Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a very special native of Philadelphia upon her retirement from the U.S. Air Force. This extraordinary woman, Maj. T.A. Taylor-Hunt, has served her country and her community with grace and distinction. To say that T.A. has had an exemplary military career is an understatement. Her promise as an officer was evident when she received an American Spirit Honor Medal upon graduation from basic training. After completing technical school at Shepard AFB, she began a career in accounting and finance at Dover AFB, with follow-on assignments that took her around the world. At the Strategic Air Command NCO Academy, she was recognized as an Honor Graduate, Distinguished Graduate, Commandant's Award winner, Academic Champion, and Flight Speech Champion. She was the first person in the 25 year history of the Academy to receive so many awards. Likewise, T.A. received an Instructor's Abilities Award at NCO Leadership School as well as the Officer's Training School Flight Academic Achievement Award. As a comptroller, T.A. played a critical role in the financial operations of Operation Desert Storm. In Europe, she helped to establish an Army medical unit in the former Yugoslavia. At the time of her retirement, she was the Deputy Chief of Wartime / Contingency Planning at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver Center. I would also note that Major Taylor-Hunt graduated summa cum laude from the University of Maryland, and she received her masters degree with distinction from Webster University. Currently, she is attending the University of Denver College of Law. In addition to the awards I mentioned earlier, Major Taylor-Hunt has received numerous other commendations for her military performance, as well as her extensive community service. Her military awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Outstanding Unit Award, and the Air Force Special Recognition Ribbon. Some of her other awards include the 1988 Delegate of the Year for the Coastal Charter Chapter American Business Women's Association, the Federal Women's Program Military Officer of the Year, a Community Service Award for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and inclusion in the 1996 Who's Who Among Students in American Colleges and Universities. Mr. President, given T.A.'s tireless efforts to help the less fortunate, it is clear that the recognition she received has been well deserved. Her business card describes the way she lives her life. The inscription reads, ``Take Care of Others, God Will Take Care of You.'' And take care of others she has. T.A. devotes a substantial number of hours each week soliciting, collecting, sorting, and distributing donations to the homeless, without the assistance of staff. She not only meets the basic needs of homeless families such as food and clothing, but she also works to correct their credit problems so that they can find permanent housing. Likewise, T.A. volunteers at several shelters, delivers Meals-On-Wheels, and tutors a fourth grade student. I am proud to say that Major Taylor-Hunt's compassion has been contagious. What started as an effort to help one family living in a school bus has grown into an extensive support network spanning the Denver metropolitan region. Through her leadership, families have found homes; furniture has been donated; hungry people are being fed; children are receiving decent school clothes; and holiday meals and gifts are donated regularly. In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Maj. T.A. Taylor-Hunt and in extending the Senate's best wishes to her family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations in a brief colloquy concerning funding for the National Education Center for Women in Business at Seton Hill College. Mr. President, in the decade between 1982 and 1992, women-owned businesses grew substantially, increasing by over 55 percent between 1987 and 1992 alone. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's women business owners helped make this happen, as my state ranks sixth in the nation in the number of firms owned by women. These firms contributed over 290,000 jobs to my state's economy. The Center conducts collaborative research, provides educational programs and curriculum development, and serves as a information clearinghouse for women entrepreneurs. I have heard only good things about the Center's work in the promotion of women business ownership, both in the Commonwealth and across the nation.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Center has received funds in five previous Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bills through the Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business Ownership and, as originally envisioned, it was to receive $5 million in federal funds over five years. The fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill for the SBA included $500,000 for the Center, which leaves $500,000 in federal funds that are needed to complete the total $5 million federal contribution to the establishment of the Center. I understand that the Small Business Administration would generally continue the program through the next cycle, even though it is not specifically listed in the bill, as the Center has been successful in its mission on behalf of women in business. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee be willing to work with Senator Specter and me to examine options for allocating funds for the National Education Center for Women in Business?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, July 31. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately proceed to the conference report accompanying H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act, as under the previous order.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to this bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senators DeWine and Kohl have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1866, which was received from the House.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inouye be added as a Democratic conferee with respect to the following: H.R. 2203, energy and water appropriations, and H.R. 2169, transportation appropriations.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 132, H. Con. Res. 98.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., the Senate will conclude debate on the conference report to the Balanced Budget Act. Under a previous order, at 10:15 a.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on the conference report. Following that vote, it is the intention of the majority leader that the Senate will begin debate on the conference report to the Taxpayer Fairness Act. As Members are aware, there are 10 hours of statutory debate time in order to this conference report. Therefore, Members can anticipate additional rollcall votes following the 10:15 a.m. vote. As always, Members will be notified as to when rollcall votes are required.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on July 30, 1997, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Argentina (Treaty Document No. 105-18); Extradition Treaty with Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (Treaty Document No. 105-19). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wanted to make a couple of comments also on the budget bill that we have before us here this evening and that we will be voting on, I guess, tomorrow morning. I come here excited in a sense that we are finally doing something that when I first ran for office back in 1990 I pledged to do, which was to come here and try to balance the Federal budget. Not to put schemes out there that say, well, we will target this and we will adjust to this number when we get there, but actually pass a law that will get us there without Congress having to do one more thing. I think that is what we have accomplished here in this legislation. We will pass the changes, the needed reforms, in the entitlement programs that will get us to a balanced budget, that will save an estimated $270 billion over the next 5 years, will require no further Federal action other than just passing our appropriations bills under the limits we have set, and we do a pretty good job at that. If there is anything I can say Congress has done in the past few years it is that we have kept to the budget caps. I do not anticipate that being a problem. In fact, I think many of us would advocate trying to come in below those caps. So I think this bill will accomplish what we set out to do, balance the budget by 2002. And hopefully, if we do not have any kind of major recession, we will be able to balance it sooner than 2002. So, I am very excited about that. We have been able to face that problem, and we have been able to deal with it in a responsible fashion. I must admit, though, that I am somewhat disappointed at some of the things we did not accomplish here that we, in fact, passed in the Senate bill. We took, I think, some courageous political stances here in the U.S. Senate in dealing with the issue of Medicare. The Senator from Oregon was talking about that just a few minutes ago, some of the changes that were not made that he believed in. In fact, some of them, even though I notice he didn't support them, need to be made. Senator Gramm, during the debate here on the budget last month, talked about the demographic cliff that we are going to fall off in the year 2011. I share that with you again this evening. In the year 1995, in fact for the years pretty much throughout the 1990's, roughly 200,000 people will turn 65 per year--200,000 people. In the year 2011, 1.6 million people will turn 65. That is just a cliff. That is 1.6 million people going into a system, no longer paying into that system, into a system that today cannot absorb 200,000 a year. It is going bankrupt absorbing 200,000. We are asking that same system, that same program, to now absorb eight times the number, and that is not just a blip. It is not 1.6 million in the year 2011 and then back down to 200,000. No; it's 1.6 million and then it levels off to about 1.5 million a year throughout the years of the baby boom generation and their retirement. It has been estimated that if we don't change Medicare and Social Security in the next few years, the payroll tax will double within a generation. That is from 15 percent of every dollar that is earned in America up to $60,000 for Social Security tax and 1.45--actually 3 percent if you take the employee and employer share for every other dollar, irrespective of income. We are going to have to double that payroll tax. That's an optimistic projection. Pessimistically, we will have to triple the tax if we keep Medicare and Social Security just the way they are. So, to the people who run around and say, ``We don't need to fix Medicare now, we don't need to fix Social Security now, everything is fine; those people who want to change Medicare and Social Security are just out to get the elderly,'' I would just suggest this: Anybody who is not talking about long-term structural changes to those two programs is out to get the elderly who are yet to be elderly, who are waiting to be elderly, because those are the folks who are going to pay--and big. I think it is only fair that we spread this out a little bit and we begin to make changes now. The two major things I wanted to see done that were not done were, No. 1, as the Senator from Oregon talked about, means testing part B benefits. This is a chip shot. I mean, this is a layup. I can't think of any other term. This is an easy one. This affected about 4 percent of the population of seniors in this country who were the highest income-earning seniors. What were we going to do? For Medicare, part A, part B--there are two parts to Medicare. Part A is hospitalization, major medical; part B covers some of the other things. It is a voluntary program. It covers some outpatient, labs, doctors, things like that. It's a voluntary insurance program. You don't pay one penny into Medicare part B over the course of your earnings before you turn 65. But when you turn 65 you can opt into this, in a sense, public insurance program. It is voluntary. If you choose to get into part B, you pay a premium. It is about $45 a month. That $45 only covers 25 percent of the cost of the program. Who picks up the other 75 percent? Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. That's fine if you are a senior who needs subsidies from the Federal Government to be able to afford insurance, but in my mind it's not fine to give a subsidy to people who don't need a subsidy. I am not someone who comes to the floor on many occasions and talks about class warfare. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in a lot of the arguments that the rich don't pay their fair share. I think a lot of it is just hooey, and in fact class warfare. What we are talking about here is we are talking about subsidizing people at a higher income. I am not for that. I am not for taxing them more, but I am not for subsidizing them, either. So, to the extent that we subsidize, we said, ``Look, if you are earning over $70,000 as a couple, you are going to pay a little bit more for your Medicare part B premium.'' It's still a good deal. It's a pretty big group, and you get a nice group rate. We should have done that in this bill. I can tell you, I have been to senior center after senior center after senior center, and I have gotten up and I talked about this. I have never heard an objection. No one has ever objected to this. They thought that's pretty reasonable. We should not be subsidizing Ross Perot in his Medicare part B premium. It's crazy. He doesn't need it. Most of these people don't need it, and they probably wouldn't want it if they realized what it was costing the Federal Government to do it and what it was costing their children and grandchildren. So that's one of the things we missed, in my opinion. It's unfortunate. The second--I know this is a tougher issue--and that is raising the eligibility age for Social Security. I know this is not a very popular issue, but I can tell you we got 62 votes here in the U.S. Senate, I will say very proudly, in a bipartisan vote. The eligibility age for Social Security, to be able to qualify for full Social Security benefits, is going up. Most people in this country don't know that, but it is. It is going up. In 1983, when they passed the Social Security reform, they did a couple of things. They raised taxes and they raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67. They didn't start doing it, though, for 20 years. The first people who turn 65 who are going to be affected by this raise in the eligibility age are people who retire in the year 2003, 20 years after the bill passed. You will hear the people who were here in the Congress who said, ``We waited 20 years to enact this so people could prepare for this time.'' It is funny, because I talked to a lot of people who are planning to retire who are about that age, in their fifties right now, who are going to be retiring, late fifties, retiring in 2003. Most of them don't know the retirement age is being moved back. I talked to most younger people, and they have no idea the retirement age is being moved back. These people, as far as I am concerned, who passed this thing in 1983 and put it off 20 years, put it off 20 years because they will be gone in 20 years, most of them, and so they won't have to take the wrath of the American public, if there is going to be some. I hope there will not be, once they understand the problem of having to deal with the issue. I think we should deal with the issue now. We should tie the Medicare eligibility age to Social Security, which phases up over a 20-year period. It doesn't hit 67 as a retirement age until the year 2025. We should tie the two together, because most people, most lower and middle income people, are not going to be able to retire prior to being eligible for Social Security, so there should not be much of a problem with tying in Medicare because they are going to retire when they hit the retirement age for Social Security. That will also be the retirement age, in a sense eligibility age, for Medicare. For those who can afford to retire sooner, they probably are more well off, by and large, or they may have a disability. But in that case they qualify for Government benefits through disability. But, for those who are more well off, then we should create an option for them to buy in at age 65, they can buy into Medicare if they can't continue their private insurance. There was a way to work this out that I think would have been, again, the right thing to do for the long term for Medicare. If you really care about providing a health safety net for the future, those were two things that were really missed opportunities. It is unfortunate we missed them. I will say, overall, we have taken a positive step here. I think we missed an opportunity to do something really lasting, really significant. We stood up and made a courageous vote, a vote that, frankly--if Members would go out and take the time to talk to people and explain the demographic problems that we have, the fact that people are living substantially longer and they are substantially healthier, that these kinds of changes only make sense to make sure that future generations have these retirement security programs like Medicare and Social Security to rely on for the future. So, I am disappointed that we blinked, the White House was not supportive, and frankly our colleagues in the House were not supportive. I think that is unfortunate for both of those entities. I stand with particular pride at the U.S. Senate, that it had the courage to look ahead, to not make decisions just based on short-term fixes. Frankly, the Medicare provision here is a short-term fix. We had long- term fixes in the Senate bill and we didn't follow through, and I think that is unfortunate. We did do a lot of other positive things in this bill, and I will support it as a result of that. But I think this piece of legislation, given what the Senate did in their courageous action by going out on Medicare and setting the course, missed a tremendous opportunity. One final comment. There is an additional concern I have about a provision in the welfare bill. There is welfare reform--or, in my opinion some of it is a backtracking on reform from the last bill. We have some positive things in this bill with respect to work, but we also have a provision in there that is very worrisome for me, as far as the ability for work programs, workfare, to work in the States. This gives the President and the Department of Labor the opportunity to designate people on workfare in an employment setting as workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the minimum wage laws, and all the other laws that apply to all other employees. The problem with that is that you get into a whole host of complex things that drive up significantly the cost of providing a work slot for someone on welfare. If you believe, as I do, that the most important thing for most of the people on welfare today is to get them into the workplace, to teach them the value of work, to give them the sense of pride which so many millions of Americans for the first time are feeling now, to get off the welfare rolls and get them into the workplace where they are doing positive works, where they are getting positive reinforcement for the things that they are accomplishing, where they are learning the ability to get up, get their children off to school or to day care or to a relative and get to work, keep those hours, work hard and come back home and manage their life--those are important life skills. If we put the barrier too high for the States, we are going to limit the number of work spots available for, really, millions of people and, I think, destroy a lot of the tremendous progress that we have made in creating an environment under this welfare reform bill that we passed last year for people to rise out of poverty, to get the kind of experience necessary to get the sense of accomplishment and self-pride that is necessary to rise out of poverty. I am very concerned about that. I hope the administration does not pull the trigger. They are getting immense pressure from the unions to do so because the unions want to protect their piece of the pie when it comes, particularly to the public sector spots that will be filled in some cases by welfare recipients. So, I hope the President does not bow to the unions at the expense of millions of people who want to get out of welfare and who need these work opportunities to be able to do so.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. And the Justice Department, as a result, I assume, of this conversation changed its mind as far as allowing these witnesses to testify under a grant of immunity.

Mr. SANTORUM. What would be the possible reason why someone at a high level of the Justice Department would sign off on a letter which they know would be untrue to basically call into question Chairman Thompson's assertion that the Chinese had some plot to influence American elections?

Mr. SANTORUM. So in the end everyone agreed that the chairman's original statement was correct, and that really the sole voice of dissent was a Justice Department letter which was intended really just to muddy the waters and cast doubt.

Mr. SANTORUM. And apolitical investigation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Wait a minute. The Justice Department said it was OK to give immunity. The only thing we are aware of, that has been talked about, intervening between the Justice Department saying yes to 17 of the 18 monks to be able to come up here and testify and then countermanding that was information then presented to the public that the Vice President had knowledge of what was going on at that event?

Mr. SANTORUM. Did the Justice Department give any other rationale for changing its mind, other than the fact that what we know is the Vice President was implicated in this, directly now implicated, with knowledge of this fundraising scheme at this Buddhist temple?

Mr. SANTORUM. Who knew otherwise, knew that the FBI--part of the Justice Department--had cleared this statement, had signed off on that statement.

Mr. SANTORUM. It is my understanding that in addition to this apparent flip-flop on granting immunity to witnesses to testify before the committee, there was another instance where the Justice Department injected itself into the investigation in an apparent partisan move that showed very clear favoritism. Can you explain how that occurred?