Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2239.

Mr. SANTORUM. This is an amendment that is to instruct the Department of Health and Human Services to purchase of no less than 1 million rapid oral HIV tests. As we all know, the problem of HIV and the spread of HIV continues to be a problem. Experts tell us that over half of all new HIV cases are as a result of someone who was unaware of their HIV status. The idea is having better testing out there, along with oral testing where it does not require any drawing of blood or needles--obviously, for a lot of folks that is a concern. This provides a safe effective way to be able to get these results in a timely fashion to give people the notice they need before they engage in an activity that might cause the further spread of the HIV virus. I understand from my colleague from Pennsylvania, this is an amendment he is willing to accept. If there is no discussion, I urge agreement of the amendment.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a commission, a bipartisan bicameral commission, that will be set up as a result of this amendment that would undertake a comprehensive and thoughtful review of Federal social service programs and make recommendations that would be appropriate to provide beneficiaries more choice in how they receive their social services that are paid for from the Federal Government. One of the things I hear as I work in communities that heavily rely on social services, a lot of places where they would like to get social services--community-based organizations, in some cases faith-based organizations--are not able. They either do not qualify for Federal funds or do not have the technical expertise to get Federal funds. The President has put forward a faith-based initiative. The Congress has passed charitable choice legislation. We have done a lot to try to get more providers in social services involved, and even in some areas provide more flexibility--such as vouchers for certain services that are out there so people can take that voucher and get the services from qualified places. There is still a level of frustration out in the community. I think we need to do a more comprehensive job in looking at how we address the issue of giving people choices as to how they get their social services. I think this is a way to bring some of the best minds that we have into the social service delivery area, folks from both the House and the Senate and the White House, appointees, to sit down and look to see, is there a better mousetrap than the current system of social service delivery? Is there a better way for us to restructure some of these programs to give more efficient and effective services at less cost and with more consumer buy-in and choice? One of the reasons some of our social services plans do not work very well is people do not interface well with the delivery systems in place right now. This commission would be tasked to determine how we can, in fact, remove some of these barriers to folks who do not access the social services systems. One of the big problems we have continually with a lot of our programs--whether it is health programs, housing programs, rehabilitation programs, or other programs--is we have large segments of the community that simply do not participate. They may be eligible for services, but they do not participate in the services. So we have to figure out: How do we better reach these people? How do we better make these services available in such a way that we can actually start reaching people in how they live their lives and in a way that meets their needs? As far as the money for this commission, I have asked that it be such sums as may be determined by the committee. Hopefully, they will allocate such resources they have available to stand up this commission. But, to me, it is important we get better utilization. For my mind, just giving more money to the different Departments to figure out ways to advertise or to do things to bump up their enrollment in some of these programs has been tried in the past, and it basically does not work very well. I think we need to at least have some of our best minds look at this together, as to how we could redesign this system and get recommendations given to the Congress as to how we can do a better job providing services. With that, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the passing of a great American, Mrs. Rosa L. Parks. Mrs. Parks was a woman of dignity, spirit and conviction, and throughout her life, she demonstrated immense courage in her quest to achieve equality for all Americans. On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks made a decision that altered the course of American history. When asked by the driver of a Montgomery, AL, bus to give up her seat to a white man, Mrs. Parks refused. She was, she later stated, ``tired of giving in.'' By refusing to give in any longer, Mrs. Parks took a stance that required uncommon levels of courage and principle. With this single act, Mrs. Parks effectively kicked-off the modern civil rights movement and changed America forever. In response to Mrs. Parks' refusal to leave her seat and her subsequent arrest, the African-American community in Montgomery, led by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott. For 381 days, members of the African-American community stood in solidarity with Mrs. Parks, refusing to utilize the bus system until the law legalizing segregation in public buses was lifted. Ultimately, Mrs. Parks took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where laws permitting segregated bus service were deemed unconstitutional. Because of Mrs. Parks, no African-American would ever be forced to move to the back of the bus again. In addition to the Supreme Court decision, Mrs. Parks' actions, and the boycott that followed her arrest, injected a tremendous amount of energy into the Civil Rights Movement. Her actions helped make Americans all over the country aware of the extensive injustices African Americans were forced to endure. A catalyst for similar protests throughout our Nation, Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott served as a model for the non-violent protests that were central to the civil rights movement and contributed heavily to its ultimate success. Mrs. Parks' commitment to equality for all Americans did not begin, or end, on the bus that day in 1955. After marrying Mr. Raymond Parks, who was also active in civil rights causes, she became a member of the Voters' League. In December 1943, Mrs. Parks became a secretary for the Montgomery branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Later in life, Mrs. Parks founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. Created in honor of her husband, this institute informs younger Americans of their history, running ``Pathway to Freedom'' bus tours that travel to important civil rights and Underground Railroad sites across the country. Mr. President, our Nation has lost a great daughter and an American icon with the passing of Mrs. Rosa Parks. My deepest sympathies go out to her family, friends, and all who were fortunate enough to know and love this wonderful woman. While America will surely miss her, the legacy of Rosa Parks, who changed the face of our Nation and inspired generations of activism, will live on for years to come.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for the work they have done on this bill and one thing in particular that is of concern to me and my constituents, which is Amtrak funding. I would like to, in particular, thank the two leaders for their outstanding support of Amtrak. It is a vital and important part of the transportation infrastructure of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, in particular, and southeastern Pennsylvania benefit greatly from the relief of congestion off our highways which are incredibly congested. Amtrak provides great service up and down the Northeast corridor. We happen to be right in the middle of that corridor in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is now the second busiest station, second only to New York, on that corridor, and it is vitally important that sufficient funds are available. The $1.45 billion that is in this bill is $250 million more than last year, which we appreciate, and almost $300 million more than what the House has appropriated in their bill. I wished to come and thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee. I think the fact that we have not seen any Amtrak amendments to increase the funding shows we have worked very hard together to get a good, solid number to go into conference, with the hope that we can get good, strong support for this vitally important part of southeastern Pennsylvania's transportation network. I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member for their excellent work. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Biotechnology Future Investment Expansion Act of 2005. Biotechnology has resulted in some of the most important innovations of our time. Substantive research in agriculture, bioengineering, and medicine have given Americans a better life. From the discovery of DNA to the creation of synthetic insulin, biotechnology has improved the standard of living and has saved many lives. It is important that we encourage continued research to further advances in the biotech field. The biotech industry is one of the most research-intensive industries in the world. The industry spent $17.9 billion on research and development in 2003 alone. The overwhelming majority of biotech companies engaged in this research are not profitable in the early years of development. Such companies may accumulate net operating losses NOLs, without earning income, for a decade or more. Unfortunately, a provision of the tax code, (Section 382), operates to severely limit the utilization of NOLs by many such biotech companies. Often, these limitations cause NOLs to expire before they can be used by these companies. This legislation will modify the application of Section 382 to the biotech industry, with the goal of increasing that important sector's ability to leverage capital into high-tech, high-risk cutting-edge research. Specifically, the legislation will ensure that neither new investment into biotech companies nor a business-driven merger of two biotech loss companies will trigger the section 382 NOL limitation. Neither of these changes runs counter to the long-standing tax policy behind Section 382 of preventing corporations, from NOL trafficking. My home State of Pennsylvania is a national leader in biotechnology innovation, and the biosciences are a significant economic driver in Pennsylvania's economy. Pennsylvania's support of the industry has made it a policy leader for the biosciences. More than 125 biopharmaceutical companies and 2,000 bioscience-related companies make Pennsylvania their home. For example, Philadelphia's BioAdvance focuses on bioinformatics, bio-pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and clinical trials. The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse focuses on drug discovery tools, tissue and organ research, medical devices, and therapeutic strategies for neuropsychiatric disorders. The Central Pennsylvania Life Sciences Greenhouse is pursuing drug design and delivery systems, biomedical devices, and bio-nanotechnology. These and many other companies in Pennsylvania are developing ground-breaking therapies, devices, diagnostics and vaccines for once untreatable diseases and debilitating conditions, providing hope for millions of patients. Additionally, top-of-the-line bioscience research takes place in Pennsylvania's academic institutions. Pennsylvania researchers garnered $1.3 billion in funding through the I.-- National Institutes of Health in 2003, making the Commonwealth fourth in the Nation. And the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh are in the top 10 nationally for NIH funding. We must encourage continued research and the funding that supports it. Biotech companies are pursuing high-risk research projects to find cures for many deadly and debilitating diseases that afflict humanity. From cancer to AIDS, and from Alzheimer's Disease to Parkinson' Disease, the biotechnology industry will be in the center of finding cures to these life-ending illnesses. My legislation offers a little more support to an industry we depend upon. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Biotechnology Future Investment Expansion Act of 2005. Biotechnology has resulted in some of the most important innovations of our time. Substantive research in agriculture, bioengineering, and medicine have given Americans a better life. From the discovery of DNA to the creation of synthetic insulin, biotechnology has improved the standard of living and has saved many lives. It is important that we encourage continued research to further advances in the biotech field. The biotech industry is one of the most research-intensive industries in the world. The industry spent $17.9 billion on research and development in 2003 alone. The overwhelming majority of biotech companies engaged in this research are not profitable in the early years of development. Such companies may accumulate net operating losses NOLs, without earning income, for a decade or more. Unfortunately, a provision of the tax code, (Section 382), operates to severely limit the utilization of NOLs by many such biotech companies. Often, these limitations cause NOLs to expire before they can be used by these companies. This legislation will modify the application of Section 382 to the biotech industry, with the goal of increasing that important sector's ability to leverage capital into high-tech, high-risk cutting-edge research. Specifically, the legislation will ensure that neither new investment into biotech companies nor a business-driven merger of two biotech loss companies will trigger the section 382 NOL limitation. Neither of these changes runs counter to the long-standing tax policy behind Section 382 of preventing corporations, from NOL trafficking. My home State of Pennsylvania is a national leader in biotechnology innovation, and the biosciences are a significant economic driver in Pennsylvania's economy. Pennsylvania's support of the industry has made it a policy leader for the biosciences. More than 125 biopharmaceutical companies and 2,000 bioscience-related companies make Pennsylvania their home. For example, Philadelphia's BioAdvance focuses on bioinformatics, bio-pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and clinical trials. The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse focuses on drug discovery tools, tissue and organ research, medical devices, and therapeutic strategies for neuropsychiatric disorders. The Central Pennsylvania Life Sciences Greenhouse is pursuing drug design and delivery systems, biomedical devices, and bio-nanotechnology. These and many other companies in Pennsylvania are developing ground-breaking therapies, devices, diagnostics and vaccines for once untreatable diseases and debilitating conditions, providing hope for millions of patients. Additionally, top-of-the-line bioscience research takes place in Pennsylvania's academic institutions. Pennsylvania researchers garnered $1.3 billion in funding through the I.-- National Institutes of Health in 2003, making the Commonwealth fourth in the Nation. And the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh are in the top 10 nationally for NIH funding. We must encourage continued research and the funding that supports it. Biotech companies are pursuing high-risk research projects to find cures for many deadly and debilitating diseases that afflict humanity. From cancer to AIDS, and from Alzheimer's Disease to Parkinson' Disease, the biotechnology industry will be in the center of finding cures to these life-ending illnesses. My legislation offers a little more support to an industry we depend upon. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kyl in sponsoring the pending amendment. This week the Senate begins the difficult but necessary process of budget reconciliation. When we passed the budget resolution on April 28, 2005, we all knew that tough votes were ahead as we set the Federal priorities for spending. However, none of us anticipated the devastation that would be caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hitting the gulf coast. The tremendous toll caused by those natural disasters has forced us again to reevaluate our priorities. This amendment is something we all should support. At a time when we are asking the American people to tighten their belts, it is not the time for members of Congress to increase our salary. We should be mindful of our actions and take this opportunity to do our part by removing this pay increase. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment will achieve a savings of $2 million in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2006. I intend to do my part and vote for the Kyl amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the passing of a great Pennsylvanian, and great American, Dr. C. DeLores Tucker. Throughout her distinguished life, Dr. Tucker demonstrated an incredible amount of courage, selflessness, and compassion, as well as an unquenchable thirst for equality for all Americans. Dr. Tucker lived her life in a manner we should all aspire to, and she will be sorely missed. Born in Philadelphia on October 4, 1927, the child of a north Philadelphia pastor, Dr. Tucker was truly a daughter of Pennsylvania. She attended Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania- Wharton School, and in 1951 married Mr. William Tucker, a successful Philadelphia real estate agent. Dr. Tucker had a significant, renowned history in the civil rights movement. Her involvement included raising funds for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, participating in the 1965 march in Selma, AL with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and founding the National Political Congress of Negro Women, now known as the National Congress of Black Women, and the Philadelphia Martin Luther King, Jr. Association for Nonviolence, Inc. Her devotion to obtaining equal rights for African Americans altered the future of this Nation, and history will remember C. DeLores Tucker as a patriot, a revolutionary thinker, and a credit to America. Dr. Tucker, a pioneer so often throughout her life, became the first African-American secretary of state for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1971. In assuming this position, Dr. Tucker also became the first African-American woman secretary of state in America's history. Dr. Tucker often walked upon the road less traveled, and while on this path, paved the way towards a better life for those that followed. Following her time as secretary of state, Dr. Tucker took up an intense interest in protecting our children, the future of America. She was founder and president of the Bethune-DuBois Institute, Inc., an institution with the goal of enhancing the cultural and intellectual development of African-American youth through scholarships and educational programs. Dr. Tucker was a firm believer in the preservation of values in our culture, and fought hard against the inclusion of explicit lyrics in rap and hip-hop music, citing their detrimental effect on the youth of this Nation. Personally, I had the pleasure to work with Dr. Tucker in her capacity as national chair of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc. Dr. Tucker and the organization she founded established the Sojourner Truth Crusade, an effort to put the likeness of Sojourner Truth on the Suffrage Monument that now stands in the Capitol Rotunda. In working with Dr. Tucker, I was able to see first-hand the dedication, the joy, and the passion that she brought to both her work and her everyday life. America has lost a great citizen with the passing of C. DeLores Tucker, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has lost one of its brightest stars. While we will surely miss Dr. Tucker and all that she brought to the lives of each person she touched, there is no question that her legacy will live on for years to come.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gasoline Affordability and Security, GAS, Act. With the average price of gasoline at $2.86 a gallon in Pennsylvania and the national average even higher, conditions are ripe for Congress to critically examine why prices are rising and act to address those factors we can control. While we have little influence over OPEC, events in oil-exporting countries or growing demand in other nations, we can take steps to expand our shrunken refining capacity, diversify our transportation fuel supply and reduce demand. Though critical for our Nation's energy security, the benefits of many Federal policies will take some time to realize. For this reason, my bill combines consumer protection provisions with proposals incentivizing innovative technology and conservation. Consumers are understandably concerned that they are being taken advantage of at the pump. My bill will protect consumers by distinguishing retailers engaging in predatory business activities from those simply responding to market conditions beyond their control. Under my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, is directed to define ``price gouging'' and set rules that they will have the authority to enforce. This provision would be effective in times of a declared energy emergency and would not be limited to a specific geographic area in which a major disaster occurs. My constituents can vigorously attest to the fact that the effects of a natural disaster on gasoline prices are not confined to that region. The damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has affected consumers' pocketbooks nationwide. And to better inform consumers, the FTC will be required to make available a list disclosing the name of any entity penalized under the Federal price gouging prohibition. Twenty-eight States currently have price gouging laws on the books. In an effort to further assist States to tackle this issue, the GAS Act also directs the FTC to create a task force that will aid any state requesting assistance with the investigation of potential price gouging and provide technical assistance in reviewing or establishing state price gouging laws. High prices are often not the result of price gouging, and consumers have a right to know what they're paying for in a gallon of gasoline. This information is available through the Energy Information Association, EIA. But because many Americans do not have Internet access or may not be able to easily extract this data, my bill encourages the EIA to disseminate, in a manner suitable for posting, information regarding the cost components of a gallon of gasoline to individuals selling gas or diesel fuel. Retailers may then display this information for their customers. One important strategy to combat rising fuel prices is to diversify our fuel supply. This can be accomplished through use of coal, a resource plentiful in my State of Pennsylvania and in other regions of the country. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology now enables us to use this resource in an environmentally friendly way that can greatly benefit our economy and create hundreds of jobs in Pennsylvania alone. I am proud to be a longtime supporter of this technology and other clean coal initiatives. In 2001, I was able to secure language to enable a Pennsylvania-based coal and energy company to compete for a Clean Coal Power Initiative, CCPI, grant, and I was pleased to secure a provision in the Energy bill earlier this year that helped make this project a reality. My legislation will further encourage the production of this clean fuel by dedicating funds from the CCPI to at least one additional project. Another way all Americans can help reduce fuel prices is to reduce gasoline consumption. But the reality is that cutting back on gas, which we need to perform responsibilities as basic as going to work and getting to the grocery store, is not easy. To help encourage conservation, I am proposing a tax credit for employees who telecommute from home and for employers who make that possible. With today's advanced technology, telework should be a part of the 21st century workplace. Forty percent of our Nation's jobs are already compatible with telecommuting. It creates the best of all worlds for both employers and employees, while reducing gas consumption and emissions. President Bush recently called on Federal agencies to cut back on unnecessary travel and look for other ways to conserve fuel. The legislative branch should make a concerted effort to do the same. We cannot expect the American people to make sacrifices that we ourselves are not willing to make. Accordingly, my bill includes language to urge Congress and legislative branch employees to conserve transportation fuel by whatever means practicable, and as a part of these efforts, promote teleworking. It is my hope that Congress will take a hard look at this country's fuel supply and will act decisively to make us less reliant on foreign sources. This Act contains steps we can take now to protect consumers and conserve fuel, while moving towards our goal of lower prices and energy independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation titled: the ``Gasoline Affordability and Security Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gasoline Affordability and Security, GAS, Act. With the average price of gasoline at $2.86 a gallon in Pennsylvania and the national average even higher, conditions are ripe for Congress to critically examine why prices are rising and act to address those factors we can control. While we have little influence over OPEC, events in oil-exporting countries or growing demand in other nations, we can take steps to expand our shrunken refining capacity, diversify our transportation fuel supply and reduce demand. Though critical for our Nation's energy security, the benefits of many Federal policies will take some time to realize. For this reason, my bill combines consumer protection provisions with proposals incentivizing innovative technology and conservation. Consumers are understandably concerned that they are being taken advantage of at the pump. My bill will protect consumers by distinguishing retailers engaging in predatory business activities from those simply responding to market conditions beyond their control. Under my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, is directed to define ``price gouging'' and set rules that they will have the authority to enforce. This provision would be effective in times of a declared energy emergency and would not be limited to a specific geographic area in which a major disaster occurs. My constituents can vigorously attest to the fact that the effects of a natural disaster on gasoline prices are not confined to that region. The damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has affected consumers' pocketbooks nationwide. And to better inform consumers, the FTC will be required to make available a list disclosing the name of any entity penalized under the Federal price gouging prohibition. Twenty-eight States currently have price gouging laws on the books. In an effort to further assist States to tackle this issue, the GAS Act also directs the FTC to create a task force that will aid any state requesting assistance with the investigation of potential price gouging and provide technical assistance in reviewing or establishing state price gouging laws. High prices are often not the result of price gouging, and consumers have a right to know what they're paying for in a gallon of gasoline. This information is available through the Energy Information Association, EIA. But because many Americans do not have Internet access or may not be able to easily extract this data, my bill encourages the EIA to disseminate, in a manner suitable for posting, information regarding the cost components of a gallon of gasoline to individuals selling gas or diesel fuel. Retailers may then display this information for their customers. One important strategy to combat rising fuel prices is to diversify our fuel supply. This can be accomplished through use of coal, a resource plentiful in my State of Pennsylvania and in other regions of the country. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology now enables us to use this resource in an environmentally friendly way that can greatly benefit our economy and create hundreds of jobs in Pennsylvania alone. I am proud to be a longtime supporter of this technology and other clean coal initiatives. In 2001, I was able to secure language to enable a Pennsylvania-based coal and energy company to compete for a Clean Coal Power Initiative, CCPI, grant, and I was pleased to secure a provision in the Energy bill earlier this year that helped make this project a reality. My legislation will further encourage the production of this clean fuel by dedicating funds from the CCPI to at least one additional project. Another way all Americans can help reduce fuel prices is to reduce gasoline consumption. But the reality is that cutting back on gas, which we need to perform responsibilities as basic as going to work and getting to the grocery store, is not easy. To help encourage conservation, I am proposing a tax credit for employees who telecommute from home and for employers who make that possible. With today's advanced technology, telework should be a part of the 21st century workplace. Forty percent of our Nation's jobs are already compatible with telecommuting. It creates the best of all worlds for both employers and employees, while reducing gas consumption and emissions. President Bush recently called on Federal agencies to cut back on unnecessary travel and look for other ways to conserve fuel. The legislative branch should make a concerted effort to do the same. We cannot expect the American people to make sacrifices that we ourselves are not willing to make. Accordingly, my bill includes language to urge Congress and legislative branch employees to conserve transportation fuel by whatever means practicable, and as a part of these efforts, promote teleworking. It is my hope that Congress will take a hard look at this country's fuel supply and will act decisively to make us less reliant on foreign sources. This Act contains steps we can take now to protect consumers and conserve fuel, while moving towards our goal of lower prices and energy independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation titled: the ``Gasoline Affordability and Security Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered. Vote Correction

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 252, I voted ``yea.'' The official record has me ``absent.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to bring equity and fairness to the manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico. Earlier this Congress, my colleague from the House of Representatives, Delegate Luis Fortuno, introduced H.R. 2181 to extend section 199 to manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico. In the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, we enacted section 199 that provides a deduction for income attributable to certain manufacturing activities. However, section 199 currently applies only to manufacturing and production activities in the U.S., and does not extend to Puerto Rico. This bill merely places the manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico on even footing with those conducted within the United States. It contains the additional safeguard of assuring that the extension of this deduction is only available where the income of the company is subject to immediate U.S. tax. I have worked with my colleague in the House as he has perfected this language to narrowly meet the needs of his constituents, and I am pleased to be able to help him move this legislation forward in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and bring fairness to the treatment of these important and vital economic activities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to bring equity and fairness to the manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico. Earlier this Congress, my colleague from the House of Representatives, Delegate Luis Fortuno, introduced H.R. 2181 to extend section 199 to manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico. In the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, we enacted section 199 that provides a deduction for income attributable to certain manufacturing activities. However, section 199 currently applies only to manufacturing and production activities in the U.S., and does not extend to Puerto Rico. This bill merely places the manufacturing and production activities in Puerto Rico on even footing with those conducted within the United States. It contains the additional safeguard of assuring that the extension of this deduction is only available where the income of the company is subject to immediate U.S. tax. I have worked with my colleague in the House as he has perfected this language to narrowly meet the needs of his constituents, and I am pleased to be able to help him move this legislation forward in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and bring fairness to the treatment of these important and vital economic activities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the CARE Act of 2005 along with Senator Lieberman, a bill we have been trying to push through Congress since 2000. However, at no point in the past five years has the passage of this bill been so timely. At a time where America appears divided on a War on Terror, Supreme Court nominations, and the relief effort in the gulf region, Americans are unified in their support of charitable organizations. In a recent Zogby poll, 86 percent of those polled rated private charities' response to Hurricane Katrina as excellent or good. By contrast, 32 percent described the government's response as excellent or good, and 67 percent said fair or poor. The work of charitable organizations and their volunteers have been inspirational at a time when many feel hopeless. I recently held a hearing in the Finance Subcommittee of Social Security and Family Policy to hear from charitable organizations about their efforts around the gulf coast. Though the hearing was scheduled before the events of Hurricane Katrina, the amazing work being done by these organizations highlighted the need for charitable incentives to continue and expand the generosity we are seeing. In response to Hurricane Katrina, we have seen organizations such as America's Second Harvest and the Florida Boulevard Baptist Church feed the hungry. We have seen that within 48 hours of Katrina, the Nation's fraternal benefit societies were feeding, housing, and providing supplies, clothes, toiletries, cash and beds to those in need in shelters both in Houston and in New Orleans. During the first week of this effort, fraternals had already expended upwards of $14 million on hurricane relief, a sum which is expected to increase as these efforts broaden. We see community foundations, such as the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, literally saving people's lives by helping Louisiana State University open a field hospital for 1,000 people in an old Kmart. And we see national organizations such as the YMCA of the USA providing program services such as emergency child care, recreation, and grief counseling. The YMCA has provided showers and other physical comforts and opened up their facilities as staging areas for relief, recovery and clean-up efforts. And the list goes on and on and on--not even considering the response of these same organizations and many others to Hurricane Rita. The CARE Act is a bipartisan bill that received strong bipartisan support as it passed the Senate in the 108th Congress by a vote of 95- 5. The House of Representatives passed companion legislation, the Charitable Giving Act, by a vote of 408-13. Sadly, this bill was blocked this bill from going to conference despite overwhelming support from both Houses and the general public. The CARE Act of 2005 provides commonsense provisions to induce charitable giving. Among these include the above-the-line deduction for non-itemizers. More than two-thirds of Americans do not itemize on their tax returns, yet this group is estimated to contribute $36 billion to charities. Research indicates that lower and moderate-income individuals are more likely not to itemize on their tax returns, and that they give a greater percentage of their incomes to charity than higher income individuals. It is only fair that they benefit for their generosity. As Major Hood from the Salvation Army so eloquently wrote in his testimony at my hearing, ``[t]he provision allowing non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions can only encourage those Americans with smaller incomes--including young professionals who might otherwise be inclined to begin a lifetime of annual giving--to contribute to worthy causes. We do not discriminate among those in need, and we ask Congress not to discriminate in providing tax incentives for charitable giving.'' Additionally, the CARE Act calls for tax-free IRA charitable distributions for individuals aged 70\1/2\ and over. My home State of Pennsylvania has the second highest percentage of seniors in the country. Many of these older Americans want to experience the joy of making a difference by giving, and this provision provides them that opportunity. Certainly, these individuals should not be penalized for contributing portions of their life's savings to a worthy cause. Organizations have been generous during this crisis by donating food to those who need it. The CARE Act provides expanded incentives that will yield an estimated $2 billion worth of food donations from farmers, restaurants, and corporations to help those in need. America's Second Harvest estimates that this is the equivalent of 878 million meals for hungry Americans over 10 years. Last year, the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention helped provide 3 million meals to hungry people. At the time of my hearing they were feeding hurricane victims 250,000 meals each day. By allowing businesses to recoup production costs this provision will incentivize food donations and help our action fight hunger. For the first time, farmers, ranchers, small business and restaurant owners will benefit from the same tax incentives afforded major corporate donors for the donation of food to the needy. The CARE Act also provides asset building initiatives for low-income individuals. Low-income Americans face a huge hurdle when trying to save. Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, provide them with a way to work toward building assets while instilling the practice of saving into their everyday lives. IDAs are one of the most promising tools that enable low-income and low-wealth American families to save, build assets, and enter the financial mainstream. Based on the idea that all Americans should have access, through the tax code or through direct expenditures, to the structures that subsidize homeownership and retirement savings of wealthier families, IDAs encourage savings efforts among the poor by offering them a one-to-one match for their own deposits. IDAs reward the monthly savings of working-poor families who are trying to buy their first home, pay for post-secondary education, or start a small business. These matched savings accounts are similar to 401(k) plans and other matched savings accounts, but can serve a broad range of purposes. We have also seen the philanthropy of corporations such as Home Depot and Coca-Cola Company. The Home Depot Foundation has donated nearly $4 million to assist in the relief efforts. Coca-Cola Company donated $5 million and water and other beverages to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for its relief efforts. This is an appropriate time to gradually raise the caps on corporate contributions from 10 to 20 percent to encourage corporations to continue their social responsibility. We must also level the playing field for all corporate donations by expanding charitable incentives for S corporations to increase charitable giving. In my home State of Pennsylvania, I have worked closely with the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations. I have heard from many of the nonprofits in my State about the pressing need for the charitable incentives we have in the CARE Act. The time is now to expand charitable giving, both in my home State and throughout the Nation. One certainty we have seen is in every disaster that occurs in the United States and around the world is the desire of fellow Americans to help those that are in need. We should commend that generosity by passing this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of Judge Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That probably comes as no great surprise to anyone who has followed my career, but I think my reasoning hopefully will illuminate a little bit as to the difference between my passions as a Member of the Senate and as a legislator and my duty as a Senator to confirm nominees to the courts of this country because I do see them as different. My job as a Senator is to be a passionate advocate for the things I believe are best for my State, for the constituents I represent, and best for the country and ultimately the world. I come here, as my colleagues have noted on occasions, with a fair degree of energy and passion and commitment to those causes. When I approach the issue of nominations, particularly to a position of this import, judicial nominations, I come with a different agenda. A court is not a place for zealous advocates to impose their will upon the American public. It is not a place for people who believe their views as judges are superior to the views of the democratically elected officials in this country--better put, that their views are better than the people's views because we are, in fact, accountable to the people we represent. When I look at the confirmation process for judges, I try to step back and use a different criteria--not whether I agree with the judge's points of view on a variety of different issues but whether I believe the judge can carry out the role of a judge. It is interesting in this debate that we have heard here in the Chamber and we have been hearing across this country now for the better part of 3 or 4 years since we have been locked up in the judicial confirmation battle that it has been a battle about ideology. It has been a battle about interpretations of the Constitution and rights derived from that Constitution and whether they will be upheld or whether they will be struck down or whether they will be modified. I believe that is an unfortunate debate. It is unfortunate that those who are applying or have been nominated for judicial positions are put in the positions of now being questioned as if they are running for political office, under the scrutiny of someone who is running for political office and make judgments about public policy as opposed to what the traditional role of the Court has been up until the last 40 or 50 years, just to decide the case before them in a narrowly tailored fashion, to do justice to the parties, in concert with the Constitution of this country--applying the law in this narrowly tailored fashion to come up with a just result for the parties in the case. In the last 40 or 50 years, that type of justice has been rarer and rarer to find in our decisions, particularly on the Supreme Court. As I come here, I again don't come here as a conservative. A lot of my supporters have said I am not sure Judge Roberts is a conservative. My response is, I am not sure either. Further, I am not sure it matters. What I am sure of is Judge Roberts will be a good judge, will be someone who sits and judges the case on the merits of the arguments as they apply to the Constitution of this country, and will do so in a way that comports with the great tradition in the last 40 or 50 years of the American judiciary. I am confident of that. I think if there is anything that those on both sides of the aisle would say it is that Judge Roberts understands the limited role of the courts. When Judge Roberts came into my office shortly after he was nominated, he stunned me. I have met with a lot of nominees who wanted to be judges from Pennsylvania, from the circuit courts as well as district courts. This was my first opportunity to meet a nominee for the Supreme Court. I have been here 11 years, and this is the first nomination for the Supreme Court in my 11 years here in the Senate. But having met many people who wanted to aspire to be judge, he was the first nominee I met with who used terms such as ``humility'' and ``modesty'' when describing the role of a judge in his role in the judicial process. Words such as ``judicial restraint'' again are not hallmarks of this judicial debate we have been engaged in now for the last few years. That may give some pause to conservatives who would like to see an activist conservative reversing lots of decisions conservatives are concerned about which the Court has passed down in the last few decades. But to me, it gives me comfort to know this is a judge who will apply the law, who will not seek to replace the role of the legislature, or the President, State legislatures, and the Governors, township supervisors, county councils, but that he will do justice with the facts before him in the case in solving the dispute that has been presented to him. As I said, we have had far too little of that kind of justice over the last few years. As a result, I have written and spoken about the concern I have in this country that the judiciary is taking an ever increasing and dominant role in our society and in our Government. We are supposed to be a government that has checks and balances. When you talk about checks and balances, most people think about Republicans and Democrats. Of course, checks and balances were written long before there were such things as Republicans and Democrats. Checks and balances are the remainder of power between the branches of Government, one to check the other to make sure this finely tuned and crafted document, the Constitution, that establishes these three branches would stay in equilibrium. There were concerns at the time about a strong President running roughshod over the Congress and the judiciary and a strong Congress doing the same. Very few had concerns about the judiciary, particularly Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He showed very little concern about a judiciary getting out of control. One exception to that was Thomas Jefferson. It was not at the time of the writing of the Constitution but years later, after a few court decisions had been handed down which gave power to the courts, which I am not sure many of the writers of the Constitution envisioned. But having given them power as a result of earlier court decisions, Jefferson wrote in 1821, ``The germ of destruction of our Nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body working like gravity by night, and by day gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall render powerless the checks over one branch over the other, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we were separated.'' That was Jefferson's concern about our judiciary, this ``irresponsible'' body, in his terms--irresponsible in the sense that it owes no responsibility or duty, has no real ability over the executive or legislative branches to be checked. Why do I go off on this discussion about the courts? It is because of this penchant of the judiciary to grab more authority, to act as a superlegislature and lord itself over the rest of society that we need men such as John Roberts on this Court who understand as Chief Justice the danger a judiciary of this kind is to the United States of America and to our democracy. While I am not sure John Roberts is a conservative, I am not sure he will overturn cases which I believe should be overturned, I am sure he will do justice. He will execute his duties with restraint, modesty, and humility as the Founders who had no concern about the judiciary believed those in positions on the Court would do. He is someone whom our Founders would be proud of to serve in that position. He is someone we desperately need to speak in the Court, to speak to the Court, and lead the Court in a direction that usurps less the powers reserved for the people in our Constitution. I strongly support John Roberts. I hope the President in his next nomination will nominate someone very much in the vein of John Roberts. This Court and this country need people such as John Roberts. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I am introducing called the Social Security Guarantee Act. The reason I am introducing this piece of legislation is in an attempt to try, at a time when it looks like the Social Security issue here in Congress has ground down to almost a halt--although I think there is still an opportunity; as we hear, the House may pass something to move the ball forward--I want to put forth an idea I think would be helpful as something we can get done that should have, I hope, bipartisan support and would create a sense of security and certainly reduce anxiety among those at or near retirement with respect to any future changes to Social Security. The Social Security Guarantee Act is a very simple concept. It says if you were born before 1950, this law now creates a right for you to the benefits that you have been promised. Now, you may say: Why is that a new thing? Well, believe it or not, there is a Supreme Court case on this point that says Social Security recipients have no right to the benefits they have been promised under the law. This would create such a right for people born before 1950. Now, why do I pick out 1950? Because in all the legislation that has been introduced in the Congress, the statements made by the President, and even statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have all agreed that people who are at or near retirement should not be subject to change, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is there is money there to pay those benefits. Cashflow-wise, there will be enough money to pay for the benefits for our seniors and those who are near retirement or near the eligible age of 62. So there is not a need to change the Social Security system for these individuals. Therefore, everyone who is proposing changes to the system, to save it and strengthen it for the future, has set them aside verbally and said: We are not going to propose anything that is going to affect your benefits if you were born before 1950. Well, if we are going to say that, and promise that, then I think a step forward--both in terms of our ability to find a solution to the problem for younger workers and the fact that Social Security will not have sufficient resources to pay for benefits in the future--we take a step forward if we promise to put in law a guarantee that older workers' and retirees' benefits are guaranteed by the law. The second benefit is one that is political in this sense, in that one of the difficulties in trying to rally support in the public for a program that will save and strengthen Social Security for younger workers is the anxiety that older workers have and retirees have that somehow or other, at the last minute, they will be folded into this bill and somehow their benefits will be affected or their taxes will be increased. This should provide a level of comfort and reduce that anxiety and create a proper focus for reform, the proper focus for reform being the future, not the present, not the past. So I put this forward as an admittedly minimalist step, but I think an important one, that creates a better atmosphere where there are not political accusations of trying to take someone's Social Security check away or that grandma's check be cut in half, or whatever the case may be. You hear all these things from those who do not want to make any kind of changes to the Social Security system for younger workers. So they go out and try to scare older workers and retirees. I might add, another reason to do this is, it would not be fair at this point to reduce their benefits or to change the structure when they are either in the system or very close to being in Social Security. So this is a step on which I would hope we could get bipartisan agreement, that we could pass this by unanimous consent. I do not know of anybody in this Chamber who has made the statement that they think we should change benefits for current retirees, or that we should change benefits for folks who are near retirement. That being the case, I see no reason we would not pass this and, in a sense, take those born before 1950 and say: OK, you are off the table. No Social Security changes are going to affect you. Your interest in the Social Security debate then becomes the future, not you. It becomes your children, your grandchildren, their children, their grandchildren, not how it affects you and your life today. I think that is a helpful step in the right direction, to try to get something that is appropriate, a stronger Social Security system, that is appropriately designed for future generations of Americans. I am pleased Senator DeMint has joined me in this legislation. I certainly put out a call for all those who are interested in trying to take a small step forward in moving the Social Security agenda to join me in securing the benefits for our seniors, removing the anxiety that often comes, particularly with those who live from Social Security check to Social Security check, removing the anxiety that they have about the potential for their benefits to be affected by any changes Congress would make. This would create a vote, which I suspect would be unanimous, that would put every Senator on record for putting in the law that they will not change the Social Security benefits for those who were born before 1950. That has a powerful effect when a Member votes that way. It makes it very difficult for them to come back and say: I am going to change my mind. It is a meaningful piece of legislation. It is a step in the right direction. It does remove the anxiety which is a positive thing for our seniors. It creates a platform for us to build into the future a stronger Social Security system. I am hopeful that in the next couple of months, if not early next year, that we can get a vote on this; that we can have unanimous consent to bring it up and to pass it and to get a strong vote from every Member of the Senate that Social Security reform programs put forward in the Senate to save and strengthen the Social Security system will be all about the future, will be all about younger workers and how we make the system stable for them without using scare tactics about how it is going to affect older workers who are, in most cases, the most vulnerable citizens in our society.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I am introducing called the Social Security Guarantee Act. The reason I am introducing this piece of legislation is in an attempt to try, at a time when it looks like the Social Security issue here in Congress has ground down to almost a halt--although I think there is still an opportunity; as we hear, the House may pass something to move the ball forward--I want to put forth an idea I think would be helpful as something we can get done that should have, I hope, bipartisan support and would create a sense of security and certainly reduce anxiety among those at or near retirement with respect to any future changes to Social Security. The Social Security Guarantee Act is a very simple concept. It says if you were born before 1950, this law now creates a right for you to the benefits that you have been promised. Now, you may say: Why is that a new thing? Well, believe it or not, there is a Supreme Court case on this point that says Social Security recipients have no right to the benefits they have been promised under the law. This would create such a right for people born before 1950. Now, why do I pick out 1950? Because in all the legislation that has been introduced in the Congress, the statements made by the President, and even statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have all agreed that people who are at or near retirement should not be subject to change, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is there is money there to pay those benefits. Cashflow-wise, there will be enough money to pay for the benefits for our seniors and those who are near retirement or near the eligible age of 62. So there is not a need to change the Social Security system for these individuals. Therefore, everyone who is proposing changes to the system, to save it and strengthen it for the future, has set them aside verbally and said: We are not going to propose anything that is going to affect your benefits if you were born before 1950. Well, if we are going to say that, and promise that, then I think a step forward--both in terms of our ability to find a solution to the problem for younger workers and the fact that Social Security will not have sufficient resources to pay for benefits in the future--we take a step forward if we promise to put in law a guarantee that older workers' and retirees' benefits are guaranteed by the law. The second benefit is one that is political in this sense, in that one of the difficulties in trying to rally support in the public for a program that will save and strengthen Social Security for younger workers is the anxiety that older workers have and retirees have that somehow or other, at the last minute, they will be folded into this bill and somehow their benefits will be affected or their taxes will be increased. This should provide a level of comfort and reduce that anxiety and create a proper focus for reform, the proper focus for reform being the future, not the present, not the past. So I put this forward as an admittedly minimalist step, but I think an important one, that creates a better atmosphere where there are not political accusations of trying to take someone's Social Security check away or that grandma's check be cut in half, or whatever the case may be. You hear all these things from those who do not want to make any kind of changes to the Social Security system for younger workers. So they go out and try to scare older workers and retirees. I might add, another reason to do this is, it would not be fair at this point to reduce their benefits or to change the structure when they are either in the system or very close to being in Social Security. So this is a step on which I would hope we could get bipartisan agreement, that we could pass this by unanimous consent. I do not know of anybody in this Chamber who has made the statement that they think we should change benefits for current retirees, or that we should change benefits for folks who are near retirement. That being the case, I see no reason we would not pass this and, in a sense, take those born before 1950 and say: OK, you are off the table. No Social Security changes are going to affect you. Your interest in the Social Security debate then becomes the future, not you. It becomes your children, your grandchildren, their children, their grandchildren, not how it affects you and your life today. I think that is a helpful step in the right direction, to try to get something that is appropriate, a stronger Social Security system, that is appropriately designed for future generations of Americans. I am pleased Senator DeMint has joined me in this legislation. I certainly put out a call for all those who are interested in trying to take a small step forward in moving the Social Security agenda to join me in securing the benefits for our seniors, removing the anxiety that often comes, particularly with those who live from Social Security check to Social Security check, removing the anxiety that they have about the potential for their benefits to be affected by any changes Congress would make. This would create a vote, which I suspect would be unanimous, that would put every Senator on record for putting in the law that they will not change the Social Security benefits for those who were born before 1950. That has a powerful effect when a Member votes that way. It makes it very difficult for them to come back and say: I am going to change my mind. It is a meaningful piece of legislation. It is a step in the right direction. It does remove the anxiety which is a positive thing for our seniors. It creates a platform for us to build into the future a stronger Social Security system. I am hopeful that in the next couple of months, if not early next year, that we can get a vote on this; that we can have unanimous consent to bring it up and to pass it and to get a strong vote from every Member of the Senate that Social Security reform programs put forward in the Senate to save and strengthen the Social Security system will be all about the future, will be all about younger workers and how we make the system stable for them without using scare tactics about how it is going to affect older workers who are, in most cases, the most vulnerable citizens in our society.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, here in the United States we cherish and protect religious freedom. Citizens of this great Nation exercise this freedom in many places--in their homes, in their workplaces and many more. But no place is more commonly the location of reflection and prayer than the house of worship--be it the church or synagogue, mosque or temple. The houses of God are infused with sanctity--not because of their architecture or their art or even holy books housed in them--they are sacred because it is where we men and women go to connect to something larger than themselves. We go there to seek comfort and peace. This is, of course, not only true of houses of worship in this country, but throughout the world. It is thus with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today to describe and to deplore the desecration of synagogues that was perpetrated earlier this week in Gaza. After painful deliberations in Israel's Cabinet, the government of Israel decided to leave standing nineteen synagogues in its twenty-one communities throughout the Gaza Strip rather than lending a hand to their destruction. Despite official Israeli requests to protect the sanctity and security of the holy sites after it courageously withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian Authority rejected out of hand any responsibility and refused to protect the structures from arsonists and looters. In fact, a Palestinian police officer, tasked with keeping the peace, shirked his responsibility and allowed the mobs to torch the synagogues, claiming, ``The people have a right to do what they're doing.'' Those acts should offend all people of good conscience. We know too well that where houses of God are desecrated, threats to man's liberty and life are soon found. As a nation founded by those seeking freedom from religious persecution, we know that governments must actively protect their citizens' religious freedom. And they have a sacred obligation to protect buildings not because they are made of stone, glass and wood but out of respect for the worship of God that occurs inside them. Houses of worship, central fixtures in any community, are places where people gather to serve and worship God, seek his counsel, and share common religious experiences. As an American who strongly values religious freedom, I am appalled by the actions of Palestinians who desecrated holy sites and I deplore the total abdication of leadership demonstrated by the Palestinian Authority. [On this day in 1963,] a bomb exploded at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL. And it took until 2001, almost 40 years later, but, we prosecuted and convicted a man responsible. It pains me as I think of such horrific acts occurring and I am proud that in America we not only have the right to worship freely but where we fully prosecute perpetrators of such crimes to the fullest extent. The lawlessness in the streets of Gaza, the lack of human rights, and the disrespect shown to holy sites by the Palestinian Authority is in marked, stark contrast to the way Israel has treated mosques and Christian holy sites. Following the torching of synagogues in Gaza, Israel increased security at Arab mosques. We need no further proof of the difference between lawful, civilized nations and those that have no place in the family of nations. A government that fails to honor religious sites and, worse, lacks the ability to restrain its citizens from committing such heinous acts demonstrates it is not yet a partner to peace and not yet interested in normal relations with our great friend, the State of Israel. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America said, ``The destruction of a synagogue is akin to a knife being thrust into our very being. When synagogues are destroyed, with either the connivance or lack of action of a governing authority, we can only ask, what kind of government is this?'' All Americans of good will, of all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities feel such pain. I commend and join President Bush who yesterday condemned the desecration of the synagogues in Gaza and hope that all Members of this great body do the same.