Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Two things. First, the Senator is right, Westinghouse is owned by an entity owned by the British Government. As you probably also know, there have been widely spread reports that they are selling that division, they are selling Westinghouse. So probably by the time this deal goes through, it will not be owned by the British Government and will be--by the way, I don't have anything against the British Government. They have been great allies and I don't want to suggest somehow that I am speaking ill of that entity. All I am suggesting is Westinghouse is clearly, according to news reports, going to be spun off and sold and maybe recapitalize itself as an American company. Nevertheless, the jobs are here. The benefit is here. With respect to Mitsubishi, if it is your test then to suggest that any project being built has to be built with all-American steel, all-American concrete, all-American--obviously, in a global economy that is not going to happen, particularly if you are building a product in China.

Mr. SANTORUM. In one second. So I would suggest, yes, there will be lots of corporations around the world that are part of this deal to build this reactor that would benefit from this, just as probably you could make the argument--and I don't want to make it for you, but I will make it for you--there may be an American company that benefits from the French building this reactor but certainly not to the extent if Westinghouse builds it.

Mr. SANTORUM. Well, again, Westinghouse is a company based in the United States. As you know, we have multinational companies that are headquartered all around the world. But the bottom line is Westinghouse is a U.S. company, it pays U.S. taxes, it has a U.S. payroll, and that is where the AP1000 is being built. The AP1000 is something that was designed--I went and saw it in Pittsburgh, PA. These are the folks who have the technology. These are the folks who are going to be building and constructing this plant. I am sure there may be some profit. Obviously, I am sure they would not be bidding if they didn't think there was profit. But the profit is in this U.S.-based subsidiary. And so I would suggest that the overwhelming benefit is coming to the United States, not to the British holding company. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I just need a minute and then I am done.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. My staff has been checking this. We cannot figure out where the Senator is coming up with the $50 million to $100 million figure, since the Ex-Im Bank has not decided how they are going to structure the transaction yet.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask this question. You are aware that there is an exposure fee that is paid by the company to the Ex-Im Bank, which is calculated to cover the credit risk of the transaction, so the credit cost to the taxpayer would be zeroed out through this exposure.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am asking a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is about reducing the trade deficit with China, about creating American jobs, and about creating high-tech, high-quality, good-paying jobs in America, to build something that we cannot export to China, something that we cannot build here and send to China, something that China desperately needs. As the Senator from California said, it will reduce emissions in China. The reason we will get this contract is because we have the best technology. AP-1000 is the best technology. They are not going to buy the best technology if we are uncompetitive in the financing and because of the subsidies of the French and Russian Governments. We are trying to put up the best technology, developed with the best know-how, which is what the Senator from Oklahoma said we should be doing, but we cannot compete on an uneven playing field. This will even up the playing field. It costs nothing to the taxpayers. There is an exposure fee covering the credit risk. In all likelihood, there will be a guarantee. If anybody believes the Chinese Government will not come through on their guarantee, I have a bridge to sell you. Thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment that is at the desk, the Santorum-Craig-Hutchison-Kyl amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is the amendment that was just referred to by my colleague from West Virginia. It is an amendment that takes the level of funding in the underlying amendment up to $1.5 billion and has that money spread to where the need is the greatest with respect to the problems and the shortages within the Veterans' Administration. It leaves the Secretary the ability to make that decision. We think that is vitally important, when there is a shortfall, that the money goes to where it is most needed. I would say that I do this on behalf of the Senate Republican leadership. All of us in our meetings this week have been quite dismayed by what was apparently bad management, bad forecasting over in the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as the problems of communicating that information accurately to the Congress. So as a member of leadership, we wanted to offer this amendment, in I think very strong terms, to show our concern about the lack of communication, about the problems that were going on in the Veterans' Administration in the health care area. It is vitally important, particularly at a time of war, when we have a lot of our men and women who have been injured in that war moving over from the Department of Defense health care facilities to the Veterans' Administration health care facilities, that we get accurate information as to what the impact of that is and that we can budget for it accordingly. In fact, in April of this year, as the Senator from West Virginia just alluded to, many of us on this side of the aisle voted against an amendment by Senator Murray because of the understanding and assurances by the Veterans' Administration that there was sufficient funding to provide for veterans health care. We were in error. Senator Murray was right. And I am not happy that we were put in a position to vote against an amendment that, as we now find out, was needed. But we got bad information. So this is an attempt to rectify that situation. Let's hope it does not happen again. It cannot happen again. I hope the fact that members of the Republican leadership are on this amendment, as well as the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Senator Hutchison, on the Appropriations Committee, sends a very loud and clear message to the administration that we like straight dealing when it comes to the issues of providing quality health care to our Nation's veterans. I congratulate our colleagues over in the House and the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee over there, Congressman Buyer, for his work in digging and getting some of this information to the fore. I was at a VFW State convention a couple weeks ago, on June 17, and was asked some pretty pointed questions about veterans health care and was told that there were real problems in our State of shortages and the shifting of moneys. And so that was a Friday. The following Monday is when this hearing occurred--on June 20. Subsequently, as a result of the input I was getting from veterans in that hearing, I sent a letter to Secretary Nicholson last week expressing my, shall I say, deep concern about this and about this shortfall of funding and about the lack of candor on the part of the administration in telling us what was going on with the funding of our veterans facilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter dated June 24, 2005 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is, in a sense, the identical vote we just cast. This is the Murray amendment, as amended by the Santorum- Hutchison-Craig amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I again thank the Senator from Washington. As we said during the debate, she was right and we got bad information. The Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Texas, as well as cooperation on the other side of the aisle, have gotten to the bottom of this. We have a lot more work to do. This is a good first step, and I encourage an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that is responsible for the veterans appropriations, Senator Hutchison, such time as she may consume.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will yield time to the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I thank Senator Hutchison, whose principal responsibility is the appropriations process. I thank her and her staff tremendously for the work they have done. I thank Senator Craig and his staff for the tremendous work they have done, in coming forward and digging and getting the proper language for this amendment so we can provide funding for this year and for next year, as it is needed, to make sure we are providing the quality care our veterans deserve. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I believe we are out of speakers, and we are prepared to yield back time. So I would yield to the Senator from Nevada, who I guess will wrap up debate, and then we can move on.

Mr. SANTORUM. I expressed in this letter that I was disappointed the Department was not forthcoming, and I was hopeful they would come forward and let us know what was necessary, how much money was needed, so we could then respond. And as I mentioned in the letter, I was confident the Senate and the House would respond. I think what you are seeing here today is my prognostication is correct. We are going to respond, and we are going to respond with the money they say they need. Now, I would suggest that if you look at the analysis that Senator Byrd provided for us as to where this money is coming from, some of it was unanticipated and, potentially, you could argue was something that could not have been forecasted or budgeted with the number of people who are transferred from the Defense Department over to the VA as a result of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a lot of this was simply just poor administration and not accurately forecasting the utilization of the system. I think we have to do a better job of understanding what the needs are, what the demands are and have a better understanding of what the budget should be and accurately reflect that budget in submissions to the Congress. So I know the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the Senate, Senator Craig, has had those kinds of candid conversations with the Secretary. I know all of us look forward to working cooperatively with the new Secretary in making sure we can get the information we need to be able to properly provide for the health care needs of the veterans whom we have promised to serve. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining in putting this amendment forward. I thank the Senator from Washington for her work and for her diligence and early work in this area. I am glad we were able to work together. Hopefully, we will work in a bipartisan way not just to provide these resources but to make sure we get a better and more accurate accounting of the cost of providing the care that our veterans need here in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding manifestations of anti- Semitism by United Nations member states and to urge action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the U.S. government. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Smith, Collins, Coleman, and Voinovich, who are original cosponsors of this legislation. The past several years have revealed an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence around the world. We have seen incidences of it in Europe, the Middle East, and, unfortunately, even at the United Nations. While the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that ``the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,'' there are numerous examples of anti-Semitism and anti- Israel actions at the U.N. and by member states. Allow me to list some examples of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias that have been included in the resolution. Clearly false accusations have been made against the Jewish people and the government of Israel at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. These lies were not corrected for months or, in some cases, ever. Israel also continues to be denied the opportunity to hold a rotating seat on the Security Council, despite the fact that it has been a member of the organization for 56 years. It is the only member of the U.N. to be denied this seat. It continues to be denied the opportunity to serve as a member of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The goals of the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism were undermined by anti- Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel agendas, which led to both the U.S. and Israel withdrawing their delegations from the conference. The resolution being submitted today delineates these examples of anti-Semitism, but it also welcomes the steps the U.N. has recently taken to address this problem and urges additional steps to be taken. In 2004, the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan acknowledged at the first U.N.-sponsored conference on anti-Semitism that, ``It is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. This time the world must not--cannot--be silent.'' In 2004, a committee of the U.N. also adopted a resolution that condemned anti-Semitism and recognized the rise in incidences of intolerance and violence. Upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camps in 2005, the U.N. held an unprecedented session to commemorate the occasion. However, the United Nations and its member states must go further in combating this menace. The resolution makes it clear that the United States Senate is committed to opposing anti-Semitism and calls on the U.N. to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic statements made at its meetings and to hold accountable member states that make such statements. The resolution urges educational awareness programs about the Holocaust to be implemented around the world to combat anti- Semitism, racism, and religious and ethnic intolerance. The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. should also continue working to reduce anti- Semitic and anti-Israel language and resolutions. Likewise, the resolution asks for action from the State Department. The U.S. State Department should include information on anti-Semitic activities at the U.N. and by member states in its annual human rights and religious freedom reports. These reports have been very useful in providing important information on the status of human rights and religious freedom around the world, and data on anti-Semitic activities falls clearly within the purpose of these reports. Lastly, the State Department should use projects funded through the Middle East Partnership Initiative and U.S. overseas broadcasts to educate Arab and Muslim countries about anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, and incitement to violence. A similar resolution to this, introduced by Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Lantos, passed the House of Representatives earlier this month by a vote of 409 to 2. I am hopeful that the Senate will similarly pass this resolution. It is time for the Senate to speak once more against the scourge of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic language and activity. This resolution will send a message to the United Nations and its member countries that we will require it to fight anti- Semitism. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these efforts by cosponsoring this resolution.