Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to remove the current cap on the number of reverse mortgages that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). This legislation will ensure that eligible seniors have access to this important tool that allows them to continue to meet their expenses at a time when they have a reduced income. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Crapo, who is an original cosponsor of this legislation. I represent a State with the second largest senior population in the United States. Many of these seniors have worked hard throughout their years and own their own homes. Many of them are also at a time in their lives when they are having trouble making ends meet. Reverse mortgages allow senior homeowners to convert part of their home equity into tax- free income. The homeowner receives payments from the lender rather than making monthly payments as with a regular mortgage. The homeowner may receive the money in one lump sum, fixed monthly payments, a line of credit, or a combination of these. These funds can be used by seniors to pay for expenses, while allowing them to stay in their own homes as long as possible. A reverse mortgage helps make services like home healthcare, adult daycare and assisted living a possibility for more American seniors. It can also be used to pay for needed home repairs and other living expenses. Unfortunately, there is currently a statutory limitation on the number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages that can be issued. This cap has already been increased as the aggregate number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages came close to reaching the cap. Unless it is removed completely, many seniors may be denied the use of this program, which can help to make their later years more stable and comfortable. For this reason, I am pleased to introduce this legislation to permanently remove the current cap. I am also pleased to be working on this proposal with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Michael Fitzpatrick, who has introduced this legislation in the House. I am very hopeful that the 109th Congress will act to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to remove the current cap on the number of reverse mortgages that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). This legislation will ensure that eligible seniors have access to this important tool that allows them to continue to meet their expenses at a time when they have a reduced income. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Crapo, who is an original cosponsor of this legislation. I represent a State with the second largest senior population in the United States. Many of these seniors have worked hard throughout their years and own their own homes. Many of them are also at a time in their lives when they are having trouble making ends meet. Reverse mortgages allow senior homeowners to convert part of their home equity into tax- free income. The homeowner receives payments from the lender rather than making monthly payments as with a regular mortgage. The homeowner may receive the money in one lump sum, fixed monthly payments, a line of credit, or a combination of these. These funds can be used by seniors to pay for expenses, while allowing them to stay in their own homes as long as possible. A reverse mortgage helps make services like home healthcare, adult daycare and assisted living a possibility for more American seniors. It can also be used to pay for needed home repairs and other living expenses. Unfortunately, there is currently a statutory limitation on the number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages that can be issued. This cap has already been increased as the aggregate number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages came close to reaching the cap. Unless it is removed completely, many seniors may be denied the use of this program, which can help to make their later years more stable and comfortable. For this reason, I am pleased to introduce this legislation to permanently remove the current cap. I am also pleased to be working on this proposal with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Michael Fitzpatrick, who has introduced this legislation in the House. I am very hopeful that the 109th Congress will act to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution expressing the strong disapproval of the Senate to the September 14, 2005, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case of Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et.al. This decision is a prime example of why we need to put judges on the bench who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. Judges are not politicians. They are on the bench to hear the cases in front of them, not to pursue their own personal political agendas. We need more judges that will decide each case based on the facts and the law, not legislate from the bench. Like most Americans, those of us who are not serving on the Judiciary Committee have watched intently as President Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has stood up to the over 21 hours of questioning. Judge John Roberts has been asked nearly 500 questions, and his responses have added to the more than 76,000 pages of documents concerning his Federal Government service. The hearings themselves have proved to be an incredible civics lesson for the American public, and to some extent the Senate, on the role of judges. I have been very impressed with Judge Roberts, both when we met and in his considerable response during these hearings. He is a modest and humble man who I believe will be a credit to our judicial system. As he stated in his opening remarks, ``[i]t is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.'' Judge Roberts believes in judicial restraint, adherence to the rule of law, as well as a posture of modesty and humility in a court. I believe that Judge Roberts is the kind of judge that America needs--a fair, independent and unbiased judge committed to equal justice under the law. If confirmed, I am convinced that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. As he said yesterday, he does not come to the bench or to a case with an agenda or a platform. In fact, he reminded my colleagues that he was not a politician, and he is not going to advocate positions on issues to win votes. Returning to the case at hand, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution. The Pledge of Allegiance is a unifying force in this Nation. It draws all of us, regardless of race, religion, gender, or national origin, together in support of the common good. At a time when we should be uniting to support our troops in Iraq and our neighbors in the Gulf States affected by Hurricane Katrina, it is a shame that an activist court is seeking to divide based on the principle of ``I'' or ``me first,'' instead of pursuing the selfless principle of the common good. Just last Congress this body came together to support the current Pledge of Allegiance on a 94-0 vote. I hope that we will have the same bipartisan support again for this important issue, and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 4-year anniversary of the tragedies that took place on September 11, 2001. Out of the destruction of that terrible day emerged a renewal of the American spirit and a rejuvenated commitment to fight the scourge of terrorism both at home and abroad. Yesterday, I was honored to attend a memorial service along with Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and other public officials to pay tribute to the brave passengers and crew aboard flight 93. We now know with near certainty that the terrorists aboard that flight had plans of causing severe destruction to either the White House or the Capitol Building. Thanks to the heroic actions of the men and women aboard that flight, thousands of lives were spared, and one of the greatest symbols of America's freedom and democracy still stands. The individuals who tried to break our fortitude will never succeed. They failed because as Americans we are all living, breathing examples of freedom and democracy, of strength and character. No act of terrorism can ever take that away from us. I continue to believe that the individuals, States, and countries that have supported terrorism should be brought to justice. On October 7, 2001, President Bush announced Operation Enduring Freedom to dismantle the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was harboring al- Qaida. Thanks to the brave men and women in our armed forces and the support of other nations, we have captured countless members of al- Qaida. As Americans, we have been blessed with a country that endorses freedom and equality. Sadly, the Afghani people were not as fortunate, living under the oppressive regime of the Taliban. We and other democratic nations have finally given them the chance to live in a free society. They have made considerable progress in establishing a democracy, noted by their landmark election on October 9, 2004, in which millions of Afghanis came out to vote. The terrorists are relentless; they will continue to target America unless we take a firm stand against them. While we have made significant progress, we must remain vigilant in bringing al-Qaida to justice. Winning the war on terror is essential for the safety of America and other nations around the world. America has a unique opportunity to lead this fight and act as a symbol of freedom for all people. I feel honored to represent the people of Pennsylvania in the United States Senate, and I hope that we will all continue to work toward creating a safer world for our future generations.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, words cannot express the sense of loss and hopelessness that many residents are feeling at this time in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida. My family and I send prayers and heartfelt condolences to all of those who have lost loved ones in the wake of this catastrophe. One certainty of every disaster that occurs in the United States and around the world is the desire of fellow Americans to help those who are in need. Today, as we watch the terrifying developments on our TV sets, we know that generous Americans across the country are contributing food, clothing, money, and time to the unfortunate victims of this tragedy. The Salvation Army has more than 250 volunteers, employees and others prepared to serve up to 500,000 hot meals per day to residents and first responders in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They have mobilized approximately 100 mobile canteens that provide up to 5,000 hot meals per day, and staged two, 54-foot mobile Base Camp kitchens that can provide 20,000 hot meals per day. Salvation Army staff and volunteers are working in shelters and coordinating the distribution of supplies. The American Red Cross is currently providing thousands of volunteers, Red Cross workers and resources to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina. The Red Cross has about 485 shelters open in 18 States serving more than 142,000 people. Working with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Adventists, and Second Harvest, the Red Cross is prepared to provide nearly 3.3 million meals each day. More importantly for some, the Red Cross is partnering with local and government entities to provide medical aid and counseling to families. The Red Cross is providing a safe haven for thousands of evacuees in hundreds of Red Cross shelters around the world. Catholic Charities agencies from around the region are ready to send technical assistance teams to help the local Catholic Charities in the impacted areas with their response efforts, as well as providing long- term recovery work. I am also thankful for the efforts of charitable organizations in my home State of Pennsylvania. From the moment that disaster struck, individuals, families and organizations across the Commonwealth have made great efforts in assisting those in need. Brother's Brother Foundation, BBF, a 47- year old Pittsburgh-based international charity, is sending a tractor- trailer full of donations, including 5,000 pairs of new shoes donated by CROCS Inc. of Boulder, CO, and new clothing and hygiene items. Fraternal benefit societies have also stepped up to the plate, including the Loyal Christian Benefit Association headquartered in Erie, PA, as well as the Knights of Columbus and Thrivent. The Greek Catholic Union of the United States, headquarted in Beaver, PA, has donated $15,000 to Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and American Red Cross. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC, is ready to deploy two helicopters to States hit by the hurricane if emergency management officials ask for them. Additionally, UPMC has offered to treat hurricane patients at its Pittsburgh hospitals or set up a 250-bed medical facility around the disaster area. Carnegie Mellon University has offered to assist Tulane University in New Orleans in any possible way, which could include CMU taking on students from Tulane so they do not fall behind in their classwork. The charitable efforts of so many Americans during this crisis is a reminder that government should be making laws that support and encourage such philanthropy. Legislation such as the bipartisan CARE Act benefits a sector that is vital during these times of crisis. The estimated $2 billion in food-donation incentives that the CARE Act provides would allow farmers, restaurants and corporations to give more of their surplus food to local food banks and soup kitchens. Additionally, individuals would be willing to donate even more if current law was more favorable to those who charitably donate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to confinn that certain language in the Conference Report to the Energy bill, with respect to the Internal Revenue Service stopping the issuance of private letter rulings and other taxpayer-specific guidance regarding the section 29 credit, actually refers to a solid fuel produced from coal and ``coal waste sludge,'' a waste product composed of tar decanter sludge and other byproducts of the coking process. This fuel is commonly referred to as ``steel industry fuel'' because it is a superior feedstock for the production of coke that is used by the domestic steel industry. Steel industry fuel provides significant energy benefits by recapturing the energy content of the coal waste sludge and significant environmental benefits because the Environmental Protection Agency classifies coal waste sludge as a hazardous waste unless it is processed with coal into a solid fuel product. The conference report expresses the conferees' understanding and belief that the Internal Revenue Service should consider issuing such rulings and guidance on an expedited basis to those taxpayers who had pending ruling requests at the time the moratorium was implemented. I would like to confirm the understanding and belief of the conferees that this language in the conference report actually refers to steel industry fuel and the requests for private letter rulings that the producers of steel industry fuel submitted in Fall 2000.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would also like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Finance to confirm that steel industry fuel is a ``qualified fuel'' that is eligible for the section 29 nonconventional fuel tax credit through 2007 when one, the production facility was placed in service after 1992 and before July 1, 1998, pursuant to a binding written contract--including a supply or service contract for the processing of coal waste sludge--and, two, the steel industry fuel is sold to an unrelated party.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma in a colloquy regarding steel grid reinforced concrete decking. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the successful completion of conference negotiations on this important legislation, and thank him for all he has done to assist me and my constituents through this bill. It is my understanding that steel grid reinforced concrete decking has significant technological benefits and the ability to accomplish the goals of bridge and highway officials across the Nation. Among the many benefits of this technology are long service life, rapid and/or staged installation, and reduced maintenance costs and closures. Unfortunately, this type of bridge deck system is underused because of the larger initial costs incurred. It was my great hope that the benefits of this technology would be noted in the conference report of SAFETEA-LU. While it was my understanding that efforts were made by the distinguished chairman to incorporate language regarding this technology into this important piece of legislation, the issue of steel grid reinforced concrete decking was not directly addressed in the conference report. Accordingly, I would like to ask the, chairman whether he agrees with me on the many benefits of steel grid reinforced concrete decking.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on the military career of Col. William A. Guinn, U.S. Army, and to offer my appreciation to Colonel Guinn on his years of dedicated service to our country. Col. William A. Guinn has made numerous and significant contributions to the U.S. Army in a career of over 27 years, culminating with his assignment as Commander, Letterkenny Army Depot from July 2002 to August 2005. During the past 10 years, Colonel Guinn distinguished himself through meritorious service while serving in positions of great responsibility. His leadership and support to members of the Armed Forces, the units and commands in which he served, and local communities mark him as an exceptional leader and contributor to the Armed Forces of the United States. From 1996 to 1998 Colonel Guinn commanded the 123rd Main Support Battalion, MSB, 1st Armored Division Support Command, Dexheim, Germany. In July of 1996, the same month he took command, Colonel Guinn was ordered to begin redeployment of his unit while not losing any levels of support to the Multi-National Division-North. In less than 1 year, Colonel Guinn was again directed to deploy his units into Bosnia as part of the NATO lead stabilization force, SFOR. After 26 months of command duty, Colonel Guinn moved forward and became one of the select few chosen to attend the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. In June 1999, Colonel Guinn reported to the headquarters, U.S. Pacific Command, as a member of the J4 staff. Within his first 90 days, he assumed the challenge of coordinating the United States' support in the emerging nation of East Timor. While assisting the U.S. commitment to Operation Stabilize, the Australia-led operation to bring peace and stability to East Timor by international forces, East Timor, lNTERFET, he planned and executed the first major deployment of contracted support to military forces. Within a year Colonel Guinn would be given another mission of international and U.S. strategic importance when Navy surveillance aircraft, the EP-3E BUNO 15651, was forced down in the Peoples Republic of China, PRC, after an in-air collision with a PRC Air Force fighter aircraft on April 1, 2001. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Colonel Guinn was tasked to coordinate the regional U.S. response in the opening stages of the global war on terror. Colonel Guinn's knowledge of establishing forward logistics bases in remote locations was instrumental in establishing a base in Zamboanga for special forces units to train Philippine soldiers in tactics to resist terrorist insurgents. In July 2002, Colonel Guinn took command of Letterkenny Army Depot, LEAD, in Chambersburg, PA. When he arrived, LEAD was still wrestling with the effects of the downsizing and reductions from the base realignment and closing, BRAC, actions. The infrastructure was being shed to comply with the BRAC 1995 realignment and Letterkenny was struggling to define its future. Because of aggressive and progressive planning, Colonel Guinn has been able to more than double the workload and output of Letterkenny. He developed a strategy to grow the workload, which in turn made the depot a more competitive and efficient producer of materiel in support of global war on terror. First, he identified niche areas where the core capabilities of the depot and its skilled tradesmen could best utilize their strengths. Second, he went directly to nontraditional military customers such as the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, to show what the depot had to offer and how the depot could meet the needs of the warfighter. Finally, he built on the existing core depot work supporting air defense and tactical missiles to grow that part of the business in a competitive environment. During his tenure workload is up over 200 percent in dollars and over 100 percent in terms of manhours. Colonel Guinn directed an analysis and a strategic plan for human resources and workforce replenishment at the depot. Recruitment targets and strategies of tying into technical schools were put in place. The first 4-year apprenticeship program was adopted under Colonel Guinn. Interns began to arrive for the first time in a decade. Colonel Guinn instilled a sense of importance in the everyday tasks of civilians at the depot. He demanded high standards in workmanship and in orderliness of the workplace. He began with the first levels of Lean, Six Sigma, 6S, to improve shop effectiveness and to instill pride in the workforce. Following the BRAC 1995 round, there were challenges in merging the goals of BRAC and those of the depot. Under his leadership, Colonel Guinn looked for opportunities, was entrepreneurial, and he set the depot up to be a model of efficiency. In 2002, the Army launched its ``lean implementation'' initiative. Colonel Guinn decided LEAD would be at the forefront of this initiative. The activities undertaken under his leadership set the pace for lean implementation across all of Army Materiel Command. The summary of a military career is the opportunity to command and transform an organization. Some officers will manage an organization; others lead and challenge the organization to excel. Colonel Guinn led Letterkenny Army Depot and its people to achieve more than they thought themselves possible. Colonel Guinn did what a great connnander should, he got all his organization was capable of doing.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Congressional Commission to explore the expansion of social services delivery options. The bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Commission would undertake a thoughtful review of existing federal social service programs and make recommendations for program areas that would be appropriate for beneficiary-selected or beneficiary-directed options. The goal is to expand consumer choice and to minimize Constitutional concerns while partnering with faith-based and community providers. The importance of this commission is highlighted by its inclusion in the Senate's anti- poverty agenda. Expanding options for social services is essential to help those in need. I have advocated similar proposals in the past during my time in the United States Senate as it relates to the Corporation for National and Community Service. In 2001, I introduced the AmeriCorps Reform and Charitable Expansion Act. The goal of this legislation was to dramatically increase the scope of service opportunities and charitable locations that would be eligible for voucher recipients and to focus efforts more on assisting low-income communities. A current example of the success of this type of program is Section 8 Housing vouchers. The largest federal program designed to provide affordable housing to low-income families is the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program serving over 2 million households. Low-income families use Section 8 vouchers tenant-based subsidies in the private market to lower their rental costs to 30 percent of their incomes. As you know, the modern program began in the early 1980s and has grown to replace public housing as the primary tool for subsidizing the housing costs of low-income families. This approach, has opened up more communities and housing options for low-income families. Since the 1996 welfare reauthorization, I have worked to ensure that faith-based and community organizations are full partners in social service delivery. Our nation needs more, not less, involvement from faith and community organizations. Faith-based organizations are many times the best-equipped institutions in their community to improve the lives of those in need, but have not always been able to receive any help from the government. This bill provides an opportunity to level the playing field for these providers by determining where we can engage the community and allow beneficiaries to be full participants in choosing their provider. The current discrimination against faith-based programs at the federal level prevents our communities from using all our resources to improve and even save lives. And for those are most in need, we need to use every resource we have. Expanding social service delivery options should be a simple matter of common sense. The formula is simple: the more opportunity organizations have to deliver aid, the more options people have to get services, the more people we can help. For this reason, I encourage my colleagues to support the creation of this commission.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Congressional Commission to explore the expansion of social services delivery options. The bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Commission would undertake a thoughtful review of existing federal social service programs and make recommendations for program areas that would be appropriate for beneficiary-selected or beneficiary-directed options. The goal is to expand consumer choice and to minimize Constitutional concerns while partnering with faith-based and community providers. The importance of this commission is highlighted by its inclusion in the Senate's anti- poverty agenda. Expanding options for social services is essential to help those in need. I have advocated similar proposals in the past during my time in the United States Senate as it relates to the Corporation for National and Community Service. In 2001, I introduced the AmeriCorps Reform and Charitable Expansion Act. The goal of this legislation was to dramatically increase the scope of service opportunities and charitable locations that would be eligible for voucher recipients and to focus efforts more on assisting low-income communities. A current example of the success of this type of program is Section 8 Housing vouchers. The largest federal program designed to provide affordable housing to low-income families is the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program serving over 2 million households. Low-income families use Section 8 vouchers tenant-based subsidies in the private market to lower their rental costs to 30 percent of their incomes. As you know, the modern program began in the early 1980s and has grown to replace public housing as the primary tool for subsidizing the housing costs of low-income families. This approach, has opened up more communities and housing options for low-income families. Since the 1996 welfare reauthorization, I have worked to ensure that faith-based and community organizations are full partners in social service delivery. Our nation needs more, not less, involvement from faith and community organizations. Faith-based organizations are many times the best-equipped institutions in their community to improve the lives of those in need, but have not always been able to receive any help from the government. This bill provides an opportunity to level the playing field for these providers by determining where we can engage the community and allow beneficiaries to be full participants in choosing their provider. The current discrimination against faith-based programs at the federal level prevents our communities from using all our resources to improve and even save lives. And for those are most in need, we need to use every resource we have. Expanding social service delivery options should be a simple matter of common sense. The formula is simple: the more opportunity organizations have to deliver aid, the more options people have to get services, the more people we can help. For this reason, I encourage my colleagues to support the creation of this commission.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to express my support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act introduced my colleague Senator Craig of Idaho. The number of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers has significantly increased in recent years. Since 1998, dozens of municipalities and cities have filed suit against America's firearm industry, falsely alleging that manufacturers are responsible for the unforeseen acts of criminals. Firearms manufacturers have already spent more than $200 million in legal fees yet have not been found liable by a single court for the criminal misuse of their highly regulated products. Unfortunately, these lawsuits appear to be designed to impose a political agenda that 33 State legislatures have already rejected. Lawsuits against manufacturers who have nothing to do with the crime at hand thwart the will of the people by bypassing their elected representatives and attempting to impose novel legal theories by judicial fiat. Worse, these suits--even while unsuccessful--drain significant resources from these companies that are the backbone of supplying our military and police officers with the weapons to protect themselves on the job. We cannot allow this trend to continue. S. 397 is a narrowly crafted bill that stops the lawsuit abuse, while continuing to hold those individuals and companies that knowingly violate the law liable for their actions. Specifically, the bill provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or unlawful use of the product by a third party. This bill provides carefully tailored protections that continue to allow legitimate suits based on knowing violations of Federal or State law related to gun sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment, such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm, as opposed to cases of intentional misuse. Many of my constituents have raised concerns about frivolous lawsuits in the gun industry. Pennsylvania leads the Nation in the number of licensed deer hunters and ranks among the leaders in firearm hunters. There are nearly three million hunting licenses sold in Pennsylvania each year. Over one million hunters go out in the field each fall. These suits, by threatening the survival of firearms makers, threaten to end that outdoor tradition and the family time that often accompanies it. The hard-working men and women in Pennsylvania who make up our labor unions also support S. 397. This should be no surprise, however, as working men and women recognize a threat to their jobs and their way of life when they see one. The numbers are telling. Pennsylvania has 227 companies involved in firearms manufacture. There are over 3,000 federally licensed firearms dealers. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are approximately 34,000 jobs and $909 million in salaries and wages supported by those businesses and sportsmen in Pennsylvania. Additionally, these Pennsylvania sportsmen spend about $2 billion in the State, generating approximately $119 million in Pennsylvania State tax revenue. Many families' lives are negatively impacted by these reckless lawsuits. While many of the personal tragedies behind these lawsuits are horrific, the individual responsible is--as it has always been in our system of justice--the criminal not the lawfully operating company. If a lawsuit is based on a defective firearm, a knowing violation of the law or the breach of a contract, that suit should proceed--and S. 397 would allow it to proceed. However, the frivolous suits with novel legal theories and invented liability have already cost jobs, including here in Pennsylvania, and they will cost more jobs if they continue. They will force company closures and they will close family businesses. Suing law-abiding gun makers and dealers for the acts of criminals is like suing automobile makers for the damage caused by reckless drivers. It is wrong and goes against the entrepreneurial and industrial spirit of this country. I agree there is a need to reduce violent crime, and I share the concerns of gun control advocates with the number and severity of violent acts occurring within our Nation. During a June 13th field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Philadelphia, we learned about the many factors that contribute to the problem of youth violence including poverty, broken families, a lack of mentors, and loose enforcement of current gun laws. I believe it is necessary to focus on the root causes of these problems rather than develop a policy that appears helpful on the surface. I have worked and continue to work on the issues of poverty, broken families and mentoring, however I believe that greater enforcement of existing gun laws is a key part of the solution to eradicating gun violence. The program ``Project Exile'' is an example of how stricter enforcement of current laws can make a difference. For this reason, I have been involved in implementing Project Exile in Philadelphia. This program began in Richmond, VA, and has proven to be extremely successful in reducing gun crime by simply enforcing existing Federal gun laws. The program adopts a zero-tolerance policy for Federal gun crimes. Federal, State and local law enforcement and prosecutors work hand-in-hand to expedite prosecution of each and every Federal firearms violation under Project Exile. Thanks to Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile, Federal prosecutions of firearms offenses have gone up 91 percent since 2000. Nationally, those prosecutions have jumped 76 percent in the same time period. That means that more criminals are serving hard time for breaking Federal gun laws. More criminals off the street means our citizens are safer. That is a much more effective way to fight crime than punishing innocent manufacturers through frivolous lawsuits. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 397. Doing so will help an industry that is being unfairly targeted for violent crimes, and allow us to continue to focus on the real causes of violent crimes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on May 26, 2005, I introduced with my colleague Senator Durbin the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005, or PAWS. PAWS amends the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to deal with the problems of substandard animal dealers. I want to make clear to our colleagues and the public that we believe the vast majority of animal dealers are conscientious persons who make every effort to treat their animals humanely and to comply with the law. But, unfortunately, there are some animal dealers who do not care properly for their animals and who seek to profit at the expense of the animals and the public. They exploit the weaknesses and loopholes in the current law to evade or ignore basic standards for the care and condition of animals. These substandard dealers give the entire pet industry a black eye, all the while preying upon the public. It is these unscrupulous animal dealers at which PAWS is targeted. PAWS strengthens the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to deal with substandard animal dealers by making four important improvements to the Animal Welfare Act. First, it will bring under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act high volume dealers who are in every respect like those dealers currently regulated, but are evading regulation because they sell animals exclusively at retail. PAWS will continue to exempt real retail pet stores, and will add a new exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Second, PAWS will help the Secretary of Agriculture identify persons not complying with the law by requiring those who acquire animals for resale to keep records of the source from whom the animals are acquired and make these records available to the Secretary upon request. Third, PAWS will create an incentive for dealers to quickly correct serious problems by giving the Secretary authority to temporarily suspend dealers' licenses for up to 60 days if a violation is placing the health of an animal in imminent danger. Finally, PAWS will strengthen the authority of the Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the law. The marketplace for animals has changed dramatically since the 1970s when the current animal dealer provisions of the act were written. At that time only retail pet stores and small hobby and show breeders sold pet animals, so regulating wholesale sellers and exempting persons who sold animals at retail and were regulated by the market made some sense. With the advent of the internet, mass national marketing channels, and mass importation of puppies for resale, there are a large number of unregulated dealers who are in every respect identical to the dealers regulated by the act, except that they evade regulation by selling exclusively at retail. By regulating these high volume retail sellers, we will assure that they meet the same standards for the humane care and treatment of animals that breeders and brokers selling at wholesale have been meeting for 30 years. PAWS defines the term ``retail pet store'' so that only real retail pet stores are exempt, where customers can see the animals and the conditions where they are kept. PAWS also adds a specific exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Only persons who sell more than 25 dogs per year would be regulated. In addition, breeders who sell dogs and cats from fewer than 7 litters a year bred or raised on their own premises, or fewer than 25 dogs and cats per year bred or raised on their own premises, which ever is greater, would be exempt. For example, if an irish setter breeder has 6 litters that average 6 puppies each for a total of 36 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. If a toy breeder has 10 litters that average only 2 puppies each for a total of 20 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. These breeders could also sell 25 or fewer other dogs a year not bred or raised on their own premises such as stud puppies or puppies from coownerships, without being regulated. I firmly believe that the sport and hobby of breeding and raising dogs and cats should not be a federally regulated activity. PAWS will, for the first time, put an explicit exemption into the Animal Welfare Act to protect small hobby and show breeders from regulation. Some persons who sell dogs for hunting purposes have expressed a concern that PAWS will bring them under regulation. The current Animal Welfare Act already covers persons who sell hunting dogs, and has for almost 30 years. They are regulated on the same basis as those who sell dogs for pets. PAWS will continue to regulate sellers of hunting dogs on the same basis as those who sell dogs as pets. Only high volume sellers who exceed the exemptions set forth in PAWS will be subject to regulation. Some rescue and shelter organizations have expressed concern that because they often charge an adoption fee to those who adopt the dogs they place, these organizations will fall within the definition of ``dealers'' in PAWS and be regulated. True rescue and shelter organizations who do not sell dogs or cats in commerce, for profit, will not be brought under regulation by PAWS, whether or not they are formally incorporated as not for profit organizations. Some high volume dealers in cats and dogs who will be brought under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act by PAWS, but who are still small enough that they breed and raise dogs or cats in essentially a residential environment, have expressed concern that they will be forced to build kennels and catteries and will no longer be able to raise animals in a residential environment. There is nothing in PAWS, or in the current Animal Welfare Act, that precludes persons from breeding and raising animals in a residential setting, provided the animals are properly housed and cared for. In implementing PAWS, the Secretary of Agriculture will have to assure that the animal care regulations take into account breeders and dealers who conduct their operations in a residential setting. I want to make clear that PAWS is a very different piece of legislation than the bills that Senator Durbin and I have introduced in previous Congresses. PAWS does not require or justify creating any new animal care standards, like our previous legislation did. It focuses only on bringing under regulation high volume commercial dealers currently evading regulation and on strengthening the Secretary of Agriculture's ability to identify and bring into compliance high volume dealers who are not in compliance with existing law or, as a last resort, shut them down. Senator Durbin and I in the Senate, along with our colleagues Representatives Gerlach and Farr who have introduced PAWS in the House of Representatives, consulted with a broad array of animal interest and animal welfare groups in creating PAWS. We believe that the enactment of PAWS will be a major milestone in the history of animal protection in the United States. We are delighted that it has brought together animal interest groups and animal welfare groups that in the past have often been on opposite sides of animal legislation, including our own past bills. Having said that, no legislation is perfect when introduced. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation, which has jurisdiction over PAWS, I intend to convene a hearing and mark-up of PAWS shortly after the August recess to make technical corrections, and to clarify some of the bill's language to better reflect our intentions as set forth in this statement. PAWS is not intended to restrict breeding or impose a hardship on rescue and shelter organizations. PAWS specifically recognizes the importance of protecting small breeders and the noncommercial purebred dog and cat fancy from Federal regulation. My family and I purchased our beloved German shepherd dog Schatzie from a small breeder. We and Schatzie raised a litter of puppies in our own home last year, and fully understand the hard work and commitment that it requires. I also know that most commercial breeders are dedicated to their profession and to their animals. I believe that PAWS will protect small hobby and show breeders and the vast majority of compliant commercial breeders as well as the public from those breeders and brokers who evade or fail to comply with the law. And, most importantly, it will protect the animals themselves. I urge my colleagues and all those in the animal welfare community to join us in this effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Regular order.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume under the agreement. Am I in control of the time in opposition?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I did not get a chance to hear all of the comments of Senator Coburn, and I did miss the comments of the Senator from California, but let me address this issue as someone who represents a State--Senator Specter and I were in a meeting so we could not be here for the debate, but we represent a State where a lot of these jobs are going to be located. Westinghouse Nuclear is a large and important entity in our State, in western Pennsylvania, and so for those who do not believe that jobs will accrue to the United States, let me assure you that I talked with the folks there and they most certainly will. This technology is commercial technology. This is not a technology that is any threat from a national security point of view. This is commercial nuclear power technology. As we all know, China has nuclear powerplants and we also know China has also nuclear weapons. The idea that this is a national security issue is not a relevant one, No. 1. No. 2, is this an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars? I think I heard the Senator from Oklahoma say he does not expect the Chinese Government to default on the purchase of these nuclear reactors and I think it is pretty safe to say they will not default. So this idea that this is putting taxpayer money at risk is probably overstating the point, that in fact this $5 billion loan guarantee is only going to cost the taxpayers dollars if in fact the Chinese Government defaults. The likelihood of that, according to the Senator from Oklahoma, is very slim. So the question is should the Export- Import Bank get involved in financing and supporting an American company that wants to do business in competition in China versus a European and Russian competitor, when the European and Russian competitor is, like the U.S. Ex-Im Bank, supporting and financially backing the transaction? I guess the answer could be no, we don't want to participate, we don't want to compete in China, we don't want to have this technology be used in the construction of 4 good, safe nuclear plants, with a prospective 24 plants being built in the future. The 5,000 to 7,000 jobs that we talk about are real jobs, they are high-paying jobs, they are high-tech jobs. When we build a powerplant, we are not building something we can provide to China from here in the United States. We can't send power to China. It is not as though we are going to be able to build something here and export it to China. This is energy capacity they need in China. I might ask the question, well, what if we do not build nuclear plants? If we don't, then they are going to put more demand on the global need for oil and gas as well as coal. So if they are not building technology, they are going to be driving up demand for fuels we need and driving up the cost of those fuels. So we should be encouraging them to build this kind of technology, just as many of us are encouraging us to build this kind of technology so we don't put more demand on our petroleum resources, natural gas resources, and coal resources. I think it is a wise move for China to be building this kind of generating capacity. It is good for the global economy that they are building this kind of generating capacity. It is good for American jobs that we are in fact competing to build this generating capacity using American technology, something that can't be built here. I understand people have very strong feelings about China right now, and I am one of them. I voted for some of the toughest measures we have dealt with here on the Senate floor trying to send a message to China, but I don't know how this sends a message to China, to say that, well, now we don't want these jobs, let the French and let the Russians have these jobs, and let them create economic prosperity in those two countries, and let them build the technology in China, and we will sacrifice the jobs at no cost to the American taxpayer, if we accept the fact they are not going to default on this loan.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for agreeing to accept this amendment. We have been working diligently over the last few days to make sure this amendment could become part of the bill. Senator McConnell, in particular, has been exceptionally helpful in allowing this amendment to be entered into the managers' package, which I am told the Senator will be offering. It is an amendment Senator Durbin and I have been working on to add $100 million to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS. It is an important $100 million in that it brings the U.S. contribution up to the level of one- third the amount that is estimated to be contributed to the Global Fund. A few years ago, we passed a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate that the President signed into law that said that we would provide $1 for every $2 of international contributions to the Global Fund to help fight this scourge that is killing 270,000 people a month--a month--on the continent of Africa. It is just remarkable. The number is almost too much for all of us to comprehend, the devastation occurring on the continent of Africa. Senator Durbin and I have in the past worked together on a bipartisan basis to try to provide the money to the Global Fund as an incentive for other countries to make their contribution and to up their contributions. So this $100 million puts the marker out there, that those in the international community believe is the right marker for where they believe the international community will come in with contributions. It is keeping the American commitment. It is a commitment the President of the United States, as recently as the G8 summit, says he believes we should, in fact, keep a 1-to-2 ratio of funds for the Global Fund. This money is being used effectively. We are not only using the Global Fund effectively, but our bilateral aid, for which the President requested $3 billion, is being used effectively to treat hundreds of thousands of people with antiretroviral drugs, as well as treatment for malaria and tuberculosis, not just in Africa, but the Global Fund reaches beyond the continent of Africa into other countries where there is a rapid increase in the infection of HIV/AIDS. This is a vitally important amendment to keep our commitment, to keep the pressure on the international community to come up with the money necessary to help fight this pandemic in Africa and in many other countries around the world. It is an opportunity for the Senate to go into conference with the House with a stronger number, with the right number, and hold that number. The way we have offset this--again, we had a lot of cooperation from Senator McConnell and Senator Gregg on the Budget Committee. We understand we are going to have to work on it in conference to make sure the offset squares a little better than what we actually have in this amendment. We are willing to work with the managers, as well as the chairman of the Budget Committee, to make sure we do this in a way that will meet with their satisfaction. But we have laid down the marker tonight. This amendment is going to be adopted. We are going to be at $3 billion in bilateral aid and $600 million for the Global Fund, so the total U.S. commitment is going to be $3.6 billion--$500 million with this amendment, and Senator Specter, in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, has an additional $100 million, which brings the total to $600 million, as I said before. This is a very gratifying day, I know, for Senator Durbin. I appreciate his support and the support of all the Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who have been stalwart supporters of the Global Fund and making sure that America keeps its commitment it has made to those who are suffering from this pandemic around the world. Mr. President, I thank again the Senator from Kentucky, the manager of this bill, for his tremendous cooperation. I thank all those who have worked very hard, all the outside groups who have been lobbying Members of Congress in the House and Senate and spending a lot of energy on this issue trying to get to this number, $3.6 billion, with $600 million in the Global Fund. That has been the target for this year. With the adoption of this amendment, all of that work has at least taken one big step in the right direction. Now our job is to make sure we hold this number in conference so we can do what is right for the people who are affected with this pandemic around the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1250 Withdrawn