[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8058-S8061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LACK OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

  Mr. SANTORUM. I rise to continue my vigil in pointing out the lack of 
leadership of the President in coming forward and offering a balanced 
budget resolution. I have been in the Chamber noting the days that have 
passed since the Republicans in the Senate brought to the floor a 
balanced budget resolution which lay out a chart, a plan in specific 
detail, of how we would achieve a balanced budget over the next 7 
years. Since that time, the President has played coyly with this issue 
and unfortunately has not come to the table. In fact, he has done a 
whole lot of things that lead many of us to believe we are not so sure 
he is ever going to come to the table.
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have not been in the Chamber before when 
the Senator brought this chart down. I am 51 years old, 51 years old. I 
spent 3 years in the world's largest, most powerful Navy. And I was 
taught, when I was in the Navy, the Commander in Chief, the President 
of the United States, deserved respect, and I never called the 
President of the United States by his first name in public, let alone 
on the floor of the Senate.
  I just ask my colleague, do you feel this is respectful? You can 
disagree with the President, say you have something you do not like 
about what he is doing, but, for God sakes, ``Where is Bill?'' I ask my 
colleague----
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I can reclaim my time, I would suggest to the 
Senator from Nebraska that the reason this chart was put forward really 
is as a response to some of the comments made by the Senator from 
Massachusetts about the previous President. You remember the famous 
statement repeated over and over and over again in the 1992 election, 
``Where is George?'' How many times?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Excuse me. How many times did we hear that refrain 
throughout the course of the election? So I would just----
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a followup 
question on that?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Pennsylvania saying 
essentially then if somebody else does something that he finds 
objectionable, because the other person has done it, therefore it 
establishes a precedent and he does not mind doing it as well? Is the 
Senator from Pennsylvania saying he is following the example of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, that whenever the Senator from 
Massachusetts does something, even though he may object to it, he is 
going to cite it as a precedent? The question that I asked was, does he 
respect the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, 
enough to call him by a name that is worthy of that respect, regardless 
of whether he disagrees? If you want to bring up these opinions, bring 
up these policies, bring up whatever you want to the floor----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to reclaim the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think you will find the dialog that has occurred in 
charting the number of days that the President has refused to offer a 
budget has been very respectful of the President in referring to him as 
the President.
  The point of the chart is apparent.
  I find it ironic that when this was going on by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I do not remember anybody coming to the well, much less 
the Senator from Nebraska coming to the well, defending President Bush 
from those similar attacks. So I think it----
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Depends on whose ox is being gored as to who is 
offended by the remarks. I can appreciate the constructive dialog, but 
I think it is a suitable poster and will continue with it.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a moment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate it very much. The Senator refers to the 
Senator from Massachusetts. My recollection of the dialog ``Where's 
George?'' was that it occurred at a political convention. Is the 
Senator from Pennsylvania equating the floor of the Senate with a 
political convention?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am not equating the floor of the Senate with a 
political convention, no.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend will yield.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I think in American society we refer respectfully to 
our President. I have heard various Presidents referred to by their 
first name on the Senate floor. I do not want to start digging it out. 
We have a friendly society. We refer to our President by first name or 
last name. We have good, healthy debate. I think that this whole 
objection here is nonsense. And I urge----
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I urge the Senator from Pennsylvania to proceed.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the time.
  Mr. KERREY. Parliamentary point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his point.
  Mr. KERREY. I just heard my comment referred to as nonsense. Is that 
correct?
[[Page S8059]]

  Mr. PRESSLER. I did not refer to the Senator's comment as nonsense. I 
just said this whole debate I think----
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I believe you have to look long and hard 
to find a Member who comes here and refers to the President by his 
first name, whether it is President Clinton, President Bush, or 
President Reagan. You have to look long and hard to find it. I 
appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania thinks it is humorous. I do 
not.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time belongs to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. He has done an effective job in 
moving this debate along to a vote at 10:30, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to have this discourse.
  I think it may indicate that there is a sensitivity of the members of 
the President's party about the President's lack of leadership. And I 
understand that sensitivity. I understand that there may be justifiably 
some embarrassment about the lack of leadership by this President and 
jumping into his defense on something other than the substance of what 
we are discussing here.
  We are not discussing substance in this little interplay. We sort of 
got off the track. Let us talk about the substance. The substance is 
that I have to put--I did not get a chance to get to the floor 
yesterday, but I have to put now ``22''--22 days with no proposal to 
balance the budget from the President.
  I will show you the chart I had the other day that was in the 
Washington Times. And again I understand the embarrassment of the other 
side on this issue. I understand they are a little sensitive about this 
because I am sure it is something I would not be proud of if it was my 
President on the Republican side.
  But here is what Michael McCurry in a dialog with the reporter from 
the Washington Times said about the balanced budget amendment and the 
President on Larry King earlier this week suggesting that he may have a 
balanced budget resolution. The question was:

       Where does President Clinton stand on writing his own 
     budget now?

  The answer from the press secretary:

       As he indicated last night in his television interview, 
     he's prepared to contribute his ideas to the budget at the 
     appropriate time.

  Washington Times question:

       What does that mean?

  Michael McCurry, White House Press Secretary:

       It means we're ducking the question for now.

  ``We're ducking the question for now.'' The President of the United 
States, who has the responsibility to lead this Nation, is ducking the 
question for now.
  I understand the embarrassment. I understand the sensitivity that 
many Democrats in this Chamber have about a President who is ducking 
the question, who is ducking the issue, who is refusing to lead, who is 
taking a back seat to all domestic policy in this country as we work 
here in the Congress to get it done and work, as we see in this case, 
on a bipartisan basis to get it done, but again without the leadership 
of the White House. Here we are debating probably one of the most 
important pieces of legislation that we are going to get a chance to 
debate that is going to affect our economy for a long, long time. We 
have very important fiscal matters to be concerned with here in getting 
our budget in order and tax policy and other Government program 
policies like welfare. But when it comes to regulating the private 
sector, this bill is probably as important as ever and the President 
has not been offering his own telecommunications bill, not putting 
forward leadership on that area, basically standing back and sniping, 
saying, well, I do not like this or I do not like that.
  But where is the leadership? Where is the leadership on welfare 
reform as he goes around the country talking about how the Republican 
plan is mean spirited and terrible, and yet he has offered no plan this 
year. The plan he offered last year was cast aside by his own Congress, 
the Democratic Congress, as a joke, as irrelevant, as a nonstarter, as 
not even meeting the straight-faced test of incremental reform.
  And so we have a President on that major issue domestically, who has 
just taken a walk and now this week he trots out the veto pen, on what? 
On reducing the deficit. On reducing the deficit, on a bill that was 
bipartisan, that was signed. This bill was signed on by the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee on the Democratic side as well 
as on the Republican side and passed with over 60 votes in the Senate, 
and he vetoed it.
  I have to quote the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, who came 
to the floor during the debate and said in his tenure on the 
Appropriations Committee, which spans six Presidents--six Presidents--
he has never been in a conference committee where the President of the 
United States did not send a representative to negotiate the conference 
report. Every President has always sent a member of his staff to sit in 
the conference committee when they are drafting the report, to 
negotiate the final deal so we could settle it. The President did not 
send anybody. He said that is the first time in his history on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Now, there is a complete abdication of leadership. And so after an 
honest bipartisan effort was put together in the conference report, 
voila, the President decides it is not good enough for him even though 
he had no input into the process. I think it just goes to show you that 
what we have is a President who has decided to start running for the 
1996 election and forget about serving in the office of the President. 
The whole concept now is just simply to run for office, to run against 
the Congress, not to offer anything, because if you offer anything, 
then you can be held down to specifics and people can criticize you. If 
you just criticize the other side, well, then all you do is pander to 
the different groups that you have to get to get elected.
  And that is what is going on here. There is no substance coming out 
of that White House whether it is telecommunications, whether it is 
welfare, whether it is rescissions, whether it is balancing the budget. 
It is a continuation of, as the majority leader so eloquently said, the 
a.w.o.l. strategy of the President, absence without leadership. I think 
we should demand better.
  And so I have set myself on this mission of coming here. I try to get 
here every day, but sometimes because of the floor schedule and the 
business we have at hand, I have not had a chance to do it every day. 
But I get here just about every day and put up the chart and count. I 
have been informed by my staff that we have, I think it was, 135 days 
between the time----
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is the morning 
business time requested 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). There was no limit placed on the 
morning business.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, so I will probably have to have another 
little doohickey over here so we can put the ``1'' here, because it 
will be 135 days where the President is not going to offer a bill.
  Again, he made comments on the Larry King show earlier this week that 
he was going to come up with a plan. He had talked about a plan that 
was going to balance the budget. This was, I think, day 6. He talked 
about a plan that was going to balance the budget over 10 years. That 
was his mission; that he was going to come up with that.
  I did a little homework and found out that the last plan that was 
around here to balance the budget in 10 years that was offered never 
actually came to the floor of the House, but it was put together. It 
was by the chairman of the Budget Committee at the time. The chairman 
of the Budget Committee at that time was Leon Panetta, now Chief of 
Staff at the White House. But at the time of putting this budget 
together in 1991, he was chairman of the Budget Committee. This was 
after the Bush budget battle of 1990, and he thought it would be 
responsible.
  I give him credit for this, because I was on the Budget Committee at 
the time and worked very closely with then Chairman Panetta. I had the 
utmost respect for him and his ardor in putting forward plans to put 
this country back on sound fiscal footing. I was not always in 
agreement with how he did it, but I know then Chairman Panetta really 
had a strong motivation to deal with these problems, face up and 
[[Page S8060]] to do it in a way that was honest, no gimmicks. This was 
a legitimate attempt by then Chairman Panetta to deal with these 
issues.
  I found it ironic that when he actually put the document together--it 
was in late 1991--he not only did not even bring it up in the Budget 
Committee, but he was roundly criticized by those on his side of the 
aisle, so he pulled it down.
  I must tell you, it was a budget to balance the budget over 10 years. 
There were some interesting points in it. What you find is that, very 
much like the Republican budget that was put forward and passed by the 
Senate and the House, it called for reductions in growth in entitlement 
spending. It called for reductions in growth in Medicare. It called for 
reductions in growth in Medicaid. It called for reductions in growth in 
Federal retirement programs. If you go on down the list on what the 
Republicans are now being roundly criticized for, the Panetta budget in 
1991 was very similar in respect, maybe not to degree, but certainly 
similar in the programs that it went after, the recognition of where 
the problem was, and focused on entitlements as the biggest area for 
resolution of that problem.
  The other interesting thing is that only two-thirds of the deficit 
reduction was achieved as a result of spending reductions. Two-thirds 
were achieved through spending reductions. The other one-third of 
deficit reduction was achieved through a tax increase. A little over 
$400 billion in new taxes, not specified, but new taxes that were going 
to be placed on the American public.
  Maybe it goes back to the reason why the President has been so shy 
about offering this or bringing to light this 10-year budget. I am of 
the opinion that maybe what the Chief of Staff of the White House did 
was rummage through some of his old budget files when he was Budget 
chairman or have someone dig up his 1991 proposed budget and offered 
that to the President: ``See, Mr. President, we can do it.''
  I know again how concerned the Chief of Staff is about the budget 
deficit and how honest he was in dealing with that. I believe he has 
been a voice in the White House saying, ``Let's be responsible. Let's 
go out and show how we are going to do it, and let's bite the bullet 
like the Republicans have in the Congress, and lead this country into 
the future. Mr. President, here was my plan to get there. You should 
look at it.''
  So what the President probably did was read it and probably voiced he 
has a plan he is looking at, a 10-year plan, to balance the budget. But 
it, unfortunately, contains another big tax increase. This tax increase 
would actually pale by comparison to what the President and the last 
Congress passed in 1993. This was, as I said before, close to $\1/2\ 
trillion dollars in new taxes on the American public to solve this 
problem.
  I think if you looked at the debate during consideration of the 
budget resolution, there certainly was not a fervor to go out and raise 
taxes. I know there were a couple of Members who voiced that concern, 
but frankly, that sentiment was roundly dismissed by both sides of the 
aisle as something that was not only not in the public's interest but 
certainly not in the interest of the economy.
  If we look now at what is going on with the economy and the effect of 
the 1993 tax increase on the economy and the fact that we had the 
largest ever payment of taxes in April, the largest amount of money 
ever written to the Internal Revenue Service at tax time was this last 
April where they sent an enormous amount of money--I think the number 
is around $20 billion in tax payments paid over what the previous 
record was--some economists are suggesting that is one of the reasons 
we may be seeing the slowdown now, because that tax time and that tax 
increase drew so much money out of the economy that it had the 
dampening effect of reducing the rate of growth and possibly even 
spinning us into a recession.
  So I think everyone realizes that tax increases are not the way to 
deal with the budget deficit. I think we saw from the debate just a few 
weeks ago--I do not remember an amendment that called for a tax 
increase--that in fact suggested we should solve the problem by 
instituting new taxes.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. EXON. My question of the Senator from Pennsylvania is simply that 
we have, as I understand it, very important business to transact. Can 
the Senator advise me as to how long he intends to hold the floor on 
the matter that we have heard from him on several occasions?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I expect I will be talking for a few more minutes. I 
know the leader would like to get a vote and is seeking a unanimous 
consent agreement to get a vote on a----
  Mr. EXON. If I might, I simply advise my colleague, as I understand 
it, the Republicans have a golf game this afternoon. I am sure that is 
a high-priority item. But this measure before us, which I would like to 
get to, is a very important piece of legislation for America.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I do not know anything about that. I have some very 
pressing business of my own which, hopefully, can wait. My wife is 
expecting our third child, and we are hoping that will come tomorrow. 
We are very anxious about that. Things are looking good. I would like 
to be home tomorrow. But if Senate business calls, Senate business 
calls, and I will be here if I need be.
  I know what we would like to do is proceed on some of these 
amendments. I have these notes passed to me saying no one wants to 
agree to vote on anything; we want to stall and delay.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend will yield, I think what is going on, 
Senator Dole is trying to get an agreement for a vote at 10:30 and has 
been unable to do so. But I say respectfully to everybody, when I was a 
lieutenant in the Army--a mere second lieutenant--LBJ was referred to 
affectionately, at least by my superiors, as ``LBJ.''
  Also on this floor I heard the term ``Reaganomics'' used a great deal 
back at the point when it was thought not to be popular. I am very 
respectful, as I am sure my friend is, of the President of the United 
States.
  Let me say, whether it is Ike, FDR, LBJ, Reaganomics, Bush-whack--I 
have heard all these terms around the Senate over the years. I just 
want to point that out because I am very respectful, as I am sure the 
Senator from Pennsylvania is.
  Military service was mentioned. When I was a second lieutenant, we 
used to affectionately and supportively refer to LBJ as LBJ. Maybe we 
need a new form of rules because past Presidents have been referred to 
in a variety of ways on the Senate floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for an explanation? I say to my 
colleague----
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will not yield.
  Mr. KERREY. The Senator brings an amendment to the floor and then 
stands up for a discussion. It should not be a surprise the amendment 
is being delayed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I will quickly wrap up my 
remarks, and, hopefully, we can move to the vote soon.
  In response to some of the comments, I know this amendment was made 
available last night, and it is really a minor, technical amendment. I 
hope that is something we can agree to down the road.
  I think it is important. I understand telecommunications is 
important, and if we can get agreements, we can move forward on it.
 But this is also important. The role of the President in this country 
over the next 18 months, and whether he is going to be a leader of this 
country in moving forward on the domestic agenda, whether it is 
telecommunications or balanced budget or welfare reform, or a whole 
host of other areas, is important.

  The Presidency--an office I respect--is important to this country. In 
fact, that is the reason I am here, because I think it is important. I 
think it is necessary for the President to step forward and offer 
suggestions, to lead the [[Page S8061]] country. If I did not think it 
was important, if I did not think the President had a role, if I did 
not think the President was in fact the leader of the free world, then 
I probably would not be here. He would be like any other American who 
did not have to participate in the process.
  Well, he was elected to participate in the process; he was elected to 
lead this country; he was elected to change this country. What he has 
done is elected not to participate. I think we need to point that out. 
We need to continue to point that out until he elects to participate.
  So I will be back and I will talk about the number of days with no 
proposal to balance the budget from President Clinton.

                          ____________________