Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, after listening to some of the debate on amendments that are being offered and having the opportunity to come to the floor and defend what we did last year on the welfare reform bill, you would think by all of the amendments that are being discussed and by all of the gnashing of teeth that is going on here in the U.S. Senate today, that we have a welfare reform bill--the bill that passed this Congress last session and implemented by the States' 50 Governors--that we are having an abject failure; that horrible things are happening out there in the area of welfare that we have to now come back and save all of these people. I hate to disappoint anybody's party here. But the fact of the matter is that things are not all that bad. In fact, things are doing very, very well in the area of welfare. I will point to a couple of things as illustrations. First, I have not seen one major newspaper write one bad article or editorial on the devastating effects of welfare reform passed by the last Congress. I assure you that if there were any devastating stories to be told, they would be telling them because of all these papers that were against the welfare reform bill that went through. The fact that we have not heard of horror stories and that we have not heard any gnashing of teeth from the media about what is going on is certainly a positive sign that things are actually going well. I might also add that none of the press has come and said, ``Gee, we were wrong.'' Welfare in Wisconsin--50 percent of the people have been dropped off the rolls, and are working. Across the country the average is 20 percent of welfare rolls have been reduced, and people are working--in case after case after case. I spend at least one visit a week when I am back in the State of Pennsylvania going in and talking to people in education and training programs, homeless shelters--you name it--talking to the people who are intersecting with the welfare programs. And almost unanimously what I have gotten as feedback is, ``This program is a program I wish you had passed earlier. I wouldn't be here today working. I wouldn't be here today getting the education and training I need, succeeding, and feeling better about myself had this bill not passed.'' We have an unmitigated success in welfare. We threw the ball up in the air. The Governors of the 50 States jumped. They caught it, and they are running with the ball. They are doing positive things for the poor and for the disadvantaged all across America. I just think that we need to take some time here today in the midst of all of these amendments that says all of these people are being hurt. The fact of the matter is a vast majority are being helped tremendously by what went on in welfare reform. I hope Members--frankly, those who supported welfare reform and those who did not--I hope that they will come to the floor and say, ``Look, this program is working.'' From any objective criteria, people are working; people are going in and getting education and training that they never would have had before because, frankly, they needed that little shove. We are giving it to them. We are supplying them, and the Governors, with the child care that they need. We have a lot of work to continue to do on that front and on some other fronts in the area of Medicare and other kinds of health coverage. But the Governors are working on that. They are taking this responsibility that we have given them--this flexibility that we have given them--very seriously and are doing a terrific job. So I just want to set the record straight here on a day that might otherwise be seen as a day where welfare reform came under attack here in the U.S. Senate. What we are seeing in reality outside of Washington DC, outside of the Senate Chamber, where we continue to think of the welfare of the past and look to the future--go out there in those communities and find out the success stories, the wonderful, heartfelt stories of people who needed this piece of legislation and who needed this change in the welfare culture. I think probably the most dramatic thing that I heard from someone who is not on welfare but someone who worked in the system is from two people who had been in the welfare casework role for 25 years in New Castle, PA. They came to me and said, ``I can't thank you enough for changing the law to let me do what I wanted to do 25 years ago but never had the chance''--that is, help people get off welfare, help people actually use their ability and get the respect for themselves instead of just passing out checks and creating dependency. The person was actually thanking me, almost in tears, thanking us for giving him the opportunity to do what 30 years of welfare policy wouldn't let him do--that is, get people off of welfare, give them the incentive and the tools to make it off the dependency of the Government instead of ensuring that they would never leave by creating a meal ticket forever on welfare. So I just want to reiterate one last time that anyone in this Chamber who believes that welfare reform is in bad shape and we need to go and rewrite the welfare bill because of all the terrible things that are going on out there, I suggest you go out there and you talk to the Nation's Governors, you talk to the people who are working in the system, you talk to the people who are going through the system, and you will hear a very different story than what you are hearing here today in the Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, and I commend her for her diligent work in fighting fraud in the Food Stamp Program. I would also like to thank her for working with me to address a concern of mine with regard to food stamp nutrition education. For 2 years, the Reading Terminal Farmers' Market trust participated in a partnership with the USDA to develop a community-based nutrition education program in Philadelphia. Using a Federal share to match private grants from the Knight, Pew and Kellogg Foundations, the trust established the Philadelphia nutrition education network to integrate nutrition education into ongoing food distribution and health programs. The Philadelphia School District, Allegheny University of Health Sciences, WIC, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and others were engaged as partners in the network, which reached over 17,000 children and adults in 1996. By all accounts, this program was a success; and last summer, when the one-time cooperative agreement with USDA expired, the trust sought to continue their important work under the existing food stamp nutrition education program. In June 1996, the trust submitted a food stamp nutrition education plan requesting matching funds for a nutrition education plan in four low-income communities and at the Reading Terminal Market. Unfortunately, USDA regulations only permit a Federal match for local or State government funding. Since the Reading Terminal Farmers' Market Trust relies upon private contributions to fund their programs, USDA determined that they were not eligible to participate in the food stamp nutrition education program. Since last summer, my office has been working with Reading Terminal Farmers' Market Trust to find a way for this program to continue. It is my understanding that nutrition education programs in Vermont and New York City have encountered similar problems with USDA matching funds. I have worked with Chairman Lugar of the Agriculture Committee and Senator Leahy to craft an amendment that will address these problems, and I am grateful to the Senator from Texas for including this language as section 2 of her amendment. The language in this amendment will enable nonprofits and State agencies to receive grants in order to operate nutrition education programs that are coordinated among a broad range of food distribution and social service providers. In order to reach the maximum amount of eligible individuals and to leverage private funds for this endeavour, private donations will be made eligible to match the Federal grant. The amendment provides $600,000 for grants for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, and no individual grant may exceed $200,000. This provision has the support of Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and Senator Leahy.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I go around and I have talked to hundreds of high school students, thousands of them. I have been to over 100 high schools since I have been in office. I ask them, how many believe Medicare and Social Security will be here when you retire? Not a hand goes up. I ask them, how many believe in UFOs? And about 20 percent of the class raise their hand. They believe we are all just joking around, that any time a serious issue comes up about their long-term future, we run away. We hide behind our desk and wait for the bombs to explode around us. Stand up for the future. Stand up for these young people who pay and are going to be paying the rest of their lives very dearly for this program, and stand up and make sure it is healthy for them. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we have all now just seen and heard why it is so hard to change anything in Washington. Because anything you try to do is wrong. You can look at all the facts. And the Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska and Texas and New Mexico and Delaware laid out chart after chart. For anyone listening to this debate, the facts stare you smack in the face. This fund runs out of money in the year 2001 with the baby boomers retiring in the year 2010. This program is not sustainable in its current form. Everybody who can read a simple arithmetic chart can understand that. Yet, you have everybody flying to the floor saying, oh, yes, it is a problem, but not this. Well, then, what? We are going to raise taxes? How many are for raising taxes? There will be a few over there who want to raise taxes. But that is the option: Raise taxes. The Senator from Massachusetts talked about rationing care. It is those people who use all that Medicare who are the problem. And unless we start rationing that care, we are not going to get to the problem here. So we can ration care to people who are over 65. That is another option. Or we can cut reimbursements to providers. The Senator from Louisiana talked about that. But if we do that, all of us know if you cut reimbursements to providers, people cannot get care because they cannot afford to provide the care and rural hospitals close, inner-city hospitals close. So you cannot take that option. We can cut benefits. How many here are for cutting back Medicare benefits? OK. Well, so there we are. What are we going to do? We have a problem. It is not going to go away. We can sit here and demagog on the issue and say, well, this is not the right thing. The only reasonable course is to look at the demographics and see that I, right here, am the first Member of the Senate who is going to retire at age 65--right here, age 39, born in 1958. I will retire at the age of 67. I am ready, willing, and able to take on that responsibility. I feel I have been adequately warned, giving myself about 30 years in advance to be able to figure this out. And I think we are capable of taking it. I am not going to live as my mother and my father and those before me, whose life expectancies were, as I think the Senator from Nebraska said, 73 for a female, 68 for a male. At age 65, my life expectancy, the Lord willing, as a group anyway, is going to be well over 80. I am quite willing and prepared as a generation to save my generation, the folks who are paying the bills, big-time bills that previous generations did not pay. We are paying 1.45 percent of every single dollar we earn. And I would like to say for that dollar you are going to have a program that is going to be there and provide adequate benefits when you retire, and, yes, I am willing to take a little sacrifice. I am willing to pay a little bit more, but I am also willing to take my share of sacrifice to make sure that it is there for not just me but for everyone else in my generation and future generations. What we are talking about here is being responsible, not standing up and demagoging to get votes back home. We have got a problem. There are people in my generation who are tired of this language.

Mr. SANTORUM. No.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation bill before us presents a historic opportunity to balance the budget, provide long overdue tax relief for families and ensure that important programs such as Medicare will be here for the next generation of Americans. I intend to support this legislation, but first, I would like to make a few comments about the Medicare provisions. We all know that Medicare is in serious trouble. For 2\1/2\ years, we have been hearing that Medicare is going bankrupt. Today, we have an opportunity to do something to put Medicare back on the path to solvency. This bill calls for reasonable structural reforms of the Medicare program. It extends Medicare's solvency and promotes more choices for seniors--much like Members of Congress enjoy under the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan. If we truly care about Medicare--if we really mean it when we say that Medicare must be here for our children and grandchildren, then it's not enough to just talk about saving the program. We need to take action. And yes, we need to ask the baby boomers and today's young people--who I might add are already paying for a program which will not benefit them if we continue the status quo--to accept some structural changes that are absolutely necessary to protect and preserve this program. I commend those who have had the courage to come to the floor and explain these reforms in spite of what the special interest groups say. On behalf of the next generation, I thank my colleagues who are constructively working to solve Medicare's problems before it is too late. Mr. President, reforming Medicare is not just about saving money. It is also about improving seniors' choices in health plans and treatment options. One way to achieve these goals is by allowing Medicare reimbursements for orally administered anti-cancer drugs which cannot be produced in intravenous form (I.V.). Unfortunately, this change was not included in the bill before us. After considering that orally administered anti-cancer drugs would simultaneously enhance the quality of life for cancer patients and save a significant amount of money, I hope the conferees will include this proposal in the final reconciliation bill. Medicare's current policy with respect to coverage of anti-cancer drugs is outdated. Medicare pays for injectable and intravenous anti- cancer drugs. Several years ago, Medicare law was amended to also allow coverage for oral anti-cancer drugs, but only if they are available in intravenous form. This policy recognized that if a drug comes in both an oral and an I.V. form, it makes sense to provide coverage for the cheaper oral version instead of requiring patients to take the much more expensive and often more toxic I.V. version. Since then, researchers have developed oral anti-cancer drugs that are just as effective, easier to administer, and have fewer side effects, but are not--and cannot be--produced in I.V. form. Because they have no intravenous formulation, Medicare does not cover them. Efficacy, safety, and quality of life should be the primary factors when a patient and physician select the appropriate cancer treatment. Unfortunately, current Medicare policy forces many patients to make reimbursement the overriding factor. As a result, the patient is subjected to procedures which are more invasive, more expensive, and often less appropriate simply because Medicare will pay for it. At the same time, Medicare absorbs tens of thousands more in extra costs. For example, the cost of intravenous treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer ranges from $20,000 to $42,000 per patient per treatment course. At the same time, the oral therapeutic alternative--which does not come in I.V. form--costs just $3,300. If Medicare covered the oral alternative, the program could save between $17,000 and $39,000 per ovarian cancer patient, and the patient could enjoy a potentially better outcome and quality of life. Wealthy seniors can pay for the oral drug out-of- pocket if that is their preference, but most seniors do not have that luxury. Once again, I want to emphasize that when we talk about Medicare reform, we are not just talking about saving money. We also want to create incentives for individuals to seek the most appropriate care. Changing Medicare law to allow coverage of oral anti-cancer drugs meets both tests. I urge my colleagues to incorporate this change in conference. The Health Care Financing Administration supports it. Cancer patients deserve it. Medicare would save money because of it. There is no reason not to do it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM. One additional minute? May have 1 additional minute?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 58, H.R. 1306.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes have an amendment at the desk, and Senator Feingold has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for their consideration en bloc.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will not be in session on Friday of this week. The Senate will reconvene on Monday, and following the morning business period, the Senate will begin consideration of the State Department authorization. Senators who intend to offer amendments to that legislation should be prepared to be present on Monday to offer and debate their amendments. Any rollcall votes ordered on any proposed amendment will not occur on Monday, but instead stacked to occur on Tuesday, at a time to be determined by the two leaders. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to finish the State Department authorization bill early next week and the Senate may then begin consideration of the defense authorization bill, if available.

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 11 a.m., on Monday, June 16. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then be in a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Coverdell, or his designee, for 30 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Leahy, 30 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following morning business on Monday, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the State Department authorization.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 128, 129, 130, and 131. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nominations be placed at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the joint resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 64, House Joint Resolution 32.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of the following Calendar numbers on today's Legislative Calendar: Calendar Nos. 67 through 73. I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of the bills be placed at the appropriate place in Record, with the preceding all done en bloc.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator Akaka has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 64, S. 210.