Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I was tied up in a meeting for the prior vote on Judge Stengel. I have the highest respect for the two gentlemen and urge the confirmation of Judge Diamond.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Alabama. I join and agree with his remarks. I have said to the Senator from Oregon on more than one occasion, if I believed hate crimes were a proper crime for the Federal Government to be passing on, I would vote for this as well as the others, but I do not believe, as the Senator from Alabama stated, we should be criminalizing thought, and that is what this does. I have always said the greatest of the freedoms we have in this country is the freedom to believe what we want to believe and the freedom to think what we want to think. I know there are lots of motivations for people to do things and there are lots of bad thoughts out there in people's minds, but we do not criminalize those. We only criminalize them if there are actions taken. We criminalize the action, not the thought. I think protecting the freedom of belief and the freedom to think the way one wants to think is an important concept in our country, somewhat unique in the American Constitution, and I believe this hate crimes amendment violates that very premise. So I will vote against this amendment. I wanted to be clear, as the Senator from Alabama was clear, it is not because of the group that happens to be identified in this amendment to be subject to hate crimes. It could be any group. I will vote no because I believe the premise underlying this criminal statute is faulty. I regret to have to oppose our two colleagues who are trying to take a step forward and bring civility and protection to certain people who have been the subject of violence. But I do not believe this is the right way to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of time in opposition.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Gene Pratter, who is the nominee, as you noted, on the Executive Calendar for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Gene has an outstanding record of community service, of service to the legal community, working in very complex and difficult litigation with a large law firm in the city of Philadelphia. She is someone who has been active, as I mentioned, in the community and in political life, and is the kind of well-rounded individual who I think would make an excellent jurist on the court. She is someone I have gotten to know over the past 10 or 12 years, and I have respected her demeanor. She has a very professional but yet gentle way of discussing sometimes rather contentious issues in which we have been involved. Again, I respect the way she approaches issues that confront her. She has proven that she has outstanding legal abilities. She has proven that she understands the importance of community and the importance of being a good citizen and participating as a citizen beyond just the professional life, which to me, as a judge, is something that is very important. We have been fortunate under the leadership of Senator Specter in finding now 20 judges under this administration who have been nominated, and I believe the number is 17 or 18 who have been confirmed by the Senate. We have done a good job in finding people who are well rounded and people who have judicial experience and judicial temperament about which I spoke, as well as a record of community involvement and active citizenship which rounds out the person. So when they come to the bench, they are not just a narrow scholar or someone who is a ``hail fellow well met'' but a nice combination of the two that brings the kind of commonsense judicial temperament that is important in our court system. I commend Gene for her steadfastness in this process. As anybody who has gone through this process in the last couple of years will tell you, this is a difficult and somewhat tortuous process where you are on again, off again; You don't know whether your career is going to move forward or is going to stay in limbo. Is it going to fall off the docket and not be heard from again? That is a very difficult thing for all of these nominees to have to go through. But thanks to the agreement of Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, we have been able to move some of these nominations--the ``noncontroversial nominations''--and we will now have a vote on Judge Pratter. I say for the Record again that because of the work Senator Specter has done with our bipartisan nominating commission we have in the State of Pennsylvania, we have been able to get Republicans and Democrats--I underscore Republicans and Democrats--nominated by this President. When there are two Republican Senators, we have a rule in Pennsylvania that the party in power--that means the President--will nominate three to his party to every one in the minority party, irrespective of, as I said before, the fact that we may have two Republican Senators and a Republican President. Out of every four nominees, we still nominate one Democrat to fill the bench to make sure there is a proper balance on the court, and even to some degree some little ideological balance on the court. We have been successful in getting soon to be 20 nominees approved by the Senate, which I think is a fairly admirable record if you consider the contentious attitude the judicial nominees have had to work through in the committee as well as in the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in great sadness, to speak on the passing of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. It is a sad time for our Nation; a monumental figure in the history of the United States has gone to his rest. The response to his passing in our Nation's capital and across this country has been overwhelming and a fitting tribute to this giant of 20th century politics. First, I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to Nancy and the Reagan family in this difficult time. Mrs. Reagan was not only an incredible role model for faithfulness to her spouse, but was always the rock that he leaned on when the entire world leaned on him. In speeches on this floor, we have heard much about President Reagan's vision and leadership on foreign and economic policy, which indeed continue to bear fruit. Yet, I come to the floor to speak about an aspect of the Reagan Presidency that is less commented upon: President Reagan's legacy on social policy, which stands still as a moral compass for our Nation's future. As has been remarked, President Reagan was a fabulous optimist. He worked to create a society where good and evil, life and death, are recognized for what they are, and are not obscured by the gray tones of moral relativism. After years of lingering malaise following Vietnam and Watergate, Ronald Reagan came forward and proclaimed that America was ``in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal.'' That was a message of hope that America sorely needed to hear. He believed that America's strength came not just from military might, but also from its moral superiority. As much of a priority as he made foreign and military policy, he strived just as hard to ensure that our Nation's roots as a people of faith, who value life and each other, was not diminished. It was that social foundation that made us different from the godless Soviet state that oppressed the Russian people. President Reagan spoke forcefully and brilliantly about the importance of family, the religious foundations of American democracy, and the tragedy of Roe v. Wade. He knew that strong families were a key to America's continued success as the land of opportunity. This conviction is clear in a proclamation he issued one Father's Day, where he asserted: There is no institution more vital to our Nation's survival than the American family. Here the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public virtue first nourished. Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers the values that will shape our private lives and our public citizenship. His political beliefs were greatly shaped by the sensible religion he grew up with in small-town Illinois, which permeated all aspects of daily life. He found the attempts of some to excise religion from the public square wrong-headed. He knew that Founding Fathers barred not only the government establishment of religion, but also any law ``prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' As President Reagan told those gathered at the Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast during the Republican National Convention in Dallas, TX: Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under. I began this speech by stating I would focus of President Reagan's moral and social legacy rather than on the tremendous impact he had in bringing down the Iron Curtain and freeing Eastern Europe. But in truth, these different areas of policy all flowed from the same wellspring of faith and conscience. In a particularly moving speech before the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 1984, President Reagan tied together these seemingly separate strands. He told listeners: Our mission stretches far beyond our borders: God's family knows no borders. In your life, you face daily trials, but millions of believers in other lands face far worse. They are mocked and persecuted for the crime of loving God. To every religious dissident trapped in that cold, cruel existence, we send our love and support. Our message? You are not alone; you are not forgotten; do not lose your faith and hope because someday you, too, will be free. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a larger excerpt of this speech be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. SANTORUM. Ronald Reagan was a champion of the pro-life movement and believed that abortion was a grave threat to the liberties we cherish as Americans. When President Reagan came to office, the shock of Roe v. Wade was still fresh. It was commonly believed that the Supreme Court had had the final say on abortion, and that there was no hope in turning back the tide of the abortion-on-demand culture. The conventional wisdom was that enacting legislation to regulate abortion was politically impossible. But President Reagan chose to use the one tool that the Senate could not stall and the House could not block: his voice. His voice was strong and reassuring, and it reached the American people in their living rooms, bypassing those in Washington who thought they knew much better. Even his own advisors urged him not to speak out on abortion, yet he would not be silenced. He always spoke his conscience on the matters that weighed heavily on his heart, and no one could convince him to do otherwise. On the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Reagan spoke from the heart against the abortion-on-demand culture, to poignant effect. That day, he said: I too have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life, and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child. Until someone can prove the unborn child is not a life, shouldn't we give it the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is? Perhaps the only President to publish a book while in the Oval Office, President Reagan's 1984 volume, entitled Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, stood as a thoughtful and moving essay that inspired the growing pro-life movement. This message of this book was hopeful. ``As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life,'' he writes. ``I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life.'' Given his remarkable legacy on foreign and economic policy, I am not surprised that his moral agenda is less commented upon. Yet in his March 8, 1983 ``evil empire'' speech, President Reagan devoted as much time talking about the sanctity of all human life as he did addressing foreign policy. On abortion, he told the audience: Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Sadly, President Reagan has gone to his rest without being able to see that glorious day when we again recognize the full and equal value of all human lives. But those of us who proudly follow in his footsteps will tirelessly continue the struggle until we correct this grievous wrong. President Reagan, that day, I know you will be smiling down on us from above. Exhibit 1 ``America is Hungry for a Spiritual Revival . . . '' (By Ronald Reagan) An excerpt from President Reagan's address January 30, 1984, at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Washington D.C. I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 The Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the A.C.L.U. severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor. I believe I stand in pretty good company. Abraham Lincoln called the Bible, ``The best gift God has given to man. But for it,'' he said, ``we could not know right from wrong.'' Like that image of George Washington kneeling in prayer in snow at Valley Forge, Lincoln described a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness. They must also look to God their Father and Preserver. And their faith to walk with Him, and trust in His Word, brought them the blessings of comfort, power, and peace that they sought. The torch of their faith has been passed from generation to generation. ``The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever.'' More and more Americans believe that loving God in their hearts is the ultimate value. My experience in this office I hold has only deepened a belief I've held for many years: within the cover of that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today--if we'd only read and believe. Let's begin at the beginning. God is the center of our lives: the human family stands at the center of society: and our greatest hope for the future is in the faces of our children. God's most blessed gift to His family is the gift of life. He sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in a manger. I've said that we must be cautious in claiming God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is, are we on His side? Our mission stretches far beyond our borders: God's family knows no borders. In your life, you face daily trials, but millions of believers in other lands face far worse. They are mocked and persecuted for the crime of loving God. To every religious dissident trapped in that cold, cruel existence, we send our love and support. Our message? You are not alone; you are not forgotten; do not lose your faith and hope because someday you, too, will be free. If the Lord is our light, our strength and our salvation, whom shall we fear? Of whom shall we be afraid? No matter where we live, we have a promise from Jesus that can soothe our sorrows, heal our hearts and drive away our fears. He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. He promised if our hearts are true, His love will be as sure as sunlight. And, by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way. ``For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life . . . '' Helping each other, believing in Him, we need never be afraid. We will be part of something far more powerful, enduring and good than all the forces here on earth. We will be part of a paradise. May God keep you always and may you always keep God.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today in Palmyra, PA, volunteers at the Lebanon Valley Brethren Home will collect food and sell baked goods for the ``Great American Bake Sale'' to support their local food bank. In hundreds of small towns, suburban communities, and cities from New York to California, thousands of volunteers will help collect food, glean fields, prepare meals, and raise awareness as a part of National Hunger Awareness Day. These dedicated volunteers and their compassionate acts represent a grassroots citizens' movement motivated to reduce hunger in America. These volunteers are the people who prepare the dinners and stock the shelves of the local charities that serve more than 9 million kids who lack basic food supplies. They are motivated by appalling statistics that show that more than 13 million children live in what the Federal Government deems ``food insecure'' households. And, of course, they are motivated by knowing the needs and faces of the vulnerable people in their communities. Last year, an estimated 23 million low-income people--many of whom are from working families with children, are elderly, or have disabilities--received a meal or an emergency food box from one of the estimated 50,000 local hunger relief charities that dot the Nation's landscape. These charities, of which three-quarters are faith-based organizations, play an important and complementary role to State, local and Federal Government efforts to help low-income families achieve self-sufficiency. But for the family whose benefits have been exhausted, or the single mother who is waiting for the benefits to begin, or for those who simply don't want government help, these charities are the last line of defense against hunger. Despite the selfless extraordinary work of these charities and their estimated one million volunteers, the need in many communities too often exceeds the available resources. At the same time, the United States throws away nearly 96 billion pounds of food each year. Legislation I have sponsored, the Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment Act, or the CARE Act, would help close the gap between the need and available resources. The CARE Act provides farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and franchisees with a tax incentive that would allow these smaller business entities to enjoy the same tax incentives that large corporations receive when they donate food to charity. The CARE Act's food donation tax incentives will enable farmers with surplus crops to donate the food to a food bank or emergency shelter, recouping some of the cost of production and transportation--and preventing them from having to plow the crops back into the ground. The CARE Act gives a restaurant owner the incentive to donate surplus meals to a soup kitchen rather than throwing good food into a dumpster. America's Second Harvest, the Nation's food bank network, estimates that the CARE Act will help generate more than 878 million new meals for hungry people over the next 10 years. This legislation, despite broad, bipartisan support for the food donation tax incentives and the other provisions in the act, is now stalled in the Senate, not being allowed to go to conference. The CARE Act is in jeopardy, and with its fortunes go the hopes of tens of thousands of people that serve America's most vulnerable families. We cannot allow partisan differences, unrelated to this legislation, to undo the promise that the CARE Act offers to millions of Americans. The CARE Act should be allowed to go to a bipartisan conference and thereby ensure that no food bank, pantry or soup kitchen will have to turn away a hungry family, senior, or child because the cupboard is bare.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I add my congratulations to Judge Van Antwerpen. He has been an excellent public servant and distinguished jurist and will make an excellent contribution to the Third Circuit.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have been informed by Senator Gregg's staff that he does not seek any time. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment No. 3149 to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I first and foremost thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their willingness to work with me on this amendment. This is an amendment that comes from the many visits I had in public schools across Pennsylvania where I heard from special education teachers, in particular, and administrators about the enormous amount of paperwork that special education teachers have to deal with and how it is a point of great dissatisfaction among those teachers, as well as a factor in what they believe is limiting their time and limiting the quality of the education children who are covered under IDEA receive. As a result, I wanted to create an opportunity for States to, through a pilot, do some innovation and, working with the Department of Education, try to reduce the amount of paperwork our teachers have to go through. This is a serious problem in trying to recruit and retain special education teachers. In fact, the most recent figure I have is that in the 1999-2000 school year, there were 12,000 special education openings. The principal reason for that was the enormous paperwork burden, the frustration that comes with having to deal with the ``bureaucracy'' and ``redtape,'' as it has been put to me on more than one occasion. These positions, for the most part, were left vacant or filled by substitutes who did not have the qualifications necessary to teach these students who have special needs. I suggest we are trying to address a problem that is out there, not trying to limit the quality of the education of children with special needs, but actually getting more qualified teachers into the classrooms to deal with this population that does have extraordinary needs, in some cases, but without the extraordinary amount of paperwork that comes with meeting those needs. We have worked closely with the NEA. In fact, the NEA has endorsed this amendment. They say: Paperwork reduction in IDEA is one of the highest priorities of our members. We commend you for your acknowledgment that excessive paperwork not only takes valuable instruction time away from students, but is a critical component of the retention crisis we face in the field of special education. This is an important issue for teachers and should be an important issue for those parents and children in the special education system. This is a way to keep qualified teachers, to have them spend more quality time and better time with children in the classroom. What we have done is set up a pilot program. The pilot program, under the modification I just sent to the desk, is for 15 States. The goal is to increase instructional time and to improve the results of children with special needs. Again, the idea here is to create an opportunity for innovation, an opportunity for States to not waive any provisions of this act. Particularly I know the concern Senator Kennedy and many have that the Secretary of Education cannot waive in a request from the States any applicable civil rights requirements. I had some parents meet with me last week, and they were very concerned about this amendment and how it would affect their child and their ability to get what was entitled to them as far as education under IDEA. Let me make it clear: Nothing in this demonstration can create a waiver of any applicable civil rights requirements, and nothing in this demonstration will affect the right of a child with a disability to receive free appropriate public education. That, to me, is something at the heart, something I know the parents want and, obviously, the NEA should be concerned about it, as I am sure they are. I want to make it clear that what we are talking about is things that do not really add to the bottom line: quality of kids' education. I am excited that Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg have agreed. I understand the House has a similar amendment to this amendment that has a 10-State demonstration project. We have talked with the House, with Senator Kennedy, and Senator Gregg. I think we have an agreement that this 15-State demonstration is a good number and is a number we can all agree will stay in conference. This program will be part of this new authorization and will create an opportunity for States--I am certainly hopeful that Pennsylvania will be one of the States that will be participating in this demonstration--to be innovative to improve the quality of education for children with disabilities and be a plus for them as well as teachers and school districts as a whole. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, my amendment, cosponsored by Senators Voinovich and DeWine, extends the Section 29 credit to new coke facilities to encourage the construction of new facilities. This provision is important because the U.S. currently produces below the domestic demand for coke, and the situation will likely worsen in the future. Much of the country's coke capacity is over 20 years old, and most existing ovens are near the end of their useful lives. I understand that the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Grassley, prefers to address this issue during conference and not at this time. I thank the chairman for his commitment to this provision and urge his strong support for extending the Section 29 credit to new coke facilities in conference.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a death in Iraq. There has been a lot of death in Iraq. We can all come to the floor and give a story about a brave man or woman who sacrificed their life for freedom in that country. Today I rise to talk about not a soldier who has bravely fought in battle over there but a civilian who was brutally murdered by a group of al-Qaida terrorists. We are now seeing this displayed on our television screens across America. This civilian's name is Berg, Nicholas Berg. He is 26 years old, from West Chester, PA, outside of Philadelphia. As described by an AP article that came across my desk, a group of five al-Qaida terrorists, one of them purporting to be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 2 man of the Islamic terrorist group, wearing ski masks and scarfs, standing over Mr. Berg, who had just given a statement as to who he was and where he was from. They read a statement and then proceeded to push this man on his side and to cut off his head with a large knife, and then they held the head out before the camera. If anybody wants to know what we are fighting and why we are fighting this war on terror, this is a very good example of it. Those who have seen the tape on television have described it as revolting and sickening, and I will describe it as an outrage to the civilized world, and one to which we must strongly condemn and respond. We must continue to respond as aggressively as possible in rooting out these terrorist cells and going after them where they are. Where they are, in this case, is in Iraq. This occurred in Iraq. He was a civilian contractor working in Iraq. His body was found a couple of days ago on a bridge in Iraq. First and foremost, I express my sympathy to his parents, Michael and Suzanne, who I know have gone through a very harrowing experience over the past couple of months when they didn't know where their son was on more than one occasion. They did not know his whereabouts for the past month. And to find out about this tragedy, the loss of their son, in such a violent and horrific way and to not know until, I am sure, seeing it on television and hearing it described, is a nightmare for any parent. The Bergs certainly have my prayers and I know all in this Chamber share the sorrow.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, important legislation to encourage the cleanup of contaminated sites commonly known as ``brownfields.'' I urge all my colleagues to join Senator Bayh and me as supporters of this legislation and ask that they actively work with us toward its enactment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines brownfields as ``abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination that can add cost, time, or uncertainness to redevelopment projects.'' Brownfields are not unique to my State of Pennsylvania, nor are they to Senator Bayh's State of Indiana. In every State in the Nation, there are areas blighted by run-down, abandoned properties and unsightly vacant lots. They are the shut down manufacturing facilities, deserted warehouses and gas stations that are all too familiar to us. On these properties once stood vibrant and productive enterprises, but changing times and events have drained their vitality. They are now in desperate need of revitalization and redevelopment. Compounding the problem is that over the years, the activities on these sites have left the soil and water tables contaminated with environmental pollutants. The negative social and economic effects that these sites have on their surrounding communities are significant. There are serious financial impacts not only to the market values of the brownfield properties themselves, but also to property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. As middle class citizens are working to gain assets and potentially be able to borrow against, or even sell their homes in the future, property values become a very serious issue. A reduction of property values in brownfield neighborhoods hits hardest the families who can least afford it. Brownfields have other serious repercussions, extending far beyond the pocketbook. The unsightliness of brownfields can lead to the characterization of entire neighborhoods as rundown and undesirable. The once vibrant spirit of these centrally located and thriving urban areas can be dampened as these eyesores drag down residents' morale and sense of connection with their community. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Government Accounting Office estimate that there are over 400,000 brownfield sites across the country. According to a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 187 cities throughout the nation, redevelopment of their existing brownfields would bring additional tax revenues of approximately $2 billion annually and could create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Many brownfields are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to an already productive workforce. Putting these sites back into use will generate good-paying jobs and affordable housing in areas where they are most needed. Rehabilitating and reusing these sites also serves to help prevent urban sprawl. We should encourage the cleanup and use of these brownfield sites rather than abandon them and instead always look to develop at new locations. A powerful example from my state of a successful brownfield revitalization effort and how it can have substantial and positive effects on a community is the City of Chester. In the midst of a major revitalization, Chester is redeveloping its blighted and vacant waterfront district, including the former PECO power station. The City is striving to turn a former industrial site into a business center. Chester will be able to create new office space, and by working with a private developer Chester has received an initial commitment to move 2,000 jobs into the area. This initiative will help bring more business and infrastructure back to the community, adding to the area's prosperity and making Chester a safe and more pleasant place to live. Unfortunately, a big reason that so many brownfield properties are languishing in a state of decay and disrepair is the substantial cleanup costs associated with them and the unfavorable tax treatment of those costs. As part of the Community Renewal and Revitalization Act of 2000, Congress enacted Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allowed cleanup costs to be expensed in the year they were incurred. Prior to that, these costs had to be capitalized to the land, postponing any recovery of these costs for tax purposes until the property was sold. This expedited write-off of cleanup expenses helps a redeveloper manage the cost of rehabilitating existing properties--which typically is much more expensive than developing new sites. Brownfield cleanup costs can be an imposing obstacle to redeveloping. While the price tag varies with each site, it is not unreasonable for the cleanup of a major site to run between $500,000 and $1 million. We in the Senate, and our colleagues in the House, were wise to enact Section 198. It is the right policy. However, Section 198 expired at the end of 2003. Now, the law must be renewed retroactively. I am pleased that the pending FSC/ETI bill, S. 1637, at the behest of Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, would renew Section 198 for two years. That is a start and the Administration supports it. But more needs to be done in this area. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today has three provisions. First, it makes Section 198 a permanent provision in the Code. Second, it broadens the definition of ``hazardous substances'' in Section 198 to include petroleum. Finally, it repeals the provision in the law requiring the recapture of the Section 198 deduction when the property is sold. The tax policy of allowing the expensing of cleanup costs should be a permanent fixture in the Tax Code. Brownfields are a long-term problem and this solution will allow us to continue addressing this important task. Furthermore, a shortcoming of the law passed in 2000 was the absent of petroleum as a contaminant that allowed a site to qualify as a brownfield under section 198. A large percentage of brownfields across the country are contaminated with petroleum. Extending the law to cover petroleum contamination makes more sense and the law more effective. Finally, the provision in Section 198 that requires a taxpayer who uses the cleanup deduction to pay income tax on that amount when he or she sells the property is illogical. This sends a message to developers that if they undertake the worthy endeavor of remdiation of brownfield sites, they will be subjected to substantial tax penalties for doing so. This policy is counterproductive to the efforts we are trying to encourage and it should be repealed. The benefits of brownfield cleanup are obvious. Remediation of these sites revitalizes our neighborhoods and communities, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about what seems to be an all-too-apparent pattern in the Senate when we earnestly try to work together to bring up issues that are important to the future of this country, such as the jobs in manufacturing bill, the FSC bill, where we have been trying to avoid more tariffs, which now have been levied against many manufacturers by the European Union, that are increasing month by month. We are trying to get a bill passed to help our manufacturers, to help our manufacturing economy, and that is being blocked on the floor of the Senate. Medical liability: We have had three votes just to bring the bill up to discuss it, to discuss an issue that is devastating my State. I have had numerous town meetings across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Doctors, nurses, health professionals, hospital administrators, patients, and patient groups are coming and saying: We have to do something to deal with the skyrocketing cost of health insurance as a result of medical liability insurance costs. We have lost 1,100 doctors in Pennsylvania alone. We have great medical schools, but we are almost last in the country now in physicians under the age of 35. Yet we produce--next to New York and California, maybe Texas--more young physicians than any other State in the country. It is a huge problem; yet we can't even debate it in the Senate because we are being blocked. Energy is another one. It came very close. We worked out a bipartisan bill. It had bipartisan support. We couldn't get an energy bill passed because of a filibuster in the Senate. The same is true with workforce investment. We passed it. It is being blocked from going to conference. That is a new obstruction tactic which is a sort of bait and switch. It is the idea that, yes, we will give you this, we will pass it, and then after everybody believes we passed it and we have done our job, we are not allowed to go to conference to work out the differences between the two bodies. So we can't get a bill done. We have talked about judges over and over and spent many late nights here talking about the obstructionism. Again, it is a new tactic, a new level of obstruction heretofore never seen in the Senate--requiring judges to get 60 votes for confirmation. So we have this new threshold for judges. We have a new threshold for passing legislation which is not allowing us to go to conference and requiring a 60-vote majority to go to conference, not to pass a bill, not to bring a bill up. It is obstruction on top of obstruction. We had a bipartisan welfare reform bill we were working on. We were working to do more for daycare--many on the other side of the aisle wanted to do that--$7 billion more for daycare, a huge increase in daycare funding with a very small increase in work requirement and in participation standards. It was blocked on the floor of the Senate. On class action we came close--one vote. Again, we came close; not 51, not passage, it came close to the 60 votes that are now required on every single measure that comes before the Senate. We came one vote short, and we still have no assurance of the ability to bring the bill up and to come to conclusion. Faith-based charities is another example of a bill that passed with 90-plus votes. We can't go to conference. This was a bill that was bipartisan in nature. Senator Lieberman and I were sponsors of the legislation. There was no controversy surrounding it. Anything that was controversial was excised from the bill. Still we can't get the bill to conference to be able to get something that will infuse billions of dollars into charitable organizations across the country. Now we add to it asbestos care and jobs. We have this bill. Again, what is this about? What is this vote about? This is about discussing the bill. Is anyone in this Chamber saying there isn't a problem? There was a settlement that was just agreed to wherein the average person in Pennsylvania received $12,000, and the average claimant in Mississippi received $250,000 per person. Is this is a fair system, where people in Mississippi, because of a ridiculous court situation that goes on and the fraudulent court system in some counties in Mississippi, where lawyers have bought off the judiciary, that that is somehow or another a fair system, that claimants in those communities should get more than someone who is similarly situated in another State? This is a situation that is crying out for Federal intervention. If we had this kind of discrimination going on in any other area, other than the fact that trial lawyers are involved, personal injury lawyers are involved, if we had any of this discrimination going on between States, both sides of the aisle would be screaming for a Federal solution. But when you have a situation where 50 percent of the money goes to lawyers and court costs and that money seems to finds its way back, interestingly enough, in the political system, then all of a sudden we don't mind discrimination between States. We don't mind if some States do very well under this lottery system that has evolved in these asbestos cases. We don't care if people who are sick and dying of mesothelioma get $10,000 in claims, and someone who walked through a construction site where there was asbestos, who is not sick, never will be sick, gets hundreds of thousands of dollars. We don't care, just as long as our buddies, the personal injury lawyers, get their cut. That is what is going on here. This is outrageous, with the severe problem we have in asbestos litigation, as severe a problem and as inequitable a situation as we have, as destructive to the economy as this is. Twenty-five percent of the companies that have gone bankrupt have gone bankrupt in Pennsylvania; 25 percent of those companies are Pennsylvania based. We have a company Senator Hatch talked about the other day, Crown Cork & Seal. Crown Cork & Seal makes bottle caps. If you opened up a Coke bottle, you used to have cork on the inside of the bottle cap. Now they have plastic. But they make plastic containers and bottle caps, all those things. They bought a bottling company in 1963, a cork company, as part of their growth. That company also had an insulation business. They owned the insulation business for 90 days--they never operated it--90 days in 1963. They spent $7 million on the acquisition. They have already paid out $400 million in claims on a business they never operated. What has that done? It has crippled that business. It is still surviving because it is a great company and it is still a world leader, but $400 million out of a bottom line of a company that never made the product, that owned it for 90 days and sold it as soon as they could find a buyer. They never operated the business and they still have tens of thousands of claims outstanding. This is wrong. If you want to talk about hurting manufacturers, I would like someone on the other side to stand up and say how this is fair to manufacturing. By the way, most of these claims and most of the money being paid out is going to lawyers, not people who are sick. Most of the claims are going to people who are not sick, not people who are sick, because most of the claims are filed by people who are not sick. This is an outrage, and we can't even discuss it here in the Senate. We can't even bring the bill up and have an amendment. We can't let the Senate work its will. I hear so much the complaint, if you just let the Senate work its will, bring these bills up. We can have a discussion. We have our message amendments that we want to do. But let's bring the bill up. Well, here we are. Let's bring the bill up. When it comes to our friends, the personal injury lawyers, we can't bring those bills up. We will bring up other bills but not when it comes to our buddies, the personal injury lawyers. Because it is a campaign season, we have campaigns to fund. This is an outrage. I don't want to hear any more complaints from the other side of the aisle about how manufacturing is in the doldrums when this particular bill could do more to stimulate capital investment in manufacturing and growth in the manufacturing sector and stop those companies from moving offshore. Why? Because they don't want these claims and the litigation environment--asbestos is probably the poster child for that--that they have to live with. We have an obligation to those who are sick to set up a fund so people who are sick, have health care expenditures, and are going through difficult times, who are disabled, get the resources they need and deserve as a result of being exposed to asbestos. We have an obligation. I can tell you the insurance companies, the manufacturers, are willing to put up over $100 billion to help people who are sick, and by the way, there is very little money for lawyers. That is the problem here. We are OK with the $100 billion or more for folks who are sick, but what about our friends, the lawyers? What are they going to do? How are they going to feed their families? Is that the real concern here? The concern in asbestos cases should be the people who are sick, not the lawyers who are making right now the lion's share of the money on this issue. That is what we are trying to get to here. All we are trying to do is discuss it. The bill that is before us I think puts $114 billion in the trust fund. I would be willing to continue to work on this point and see if we can get that money up higher. I am willing to look at all sorts of aspects of this bill to see if we can find a way to create a system to help people who are sick in this country as a result of exposure to asbestos and stop the bleeding of these people--the bleeding of these people--by personal injury lawyers who care more about their bottom line than helping people who are sick. If they really were concerned about people who are sick, there would not be tens of thousands of cases being filed in America today by people who are not sick because that money is being drained away from people who are sick to people who are not sick and to lawyers who are suing on their behalf. What is happening in this system is criminal, in my opinion, and for the Senate to say we simply do not want to discuss it is an outrage. I know the negotiations are continuing among labor, the insurance companies, and manufacturers, and I assume trial lawyers are involved, although probably objecting to everything, but we need to come to a conclusion.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we need to help those people who are sick, and we need to help them now. I thank the Chair.

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, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to an issue that is currently being debated in Federal district courts in New York, Nebraska, and San Francisco. Today, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which we overwhelmingly passed and saw signed into law last year, is being challenged in three Federal courts across the country. This law bans the gruesome procedure known as partial birth abortion, which is performed over a three-day period in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. In this particular abortion technique, the physician delivers all but the baby's head through the birth canal, stabs the baby in the base of the skull with curved scissors, and then uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. As we have seen these trials go forward, I have been disturbed at some of the testimony that has been given in opposition to this legislation, and I wanted to ensure that my colleagues were aware of it. In particular, in the testimony of these doctors who are challenging this law, we see a complete disregard for any consideration of the pain a child experiences during a late-term abortion. On March 30, in the New York case, the judge asked the doctor testifying whether the fetus having pain ever crossed his mind. The witness, who does not perform partial birth abortions, but who has been present when they were done, replied, ``No.'' The judge further questioned the witness as to whether the mother of the child was informed as to the specifics of the procedure in terms that the patient can understand. The Witness: I guess I would say that whenever we describe medical procedures we try to do so in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients. The Court: Can they fully comprehend unless you do? Not all of these mothers are Rhodes scholars or highly educated, are they? The Witness: No, that's true. But I'm also not exactly sure what using terminology like sucking the brains out would . . . The Court: That's what happens, doesn't it? The Witness: Well, in some situations that might happen. There are different ways it could be dealt with, but that is one way of describing it. This witness further testified that up until the last steps of a partial birth abortion, the feet of the child could be moving. On April 5, another doctor testifying for the plaintiffs in New York showed similar callous disregard for the pain the fetus might feel. The Court: Do you ever tell them (the women) that after that is done you are going to suction or suck the brain out of the skull? The Witness: I don't use suction. The Court: Then how do you remove the brain from the skull? The Witness: I use my finger to disrupt the central nervous system, thereby the skull collapses and I can easily deliver the remainder of the fetus through the cervix. The Court: Do you tell them you are going to collapse the skull? The Witness: No. The Court: The mother? The Witness: No. The Court: Do you tell them whether or not that hurts the fetus? The Witness: I have never talked to a fetus about whether or not they experience pain. The Court: I didn't say that, Doctor. Do you tell the mother whether or not it hurts the fetus? The Witness: I don't believe the fetus does feel pain at the gestational ages that we do, but I have no evidence to say one way or the other so I can't answer that question. Yet even this week, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and a witness in the Nebraska case, testified that the procedure would cause ``severe and excruciating'' pain to the fetus. He said, ``What we have noted from studies of premature infants is that they have a much lower threshold for pain, meaning they are more sensitive to pain than the full term infant. In fact, some types of pain are three times greater sensitivity in the pre-term baby as compared to the full term neonate.'' He went on to say, ``I would say between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation is the greatest sensitivity to pain.'' ``The threshold for pain is very low. The fetus is very likely extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks. And so the procedures associated with the partial-birth abortion that I just described would be likely to cause severe pain, right from the time the fetus is being manipulated and being handled to the time that the incision is made, and the brain or the contents, intracranial contents, are sucked out.'' Another aspect of the current court challenges to this law centers around whether partial birth abortions are ever medically necessary. Those arguing against the law have expressed their opinion that the procedure is a medical necessity. The Department of Justice is defending the law by supporting the extensive congressional findings included in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that indicate that partial birth abortions are never medically necessary. For this reason the Department of Justice has sought the release of abortion records in order to demonstrate that partial birth abortions are never medically necessary. In order to ensure patient privacy, any personal information on these records which could identify a patient would be deleted prior to being submitted for review. Since those arguing against this law have done so claiming the ``medical necessity of this procedure,'' it seems reasonable that they be required to show evidence which backs up their claims. Those testifying in opposition of banning the use of this inhumane procedure have continued to state its medical necessity. However, under questioning from Department of Justice attorneys and Judge Casey in New York, these abortionists have conceded that there are no studies which show this procedure to be less risky for the mother than other types of late-term abortions. They have also not been able to deliver any records showing its medical necessity, though this claim is at the core of their case. Some witnesses have indicated that this information would be found in the patient's medical chart--the ones which they have refused to release. On April 6, Judge Casey in New York had this to say on April 6 regarding these medical records: I have no comprehension why there is such resistance from doctors maintaining as they argue as to the appropriateness, the safety, etc., of these procedures, why the records, in this case that book, should not be opened for examination. To not have it turned over to the government continues not in a fashion of a level playing field and I don't think was what was envisioned as to how we should administer trials of this nature or any trials in this court. I would hope that the hospital would rethink their position. I would also urge any of the plaintiffs, if they have any records that are personal to them, that they don't wait until, shall we say, by accident or whatever means they are uncovered or stumbled upon; that they produce them, as well they should know through their counsel that our system believes in full discovery and disclosure, and concealing facts or things in this context in our courts, in federal court, is not something that is encouraged, just as the Court has expressed a strong feeling that lawyers should be open and completely candid in their statements to the Court. I came to the floor today about this because I want my colleagues to be aware of these cases as they go forward, and especially to point out examples of some of the blatant disrespect being shown for the lives of these partially-born children and their mothers.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to let the Senator from South Dakota talk on his time since my time is limited. If he would not mind taking his time, he could reserve the right to object.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what the Democratic leader has just suggested is allowing us to vote on welfare reform, but what the Democratic leader has insistently refused to do is to allow that bill to go to conference. Of course, a bill passage means nothing unless there can be a final resolution on that legislation. So what we are being told is they will give us an apparent victory of passing legislation with no end in sight. The idea that somehow or another we are going to have a final resolution--I think the words of the Senator from South Dakota were ``final resolution''--is simply not accurate. Passing a bill that has already been passed by the House gets basically put in limbo until we go to conference. The Democratic leader has been very clear about not moving this bill to conference. So let's be perfectly clear, we are absolutely ready--in fact, I will offer a unanimous consent. We are absolutely ready to give votes on issues of importance to the Democrats and, as I said before, we are willing to pay a ransom. But we want to make sure we get our victims back, and the victims in this case are the welfare reform bill and FSC/ETI. We want to make sure they have a chance of becoming law, not put in the bin of bills that have yet to go to conference because of some concern about fairness in conferences. I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to back-to-back votes, first, in relation to a public minimum wage amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Boxer amendment with no second-degrees in order to either amendment; provided further that the bill be limited to germane amendments, and at 9:30 on Friday, April 2, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. I will explain what I have requested, and that is that we give a vote up or down, which has not been allowed on a whole host of judges on this side, on the issue the Democrats say is the important issue of the day, in exchange for all the germane amendments the Democrats would like to offer between now and tomorrow morning. And if they would like a little bit more time tomorrow, we would be happy to do that, but passage and conference, that is what this request asks. Historically in the Senate, when we passed a bill we automatically went to conference. That has changed. So now we have to specifically include to do so in the unanimous consent or we do not get to conference. I ask unanimous consent according to what I just read.

Mr. SANTORUM. So we understand up-or-down votes only apply to their amendments and the things they want to do, not what Republicans want to do. We need closure and we are not getting it.