Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I would like to follow up on what the Senator from Arizona and others have spoken about with respect to this amendment by the Senator from Missouri, both the senior and junior Senators with respect to the AmeriCorps Program. I would first like to touch on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We are proposing in this amendment to increase the amount of rescissions--in other words, to reduce the deficit--by an additional $1.3 billion, restore the California disaster relief funds of $1.3 billion, and add $1.3 billion in cuts with the Dole amendment. The principal area that we are trying to deem the cuts, so to speak-- the biggest one--is the President's own rescissions package, which is $337 million of what he termed pork, special interest demonstration projects put in by Members of Congress, both the House and Senate. They are the President's own rescission. We are saying let us vote on your President's own rescissions, and let us reduce the deficit as he would like to have seen done with these rescissions. Another big area is the AmeriCorps Program, which is the national service program, which we have heard some talk about, which I will mention briefly. But the one that I think has gotten a lot of publicity which I think is just an amazing program that gets funded here is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is a very controversial measure. I think I have received more mail on attempts to cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting than any other single issue that has been before the U.S. Congress. That is interesting in the sense that it is only $285 million in the budget. I was reminded by a television station in Pennsylvania, WHYY, that it is only .003 percent of the national budget, so it is not significant. ``Why are you picking on us?'' I heard the Senator from New Mexico say, ``Well, education overall is only 1.7 percent of the budget. Why are you picking on us?'' We are not going to balance the budget on education. We are not going to balance the budget on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, nor on AmeriCorps. If you keep going down, do you know what are going to come up with? We will not balance the budget because we will never get any of this stuff. We will never balance the budget. What is the answer? Let us cut the big programs. OK. Let us all line up here. Everybody who wants to cut Medicare, come on down the aisle. Come on. Come on down the aisle. There is nobody coming down the aisle. Nobody wants to cut Social Security? Come on. It is a big program, $200 or $300 billion. Come on down the aisle. Where is everybody? Where is everybody who wants to cut Medicaid? Where is everybody that wants to cut national defense? Where is everybody who wants to cut the big programs? The Government is made up of a few big programs but lots of little programs. A lot of these little programs are very good programs. A lot of them are well-meaning programs. But, frankly, a lot of them need to be pared back or need to be eliminated. I happen to believe the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one. The reason we are having so much trouble, frankly, is because of letters like this sent out by the president of WHYY-TV in Philadelphia, and as a result of numerous public broadcasting infomercials and public broadcasting, both on radio and television, to write your Congressman and Senator and air. Do not let them take our subsidy away. Go out there and lobby on our behalf,'' hiring lobbyists and people to come down here and try to convince us to keep the money flowing. Keep that money flowing to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I have written a letter of I think three or four pages in response to the constituents who have asked me. It is a letter that I gave a lot of thought to, and I said here are all the reasons why I think the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be cut. These stations in Pennsylvania decided they are going to write a letter responding to my letter and lobbying and pointing out all the flaws in my letter. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record following my statement a copy of this letter and a copy of my response point by point.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Are those not funded? Did they apply for grants and were refused?

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I say you can privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is an entity located here in Washington that the Federal dollars are allocated through. He responds and says that public broadcasting stations may not by Federal regulation be for-profit enterprises. Well, I did not say anything about for-profit stations beings owned by the private sector. What I said was that we could privatize the organization that provides some funding to those stations, which in fact we can, and which the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, is in the process of trying to do by statute. This is the bait and switch which is going on in this letter. In his letter he says: The Senator describes American public broadcasting--an effort in constant threat of financial starvation, forbidden to sell anything and forbidden to make a profit--as ``well- endowed.'' I do say they are well endowed. I justify that by saying that ``Barney'' and ``Sesame Street'' combined have royalties of about $2 billion of which the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets virtually nothing. Various other programs--I have my share of ``Shining Time Station Puzzles'' for my 4-year-old and my 2-year-old. I have my share of other things from the ``Puzzle Kids,'' whatever they are called, something like that. I do not know--``The Puzzle Gang.'' I have a bunch of this stuff--Mr. Rogers, a wonderful man from my hometown of Pittsburgh, who does a tremendous job for the community, does a tremendous show. But these assets can and should be used, instead of going to public broadcasting, go to the taxpayers, who go out and work darned hard for their dollars, to have it funneled through here to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to pay for a lot of the other things. He mentions one other thing. He says the Senator's comments are ideological, that I come at it from an ``ideological standpoint.'' He is absolutely right. I do come at it from an ideological standpoint. My ideology is that the Federal Government should not be supporting these things, that we need to reduce the size of Government. But it certainly is not from the ideological standpoint that I do not agree with what is on there. That is irrelevant. Does the Federal Government, when we have limited resources, have a role of supporting broadcast television in an era where broadcast television is almost as much a dinosaur as the crank phone when we are going to cable and direct satellite communications? We should support public broadcast television? It is ridiculous. We have to move into the 21st century in the U.S. Senate just like public broadcasting has to move in the 21st century in telecommunications. That is what this is all about. I can tell you that we are going to have a battle about this. I do not know if we are going to win. I tell you, if we do not win, I question the sincerity of the people in this Chamber to really do anything about reducing the deficit. I really question whether we are really willing to stare at children who are facing 82 percent tax rates, as Paul Coverdell says, in 10 years only having five Federal programs left if we just do nothing. How can we stare those children in the face, that we say, as in the Daschle amendment, we care about so much? How can you care about someone and let them keep 18 percent of what they earn? How can you care about someone if you are not willing to stand up and defeat the special interests and do what is right for the long-term interest of the American children? This Daschle amendment, putting more money in programs today, is not the answer. Preserving the fiscal integrity of tomorrow is what really is going to help America's children. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Text of Senator Rick Santorum's Letter to Constituents Federal funds for public broadcasting are administered and distributed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB makes direct grants to public television and radio stations, as well as grants to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and national Public Radio (NPR) for program projects and productions. In 1994, the CPB received $253 million from Congress. The majority of funding for public television and radio does not come from the CPB, but rather from member stations, educational institutions, corporations, and private citizens. For example, in 1993 the CPB provided only 14.2% of the industry-wide spending for public broadcasting. It is also important to note that PBS and NPR are not divisions of the CPB; they are private, nonprofit organizations that utilize federal funds to supplement their operating budget. In 1993, the CPB provided only 13.9% of the total PBS budget and 4% of the total NPR budget. It is therefore not accurate to suggest that ``Sesame Street'' and other popular PBS shows would be forced off the air if CPB funding were reduced or eliminated. In this time of federal downsizing and fiscal reform, tough decisions need to be made about government spending. Last year Congress reduced funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which is vital to Pennsylvania senior citizens. Congress has also taken steps to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyards, which employs thousands of Pennsylvania residents. With cuts of this nature taking place, it is hard for me to justify the continued use of federal resources to subsidize the well-endowed public broadcasting industry. If Congress acts to scale back, privatize, or eliminate the CPB, I am confident that the resulting loss of funds for public television and radio will be compensated by new corporate sponsorship and public support. Several major corporations have already expressed interest in supporting a privatized Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In addition, PBS, a major contributor and supporter of public television, has yet to utilize its full range of funding options. You may or may not be aware that commercial products related to Barney, the amiable children's character on PBS, grossed almost $1 billion last year. PBS receives almost none of these profits because it chose not to secure licensing rights for commercial products related to PBS shows. PBS will also receive very little of the $800 million grossed by ``Sesame Street'' products. To put it bluntly, I do not think taxpayers should pay to put Barney on public TV for Barney to make billions of dollars. If PBS were to secure even a small percentage of these earnings through product licensing, the lost share of federal funds would be easily replaced, or even doubled. Congress has also provided other means of support or public broadcasting besides direct funding through the CPB. Over thirty years ago, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to designate specific VHF television channels for educational broadcasting. This FCC frequency allocation program continues to allow public television and radio stations to remain exempt from the sizeable fees and costs paid by private commercial stations. Congress has also given non-profit status to public broadcasting stations, allowing them to receive corporate taxes, which amounts to a federal government subsidy. I continue to support these significant accommodations made by Congress for public broadcasting. After considering the factors of private funding, commercial licensing, and additional federal supports for public broadcasting, I have reached the conclusion that the future of public broadcasting in the United States is not dependent on continued funding through the CPB. The CPB has played an important role in expanding access to public broadcasting and improving program quality since its establishment in 1967. Now that these primary goals have been achieved, I believe it may be time for Congress to evaluate proposals to downsize, privatize, or discontinue this organization. Americans have shown a strong commitment to supporting public television and radio. This commitment will continue as long as PBS, NPR, and their local affiliates remain committed to the production and broadcasting of programs that enrich the educational and cultural life of our nation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I will tell you that, while he says all these things are in fact not true, the fact of the matter is they are all true. Everything that I have in that letter is exactly right. He is providing information. I can go through just some of them. I suggest in my letter that there are many private sector sponsors who would like to be involved, and who could--and in fact are--supporting public broadcasting. And we could in fact privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the entity by which the Federal funds flow through.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. What I would like to do is talk about what this amendment does. The first thing it does is restores President Clinton's request for $1.3 billion in disaster assistance for California earthquake victims, and disaster relief in numerous other States. The minority leader's proposal would remove that funding that is needed for the victims of natural disasters, and our amendment seeks to restore that money. That was the principal reason this bill was before us--this is a disaster relief supplemental. That is the reason this bill is here. The rescissions has turned into, maybe as the majority leader said, a thrown on. The House decided to do more rescissions, as we are doing here. But the underlying purpose, the reason this bill is here, is that this is a supplemental appropriation bill to provide for disaster assistance. What the minority leader has done is take away the underpinnings for the bill and reduce what the bill is for in the first place and to fund a whole lot of other programs that are in the bill. Our amendment pays for this $1.3 billion to be put back in, by rescinding some of the provisions here to equal the House level. The House went through and rescinded certain programs. What we do is match their rescissions. The Senator from Arizona talked about one such, the AmeriCorps Program, which I will touch on, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was another. In addition to those rescissions, what we also did was to adopt some of the President's suggested rescissions. The President came forward in his rescission package with $337 million in additional budget cuts. These are things requested by the President. I have taken the opportunity, while sitting here, to examine these rescissions and to find out what these were all about. What I see is really almost a precursor to the line-item veto. These are a bunch of line items that were put in by the Appropriations Committee here in the House, and in the Senate, earmarks--earmarks being things that are put in by certain Members for demonstration projects in your State or in your district, which takes money that is not authorized by the House or Senate and signed by the President, things that are nice little projects for back home. And we have here $337 million worth of these projects that the President, rightfully, said these projects are really the definition in the sense of pork. Let us go after these projects. I agree with the President. So we put these $337 million of projects in this rescission amendment to restore the money back to California and other States. So this is an attempt not only to try to get some comity with the House and try to reduce the levels of funding to what they have wanted but also to reach out to the President and say we are going to put your disaster assistance money back in, but we are going to adopt your rescissions. A lot of criticism is made around here of not being bipartisan and playing Presidential politics. We are here with this Republican amendment, offered by our leader, acceding to the wishes of the President. I would be interested to see what the folks in the President's party react to try to do what the President wants to do. That is what we are doing here today. We are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion to craft a good supplemental appropriations bill and rescission package. Here are a couple things we are not doing in this amendment. We are not eliminating the Summer Jobs Program, and that is almost $900 million. We keep the funding levels up. We are going to get in a fight with the House on that. We keep the LIHEAP Program, which the Senator from Arizona was going to offer an amendment on and deeply wanted to put it in this bill. We kept that fully funded because we feel that low energy income assistance is important. That is another $1.3 billion. So that is about $2.2 billion of additional rescissions which the House requested that we did not because we have set priorities. Some of our priorities that just did not quite make the grade are things like the AmeriCorps Program. The Senator from Arizona did an excellent job in discussing how the nature of voluntarism is being corrupted by paying volunteers $20,000 a year to volunteer. I wish I got paid that to volunteer my time. That is what this program does. It is a $7,400-per-year stipend to volunteer, plus a $4,750 tuition credit per volunteer, plus medical benefits and child care. All that totals about $20,000 a year. That is not counting the roughly $15,000 a year it takes for administrative and overhead costs per volunteer. It almost costs as much for overhead as it does to pay them. This is not an efficient program. Roughly half the money being siphoned off here to Washington or other places around the country in bureaucratic payments and the money--hard-earned taxpayer dollars--that could be used to support families and put food on the table is going to pay bureaucrats and people, many of whom in this program are wealthy. The AmeriCorps Program is not a means-tested program. I am sure a lot of people will find that to be shocking. This AmeriCorps Program is not for the poor. We have doctors, we have people who are spouses of doctors, and children of wealthy people. They all qualify. This is not for young people. Do not think of this as a youth corps of disadvantaged youths that are out there doing the public service. No, no, no, no, no. I think it is up to 60 years of age, irrespective of income. They can come in, get the stipends, and get up to 2 years of educational grants. We have the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who said we could take one of the grants and turn them into five people for Pell grants for every one volunteer we have on AmeriCorps. No, we will put them to work. Who will they work for? We have 1,200 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1,200 AmeriCorps volunteers; 525 for the Interior Department; 210 for the Department of Justice; 135 for the Environmental Protection Agency; 60 at the National Endowment for the Arts. This is not out there in the community doing the kind of work that this program has been sold as. Again, administrative costs are high. This is not means tested. Anybody qualifies, irrespective of income, and they get a benefit which is actually even greater than the GI bill. I had the Commandant of the Marine Corps talk to me and tell me that recruitment is being hurt in the Marines and other branches of the service because of the AmeriCorps Program, because they can have a nice job here stateside, doing nice things, maybe doing good kinds of things, and get paid, not only as I said before, their stipends, but $4,725 per year in educational grants, up to 2 years of service, while the GI bill provides not $4,725, what the AmeriCorps bill does provide for, but $4,800, $75 more, for putting 3 years into the Marine Corps. Now, think about that. No wonder it is hurting recruitment. No wonder it is causing a problem. This is just do-goodism of Government, thinking they can do everything for everybody and pay them at the same time. It is a complete distortion of what I think most people see as the role of voluntarism in America. We believe that this is a prime target for rescissions. I think we are very generous. We leave the program at least running. We do it at reduced levels. The present level of funding is $370 million, and it is supposed to go up next year to $610 million. We cut that back to actually about $157 million. I think that is awfully generous for a program that clearly is out of step with where America wants to take this country, as far as its allocation of resources and spending. The other area that I wanted to touch on very briefly, if this debate does go on longer, we will come back and talk about it further, but I know the Senator from Missouri wants to talk on some of the foreign aid/foreign operations matters, the other area is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I have, and I am sure every Member of this body has received numerous letters and phone calls about protecting ``Barney'' and Big Bird making sure that we do not cut out money for Public Broadcasting. I cannot say it any more plainly. If it comes, and I look at the chart of the Senator from South Dakota about helping children and the things that we need to do to provide money for WIC Programs and food stamps and other things that are so important and essential, if we cannot cut $47 million out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, then we have no business standing up here and saying we are serious about reducing the deficit. That is just amazing to me. We talk about corporate welfare. I hear so much talk over there about we have to get rid of corporate welfare. This is the most outrageous of corporate welfare, for programming and for things that can simply and easily be provided by assistance, as we already do. These are nonprofits. And they already get, in a sense, a Government subsidy. They already get breaks in having to pay for their rights of communication. We already provide certain benefits. To throw additional money at that when they do not take advantage, as they do not, of the royalties available to them from programs like ``Barney'' and ``Sesame Street'' and others, they get virtually nothing back in royalties if showing these programs on their public television stations. If they are not going to take advantage of the opportunities that are before them to help fund their programming, then why should the American taxpayers, working hard to put food on their families' tables, pay to support Public Broadcasting, when, at least in our area in Pennsylvania, the corporate salaries are similar to those of some of the chief executive officers of some of the major corporations in Pittsburgh. I think it is, again, I cannot stress strongly enough, if we do not have the courage to stand up and cut funding for a program like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, when we have some people getting 100-some stations, many of them learning-type stations, educational stations, with the onset, as we will see in bringing up the telecommunications bill next week, of almost the irrelevancy in future years of cable and a lot of other mediums because of direct satellite communication into your home--it will happen very shortly--if we cannot get rid of a dinosaur of a program like funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, then we do not have the right to say we are a Senate that is on the verge of entering the 21st century with setting our priorities. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for yielding time to me. I wanted to echo his remarks. This is a very important program for a lot of people in my area of the country, and in Pennsylvania particularly. This is a program that, frankly, has not been funded to the levels that really are going to meet the needs of the people in the communities who are low income, who are not able to keep the houses warm at night. I can say from having visited homes that have enjoyed the energy assistance program, enjoyed the benefits, that it provides that degree of safety and comfort that the houses will be warm on these cold winter nights that we have had up in our area of the country. I congratulate the Senator for his great work on defending this program, because it is a regional program in a sense. It is a program that disproportionately benefits one area, the area that has colder temperatures. As a result, it is always on the chopping block, but is a program that meets very vital needs in providing people basic shelter and warm comfort during the very cold winter days. I congratulate the Senator for his great work on this project. I look forward to continuing support of this program.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding the time. I appreciate the kind words in the introduction. I, too, want to say the Senator from Wyoming and Senator from Arizona have hit the nail on the head. I think the reason, the impetus behind us being here this morning is really to start this debate out on welfare reform with a little different tone than it took in the House of Representatives. The fact of the matter is, the debate in the House, with ample support from the national media, turned into a really disgraceful event that turned so mean-spirited and accusatory that it focused very little on what actually was going to occur and what the underlying principles were in the reform effort that were underway. It focused just on name-calling and, I think, outrageous allegations about the mean-spiritedness of the Republican proposal. We are here this morning as the freshman class to say we have examined and are examining this proposal, and we see it as a very positive move forward in helping people get out of poverty. That is what this is all about. You will hear some say, ``The Republicans, they just want to cut people off.'' I would tell you that I would not be here today--and I do not think any of us would be here today--if we thought that was the motivation behind the welfare reform proposal, just to hurt people. I am not in the business of hurting people. I do not like hurting people. I want to try to help folks. But I truly believe, as I think my colleagues will also state, that you do not help people, as Senator Kyl said, by taking care of them, by making them dependent on you, by providing for them instead of giving them the opportunity to provide for themselves. That is not truly taking care of. That is not truly helping people. So when you look at these proposals, look at it not as to how much are we doing for somebody, but how much are we helping them help themselves. How much opportunity are we creating; not how much are we taking care of. That is really the test here, because we know from our history that taking care of people destroys them, destroys communities, destroys families, destroys country. That is what is brewing in our communities that are heavily laden with welfare populations today. That destructive element of Government dependency is taking control and is not creating better communities, families, individuals, and neighborhoods. I have been asked, because of my background in the House on this issue, what the prospects are here in the Senate. The general conventional wisdom is the Senate will water it down and we will get something that is just sort of tinkering with the system, that they will not be nearly as dramatic as the House. I say this: The more the Senate looks at the problem, the more we focus in and see the absolute destruction that is occurring in our neighborhoods today, the morality behind what we have to do--this is not an economic issue; providing for the poor in our society is a moral issue. We have to look at it in that context. When you look at what we are doing to children, families, communities, and our Nation, I believe the U.S. Senate will follow the path very similar to the House of Representatives. The chairman of the Finance Committee just yesterday said that the block grant idea has merit and that we should move forward on that track. It does have merit. Why? Because it takes all of the power and control out of this town that thinks it knows best for everybody, where we make sure that everything is taken care of from here and back into the States and, more particularly, into the communities and into the families of America. That is the right direction for us to take when it comes to taking responsibility for the poor in this country. That is the right direction. I believe that is the direction we all will take here in the U.S. Senate. It will be a dramatic bill that comes out of this Senate. It will not be a watered down version that looks very much like the system today. I do not believe the Senate will stand for that. And I think we can get bipartisan support to do it. I am encouraged by that. There will be some who stand up and defend the status quo. They will stand up because they were the creators of the status quo, and they will defend the system and accuse anybody who wants to change it as being cruel, inhumane, and mean spirited. And they will say in many cases, as happened in the House, outrageous things about our intent. Let me clear the air one more time about our intent. Our intent is to help people help themselves. Our intent is to get people off the welfare rolls. I find it absolutely incredulous that when you have a program in place that actually gets people off the welfare rolls, that is bad. What? A good welfare program gets more people on the welfare rolls? Is that what we want? Is that our analysis? Is that our benchmark as to what is good? Getting more people on welfare, making more people dependent? That is good? No. What is good is solving poverty, not sustaining it. Moving people off the welfare rolls is good. Decreasing those rolls is good. That is a good objective. That is what we hope to accomplish here. Those who stand up and say so many people are going to be cut off and all these people are going to be leaving. That is good. People leaving welfare and on to productive jobs in America is good. That is what this program is going to be all about. You will hear people say, ``Well, you cannot change this. You are going to harm children.'' Folks, look at all the welfare payments, AFDC, SSI, on down the list. How many of those benefits get paid directly to the children? How many of them? The answer is none. A child in this country does not get any money paid directly to them. It all goes to parents. They all go to parents. So when you hear this argument we are going to cut children off, we are going to hurt children, think of where the money goes and think of where that money is being spent and by whom it is being spent; not the children. I wish the money could be sent directly to those children so they could get the food and education that they need. But, unfortunately, in many cases it does not. Let us focus in on the real problem. The people who are going to defend the status quo have put forward a plan for the past 30 or 40 years that has increased poverty, decreased hope and opportunity, has increased crime and decreased the sense of community safety and neighborhood, has increased illegitimacy from 5 percent in the midsixties--5 percent of children in this country were born out of wedlock--30 percent today and rising. As a result, we have seen a decrease in fathers taking responsibility for their children and a resulting increase in gang activity because fathers bond with other males instead of bonding with females to take care of children. It is a vicious cycle that is created by very good intentions of the people who created this system; very good intentions, but very wrong programs. I challenge the national media to give us a break. Tell the truth. Quit printing that we are repealing the School Lunch Program when they know darned well we are increasing the money. We are cutting out, as was said in the House, the lunches, the free lunches, here in Washington by the bureaucrats who suck money from the system before it even gets to the kids. Tell the truth about what is going to go on here in the U.S. Senate with the welfare reform. Do not be afraid that your friends on the other side will not like you by telling the truth about helping people, that the Republicans can actually be kind, compassionate, and be for a more progressive and uplifting opportunity type of society for the poor. Do not be afraid of that. Stand up and tell the truth about what is going on here in the U.S. Senate. Finally, the welfare system in this country has to change, and there are four principles we have to accomplish. First, work. The only true measure of success of a welfare program is how it gets people off welfare and into work. Work has to be a central component. Second, there has to be a system that supports families and does not tear families apart, that supports marriage and does not foster fathers walking away from their children. Third, it has to focus on flexibility to provide States and communities the opportunity to have programs that truly do tailor their needs to the individual families and communities and not be bureaucratic and regulatory from the Federal level. Finally, we have to save money. We heard so much about the people program, cutting people off. The Republican program allows welfare to grow over the next 5 years 32 percent. If we did nothing, it would grow 39 percent. I do not think cutting the program that is scheduled to grow to 39 percent is mean spirited or draconian. In fact, a lot of people listening would probably say, ``Why don't you do more?'' We do not do more because we want to try to help and not just be handing out. That costs money, but it is a good investment. We are willing to make the investment of helping people get out of poverty, but we are going to stop throwing money at people who stay in poverty. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding the time. I appreciate his indulgence in my discourse. I look forward to the rest of the day. Thank you. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, and I appreciate the indulgence of my friend, Senator Grams, from Minnesota, who has let me jump ahead to speak. I have just two major points to make here this morning. One of the reasons I wanted to come down here, one of the reasons the freshmen were so excited about talking about this line-item veto bill, because this is actually a bill where the Senate version of the Contract With America bill is actually stronger than the House version. The Senate bill is actually a tougher bill, is actually a bill that goes after more spending, that provides more power, in fact, to the President, to keep Congress in check here of providing pork or other kinds of preferential treatment to selected individuals or institutions in this country. That is an exciting thing to stand here on the Senate floor and argue for. I am very pleased with the work that was done by the folks here, Senator Domenici, Senator McCain, Senator Coats, and Senator Stevens, in putting this bill together. It is a stronger bill. It does not just go after appropriations or annual appropriations, which all the traditional line-item veto bills have done. But it goes after what are called tax expenditures, or tax provisions that are targeted at specific individuals or specific companies. It does not go after tax cuts. It allows tax cuts to go into place without threat of Presidential lining out, but it does go after sort of those favored treatment things, those little goodies that have slipped into tax bills that heretofore have never been included in any line-item veto proposal. It goes after entitlement spending. New entitlement spending is now separated out so we can have an opportunity to go after that which has never before been done. This is a much better bill, one that I think everyone can be supportive of, and I think we will get strong support. My final comment is I just hope that this institution does not disintegrate, as it did on the balanced budget amendment, into playing partisan politics on things that people in the past have agreed to. I have a list of Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who, in the last 4 or 5 years, have voted consistently in many cases for line-item veto bills, for bills similar to this one--like the Bradley bill a few years ago, which got, I think, 16 Democratic supporters. This is a bill that should and was drafted to attract bipartisan support. If this bill does not succeed on cloture today--if we have a cloture vote today, which I anticipate, I guess we will--if it does not succeed, it is not because the other side does not agree with what we are doing. It is because the other side does not agree to do anything and they want to play partisan politics and put partisanship above policy and the better future for our children and for this country.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, like most of my colleagues in the Senate, I have followed with interest the activity in the House regarding welfare reform. It is with a unique perspective that I have viewed the House action having been at the center of the House's welfare reform debate last year and having been deeply involved in the direction and decision making of the House Republican platform. During the 103d Congress, I served as the ranking Republican member on the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee. Preceding me in that capacity is quite a list of dedicated ranking members who all have and continue to make a very significant contribution to the welfare reform discussions--Senator Hank Brown, Gov. Carroll Campbell, and the current chairman of that subcommittee, Congressman Clay Shaw. As the Senate now prepares for its own activity on welfare reform, I hope to continue to be equally active on this side in setting that direction. It is hard to undertake any discussion on welfare reform without realizing the multitude of issues, programs, problems, and complexities that are involved. And while my activity in the House covered many aspects of welfare and welfare-related programs, one such issue that I wanted to discuss today pertains to fugitive felons receiving welfare benefits. Under current law, barriers exist to information sharing between law enforcement officials and social service agencies. While few States have defined criteria where the exchange of information can occur between police and social service offices, most States have not. And with the reality of fugitives receiving public assistance, it makes sense to provide police access to welfare records that indicate the whereabouts of wanted individuals, without violating the privacy language and rights of welfare beneficiaries. In the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation (H.R. 4657) which establishes criteria for information sharing between law enforcement officials and social service agencies, allows cross reference checks between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and law enforcement with regard to illegal immigration, and sets a Federal definition of temporarily absent in instances where children of beneficiaries are away from the home for extended periods of time. The information and record referencing under the bill is limited to individuals for whom warrants are outstanding. The bill permits access by law enforcement to information when a warrant is produced, and it is found that a fugitive felon would remain fully protected from such inquiries under the Welfare Privacy Act. Is there a need for such information sharing? I'd like to submit for the Record a copy of a news article from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on July 29, 1994. The article describes a situation in which an individual wanted for an 1984 slaying in Pittsburgh, had been on the run and receiving Federal welfare benefits under his real name. Likewise, a situation last year in Cleveland, OH, highlighted the difficulties that exist in tracking fugitives and trying to interface with social service agencies. In that instance, Cuyahoga County officials were denied access to records as they attempted to cross reference outstanding fugitive warrants with social service records. It is absurd that taxpayers are subsidizing a fugitive's freedom when checking a recipient's address could lead to their apprehension. Currently, the National Crime Information Center lists 397,000 outstanding fugitive warrants nationwide--warrants being defined as ``felonies'' or ``high misdemeanors'' in cases where States agree to extradition. Several police groups have projected that as many as 75 percent of those fugitives are receiving public assistance. Additionally, as I have discovered with Pennsylvania, the extradition stipulation for warrants in the NCIC data bank actually shields the number of outstanding warrants in a given State. You too may find that your State figures are significant. Last week, I met with the Philadelphia Fugitive Task Force to discuss the practical effects of the legislation. In confronting their 50,000 outstanding fugitive warrants, they feel strongly that the bill provides them yet another tool in their investigative efforts. Likewise, the measure has received similar comment from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. While the fugitive felon situation generally involves the parent or an adult, the bill also addresses ambiguity in the law with regard to children. Under current law, a mother can continue to receive AFDC payment for a child even if that child is temporarily absent from the home. Depending on their definition, States have the authority to end AFDC payments if the child is not going to physically be in the home for an extended period of time. Again, like the fugitive felon issue, Federal and State law remains undefined in most cases for temporarily absent. My bill would federally define temporarily absent for those instances where juveniles are away from the home as a result of a court decision or criminal activity. Mr. President, while this legislation today may serve as my first official measure for the 104th Congress in the area of welfare reform, it is by no means the sole measure I will be introducing to the Senate. In the weeks ahead, I plan on introducing proposals covering child support enforcement, supplemental security income, and a more comprehensive proposal speaking to welfare reform in its entirety. Additionally, I plan on being very active within the Agriculture Committee in the area of nutrition programs and examining the reform options available to us, including a review of the block grant concept. I welcome and encourage my colleagues' interest in this and other initiatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the article I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If I can, if the base remains open as a Guard unit, which is what will happen, but is designated as closed by the BRAC because all active units will be pulled out, does that still maintain these programs?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of comments about the arguments that are being made with respect to Social Security, not just by the Senator from North Dakota but many others, not just today but for the last several days. First, we should not use the Social Security trust fund for balancing the budget. What does that mean? We should not use the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget. Are we taking money out of the Social Security trust fund and spending it directly on other programs? No. No, we do not take money out of the Social Security trust fund to spend it on other programs. Money in the Social Security trust fund is borrowed, for which we pay interest on the money back to the Social runs a surplus in the Federal Government. We have surpluses in the highway trust fund. What do we do with the highway trust fund money? Do we spend it on other programs? No, that money is in there. It is earning interest. We are investing it in Government bonds, just like we do the Social Security trust fund, just like we do the aviation trust fund, just like we do with any other trust fund that we have in the Federal Government that happens for a period of time to be running a surplus. So to use the argument that we are using the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget is as fallacious an argument as it is to say we are using the highway trust fund to balance the budget. The highway trust fund has a couple billion dollars surplus in it. I did not see anybody run to the floor to protect our roads and bridges. They did not come to the floor and say, ``We can't use the highway trust fund. That is not fair. It hid the deficit.'' It is not true. Let us be honest. Let us not hide it from the people. Where were the highway trust fund advocates? Where were the aviation trust fund advocates? We were saying let us be truthful and honest in not hiding this from the American people. What is going on is in the fine spirit of hiding behind the apron of Social Security when you cannot define your program in other ways. That is what is going on here. I had it happened to me in my election. Many of us have had it happen to us in our elections. When you are losing, when you know you cannot defend your record, when you know you cannot defend your vote, you bring up the old red herring: Let us run behind Social Security. Let us scare the public that we are going to get Social Security and we will be OK. They will believe it. We will never change this place, we will never change this place, until the American public has enough realization to know that there is not any program that could ever compete in popularity and support--not one program that can compete in popularity and support--with the Social Security program. If the Federal Government continues on its way and we continue to have to eliminate programs as the debt gets to be a bigger and bigger and bigger part of our Federal Government, the only program, if we have one program left, I will assure you, will be the Social Security program. Everything else will be gone. That will win. That will always be maintained. The American public has to stop being afraid that someone is going to come in and raid their Social Security plan. It is not going to happen. We promised it was not going to happen. Unfortunately, I guess the promise of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate is not enough; the promise of the Speaker of the House that we are not going to touch Social Security is not enough. A vote of something like 90 to 10 in this body that we will not cut Social Security or touch Social Security over the next 7 years is not enough. Because people are always afraid. Is it not sad? Is it not sad what we have done to the people of this country? We have gotten them so addicted to Government that every time we talk about changing it, they run. They get scared. They get scared. We have made them dependent. We have succeeded here in Washington in the first step to really control what goes on in America by having people dependent upon us. No one in this Chamber is going to take $1 of benefits away from any Social Security recipients in this country to balance the budget. And everyone in this Chamber knows it. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. This was partisanship. This was political. It is a lot of things. The reason six Members who voted for this exact amendment voted the other way and hid behind Social Security was one reason, and it was not Social Security--partisan advantage. Stop the Contract With America, let us not move things too fast now, let us not change the status quo in Washington. We have a great opportunity before us in Washington today. We have a House of Representatives that continues to crank out and pass legislation that was called for in their Contract With America that has the support of the American public. And it is sitting over here in the Senate and it will continue to pile up and pile up until the people of America send a message to their Senators that they want something done. If you want something done in Washington, if you want a leaner, more efficient, smaller Government, if you want that power and freedom back to you, the American public, not centered here in Washington where we can threaten you by pulling the rug out from under a program that you like, but in fact to enable you and empower you to take those challenges and responsibilities yourselves, when you believe that can happen, you have to communicate that to the people here in the Senate. Because if you communicate that, this place will change. And if it is not in the next 2\1/2\ years, the 1996 election will make that change. The opportunity is here. It is up to the American public as to whether that is going to happen or not. It is up to you as to whether we are going to succeed as a body in the Senate. The rules are structured here--boy, I never knew--but the rules are structured here so we pretty much cannot get anything done. That is the way they sort of crafted this place, so things slow down, so we do not do a lot here. Now, as Senator Lott said earlier, I do not want, as a former House Member, I do not want the Senate to be like the House. We need more deliberation. We need to put the brakes on things and cool things off a little bit. I understand that. But, at the same time, we should not be obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists. I have here a table, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. I just wanted to include this in the Record and comment that in the 104th Congress, the Congress we are in right now, we have been in 36 days, 316 hours and 3 minutes of debate, 97 votes. It is unprecedented the amount of time we have spent here in this body to try to move things forward. We have cooled it off, we have debated it, and we got two bills passed. Only one has been signed into law. If you look at other Congresses through February, in the last Congress they were in 19 days, compared to 36, and only had 91 hours of debate. In 1991, 29 days in session, 145 hours of debate; 1989, 16 days in session, 43 hours of debate. The fact of the matter is we are working hard, we are debating long, and we are not accomplishing a whole heck of a lot. Cooling off is one thing; stonewalling is another. What we need to do, I implore my colleagues and the American public, is to rally to the defense of what the voters in November asked for, and move some things forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will take 1 additional minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we see here 11 freshmen who were elected in the last election, and sophomores who are with us. You do not see this many Members in the Senate--at least I do not usually when I have gotten up to speak. We are here because we got the message. We are here because the American people sent us on a mission. They sent us on a mission to make Government leaner, smaller and more efficient, and this balanced budget amendment is the vehicle by which all of that happens. If this does not pass, all those things that the people voted for on November 8 will not happen. But let me tell you something, the balanced budget amendment will pass. Oh, it may not pass today --I think it will--but it may not. But it will pass. The people who will stand in the way of this balanced budget amendment today will not be around long to stand in the way the next time. It will pass. It is just a matter of when. It is a matter of when we are going to be able to look in the eyes, as I do, of my 2-year-old little boy and my 3-year-old little girl and say that ``it is time to look out for your future, too. It is time that someone stands up and cares about you and your opportunities.''

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to do that.

Mr. SANTORUM. We have a vote scheduled at 3 o'clock and time is allocated that would put us past that time. Could I ask unanimous consent that the Senator yield back 7\1/2\ minutes and our side would yield back 7\1/2\ minutes and, therefore, we would come within the hour of debate?

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. According to the committee report, that is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. I refer to the committee report.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. For the first usage.