Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair and thank the chairman for yielding me time. I, too, rise, as the Senator from Nebraska just did, in strong support of returning to the American public what they have overpaid. And that, to me, is good business practice. If a business gets overpaid, we think they would be honest enough to see that they have been overpaid and give back the money to the person who paid more money than was needed for what they were buying. In fact, if business did not do that, you would think they were ripping you off. It is somewhat incredible to me to imagine how the American public, when they see they are overpaying their taxes--we have more money than is needed to pay for the needs of Government, which are immense; $1.9 trillion, some pretty big need--the American public, at least through the polls, are saying: Well, keep it. We really don't need it. We don't really need a tax cut. At least that is what the polls would have you believe. I do not believe that. I do not believe it is good business for the Government to keep money that it does not need because what the Government will do is what a business would do. They will take it and use it to benefit themselves, not benefit the customer. I think that is what we are seeing happen already this year in Washington with the surplus projected for next year to be some $14 billion. People are just banging down the door to spend that money. We spent half the surplus last night. The projected surplus is half gone. If we pass the Ag appropriations bill in the form it passed last night, it will be half gone. My guess is the House, and others, will want to pass even more than that. So what my big concern is--I think the Senator from Nebraska hit the nail on the head--if we leave the money here, it will be spent. It will not be spent to benefit the broad economy. It will not be spent to benefit the average taxpayer in America. It will be spent to benefit those who are loud enough or politically powerful enough to get that money set aside for them. That is not the way things should operate when, you, the taxpayer have paid more than you should, that we are going to take that money and give it to someone who screams the loudest to get that money here in Washington, or who has the political clout to get that extra money here in Washington. No. What we have done in this modest tax relief package--everyone says how big this tax relief package is. This is modest tax relief. This is incremental tax relief. This phases in over a 10-year period of time. This is tied to meeting our surplus targets. In other words, if our debt payments do not go down as projected, guess what. Most of this tax cut, or a big portion of it, does not even happen in the future years. So what is being talked about is this calamitous idea that we are going to give all this money--this horrible thing--back to the people who overpaid it. And at the same time, many are standing up saying: Look, we need this money to spend on all this. We need it here. Of course, the American public doesn't need it. You have more money than you need back home. As someone who is raising four children, and one due in a month and a half, I can tell you that raising a family is very expensive. I am not too sure anybody would, if you think about it, mind having a couple extra hundred dollars to be able to do some things to help them and their family. That is what we are talking about. It is not a huge tax cut. I wish it were. I wish we could reduce taxes more, give more surplus back. I wish we could cut Government spending, pare down the growth of this Government. But we are not even talking about that. We are talking about letting Government continue to increase its spending, letting the entitlement programs continue to flourish, and just giving a little bit of what is overpaid back. I am excited about this particular package. There are lots of goods things in this package--reductions in rates, the marriage penalty tax relief, and one particular provision I want to speak about for a minute or two is the American Community Renewal Act. The American Community Renewal Act was not in the bill that passed in the Senate. I entered into a colloquy with Senator Roth, and he agreed he would look at what was included in the House package. He did. And included in this bill out of conference is a bill that does not just provide tax relief, which is what we talked about, but a provision that helps those people in poor inner-city and rural communities who are not being lifted by the rising tide of this economy with incentives, such as the zero capital gains tax within these renewal communities. One hundred of them would be designated. Twenty percent of them at least would have to be in rural areas, with a zero capital gains rate to help businesses start in those communities; to provide help for home ownership; expensing of businesses would be increased; wage credits; real powerful incentives for employment opportunities to happen within these communities, housing opportunities to happen within these communities, to see a real transformation, using, again, the private sector, not public-sector programs, not the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but, in fact, private sector incentives for private sector development and home ownership, which is the real key to success in America.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the chairman for including that in the bill today.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have also sought recognition to express my support for a project of historical, academic, and economic importance at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. I believe that this project is a perfect candidate for funding under the Save America's Treasures grant program. Stevens Hall, named for prominent Gettysburg citizen Thaddeus Stevens, was the fourth major building erected on the campus of Gettysburg College, in 1867. The building currently serves as a dormitory for undergraduate students. Renovation of the structure is necessary to preserve the building's exterior and modernize the electrical and fire prevention systems. Gettysburg College plans to restore and rehabilitate Thaddeus Stevens Hall and transform the building into a center for the study of history and the Civil War era. Stevens Hall will eventually house the College's Civil War Institute. Located adjacent to Eisenhower House and just blocks from the Gettysburg National Military Park, this project will not only restore a distinguished example of 19th century architecture, but will attract students of the Civil War nationwide. The College has already committed substantial resources to this important project, securing $2.5 million in private funding for preservation work. I understand that the committee did not include funding for the Save America's Treasures program; however, federal funding is crucial to the timely completion of restoration work on this historical structure. I urge the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, to continue to work with me to identify appropriate federal funding for this important preservation initiative.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak about the need for the federal government to share in the cost of much-needed disabled access improvements at the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As my colleagues may know, this National Memorial was designated as a National Park Service Affiliated Area by Public law 92-551. The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is located in the rotunda of The Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Memorial Hall was opened in 1938 and features a 20-foot high marble statue of Ben Franklin sculpted by James Earle Fraser, as well as many of Franklin's original possessions. Mr. President, I was very appreciative earlier this year when the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, joined me in a visit to The Franklin Institute to see first-hand the need for disabled access improvements in the National Memorial Hall. I believe that he saw for himself that the 1938 design of the facility does not lend itself to easy access for anyone in a wheelchair or with other disabilities. The legacy of Benjamin Franklin is one that should be treasured and understood by all Americans, which is why I salute the Franklin Institute for embarking on a major capital development campaign to pay for, among other things, some of the costs associated with these renovations. To date, the Institute has spent over $6 million of its own funds in the ongoing maintenance of the Memorial Hall. Since Congress bestowed national memorial status on this facility, and since it is important to ensure that all Americans, regardless of physical ability, can benefit from learning more about Benjamin Franklin, I want to encourage Chairman Gorton to continue working with me to providing funding for this purpose. I am advised that in Fiscal Year 2000, $1 million in federal funds would be a significant first step toward meeting the anticipated $6 million cost of rehabilitating and updating the National Memorial and its exhibits.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the distinguished former chairman of the House Ag Committee and obviously one of the most knowledgeable people on agriculture in this country. It has been a pleasure to work with him. To pick up on the point he just made, I will speak to Senators who do not come from areas which have program crops, places such as Pennsylvania, many of them, places such as Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, and most of the New England States, where previous emergency packages had very little to offer for those of us who have farmers experiencing difficulty in that area of the country. Obviously, we are experiencing horrible difficulties with the drought that is occurring in the Mid-Atlantic region. I did not vote for either of the packages yesterday because I didn't think they offered anything of real value to the farmers that I represent and to the region of the country that I try to represent on the Agriculture Committee. But this package does. Three things the Senator from Kansas just mentioned: No. 1, the money for specialty crops--most of the crops that are grown in Pennsylvania are specialty crops; they are not program crops--$300 million; $400 million for help with crop insurance premiums. We need to get more people in the Crop Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. If my farmers said one thing to me overwhelmingly, it was: Of all the things you can do to help us, give us some money to help us begin to get into crop insurance, to begin to insure ourselves against these losses and against the fluctuations of the market. Farmers want to be self-sufficient. They don't want disaster payments. They don't get AMTA payments. What they want is some mechanism where they can begin to control their destiny and ensure some income for their family. That is what we are trying to do, to help them in transitioning. Finally, $400 million, as the Senator from Kansas just mentioned, for disaster assistance for this year's 1999 crops. Obviously, we have no idea what the extent of the drought is going to be and the damage, but it is going to be extensive. It is going to be very tough on our farmers in Pennsylvania and throughout the Mid-Atlantic States. I say to all those Senators who represent that area of the country, you now have a bill you can vote for that is going to do something meaningful for your farmers. I hope we can get bipartisan support for this amendment and get this acted upon quickly. I thank the former chairman and distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee for his terrific work on this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Three minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issue of farmland preservation. I have an amendment that was filed. It is amendment No. 1094. I will not call up that amendment, but I do want to speak on it for a couple of minutes. The reason I will not call the amendment up is the amendment is now subject to rule XVI. It is on farmland preservation, which was an authorized program under the farm bill in 1996, but because the program was so successful, all the money has been used in the authorization. So while I would very much like to see more money be appropriated for this program that shares very broad bipartisan support, the job before us is to get this program authorized. Since legislating on appropriations bills is now not the order of the day, and I support that, we are going to have to work through the authorization process. But the Farmland Preservation Program, I think, has probably been shown to be one of the most successful pieces of legislation in preserving open space and critical farmland that we have seen in this country. In fact, last year, $7 billion of farmland protection money, preservation money, was approved via voter referendum throughout the country. That is an enormous commitment on the part of States and localities to preserve this vital agricultural land and at the same time preserve a way of life and preserve vital open space in places where the pressure for development is extremely high. The area of my State that is under the most development pressure is the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania. The counties there, from Lancaster County to Chester County, Bucks County, York County, and others, have done a great job in their own programs. In fact, all those programs I mentioned, county programs, were started long before the Federal Government ever even thought of participating in helping them acquire land. In fact, we have helped. The $35 million--that is all it was, $35 million--from the Federal level which was spent over the first 3 years of the farm bill preserved over 127,000 acres of land that is under great pressure of development on 460 farms. In Pennsylvania alone, we have a 10-year backlog, a 10-year waiting list of farmers who voluntarily want to preserve their land and preserve, as a result, the family farm to be able to pass it on from generation to generation. States and localities, in partnership with the Federal Government--and as I said, in some cases without the Federal partnership--have bought these development rights so they can get some money to help keep this farm within the family. In fact, in a third of the cases--and we will be dealing with the tax bill tomorrow-- these development rights were sold by farmers so they could pay death taxes, they could pay inheritance taxes, estate taxes--call them what you want. They sold their development rights on the farm so they could keep the farm in the family because of what the Federal Government has done in taxing their estates upon death. That is a remarkable situation. Hopefully, if we can get the President to sign the tax bill we will pass tomorrow, we can go a long way toward avoiding that kind of use for these development rights. These development rights can then be used to modernize, to upgrade, and to make more competitive these agricultural lands that are under this intense development pressure. I am disappointed we are not going to be successful in agreeing to the $10 million that is in this amendment. It would go a long way to relieve that backlog, not only in Pennsylvania but in the 19 other States that have participated in the Federal program. Since the Federal program was enacted, many more States have passed laws--in fact, 52 jurisdictions in States and localities have adopted some sort of farmland preservation program that would dovetail very nicely with the Federal effort. This is an important issue to the people, particularly in the eastern part of the State of Pennsylvania. It is an important issue, I know, to my colleagues all throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England States, many of whom are cosponsors of this legislation; also in California, where Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein worked to pass the original farmland preservation amendment back in 1996. I am hopeful that the Agriculture Committee on which I serve will bring up this legislation and reauthorize it for the remaining part of the farm bill so we can include this in the Agriculture appropriations bill next time. I commend and thank Senator Lugar who, a couple of weeks ago, held a hearing in the Agriculture Committee about this subject. We had some very enlightened testimony. It shows how incredibly popular this program is across the country and how important it is to preserve a way of life in rural America, particularly those areas that are threatened by development pressure. I am hopeful, again, while we will not be able to accomplish it here today, that soon in this session of Congress we will pass a reauthorization of this program and be able to fund it in future appropriations bills. Mr. President, seeing no one else seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me say I was very moved by the remarks of the Senator from Utah. I am sure every Member of the Senate shares in expressing our sympathy for the men who were killed in that air crash. Certainly the Senator has done the Specialist and other Members very proud in his comments before the Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his continued assistance.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to discuss one of my amendments, No. 1476, offered with Senator Abraham and Senator DeWine, to establish renewal communities and encourage charitable giving to those organizations which make a lasting difference in the lives of people. The amendment creates 100 renewal communities where businesses will have the incentive to stay and locate to provide economic opportunity for some of the most disadvantaged communities in America. The amendment also allows states to utilize federal block grant funds, if they choose to, in order to offset any revenue loss associated with offering a targeted state charity tax credit for individual donations to charities working predominantly to alleviate poverty. Mr. President, I will continue to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee in order to see that these critical provisions for expanding opportunity and transforming lives are included in the conference report. The Renewal Community provisions were included in the House of Representatives tax relief package and I look forward to working with the chairman to see that these provisions are included which unleash the power of the private sector and American charitable and faith-based resources to renew our commodities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair and thank the chairman for yielding me time. I rise to talk about two amendments--not the Bingaman amendment--two amendments that I have added to the list of 100-some amendments. I hope that we can accept one of them. We are working very hard to get that done. I have agreed to enter into a colloquy with the chairman on another one. I would hope that we will work in conference. The American Community Renewal Act The amendment that I have agreed to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Delaware on is the American Community Renewal Act. The American Community Renewal Act is part of the House bill. It was one of the centerpieces of the House bill and one that I very strongly support as chairman of the Renewal Alliance, which is a group of Senators and Congressmen who have been advocating nongovernmental solutions to the problems that face our inner cities and impoverished rural areas. It is important for us, when we pass a tax bill that provides tax relief to taxpayers, as we should, that we look to those who do not pay taxes and see what we can do to help lift them into the sometimes beleaguered status of taxpayers. It is important for us to be able to reach down into those communities that are struggling. I have many of them in my State. We work very hard in communities, from Philadelphia to smaller towns like Chester and McKeesport, and work with community groups, nonprofits that are out there trying to make a difference, working with the local officials in trying to provide economic opportunity, as well as cultural renewal for the communities that are in blight. The American Community Renewal Act, I believe, is the right message for those communities, is the right direction, and that is through empowerment and through working with the local faith-based and local community development organizations, helping them pull themselves out of the difficult situations they find themselves in. The American Community Renewal Act has two parts. No. 1, it provides for a charitable tax credit. This is a State-based tax credit. It allows for Federal block grant funds to be used by States to provide a tax credit to individual taxpayers who give money to nonprofits that spend over 75 percent of their money helping low-income individuals. So this is a way for the Government, instead of spending more money on Federal or State programs, to take the money that the Federal Government gives to run Federal programs and say: Let's give it directly, unaltered, untainted, directly to those organizations--many of them faith-based--that really are out there on the front line, compassionate organizations that are out there across the table from people who are in need, people who have problems. They are not behind a bulletproof glass at a welfare office passing out checks if you have the right number on your card. These are people who are in the trenches who are making a difference, who are transforming lives every single day, and doing it not because they get paid to do it or because there is a Federal law they have to do it; they do it because they love their neighbor. Those organizations have been lifted up recently by the Vice President, by Governor George Bush, and many others running for President. They are lifted up because they found that--you know what?-- faith works. There is a very utilitarian reason to do this--it works best; it is cheapest--but that is not the best reason. The best reason to do this is because it transforms lives. It does not just give people a better job or get them off drugs. It transforms their spirit, which is the best thing needed in America's poorest communities. What we do with the charitable tax credit is, I believe, the most transformational thing we can do in this tax bill. The second part of the American Community Renewal Act targets not the soul but the economy. How do we create jobs so when we transform people they can get into productive work, not taking a bus out to the suburbs to work in a mall, but transform their own communities with home ownership and economic opportunity and entrepreneurial investment. We provide for 100 renewal communities, targeted with progrowth incentives, tax benefits, regulatory relief, savings accounts, brownfield cleanups, a comprehensive approach to inner cities. And at least 20 percent of these communities have to be in rural areas. This is in the House bill. This is where the House stepped up and said, yes, we are for tax relief. We have overpaid, but we will not leave any American behind. We are going to reach down and make sure every American has the opportunity to be a taxpayer, to contribute to the economic future of this country. A renewal community must do some things. It is not just a handout to the community. They have to commit to reduce local tax rates and reduce fees within the zones. So yes, we are going to provide some incentives, but they have to do the same. They have to partner with us. The States have to eliminate State and local sales taxes, waive local and State occupational licensing regulations and other barriers to entry for entrepreneurs in these poor communities where it is so hard. It is a lot harder to put up a store front in an area where crime is high, where the services are not as good, than it to set up one in the suburbs. It is a lot more expensive. It is harder to get employees, harder to maintain security, harder to get people to come into your establishment. So they need some help. This is the kind of help we want to partner with. We will provide some incentives, the locals, the State. It is a partnership. Let's really work together to make this happen. I fervently hope when we bring this bill out of conference that the American Community Renewal Act will be a part of that so we show, as I believe this bill does, show that we care about all Americans in providing relief, yes, tax relief, but relief from the difficult times that many Americans are going through in our inner cities and poor rural areas. The second bill I am going to be talking about, which we have introduced and I hope we can get adopted, is a very simple provision. Before I start, in this bill--I congratulate the chairman--is a raising of the low-income housing tax credit allocation. The current cap, $1.25 per capita per State, was established in 1986 and has never been raised. Due to inflation, credits under the current allocation have lost about 50 percent of their value. The chairman's bill raises the allocation to $1.75 per capita over a 5-year period. The low-income housing tax credit is the largest and, I think, most efficient housing program because it marries public and private resources of production in rehab of affordable housing, rental housing that we have in America. It is a tremendous success. My amendment to the chairman's bill is based on legislation which raises the cap and indexes it for inflation. This legislation already has 70 cosponsors in the Senate. The only piece left out of the chaiman's bill is an indexing of that per capita allocation from the year 2006 on. That costs a whopping $43 million, not a big ticket item. And frankly, we pay for it. In fact, as the chairman will be delighted, we more than pay for it in the amendment that we have. So there is extra money around for other things that may be done. We think this is a high priority. We think, again, we have to provide affordable housing. This is a program that works. This is a program that has bipartisan support and something that can say to people, as we have in this bill already, say to people who may not be big taxpayers and get big tax relief that we are going to provide some relief in the form of better affordable housing, more affordable housing for those who may not be taxpayers now but hopefully, through the efforts here in reducing taxes, getting this economy--not getting it but continuing this economy to grow in the future, we will participate in that. This is one of those step-ups, by providing quality, affordable private housing, rental housing, which has, again, been an incredibly successful program. I hope, again, that we can include the amendment on the low-income housing tax credit in this bill and go to conference with that here in the Senate bill. Secondly, I implore the chairman that when we get to conference to include the American Community Renewal Act to make sure that every American has the opportunity to rise. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Michigan and Senator Domenici for their great work on the Social Security lockbox issue. Before I get into our amendment, I will address the Senator from Montana. First he says there is no money, not a penny, not a nickel, available for Medicare under the Republican bill. As the chairman of the Budget Committee will show in his big charts--I don't have one of those big charts with me, but I have a smaller one--this yellow area is $505 billion for domestic spending programs. If we want to--and that is the second point I want to make--use the on-budget surplus to fund Medicare, which is not an on-budget program, it is a separate program like Social Security, by the way--it is a separate program--one of the things I hear from seniors most: Keep Medicare and Social Security separate. That is what the lockbox is trying to do with Social Security. There is money there if we want to take money from the general fund and use it for Medicare. So the idea that we don't lock it up is ridiculous. The money is there. Then we can decide where we want to spend that money. It is a matter of priorities. I will make this argument: I don't know if the Senator from Montana has ever voted to spend general fund money on Medicare. I don't think there has been a vote I am aware of in the Finance Committee to actually--there have been resolutions, a sense of the Senate, we should save Medicare--fund a Medicare program out of general fund revenues, Medicare Part A Program. That, to me, is a dangerous precedent. We have a separate dedicated tax for Medicare--a separate tax. What is now being talked about is that we have to grow Medicare by using the on-budget surplus. Let me say this: If Medicare was a program that was financially sound, that was doing a very solid job in the sense of providing efficient services, was the kind of coverage that seniors are really looking for, then you might make the argument that it is a well-run program and is doing everything it should be doing, and instead of raising taxes on people to fund Medicare, we should take that money out of the surplus. The problem is, we have a fairly strong bipartisan agreement that there are a lot of problems with Medicare. The Senator from Montana will agree there are serious problems. No. 1, it doesn't cover even half of health care costs of seniors. Here is the major health care program for seniors, and it doesn't even cover half of their costs for health care. What we are saying is--and we said on a bipartisan basis--let's fix Medicare, make it more efficient, let it meet the needs of seniors, including prescription drug coverage. Why? Because when Medicare was put together 35 years ago, drug therapies weren't that common or well used; they were a very different game. Well, today is different. So we need drug therapy as part of a basic benefit because it is the way we treat people more often. So this idea that, somehow or another, our lockbox is not sufficient because we don't lock up Medicare is ridiculous. We have money to do it, A; and, B, we have to question first whether we should throw more money at Medicare before we fix what is fundamentally flawed with Medicare, in making it a better program. Those are the things I would like to address on Medicare. With respect to our lockbox, I always find it unbelievable that when we have an issue here with broad consensus--in this case, or in most cases, the issues pushed by our side of the aisle--all of a sudden we have agreement. We have agreement in the House, 416-12. The President says he wants a Social Security lockbox. We come to the Senate and we have agreement. Probably if I talk to seniors around the country, the first thing they will tell me is: If you quit raiding that money out of the Social Security trust fund, Social Security would be OK. We have an agreement. So we come to the floor with an agreement to fix the Social Security problem. Let's lock that money up so only Social Security money can be used for Social Security. Well, sometimes, as the song in Oklahoma says, a girl can't say no. These are the girls who can't say yes on the other side of the aisle. These Democrats just can't say yes. We have an agreement, we have something that we all agree on. America is overwhelmingly agreeing with it, but they can't come around to saying let's get this done. No, they are going to change the subject. Well, that Social Security thing, we agree with you; but you don't do enough and therefore we can't let you do this. We can't let you do your Social Security. They throw up this phony red herring with Medicare. I am trying to say the public is tired of this. They want us to be able to find things we have consensus on and do them, instead of playing political games. What is going on in the Senate on this issue, for six cloture votes, over a several-month period, is political gamesmanship. We have agreement that Social Security moneys should only be used for Social Security, and we can't get one single Democrat vote to pass that measure. We have 80-plus percent of the American public who want it done. We have their President who said: Send me only a Social Security lockbox--only. We have 416 Members of the House who say ``Social Security lockbox,'' and we have 45 obstructionists--45--who would rather play politics because they think they can win the election on making the Republicans bad guys on Medicare. So they throw the Medicare herring out. We don't have the Social Security herring this time. These are the two red herrings that are chronically thrown at Republicans at election time. We have lost the Social Security card, so let's play the other card to muck things up so we don't get things done. People are sick of that. I can tell you, as a Republican Member who is working hard to preserve Social Security, I am sick of it. We can get this done tomorrow. We can pass a lockbox that says to every Social Security recipient in America: Your money is not going to be spent on other Government programs. We can make that assurance. The President said he would sign it, and 45 people on the Democratic side of the aisle are saying, no, we are not for getting anybody any political wins because we only think of politics. We don't want to give you this political win. We want you to be the do-nothing Congress, so we are going to throw this red herring out. Medicare. Oh, the bogeyman on the Republican side; they don't have a nickel or a penny or a quarter for Medicare. Garbage. The issue is not Medicare. This is a Social Security lockbox, which the Democrat President--their President and our President--wants. We are ready to give it to him. What is the response from the other side? The response could be, should be: OK, let's do Social Security. We all agree on it. We have broad bipartisan consensus. We have public approval. Let's do Social Security. But, no. Let me tell colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Medicare issue is going to be here a little while longer. I don't know of anybody who thinks Medicare is going to go away, or the problems in Medicare are only temporary. That issue will be here, and it is an important issue, one that should be fully debated. But it should not be used to obstruct something that is desperately needed to protect the Social Security trust fund, and that is the political game that is going on. We should call it what it is; it is an absolute red herring. Social Security can be--should be--must be--protected from raids by the general government and by the very same people, I might add--we saw the Democratic leader come forward this week and say we need $10 billion more for agriculture. May I ask the Senator from Montana where that money is coming from? Let me answer that question. The Social Security surplus. So is it really that they want to do the Social Security lockbox as they say? Is it really that they want to put all that money aside to make sure Social Security is solvent for the next generation? Or is it really because they just can't help themselves; they want to spend it? They don't want a lockbox because a lockbox keeps their fingers out of the Social Security trust fund, which they love to raid. They just can't help themselves. They just love to stick their fingers in there and get that money out that is just sitting there. It is just sitting there. It is similar to a sailor on leave, sitting there with a shot on the bar and he is staring at it and he can't leave it alone. All I am saying is: Leave Social Security alone. Pass the lockbox.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my support for the Harbor Gardens economic development project. I have requested funding in the Economic Development Administration (EDA) account for this worthwhile initiative in the Manchester neighborhood of Pittsburgh. The mission of Harbor Gardens is to continue to help in rebuilding the economic, physical, social, human, and cultural infrastructure of one of Pittsburgh's most distressed communities. The project consists of a state-of-the-art urban greenhouse for the benefit of students and city residents. Horticulture is the fastest growing segment of agri- business, and therefore, the skills which program participants gain can translate into well-paying jobs. The project will ensure the education of its graduates in the horticultural industry, including advance greenhouse production technology and landscaping techniques. The Business and Industrial Development Corporation is partnering with the Pennsylvania State University, the School District of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Civic Garden Center, Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Center, Zuma Canyon Orchids, and Pittsburgh Cut Flowers. Rare plants will be grown to be purchased for resale, and tours, seminars, plant auctions, and festivals will all contribute to maximizing revenues. Federal funding crucial to the completion of this innovative approach to economic development, and an EDA grant will play an important role in meeting that federal commitment. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, to ensure that this project receives funding.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANTORUM. So the Senator from New Jersey, when he objected to our ``hold'' on the lockbox, his objection is counter to what the administration demanded of us to fix in our lockbox?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey said we should have Medicare included in this lockbox proposal. The President of the United States said: I can't believe the Republicans don't want to include it. He just finds that incredulous. The Senator should talk to his own President. His own President doesn't want Medicare included in this lockbox proposal. The President has been clear. Social Security money should be used for Social Security, and once you say it can be used for Medicare, it can be used for Medicare, it can be used for education, or for whatever. I can tell you that Social Security recipients want Social Security to be used for Social Security. They do not want to expand the program to include other things. In fact, one of the biggest complaints I hear from seniors is that if you would quit taking money out of Social Security for every program that comes down the line, Social Security would be OK. I think if we took a poll it would be overwhelming not to include any program--any program--other than Social Security in Social Security. I also find it incredulous that he said there is a hole in the Social Security lockbox. We wrote a provision in this bill; if we were in a recession, because we hold the debt limit, there could be a default on the credit of the United States. Is the Senator suggesting we should allow the United States to default? Isn't that what the provision says? I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he can explain that.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Missouri, one of the sponsors of this legislation, I remind the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from South Carolina, the President spoke in favor of the Social Security lockbox. He said he wanted a Social Security lockbox, period. He didn't talk about Medicare. Nobody is talking about Medicare. No one in this town has talked about commingling two separate trust funds. I don't know what kind of great admission the Senator from Pennsylvania supposedly made. It is something that is obvious to every taxpayer. There are two separate trust funds, one for Medicare and one for Social Security. To suggest that we should commingle those funds is a very dangerous suggestion. I think that is what the Senator from New Jersey is intimating. That is not what the President wants. That is not what the House wants, Democrats and Republicans. It is certainly not what we want. If the Senator from New Jersey is suggesting that, I think he is alone on a very dangerous suggestion and one that is not healthy for either fund. That is certainly something we will not allow to have happen in the Senate. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SANTORUM. So to expand the debate----

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from New Jersey knows Medicare is not funded out of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right the object. That unanimous-consent request does not focus on the Social Security lockbox; it focuses on everything in the world; thereby, I would have to object because it is not about the Social Security lockbox. So I object.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would have no objection to any amendments you have with respect to the Social Security lockbox, absolutely. Let's have a debate on Social Security. Let's have a debate on the Social Security lockbox.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, the Senator knows, once we put the amendment in the underlying bill, it is then open and subject to amendment which the Senator can offer. In fact, he has an unlimited right in the Senate to offer amendments to the underlying amendment. All we are doing is asking to put in this budget bill an underlying amendment for the membership to then amend to its heart's content, vote as many times as the Senator from New Jersey wants to vote. As we have seen in the last 4 days, we had multiple amendments. We had, what? We had an underlying bill. We had an underlying bill that was a Democratic bill and an underlying bill that was a Republican bill. All I am saying is let us put our underlying bill in place, and then my colleagues can have all the fun they want in trying to craft different amendments to that or substituting their own version of it. The Senator from New Jersey said: All we want is an honest debate. We are trying to get an honest debate. Let's put the measure in the underlying bill and have at it. Let's have a full and open debate. Maybe we can get a unanimous consent agreement to be on this for a couple of days and allow amendments on both sides. That is the way we do things in this body. All of us are willing to do that. I am certainly willing to do that. I am certainly willing to give the Democrats the opportunity to put forward their lockbox proposal and willing to put forward amendments to our lockbox proposal. I welcome an open, honest, and fair debate, but we cannot get there, as the Senator from New Jersey knows, unless we have a bill with which to start. We cannot start amending nothing. We have to amend something. What we are trying to do is put something in place to start the ball rolling. I understand the Senator would like to have a Democratic bill start the process. I understand that. As he knows, we have to start somewhere, and putting our bill up first, as the majority, is not an irrational thing to suggest as a starting point, as long as we give you the right to amend, which we do. This vote does not limit your rights at all. It limits no rights on your side. You have all the full rights that a Senator has and that the minority has under the current set of rules. So this idea that this side has no votes or this side has no amendments is not factual. You have unlimited amendments and unlimited rights to amend this proposal. This proposal simply says: Every dollar coming into Social Security should be used for Social Security. The Senator from New Jersey said: Well, the House tax cut uses Social Security money. If it does, guess what. We will have a vote right here on the Senate floor in which 60 Senators will have to say: We want to spend Social Security for that tax cut. I do not think you will get 60 votes. I know you will not get 60 votes. This Senator will not vote for it. I know a lot of Senators over here who will not vote for using Social Security surplus funds for any tax relief. I am perfectly willing--in fact, advocating--to use the onbudget surplus to give relief to the taxpayers of America. In fact, giving them that relief will help to buy the food and the medicines and other things the Senator just talked about. It is important to do that. We do not have to do everything for everybody. We can actually let people keep their own money and do it themselves. I think people would have the preference of doing it that way. As to the idea that we have the power right now to stop raids on Social Security, we do not. We do not. We saw that last October. What happened last October was that the President got together with the leaders over there, and they raided the surplus, the Social Security surplus. We did not have the courage or the opportunity with a vote to stop it. If we pass this lockbox proposal, any Senator has the right to ask for a vote, and 60 Senators would have to get up and say: I would rather spend that money on whatever program or spend that money, in a sense, on tax relief. And you need 60 votes. That is a real protection for Social Security. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the Senate Democrats are now the only group of people in Washington, DC--and I daresay the country--who are opposing this. You have the President of the United States, a Democrat, who wants this. You have 99 percent of the Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for it. You have every Republican who is supporting it. The only group of people in the country, that I can see, who are against having Social Security money for just Social Security are 45 Members on the other side of the aisle. I am not too sure they understand what the American public wants and what everybody else has figured out is the right policy for America. So I encourage the Senator--maybe his staff did not give him the correct information--to look at what this cloture motion does. It limits no rights for the minorities--none. You have unlimited right of amendment after this cloture motion is agreed to and we vote on this amendment. Then we can have the full and fair debate. I am sure our majority leader, who cares very deeply about this bill--Social Security is very important to him--would devote as much time as necessary on the Senate floor to have that kind of debate, to get the kind of measure that can pass and be signed by the President, and we can begin the process of protecting Social Security. I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The Senator from New Jersey said, ``This side gets no votes.'' I wrote it down word for word. The Senator from New Jersey said, ``This side,'' meaning the Democratic side, ``gets no votes.'' Does the Senator from New Jersey realize that this is a cloture motion on the amendment? This is not a cloture motion on the bill. The cloture motion on the amendment simply says that we get a vote on our amendment. After the amendment is adopted or rejected, the bill is still there, and it is open for amendment. The amendment which we adopt, if we adopt it, will be open to amendment. The Senator can amend it. He can substitute it. He can eliminate it. He can do whatever he wants. He will get all the votes he wants. The Senator from New Jersey said, ``Let us have some amendments.'' How many amendments does the Senator want? I will be happy to listen. How many amendments would the Senator from New Jersey like?