[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17087-S17088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE FACTS

  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. President, sitting here I was planning on what I was going to 
say, and talk about how we were going to balance the budget over the 
next 7 years. It is very difficult to sit here and listen to some of 
the inaccuracies that were being put forward on the floor. It is 
amazing to me. We should have a debate that talks about what the facts 
really are.
  The Senator from Arkansas said 15 million children are not going to 
benefit as a result of the child tax credit. What he did not tell you 
is those 15 million children have parents who pay no income tax. In 
fact, the majority of those--first, for all of those 15 million 
children, their parents receive an earned-income tax credit, most of 
which is not to pay them for the income tax they pay. They paid no 
income taxes. But it is to pay them for their Social Security taxes 
that they pay. And in the majority of cases it is to give them money 
beyond even their Social Security taxes. So, to suggest we should then 
give them an additional $500, it is how much welfare you want to 
provide?
  What we have done is, people who earned the earned-income tax credit 
and who pay no taxes, they are going to be at least as well off, if not 
better off than what they would be under current law. Those who do pay 
taxes will get a $500 tax credit, or a portion thereof, depending how 
much they pay in taxes. If they only pay $300 in taxes they will get a 
$300 tax credit.
  Again, I guess it is statistics. There are lies, damned lies, and 
statistics. There is a statistic that, if you listen, on the face you 
would say, ``Boy, this is not fair. We are not helping out the poor 
folks here in this country who need help.''
  Wrong. We have the earned-income tax credit that does just that. This 
is for families who pay taxes. That is what the tax credit is for, for 
families who pay taxes. I just wanted to set the record straight on 
that.
  I would like to step back and take a look at where we are right now. 
Where are we? The Government is shut down. What does that mean? That 
means all nonessential personnel are not showing up for work and have 
not been showing up for work. I found it somewhat remarkable that 99 
percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development are 
nonessential. That makes you think about what they do over at the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, that 99 percent of them 
are not essential. Mr. President, 89 percent of the Department of 
Education are not essential and 67 percent of the Department of 
Commerce are not essential.
  One has to stop here and think. If all this is so important, how can 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, almost everybody 
there--the only reason it is not 100 percent at HUD is because 
political appointments are deemed essential. Other than that, I guess 
everybody at HUD could go home.
  This is where we are. Government is shut down. Why? I can tell you in 
a word why. It is because the President of the United States has 
refused to come to the table and negotiate on how to balance the 
budget. That is what this all about, all this clamor, Medicare this and 
that. The Senator from Wyoming was completely eloquent on the 
demagoguery that is going on with the Medicare part B premiums. But the 
bottom line is the reason Republicans and Democrats have not sat down 
at a conference to get a balanced budget resolution to the floor is 
just that the President of the United States has simply refused to 
participate in those discussions.

  No one on the other side of the aisle has offered any kind of hope 
that they are willing to participate themselves in 

[[Page S17088]]
this discussion to get to a balanced budget. Oh, you hear that I am for 
a balanced budget. Everybody is for a balanced budget. But wishing does 
not make it so. You have to make decisions. You have to come to a 
conclusion on how we are going to do it.
  All we are trying to get from the President right now in a CR, which 
is the spending bill that we are going to be considering probably later 
tonight, is a commitment from the President that he will agree in the 
next few days to sit down and negotiate a balanced budget over the next 
7 years using real numbers--not phony, rosy scenario numbers, not 
gimmicks, not smoke and mirrors, but the real thing, the thing he said 
he was going to use. That is what we said we wanted. That is not much.
  That is exactly what the Senator from Arkansas said he is for. He is 
for a balanced budget. Let us get a balanced budget. Let us do what we 
promised the American public. Let us do what President--then 
candidate--Clinton promised the American public, that he had a plan to 
balance the budget in 5 years. Three years have gone by--no balanced 
budget. And how about 10 years? That is what it has been since the 
President said he could do it in five. That is all we are asking. That 
is where we are. I know there is a lot of confusion out there.
  The Senator from Arkansas is correct. The people are being scared to 
death out there. If I listened to the Senator from Arkansas very long, 
I would be scared too. You would think everything is going to collapse 
around here. Well, the fact of the matter is that most of America has 
gone on pretty well the last couple of days. Life is OK. And we have a 
serious problem. Those of us who are here trying to solve that problem 
believe it is important to stand our ground and to do what is right--
which is a balanced budget. That is not to say that we should not 
compromise. We should. We should sit down and discuss a balanced budget 
over the next 7 years. We will sit down with the President. We will 
assess his priorities. He will assess ours. But we need to do that. We 
need to sit down and start negotiating on how we are going to get 
there.
  My goodness, we owe it. I have three young children, a 4-year-old, a 
little boy who is going to turn 3 this weekend, and a 5-month-old 
little boy. I cannot go home every night and look at them. I just 
cannot go home and look at them and say, ``Well, we are going to 
continue to spend more money. You are going to have to work more hours 
with probably less take-home pay than people are making today and have 
less opportunity, less chance for advancement, because I just could not 
make tough decisions because I was afraid that someone was going to 
vote against me or the polls said, you know, people do not like what we 
are doing. I am sorry. If anybody in this country who has listened to 
this can look at their children or grandchildren and say that extra $5 
a month means your future, that is just that important to me, I do not 
think anyone can do it.

  This is a historic time in our country. I had a gentleman who saw me 
outside on the way in. He has been sitting up in the galleries biting 
his tongue for the last 3 days listening to all of this. He suggested 
in a letter that he gave me that we should do what the Founding Fathers 
did in Philadelphia when they were working on the U.S. Constitution, 
that we should take a day off, sit and ask God to help us and 
intervene, and we should pray about it, and we should have a 
reconciliation. Maybe that is a good idea. Maybe we should get rid of 
all this rhetoric around here--all of these charges and 
countercharges--and think about what this country was founded upon. 
Think about how important this great experiment is to the world, and 
how all of this politics--that is what it is, folks; this is just all 
politics being played--how all this just is not necessary.
  We are not that far apart. I mean, we really are not. It is amazing, 
if anybody--I do not know if any of the news publications have done 
this--would take a look at where the President wants to go, at least 
his public statement, and where we want to go. The Senator from Wyoming 
said we are seven-tenths of 1 percent away on Medicare spending. I 
mean, that is a few billion dollars a year out of a program that is a 
$250 billion program. You do not think we can come together on 
something? Of course we can.
  Welfare reform--I have been working on welfare reform for 3 years on 
this bill. We have a bill in conference that is very similar to the 
Senate bill, one that the Senate passed 87 to 12, and one that the 
President said he would sign. That is going to be in the reconciliation 
bill. It is something he should sign. We are not far apart. There may 
be a few minor differences in welfare, but not substantial. It has 
everything the President campaigned on. It is in that bill. Tax cuts--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator from 
Pennsylvania----
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will take 45 additional seconds.
  We are close together on tax cuts. He says he wants a tax cut for 
middle-income families. I talked before. We say EITC increases for next 
year and the year after. That is included in our budget, with the 
exception of families that do not have children. But if you have a 
child, you are going to get those increases.
  We have a middle-income tax. Ninety percent of our tax cut goes to 
people under $100,000.
  I think my friend from Wyoming may have a good idea. We ought to 
start thinking about what our calling is here and the great experiment 
that we have in this country, and can the politics. Let us get down to 
the substance, because on the substance we agree. We are not far apart, 
and we hope we agree that balancing the budget is the best thing for 
this country.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand that I have 7 minutes. I ask 
unanimous-consent that I be granted 3 additional minutes and 3 
additional minutes on that side as well.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. That just shows you 
the kind of cooperative spirit we have when the Senator from California 
asks for 3 additional minutes and that the unanimous-consent request 
asks for an additional 3 minutes for the other side. That that would be 
objected to is extraordinary.
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. On your time. I only have 7 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. We were informed that an agreement was made with the 
leaders, the majority and minority leaders, that an hour of time would 
be allocated, 30 minutes to each side, and that Senator Dole would then 
recess.
  May I suggest that the Senator from California take her 7 minutes. We 
will check to see if that can be extended, and perhaps additional time 
can be added on, an equal amount on each side, while she is speaking.
  (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend very much because I do not think 6 
minutes in a day like today is going to make or break the U.S. Senate. 
That is why I asked equally for each side.
  Mr. COATS. It may not. But since there was an agreement between the 
leaders, we have to check with them.
  Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely have no problem with that at all. I thank 
the Senator very much.

                          ____________________