Yes. And the reason we lock in--reclaiming my time--the reason we lock in the number is because, as the Senator from Louisiana knows, if we did not block grant this program and did not reform this system and allowed what happened, for example, under the Daschle amendment, to occur, AFDC would continue to grow. In fact, the Federal commitment would be even greater in 5 to 7 years. So the fact we lock it in now, many would say, because of inflation, is ``a cut.'' We are in fact locking in. In fact, I think one of the biggest criticisms I have heard from the other side of the aisle is that what we are in fact locking in, that is not generous enough. We need to give more. In fact, we had an amendment there today to put in $7 billion more. We had an amendment from the Senator from Connecticut to put in $6 billion more for children. There is a barrage, and I assume it will continue, of amendments from your side of the aisle to say we should be spending more. We are going to try to strike a balance.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of block granting welfare programs during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Rick Santorum
I think this puts Republican, particularly two senators in Georgia in a very tough bind to have a president, you know, having voted for the National Defense Authorization Act now, having to decide whether they're going to buck the…
I mean, it's pretty clear to everybody that the President is not going to win this election and that nothing is going to happen on January 6th to overturn it.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has to, you know, take the role that they're there, which is not the leader of the free world, but to actually facilitate information for the public so they can make good decisions.
You can't go wandering into these forums without being prepared as to what the tough questions that you're going to get, and have a good response, one that's that needs to be made, which is condemning crazy things that are crazy.





