortunately, this provision was ruled out of order under the Byrd rule, while other provisions, such as the extension of lease and transfer of quota, were allowed to be part of final legislative package on peanuts. My other objective today is to point out the inconsistency in terms of how the Byrd rule was applied against my provisions to reform the peanut program. No one can deny that the Byrd rule was applied selectively to eliminate certain provisions, while other items, such as lease and transfer provisions were allowed to be attached to the budget reconciliation bill. Through procedural maneuvers to protect the peanut program from a floor vote, the Congress has effectively chosen to heavily subsidize a few thousand peanut quota holders at the expense of millions of consumers. The peanut provisions contained in the bill serve to protect the status quo, while consumers have to pay even more for peanuts because the Secretary of Agriculture will be forced to short the market. In fact, it is estimated that the proposed modifications will effectively increase the cost of peanuts by as much as $100 per ton. Budget reconciliation provisions that increase the cost of peanut products at a time when the peanut industry is already losing market share are simply bad public policy. I am disappointed in my colleagues' use of the legislative process to hide the peanut program from the light of public scrutiny. Working to deny floor consideration of peanut program reform has extended the life of this outrageous program for a while longer. Ultimately, I am afraid that the provisions in this bill do a disservice to supporters of the program by further pretending that there is no crisis in the peanut industry. In stark contrast, some of the reforms that I have proposed would expand national production by allowing American peanut growers to produce for the market rather than the government. Real reform of the peanut program will not only benefit this Nation's consumers, but will help avoid the loss of manufacturing an jobs in my home State of Pennsylvania. As a Representative of Pennsylvania, one of the largest states in terms of the number of employees related to peanut product manufacturing, I have good reason to be deeply concerned about the loss of jobs that will result from further Government imposed reductions in U.S. peanut production. Mr. President, it is critical that we have an opportunity to vote for reform of the peanut program on the Senate floor. Consideration of the peanut program to date has been nothing short of denying public scrutiny of an unfair and outdated Government program.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from New York for his comments. They are right on. I think he hits the nail right on the head. This is about the future of our children. This is about balancing the budget. I am glad as a member of the Finance Committee he took on all these assertions to talk about tax cuts for the rich. The Senator from New York is right. These are tax cuts for middle-income families. The only thing that would not be targeted for tax cuts for middle- income families would be capital gains. The Senator from New York correctly said capital gains reductions are job-creating engines that employ middle-income families. So whether you are giving them a tax break or you are giving them an opportunity to get a job, it is targeted toward families of middle income. We, obviously, do not do a very good job getting our message out. I keep hearing over and over again--I talk to folks from Pennsylvania who are in the Capitol, I talk to them as they call into my office, whatever the case may be. I explain to them what we do, what we are trying to accomplish here, and they say, ``Why doesn't anybody report that?'' Well, talk to the national media why they do not report what is in this bill. The reason we are so passionate about sticking up for a balanced budget over the next 7 years and the reason we care so much about what we are doing here and why we invested all this time in putting this bill together is because we honestly believe that when we pass this into law, the American public will approve in overwhelming numbers what we do. If we thought this was bad policy, I can guarantee no one would be standing here taking on every sacred cow in Washington, DC. It is amazing to me some suggest this is being done on our side for partisan political advantage. Let me assure you--and if you do not believe me, look at the poll--let me assure you, there is little partisan political advantage in trying to reform Medicare, in trying to reform Medicaid, in trying to make decisions on education. There is no partisan advantage here. [[Page S 17143]] The advantage is it is the right thing for America, for our children, and for our future. This has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do about the future of this country. It has everything to do about deeply held, passionate policy beliefs about what direction this country should take. That is what we are debating here. I know this is all sort of seen from the outside as sort of a squabble between the President and Congress and Republicans and Democrats. I assure you that this is not partisan politics. This is a fundamental difference of opinion about what is right for America. We believe what is right for America, which is in the continuing resolution, is a balanced budget--not talking about it, not saying we like it, not saying that, gee, we would like to get there some day, but doing it. Doing it for our children. I look up in the galleries and walk around here, and there are students around all the time. Sometimes I have to look down. I do not know how Members around here who keep voting for more and more spending, more deficits, more and more passing the buck to future generations, can stare at a kid today and say, ``You pay the bill. I get the votes, you pay the bill.'' That is what is going on. It has been going on here on both sides of the aisle for 25 years. We are trying to say today: Enough. Enough. Let us do the right thing. This is not hard, Mr. President. Balance the budget using real economic assumptions. How hard is this? You said you wanted to do it. Everything in this resolution, you have made public statements saying you want to do. You want to balance the budget in 7 years. You said that. Now, I know promises do not mean as much down at the White House as they do up here. See, we believe our promises should be kept. Those of us who ran--and Senator Abraham was here and the Presiding Officer, Senator Thompson, ran in 1994--made a promise. We said we were going to come to Washington and change this town, and we were going to, first, balance the budget. We happen to believe promises are made to be kept, not just to get elected. There is a difference here. My dad always told me you do not make promises to get what you want and then go do what you want. You make promises and you give your word. Remember when a handshake used to mean a contract in this country? You gave your word and that meant everything. We did not need all these lawyers filling out all these forms. You gave your word. There was a day when people listened to a politician who gave them their word, and they actually believed them. Think about that. You watched him give a speech, and you actually believed what they were saying was actually what they were going to do. Nobody believes that anymore. No wonder we have politicians here and politicians down at the White House who just say whatever the polls tell them to say today. No wonder people are sick and tired of this place. No wonder they have no faith in our institutions. Promises do not mean anything. I think promises do mean something. You ask me why we are stuck in cement over here or standing firm. Because promises mean something. We are going to stand firm. We are going to get a balanced budget. We will get a balanced budget over the next 7 years. We will. I do not know how long it will take, but we will because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. The plan we put together, while I agree with it and I think it is an excellent plan, is not everything I want to do. We have a few things on the agriculture side we are not particularly crazy about. Would I do it differently? Absolutely, I would. But we did the best we could. Now, is all that stuff negotiable with the President? Of course, it is.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am sorry I missed it.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. To explain, a continuing resolution needs to be passed because we have not gotten it enacted here in the Congress or signed by the President. Discretionary spending--that means spending that is not mandatory, which we have to spend. These are programs that we have to appropriate money for every year. If we do not appropriate that money by October 1, we then have to pass a resolution to continue spending, because if we do not, no spending is permitted. That is on discretionary programs. Medicare is not a discretionary program. Medicare is a mandatory program. That means the money is spent, whether we have a budget or not. And so when someone says that they will be signing off on reductions in Medicare by signing a continuing resolution, a spending bill, they either fundamentally misunderstand how Government works in this town--and I know the former chairman of the Budget Committee understands how the budget works--or there was a deliberate attempt to mislead and, I would go further, to scare seniors. There is nothing here--I will read the operative part one more time: The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the [[Page S 17144]] year 2002, as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Enact legislation. It does not say enact Senate bill such and such, or enact the Republican reconciliation or budget bill. It has enact legislation. Very broad. It does not nail anybody down to anything.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is correct. I finished last night reading Harry Truman's biography written by David McCullough. Every time I look at the current occupants of the White House and see them get up there and say these kinds of things and deliberately mislead to scare people--this is not enlightening. This is fear. This is just misleading people for fear. This is from the White House. There are people all over the world who look on the White House as a center of freedom, as sort of this ground that democracy first took hold. Here we are--have we reached that, have we really reached that low in this country that we cannot sit and have an honest discussion? Do you know what this continuing resolution asks for? An honest discussion. An honest discussion. That is all this is. A balanced budget in 7 years, sit down and negotiate, using real numbers--not trumped-up numbers, not numbers that wish away problems, but real numbers. An honest discussion. We have a President who will not even agree to an honest discussion on things he says he wants. We have a President who says he wants to balance the budget. We balance the budget. We want it balanced. We have a President that says he wants to end welfare as we know it. In the budget bill that we have, we end welfare as we know it--frankly, pretty close to what the President had suggested. We have a lot of things in there that the President actually proposed himself. We really did reach out. I think we--as we did in the Senate bill--got 87 votes on the Senate floor for the welfare reform bill. I think we can get that many for this. We save the Medicare system, which, according to his trustees, his office, is going to go bankrupt in 6 years, 7 years. He even suggested change. Sure, we can negotiate how much, what to do, but we both agree it has to be brought up. He wanted a middle- income tax cut for families. We provide it. You heard the Senator from New York, a middle-income tax cut for families. If we were talking massive buildup in defense, huge tax cuts on the wealthy, slashing a bunch of programs, if we were miles apart on this thing, then I think we could have sort of the logjam we are in now. We would be miles apart. Folks, we are not miles apart. For those who see this as sort of the reason we tried to get elected here, to try to bring this fiscal sanity to Washington and to see that the sides on this issue are so close, yet if you listen to the national media you would think that he is in California and we are in Maine and we are not even talking the same language. But we are not that far apart. That is the frustrating thing. Not only are we not that far apart, but we are willing to negotiate to come closer. I know the polls are bad. As I said before, we took on sacred cows. When you take on sacred cows, you have someone standing up at the House--at the White House--out there using that position to scare people, using the Presidency of the United States to scare 81-year-old people. Boy, the power of the White House, the bully pulpit. The moral compass for the world. We are now out to scare people who rely on Social Security and Medicare to make ends meet. Mr. President, I want to turn now briefly to the Hollings amendment. I know he has offered this amendment, and I know he sincerely feels very strongly about this. I find it absolutely incredible for the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from North Dakota, who was just on the floor every day talking about how the Social Security are being used to ``balance the budget.'' No. 1, I do not know how you can stand here and talk about, through an accounting measure, the Social Security trust funds are being used when in fact nobody is taking the money out and using it. In fact, that money that is in the Social Security surplus, the trust fund, is being invested in Government bonds and earning interest, right now. And at the same time, right now, the President of the United States is raiding--raiding--the pension funds of Federal employees--raiding them. Not using them for accounting purposes to balance the budget, but literally reaching in there, taking the money out to pay for debt service--raiding the money. Not paying interest, taking the money, physically taking the money. Now, I have heard a lot of demagoguery around here, but when you say we are in the right because we are not going to use the Social Security trust fund for accounting purposes to determine whether we have a balanced budget or not, that is one thing; but when you have your President at the same time you are making that argument literally raiding trust funds, raiding pension funds--it is like a CEO who is running a corporation and the bank will not lend him any more money. What does he do? He raids the pension fund. Do you know what happens to CEO's where banks will not lend them any more money and that CEO goes into the pension fund and raids the pension fund? They go to jail. They go to jail. We do not raid pension funds in this country. We have a Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation set up so they do not raid pension funds. Now we have all this whining and gnashing of teeth about using accounting measures to determine whether we balanced the budget on Social Security. And the President is raiding pension funds. Where are the protestations? Where are the people grieving for the Federal employees who are having their pension funds raided? Where is the other side saying, ``Oh, the President should not be doing this.''

Mr. SANTORUM. Wait until I am done.

Mr. SANTORUM. You had a chance to vote on that. Senator Moynihan offered an amendment to the debt limit, and in the debt limit we had a provision in there saying we could not do that. We had a provision in there saying you could not raid pension funds to keep the debt going. Guess what? No protestations over there. They voted to strip it out. And the President vetoed it. Oh, yes, you can protest. Put the votes down. Put the votes down. Where are the protestations? Raiding pension funds, that is what we are doing. Let me just summarize it. We have a President, a Chief of Staff of the White House, at the White House today, at the United States of America's White House, out there scaring seniors; at the same time, raiding seniors' pension funds, who are Federal employees. Do you know what they are telling them? Do you know what they are trying to do? ``Please trust us, we know what we are doing. Please trust us, we know how to balance this budget. We are protecting you.'' Give me a break. Come to the table. Let us work this out. This is an embarrassment. The more this goes on the more embarrassing it is going to get. You are not solving problems, Mr. President. It is time to be President, not to run for President. It is time to be President. It is time to solve problems.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Give me 3 more minutes to respond.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, just by way of quickly responding to the earned income tax credit under the conference report that will be coming out, no one, with the exception of families who have no children, no family that has children will get less money under it than they would have gotten under current law. No family will get less money under the earned income tax credit next year than they would have under current law. Some will get more because some qualify also for the tax credit for children. That is in the bill. So do not talk about slashing the EITC, [the earned income tax credit], for working families. We do not. In fact, the increase that is projected that is in law under the President's 1993 Budget Act--those people at least get that much, and some will get more. Particularly families who are in the $15,000 to $20,000 to $25,000 range will actually get more because some of them actually do pay taxes. I will be happy to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family making $320,000 a year qualify?

Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family of three earning $100,000 qualify for the earned income tax credit?

Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family of three making $100,000 a year qualify for the EITC?

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM. Why would 8 million households not get it?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague Senator Specter to submit a resolution which pays tribute to Frederick C. Branch, the Marine Corps' first African-American commissioned officer. The fiftieth anniversary of this historic event will be honored tomorrow night in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This man's dedication and perseverance paved the way for the some 1,200 African-American Marine Officers serving their country today, 50 years later. I would like to [[Page S 17186]] enter into the Record a recent article published in The Navy Times which recently celebrated his remarkable career. This article details his determination in becoming a young officer. Fifty years later, Lt. Branch returns to Quantico, Va.--The Marine Corps first black lieutenant was greeted at Officer Candidate School by the school's first black commander, 50 years after his commissioning. Frederick C. Branch, one of the original Montford Point Marines and now a retired science teacher, visited the school where his wife Peggy pinned him with the gold bars of a second lieutenant on Nov. 10, 1945. Back then, the South was segregated and blacks drank from separate water fountains. ``Whenever we left the base, we ran directly into those segregation laws,'' said Branch, his face framed by peppered hair and moustache and his walk helped slightly by a cane. During one rail trip, he recalled, he (then a corporal) and 200 other noncommissioned officers were returning to the United States from the South Pacific, where they were stationed in 1944. Stopping at a restaurant, he and two other blacks were not served and were referred to another eatery--literally on the other side of the railroad tracks, he said. Branch was drafted into the Corps in 1943, and was the first black to graduate from officer training in 1945. Six others preceded him but all were dropped because of injuries or academics, even though all six were college graduates. It remains a sore spot but nevertheless it did not dissuade him from applying. However, ``I did not encounter any flack during training at all,'' he said. Branch was a reserve officer but served on active duty and was a battery commander with an anti-aircraft unit at Camp Pendleton. He then took what he learned as a Marine into the schoolhouse in 35 years as an educator. The Branches' return to Quantico a half-century later saw to a slightly different Corps. The basics of screening and training potential leaders remained the same, although more specialized, he said. And Marine leaders reflect the Nation's ethnic and racial diversity, like Officer Candidate School commanding officer, Col. Al Davis. ``Now officers are integrated,'' Frederick Branch said. ``Here, the commander of OCS is black, and his staff is black and white.'' Officer training actually was conducted a short distance away on the Quantico Marine Base, but Branch wanted to visit with school officials and learn a little about today's screening and training of Marine leaders. During a short morning tour, Branch and his wife watched officer candidates training in the ropes and obstacle courses before giving lunch a try at the OCS chow hall. Branch said he would like to see black representation among officers increase further. But he took note of the advancements in the last few decades that brought a black three-star general and first black aviator, a black two-star general and three brigadier generals, two of whom are on active duty. ``The black officers now have advanced all the way up to three stars, and there is still room for improvement,'' he said. Frederick Branch rose to the rank of Captain and proudly fought with his fellow soldiers in Korea before leaving the service in 1972.