Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. But they also said--did they not ask the President to find rescissions to offset those expenditures?

Mr. SANTORUM. What the House leadership responded was, they would be happy to comply with the request but we want to find other measures within that budget to offset those expenditures.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I was just questioning. Are you suggesting that negligible amounts could mean rather extraordinary amounts? You are not suggesting that a Member of the Senate would violate his constitutional oath of office to uphold the Constitution which requires a balanced budget? You would not be suggesting that someone would deliberately violate their oath of office by allowing a large deficit to occur when the Constitution says that cannot occur?

Mr. SANTORUM. You said ``interrupt me'' any time for questions. So I thought I was free to do so.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am not sure. I asked to come to the floor--

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. You held up the letter from the House Republican leadership talking about an emergency supplemental appropriation. That would be an appropriation above what is normally budgeted for?

Mr. SANTORUM. And from what you read in the plain language of the constitutional amendment, we are under some obligation to implement this act by some form of implementing legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM. The next chart that you brought up after those was the committee report which talked about implementing legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a further question?

Mr. SANTORUM. If I could reiterate my question, does section 6, in your opinion, require us to pass some sort of implementing legislation?

Mr. SANTORUM. So would you suggest that requires us to pass an implementing piece of legislation?

Mr. SANTORUM. In fact, would you not suggest that with this constitutional amendment it would be incumbent upon us to pass some sort of implementing legislation?

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to compliment the Senator from New Hampshire for the fine speech. I was here to listen to the majority of it. I think his comments on having the baby are very appropriate. We have one on the way. It is due in July. If I were to sit down and think about all the bills I had to pay and all the things I have to do, all the things-- maybe I could play golf, do all these things I really do love to do, wonderful things in my life that I have to give up for that baby--I might sit there and selfishly think I had better not have that baby. But you have to look at the other side. All the joy that it gives you in providing for the future, all the love and support that you are going to get from that child and the wonderful relationship, and knowing that you are doing something to preserve the long-term future of our country. The birth of that child which you will nurture and bring up to being a responsible citizen of this country, it is exactly the same. We have that same responsibility to this country as I do to this child, to bring them up in a sound, responsible fashion to lead for the next generation to make a contribution, to give them the chance. So I think the Senator's analogy hits right on point. It is one that obviously my wife and I have. When we found out that she is pregnant, we were just overjoyed--overwhelmed at times given the cost--but overjoyed with the opportunity to do something for the future, to make our mark. We have a chance right here to make our mark. We have a chance to make our mark right here. The minority leader's right-to-know proposal, I think, is one of the most dastardly amendments that we could consider because it really does focus on the wrong thing. I hear so many say, ``Well, we have a right to know how you are going to get to a balanced budget.'' No, no, no. You are wrong. We have a right to know how you are going to get to a balanced budget. That is who has the right to know. You see, those of us who are for the balanced budget must get to a balanced budget. We have to. We signed up. We say we are going to do it. We are going to be required in the Constitution to do it. We do not have to show you that we are sincere about getting to a balanced budget because we pledged to do it, and we are going to put it in the Constitution to make it. It is those who come to the floor who sign the right-to-know pledge who say they are for a balanced budget who have the obligation to come to this floor and say, ``How are you going to do it without it?'' They are the people who have the burden to come forward and say how are we going to make this happen given the fact that we do not have the balanced budget amendment. You show us or do not come to this floor and say you are for a balanced budget but you are not for a balanced budget amendment. Unless you can show us how you are going to get there, how this Senate and this Congress are going to work together to put together a balanced budget by the year 2002, unless you show us that you are serious about getting there, then do not come and ask us how to show it. We are making that commitment. We are showing you by this vote that we mean business. I know a lot of Members are going to come here and say they are for a balanced budget. My question to them is, ``When? Next year, 2002, 2005, 2010?'' That is the real issue. I hope that we can get back to the real basic core of this debate, which is whether we are going to put in place the obligation for us to make sure that those children that the Senator from New Hampshire was talking about are going to have a secure and safe financial future.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill with Senator Gorton, Senator Bryan, and others to repeal the commercial aviation fuel tax, and I am proud that this is the first piece of legislation I am introducing as a U.S. Senator. As I traveled throughout all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties this past year, it was clear that the threat to jobs and industry from this upcoming tax required immediate attention. In keeping with my promise to Pennsylvanians, I am confident that this will remove an obstacle to the recovery of an industry critical to Pennsylvania's economy. This tax, which will take effect on October 1, 1995, will force the troubled airline industry to assume another massive financial burden. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed a new 4.3 cents per gallon tax on commercial aviation fuel. At the time, the airline industry was experiencing deep financial difficulties, so the act granted a 2-year waiver on the imposition of this tax. Clearly, the industry has yet to recover, and a tax costing $527 million annually will have a devastating effect on service providers, airline manufacturers, and other related employers. More layoffs, increased ticket prices, and greater deterioration of consumer confidence in our Nation's airlines is not the goal of a responsible Congress. Historically, the airline industry has been assessed excise and cargo taxes in lieu of a fuel tax. These alternate taxes amount to $5.4 billion annually. In addition, since 1990, the industry has lost $12.8 billion, nearly 120,000 employees have lost their jobs, and tens of thousands of airline manufacturing employees have been laid off. For a troubled industry which pays more than its fair share of taxes, I believe it is our responsibility to repeal this excessive and potentially destructive tax. Last Autumn, 59 Senators and 4 future Senators, myself included, wrote to President Clinton seeking relief from this tax. This Congress, I am proud to report a groundswell of support amongst Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. I hope this support continues unabated as we proceed to final passage of a repeal which is needed and in the best interests of our Nation's airline laborers, service employees, and the industry as a whole.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the last few minutes here before we pack up and call it a day, I wanted to respond to some of the comments that the Senator from West Virginia just made while I was presiding. He made some comments that were familiar in tone, that I had been hearing throughout the day and throughout the week by so many Members who have risen in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. I keep hearing this familiar refrain, ``I am for a balanced budget-- but.'' ``I really believe in a balanced budget-- this constitutional amendment just is not the way to do it.'' ``You need to tell us how you are going to get there. But I want to get there, too, but I do not need to tell you but you need to tell us, because you are for a balanced budget amendment.'' Or, you are for a balanced budget amendment but you are not for this amendment, because this amendment says that we are going to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. Then when are you for a balanced budget amendment? If not in the year 2002, are you for a budget balanced budget in 2003? 2004? 2005? Pick a number. Tell us when you think we should have a balanced budget, and then you tell us how you will get us there. But do not stand and say that you are for a balanced budget in the abstract, but it would be too painful and too hurtful to your State or to the individuals that you know who will suffer under this, to get there. You are either for a balanced budget and for the commitment to get there, or you are just talking. And we have been doing a lot of talking here in the Senate and the House for a lot of years about how we are going to get to a balanced budget. Now, the Senator from West Virginia said that he took pride in the vote he cast 2 years ago, 1993, that put us on course. We are on course, he said. We are on course. I do not know if he has seen some of the deficit projections by the Congressional Budget Office. We are not on course to a balanced budget. We are not even close to being on course to a balanced budget. This budget is going to hang around where it is right now for the next couple of years, and then just goes way up again around the turn of the century, doubling from where it is today. We are not on course for a balanced budget. We must do something just to keep the deficits where they are now. We will have to pull back Government, or, as some would propose, increase taxes, just to hold where we are as far as annual deficits. So we are not on course. We are way off course. Now, I come from southwestern Pennsylvania, which is the border of West Virginia. I actually lived the first 7 years of my life in West Virginia. I am very familiar with West Virginia. And I am very familiar with the pain that a lot of the people in West Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania and around the Pittsburgh area where I am from, suffered during the early 1980's. And I represented a congressional district before I came here where in the late 1970's there were over 110,000 steelworkers working in my district. When I was sworn into office in the early 1990's, there were less than 15,000 steelworkers remaining. Now, I know what economic devastation is, but I can tell Senators, the people in that district, the people in West Virginia, are not concerned about the next Government program we will create to put them back to work or to train them. What they want are good, private sector jobs. And that is what responsible fiscal policy will get this country. Sound fiscal policy will stabilize this economy and create jobs into the future. I look forward to the opportunity to respond further to the Senator from West Virginia and others on that side of the aisle. I see it is time to wrap things up, so I will yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for yielding. I wanted to pick up on the analysis of this amendment by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, relating it to a football game, a Super Bowl, because I thought it was a keen analogy. I am not too sure he got it quite right. What he suggested is that members of the football team be up in the stands rooting for different ideas instead of being on the field fighting it out and putting those cuts into place. Let me tell you what the constitutional amendment is to balance the budget. It is the clock. You see, the game will not start unless the clock starts, and that makes the teams get on the field. It makes them get on the field and start fighting it out. Otherwise, they would spend all their time sitting in the stands enjoying life, running around with the cheerleaders. They are going to be on the field now because the clock starts; the game has begun. Now, the Senator from Connecticut said, well, we need the game plan. I know George Seifert would love to have Bobby Ross's game plan, and I know Bobby Ross would like to have Mr. Seifert's, but they are not going to give it to each other. You see, that is what the game is all about and it has to be played. But you have to start the clock. That is what the balanced budget amendment does, it starts the clock. It gets us on the field and makes us perform before the people of the United States of America. That is what this game is all about. And all this other stuff is just hype. All these gaps and canyons and where is it coming from, where do you tax it--it is all hype. Just pick up a paper and look at the hype. When the clock starts the game begins. I yield.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I want to do is first respond to the Senator from Kentucky and a couple of points that he made, and then talk in general about the problem I think we are confronting here in this debate on unfunded mandates. I would agree with the Senator from Kentucky that amendments have been offered to improve the bill. I would agree that the amendments he referred to have in fact improved the bill, and have in fact gotten bipartisan support, and the legislative process in that respect is working. I also remind the Senator from Kentucky that we are in the first step of the process. We are considering the bill here for the first time. The House is yet to bring it up. They are going to be considering amendments under an open rule which will allow improvement to this bill. We will then in all likelihood pass different versions of this bill. It will then go to conference where different ideas that have been percolated through the legislative process get resolved, and hopefully even a better product will come out with the best ideas of the House and Senate. I do not think anyone would say that any bill that passes the House or the Senate is perfect. There are always things that are going to come up that could have been improved. We would like to see debate. I would like to see debate on germane amendments that deal with the issue of unfunded mandates. I would like to see improvements to the bill. I would like to hear the concerns of both Republicans and Democrats as to what we can do to make this bill a better and more efficient process for reducing the amount of unfunded mandates that we pass on to the State and local governments. But that is not what is going on here. What is going on here are amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with unfunded mandates, like frequent flier amendments, abortion clinic amendments, and going on and on, that have nothing to do with the substance of the bill that are in these riders. I remember when I was running for office, people would come up to me and say, ``When you get to the Senate, you get rid of those riders, all of those things that they just throw on these bills that have nothing to do with the bill, that really clog up the legislative process and get all these things thrown in there that we do not like.'' What we are seeing here is a classic example of what the American public does not like, which is a bill that has broad public support that is moving through the process, that is continually being derailed on education issues, on abortion issues, and unfortunately we are not getting back to the subject at hand, which is unfunded mandates, and moving that process through which has overwhelming public support. We are happy to deal with germane amendments and improvements to the bill. That is what we have been striving to do--limit the debate with cloture petitions that the majority leader has unfunded mandates. Let us deal with the amendments that are germane to the bill that could improve the quality of legislation. That is what we are attempting to do with the cloture petition. Let us just deal with the things that are germane, that are improvements to the bill, and let us put all this other stuff--which may be important--let us put it aside and we can bring it up another day. As many Senators from both sides of the aisle said, we are in early January. We have a lot of time in this session to deal with a variety of issues. But this is a bill that has the support that has been worked on for at least 8 years, and has had bipartisan support for a long period of time. I just got off a conference call 2 days ago with mayors all across my State. We did a conference call talking to them. The comments that I got were just overwhelming. I have been getting calls from my county commissioners from both sides of the aisle saying, ``Please move this bill forward. We need this help. We need this assurance that you are not going to continue to push more and more costs on local government and State government without providing the needed funds to pay for these programs.'' So we have the consensus. I agree the details need to be worked out. The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. We have improved the bill. There will hopefully be other amendments on which we can make improvements, at least that we can discuss, to this bill. But let us do that. Let us focus in on that. I came from the House of Representatives. I have been reminded many, many times that the House and the Senate are different bodies, and they are. I appreciate the difference. I understand the Senate is a more deliberative body. That is a wonderful thing. I look back at last year, and look at the bills that were stopped here in the Senate that were rammed through the House because of the rules of the House, that were rammed through the House, that came here to the Senate and were slowed down and in many cases changed, and in some cases stopped completely. It was a benefit. The Senator from Oklahoma referred to the health care bill. He is absolutely right. That process was slowed down dramatically here in the Senate, and I think to the benefit of the American public in the long run. So the Senate does have an important role to play. But when we have pieces of legislation that have broad support, in fact have broad bipartisan support in this body--we have 60-some cosponsors on this bill--we have, hopefully, more that will actually vote for the bill. When you have that kind of support, when you have the support here, the support in the public, and you have--with this last election--a clear mandate to move, then I think it is the obligation of the people who support this measure, on both sides of the aisle, to stand up and say that it is time to move forward. So I hope that Republicans and Democrats can join together and push this package forward and limit the debate to amendments that are germane to improving the quality of this bill, so we can produce the best product here in the Senate, so we can come up with the best piece of legislation that the best minds in the country here in the U.S. Senate can work on and craft and send to the House. And maybe if they recognize the great handiwork that we have done here, they will just accept what we have done. They did that with the congressional accountability bill--another bill that was slowed down for a week with spurious amendments on a whole variety of different topics that had nothing to do with congressional accountability. We did such fine work on the germane amendments, such good handiwork here in the Senate on the underlying bill, that we kept it, in a sense, clean from all these other amendments. And when it came to the House, the House said: You folks did a pretty good job; we will just pass your bill. In fact, it is now on the President's desk. That is the kind of action the folks in Pennsylvania want. I think that is the kind of action folks all over the United States of America want from this body. They want us to get down to business. They want us to focus in, one by one, on the issues that are important to America. The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. The frequent flier issue is an important issue. It is a perk that the House should not have. When I was in the House, I did not accept my frequent flier miles. I did not use them for personal use. It was my office policy. The Senator from Kentucky is right that that privilege is available and it should not be. It should not be. I hope that we can work together and make that happen. I hope the House acts quickly to do that. But I would not be averse to putting some pressure on the House to do that. Let us focus on what we all now agree should be passed, what needs to be passed to restore to this institution the faith of the American public that we are a body that listens, that we are a body that can act, and that we are a body that understands our obligation to serve the American public. I hope that is what we can do when we return for votes Monday and Tuesday--that we can focus the attention back on the bill, that we can improve the quality of the bill, that we can move the bill forward quickly, that we can get to the other pieces of legislation that are waiting in line behind unfunded mandates, like the balanced budget amendment, that are important pieces of legislation which, again, the public wants us to take up and move in a timely fashion. I do not want to stop debate on any amendment that improves the quality of this bill, not one. Offer them, debate them. It is needed. The Senator from West Virginia is absolutely right that there are things in this bill that concern a lot of Members and a lot of people in this country, and they should be debated. That is what we want to do with this cloture motion. If we get an agreement to limit the number of amendments and the time in which they can be offered, that is what we want to do. That is what this side of the aisle is trying to do. We are trying to move the bill forward, trying to be accommodating. We are trying to keep our promise with the American public to move this institution, to get bills passed, to get it done in a prompt fashion, and to deliver on the November election. I think we can do that, and I hope that with the support of Members on both sides of the aisle, we will be able to accomplish that. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I come here to join my colleague from Oklahoma in his comments concerning what is happening in the Senate. I have a statement, but I want to yield to him for a few moments to respond to the Senator from Kentucky.