Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. That would be the only reason you would reject this.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Let me read what this continuing resolution says. Do you want to know who is telling the truth, what promises mean? Section 301: The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The unified budget in subsection (a), shall be based on the most current economic and technical assumptions made by the Congressional Budget Office. That is all it says.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Some might find this hard to believe, but the President is not being forthcoming in this issue. I know you find it incredible that he is not owning up to the facts. I asked the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, that question earlier. By voting for or signing on to the Republican balanced budget plan, the specifics--the tax cuts, the reductions in the growth of Medicare, the changes in Medicare--does all that then come with signing this? He said, ``No, it does not.'' It says two things. I will read you this. And remember, those of you listening, the President of the United States just said--would you repeat exactly what he said, or paraphrase it?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Has there ever been objection by the other side using the Congressional Budget Office as the final arbiter that you are aware of?

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that the Democratic leader said on June 25, ``We will come to whatever accommodations that are to ensure that CBO is the final arbiter of the numbers.'' So that is the Democratic leader speaking. I just want to know if anybody else has spoken differently, to your knowledge?

Mr. SANTORUM. This bill conforms with the Michel rule?

Mr. SANTORUM. Have Members on both sides voted for CR's that do that?

Mr. SANTORUM. So actually we are even spending more money than the Michel rule would require because we are taking programs that would have been zeroed out because the House zeroed out those programs. They are spending 60 percent just to continue those programs during this period of time. So, in fact, we are being more generous than previous CR's would have been; is that correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that anyone who votes for this resolution will not be voting for a tax cut or promise to vote for a tax cut, will not be voting for a reduction in Medicare spending, will not be voting for a reduction in Medicaid spending and will not be voting for any of the specifics that are laid out in the Republican budget? None of that is referenced in the continuing resolution; is that correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. No one can make the claim they are voting against this because they are against the Republican budget as outlined; is that correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. One additional question. The only other thing, other than saying we are to balance the budget in 7 years, is that we will use the Congressional Budget Office as the final arbiter; is that not correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. What I think I am hearing from Members on the other side is they are trying to find a reason to vote against this continuing resolution. They may not be comfortable with voting against it because it balances the budget in 7 years or because we are using Congressional Budget Office scoring. But some are trying to find a reduction in the expenditure levels in the continuing resolution as a reason to vote against this continuing resolution. I want to ask the Senator, who I know is on the Appropriations Committee--and I conferred with the Senator from Mississippi, who is also on the committee--is it not a custom that when a continuing resolution is passed, in that continuing resolution you use the lower of the House- or Senate-passed levels of spending for the various programs, and that becomes the continuing resolution? Is that not the custom of continuing resolutions, I ask the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. President, sitting here I was planning on what I was going to say, and talk about how we were going to balance the budget over the next 7 years. It is very difficult to sit here and listen to some of the inaccuracies that were being put forward on the floor. It is amazing to me. We should have a debate that talks about what the facts really are. The Senator from Arkansas said 15 million children are not going to benefit as a result of the child tax credit. What he did not tell you is those 15 million children have parents who pay no income tax. In fact, the majority of those--first, for all of those 15 million children, their parents receive an earned-income tax credit, most of which is not to pay them for the income tax they pay. They paid no income taxes. But it is to pay them for their Social Security taxes that they pay. And in the majority of cases it is to give them money beyond even their Social Security taxes. So, to suggest we should then give them an additional $500, it is how much welfare you want to provide? What we have done is, people who earned the earned-income tax credit and who pay no taxes, they are going to be at least as well off, if not better off than what they would be under current law. Those who do pay taxes will get a $500 tax credit, or a portion thereof, depending how much they pay in taxes. If they only pay $300 in taxes they will get a $300 tax credit. Again, I guess it is statistics. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. There is a statistic that, if you listen, on the face you would say, ``Boy, this is not fair. We are not helping out the poor folks here in this country who need help.'' Wrong. We have the earned-income tax credit that does just that. This is for families who pay taxes. That is what the tax credit is for, for families who pay taxes. I just wanted to set the record straight on that. I would like to step back and take a look at where we are right now. Where are we? The Government is shut down. What does that mean? That means all nonessential personnel are not showing up for work and have not been showing up for work. I found it somewhat remarkable that 99 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development are nonessential. That makes you think about what they do over at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that 99 percent of them are not essential. Mr. President, 89 percent of the Department of Education are not essential and 67 percent of the Department of Commerce are not essential. One has to stop here and think. If all this is so important, how can the Department of Housing and Urban Development, almost everybody there--the only reason it is not 100 percent at HUD is because political appointments are deemed essential. Other than that, I guess everybody at HUD could go home. This is where we are. Government is shut down. Why? I can tell you in a word why. It is because the President of the United States has refused to come to the table and negotiate on how to balance the budget. That is what this all about, all this clamor, Medicare this and that. The Senator from Wyoming was completely eloquent on the demagoguery that is going on with the Medicare part B premiums. But the bottom line is the reason Republicans and Democrats have not sat down at a conference to get a balanced budget resolution to the floor is just that the President of the United States has simply refused to participate in those discussions. No one on the other side of the aisle has offered any kind of hope that they are willing to participate themselves in this discussion to get to a balanced budget. Oh, you hear that I am for a balanced budget. Everybody is for a balanced budget. But wishing does not make it so. You have to make decisions. You have to come to a conclusion on how we are going to do it. All we are trying to get from the President right now in a CR, which is the spending bill that we are going to be considering probably later tonight, is a commitment from the President that he will agree in the next few days to sit down and negotiate a balanced budget over the next 7 years using real numbers--not phony, rosy scenario numbers, not gimmicks, not smoke and mirrors, but the real thing, the thing he said he was going to use. That is what we said we wanted. That is not much. That is exactly what the Senator from Arkansas said he is for. He is for a balanced budget. Let us get a balanced budget. Let us do what we promised the American public. Let us do what President--then candidate--Clinton promised the American public, that he had a plan to balance the budget in 5 years. Three years have gone by--no balanced budget. And how about 10 years? That is what it has been since the President said he could do it in five. That is all we are asking. That is where we are. I know there is a lot of confusion out there. The Senator from Arkansas is correct. The people are being scared to death out there. If I listened to the Senator from Arkansas very long, I would be scared too. You would think everything is going to collapse around here. Well, the fact of the matter is that most of America has gone on pretty well the last couple of days. Life is OK. And we have a serious problem. Those of us who are here trying to solve that problem believe it is important to stand our ground and to do what is right-- which is a balanced budget. That is not to say that we should not compromise. We should. We should sit down and discuss a balanced budget over the next 7 years. We will sit down with the President. We will assess his priorities. He will assess ours. But we need to do that. We need to sit down and start negotiating on how we are going to get there. My goodness, we owe it. I have three young children, a 4-year-old, a little boy who is going to turn 3 this weekend, and a 5-month-old little boy. I cannot go home every night and look at them. I just cannot go home and look at them and say, ``Well, we are going to continue to spend more money. You are going to have to work more hours with probably less take-home pay than people are making today and have less opportunity, less chance for advancement, because I just could not make tough decisions because I was afraid that someone was going to vote against me or the polls said, you know, people do not like what we are doing. I am sorry. If anybody in this country who has listened to this can look at their children or grandchildren and say that extra $5 a month means your future, that is just that important to me, I do not think anyone can do it. This is a historic time in our country. I had a gentleman who saw me outside on the way in. He has been sitting up in the galleries biting his tongue for the last 3 days listening to all of this. He suggested in a letter that he gave me that we should do what the Founding Fathers did in Philadelphia when they were working on the U.S. Constitution, that we should take a day off, sit and ask God to help us and intervene, and we should pray about it, and we should have a reconciliation. Maybe that is a good idea. Maybe we should get rid of all this rhetoric around here--all of these charges and countercharges--and think about what this country was founded upon. Think about how important this great experiment is to the world, and how all of this politics--that is what it is, folks; this is just all politics being played--how all this just is not necessary. We are not that far apart. I mean, we really are not. It is amazing, if anybody--I do not know if any of the news publications have done this--would take a look at where the President wants to go, at least his public statement, and where we want to go. The Senator from Wyoming said we are seven-tenths of 1 percent away on Medicare spending. I mean, that is a few billion dollars a year out of a program that is a $250 billion program. You do not think we can come together on something? Of course we can. Welfare reform--I have been working on welfare reform for 3 years on this bill. We have a bill in conference that is very similar to the Senate bill, one that the Senate passed 87 to 12, and one that the President said he would sign. That is going to be in the reconciliation bill. It is something he should sign. We are not far apart. There may be a few minor differences in welfare, but not substantial. It has everything the President campaigned on. It is in that bill. Tax cuts-- --

Mr. SANTORUM. I object.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will take 45 additional seconds. We are close together on tax cuts. He says he wants a tax cut for middle-income families. I talked before. We say EITC increases for next year and the year after. That is included in our budget, with the exception of families that do not have children. But if you have a child, you are going to get those increases. We have a middle-income tax. Ninety percent of our tax cut goes to people under $100,000. I think my friend from Wyoming may have a good idea. We ought to start thinking about what our calling is here and the great experiment that we have in this country, and can the politics. Let us get down to the substance, because on the substance we agree. We are not far apart, and we hope we agree that balancing the budget is the best thing for this country. I yield the remainder of my time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself--we have 18 minutes remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the hills of Jerusalem were quiet yesterday as world leaders gathered to pay tribute to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a man who served and led Israel for more than 50 years both in war and in peace. Yitzhak Rabin was a true leader in every sense of the word. A man who, after having led his nation in war battling for freedom, turned to his own countrymen to seek peace for the long-term security of Israel. In the days since his tragic death, much has been said of Yitzhak Rabin's unique role in brokering peace in the Middle East. Friends and former foes agree Mr. Rabin achieved progress where perhaps no other Israeli leader was capable. Because of his strong military record, Yitzhak Rabin brought legitimacy to his quest to stop the bloodshed of Israelis. Only a man who led his country to great victories in war could argue effectively against concerns that Israel was giving up its security in negotiating peace with her neighbors. From Yitzhak Rabin's early days as a young soldier in the Palmach, to his meteoric rise to Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, he was credited worldwide as having one of the most insightful military minds of his time. He was primarily responsible for creating the army which led Israel to victory over Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and included the capture of the Old City of Jerusalem in the Six-Day war. Yet it may have been his close contact with war that led him to eventually realize that the only true prospect to ending the Palestinian question was negotiation, and not a military solution. One of the most tangible examples of what his efforts for peace have garnered was the presence of King Hussein and President Hosni Mubarak at the funeral services at Mount Herzl Cemetery. These men, once enemies, joined over 30 other world leaders to honor a man they had faced on the battlefield and then again at the equally difficult peace table. Yitzhak Rabin inspired in most Israeli citizens a sense of confidence that in these troubled times he was acting in the interest of Israel's long-term [[Page S 16729]] prosperity. He viewed peace negotiation as a necessity to secure Israel's future in the Middle East, putting aside whatever personal remembrances he may have carried from his days as a soldier. The pinnacle of his career was witnessed by millions of people on September 13, 1993, when he and Yasir Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn after the signing of the Declaration of Principles. On that day, he spoke words meant for Israel's Arab enemies but now tragically apply to fellow Israelis, ``We are today giving peace a chance--and saying to you and saying again to you: enough. Let us pray that a day will come when we all will say farewell to the arms.''

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to let people know what is in this motion. What this motion would do, what the motion of the Senator from Nebraska would do is strike the 5-year limit. There will no longer be a time limit on welfare. Some people would like that, but we voted 87 to 12. You want to end welfare as we know it, in what the President said he campaigned on, put a time limit on welfare. If this motion is not waived, we will not have a time limit on welfare. The growth formula--we worked very long and hard on trying to find money to be able to give to the States as they grow under the welfare system. All the growth formulas are struck--no more money. Whatever you get in the original formula, you do not get any additional money. We do not take into account any growth in welfare population. They strike it all. Want to provide for assisted suicide payments? You can do that. Under the original bill, you cannot actually reimburse people who actually tried to go out and help people kill somebody else. Now you can. You can do it because we will strike it under this provision. There is a laundry list of things here that are just punitive. We had a vote, an overwhelming vote, on doing something about illegitimacy. We talked long and hard about how we wanted to do something on illegitimacy. The bonus for States who reduce their out-of-wedlock birth rate is struck from the welfare. Everyone will come back home and say we care about it and strike it. So, no time limit on welfare. No growth formula for States --and many of you profit very well on both sides of the aisle from the growth formula put in place--for more money. It is gone. I just want people to think long and hard. You have basically gutted the welfare bill. There is no way this thing will be able to survive and States will be able to survive under the rules that you will put into effect here. I hope that we would stand by the 87-12 vote on this welfare and stand by the Senate vote before and vote with the chairman of the Budget Committee on his motion.