Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, a bill that would abolish a tax that is severely outdated. The telephone excise tax originated on long distance service under the Spanish American War Act of 1898. At that time, only the wealthy had telephones, the U.S. had no income tax, and the country relied on excise taxes to fund the war. However, you would not know the intent of this tax by looking at your phone bill. The charge on your phone bill doesn't say ``luxury tax'' or ``war tax.'' So why does this tax still exist? Although created to cover war expenses in 1898, the revenue from the telephone excise tax goes into the general receipts of the U.S. Treasury and is not earmarked for any particular government function or service. From its inception, the federal telephone excise tax was repeatedly imposed on a temporary basis. However since 1932, the tax has continuously been imposed. This tax has been scheduled to expire-- partially or completely--at least 17 different times. In 1990, and just before the tax was set to expire, Congress made the tax permanent at 3 percent of local and long distance services. The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its January 2005 report ``there is no compelling policy argument for imposing taxes on communications services.'' The Congressional Budget Office took this a step further by stating in February 2005 that the tax ``has harmful effects on economic policy.'' Repeal of this tax provides consumers with two main benefits--removal of a regressive tax and elimination of an ``invisible tax.'' First, the tax is considered a regressive tax because lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income on the taxed item than those with higher-incomes. A 1987 study by the CBO concluded that excise taxes on telephone service had a greater impact on low-income families than did excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Studies have shown that individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families earning $50,000 spend two percent of their income for telephone service. Second, repeal eliminates this ``invisible'' tax that consumers pay through their telephone companies. Because phone companies collect the tax from their customers, the government is spared the expense. However, this convenience for the government makes the tax ``invisible'' to consumers by tying it to the payment of their phone bills. Additionally, any administrative costs associated with the collection of this tax are most likely passed forward to the consumers, artificially raising the cost of telecommunications with no benefit from the additional taxes. Telephone service providers lose as well under the current tax, and its repeal would further reduce the cost of telecommunications for consumers. Providers carry the administrative costs of being the government's tax collector. Additionally, while providers do not bear this tax directly, the tax raises the cost of services for consumers and in turn reduces both the number of subscribers and the amount of services requested. Common sense dictates that repeal of the telephone excise tax is long overdue. Communication is not a luxury. Rather, communications have become part of the basic fabric of our social and economic life. The growth of the technologies on which communications rides and the widespread use of communications in general should be encouraged and not taxed. The telephone tax is a regressive, inequitable, inefficient and unnecessary tax that Congressional policy makers have found to serve no rational policy purpose. I strongly urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of the telephone excise tax.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, a bill that would abolish a tax that is severely outdated. The telephone excise tax originated on long distance service under the Spanish American War Act of 1898. At that time, only the wealthy had telephones, the U.S. had no income tax, and the country relied on excise taxes to fund the war. However, you would not know the intent of this tax by looking at your phone bill. The charge on your phone bill doesn't say ``luxury tax'' or ``war tax.'' So why does this tax still exist? Although created to cover war expenses in 1898, the revenue from the telephone excise tax goes into the general receipts of the U.S. Treasury and is not earmarked for any particular government function or service. From its inception, the federal telephone excise tax was repeatedly imposed on a temporary basis. However since 1932, the tax has continuously been imposed. This tax has been scheduled to expire-- partially or completely--at least 17 different times. In 1990, and just before the tax was set to expire, Congress made the tax permanent at 3 percent of local and long distance services. The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its January 2005 report ``there is no compelling policy argument for imposing taxes on communications services.'' The Congressional Budget Office took this a step further by stating in February 2005 that the tax ``has harmful effects on economic policy.'' Repeal of this tax provides consumers with two main benefits--removal of a regressive tax and elimination of an ``invisible tax.'' First, the tax is considered a regressive tax because lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income on the taxed item than those with higher-incomes. A 1987 study by the CBO concluded that excise taxes on telephone service had a greater impact on low-income families than did excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Studies have shown that individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families earning $50,000 spend two percent of their income for telephone service. Second, repeal eliminates this ``invisible'' tax that consumers pay through their telephone companies. Because phone companies collect the tax from their customers, the government is spared the expense. However, this convenience for the government makes the tax ``invisible'' to consumers by tying it to the payment of their phone bills. Additionally, any administrative costs associated with the collection of this tax are most likely passed forward to the consumers, artificially raising the cost of telecommunications with no benefit from the additional taxes. Telephone service providers lose as well under the current tax, and its repeal would further reduce the cost of telecommunications for consumers. Providers carry the administrative costs of being the government's tax collector. Additionally, while providers do not bear this tax directly, the tax raises the cost of services for consumers and in turn reduces both the number of subscribers and the amount of services requested. Common sense dictates that repeal of the telephone excise tax is long overdue. Communication is not a luxury. Rather, communications have become part of the basic fabric of our social and economic life. The growth of the technologies on which communications rides and the widespread use of communications in general should be encouraged and not taxed. The telephone tax is a regressive, inequitable, inefficient and unnecessary tax that Congressional policy makers have found to serve no rational policy purpose. I strongly urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of the telephone excise tax.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work on-line from home--whether a few days a week or their entire work schedule--using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 40 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The legislation provides an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for everyone--both the employee, the employer and the community. Telework reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Encouraging telework is good for families--giving working parents the flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. It can also be a good option for retirees and others who choose to work part-time. A task force on telework initiated by former Virginia Governor James Gilmore recommended the establishment of a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. On October 9, 1999, President Clinton signed into law legislation that I introduced in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Houston and Denver. President Bush signed legislation on July 14, 2000, that included an additional $2 million to continue telework efforts in the 5 pilot cities, including Philadelphia, to market, implement, and evaluate strategies for awarding telecommuting, emissions reduction, and pollution credits established through the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. I am excited that Philadelphia continues to use this opportunity to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the Nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. Teleworkers seek a blend of job- related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities; however these research findings demonstrate the impact on the bottom line for employers as well. Employers may save more than $10,000 per telework employee simply from reduced absenteeism and increased employee retention. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. When I introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress, it was endorsed by a number of groups including including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, coaching little league or volunteering at a local charity? I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation that promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace. 6_____

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work on-line from home--whether a few days a week or their entire work schedule--using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 40 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The legislation provides an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for everyone--both the employee, the employer and the community. Telework reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Encouraging telework is good for families--giving working parents the flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. It can also be a good option for retirees and others who choose to work part-time. A task force on telework initiated by former Virginia Governor James Gilmore recommended the establishment of a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. On October 9, 1999, President Clinton signed into law legislation that I introduced in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Houston and Denver. President Bush signed legislation on July 14, 2000, that included an additional $2 million to continue telework efforts in the 5 pilot cities, including Philadelphia, to market, implement, and evaluate strategies for awarding telecommuting, emissions reduction, and pollution credits established through the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. I am excited that Philadelphia continues to use this opportunity to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the Nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. Teleworkers seek a blend of job- related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities; however these research findings demonstrate the impact on the bottom line for employers as well. Employers may save more than $10,000 per telework employee simply from reduced absenteeism and increased employee retention. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. When I introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress, it was endorsed by a number of groups including including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, coaching little league or volunteering at a local charity? I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation that promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace. 6_____

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on the tragedy that occurred on June 14, 1943 at Bakers Creek, Australia. On that day, 40 members of the U.S. Armed Forces, six of whom were from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lost their lives when the B-17C Flying Fortress airplane that they were flying in crashed at Bakers Creek, Australia. This tragedy marked the worst aviation disaster of the Southwest Pacific Theater during World War II. I understand that at approximately 6 a.m. on June 14, 1943, the B-17C Flying Fortress transporting six crew members and thirty-five soldiers that were returning from leave in Australia departed from Mackay Airport in Bakers Creek for Port Moresby, when shortly after takeoff, the plane lost altitude and subsequently crashed. The sole survivor of this crash was Corporal Foye Kenneth Roberts of Wichita Falls, Texas. This June will mark the 62nd anniversary of the Bakers Creek crash. I applaud the work of Dr. Robert S. Cutler and the Bakers Creek Memorial Association for their research and tireless dedication to ensuring that the memory of those who perished at Bakers Creek, Australia in 1943 never be forgotten.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS). The introduction of this important animal welfare legislation demonstrates my continued interest in humane treatment of animals. As the proud owner of a German Shepherd, it is disturbing to see the number of high volume breeders who are careless and disregard their responsibilities to care properly for their animals. Across the United States, there are more than 3,000 commercial dog- breeding facilities that are licensed to operate by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Owners of these facilities are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which sets forth standards for humane handling and treatment. USDA inspections are also required to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Unfortunately, enforcement of AWA has not effectively stopped the inhumane treatment of animals within the pet industry. Because the AWA only covers breeders and others who sell at wholesale, many puppy mill owners have successfully avoided AWA requirements by selling directly to the public. The ability to use the Internet as a marketing tool for direct sales has only made selling directly to the public more prevalent and popular. Because USDA can only regulate wholesalers under the AWA, it has very limited authority to oversee the care and conditions of animals in these facilities. PAWS addresses this growing problem. PAWS would regulate breeders who raise seven or more litters of dogs or cats each year. This threshold test would differentiate those breeders who raise animals in mass numbers from those who are hobby breeders. In addition, this broad ranging legislation would cover importers and other non-breeder dealers who sell more than 25 dogs or cats per year, strengthen USDA's enforcement authority, and assure USDA access to source records of persons who acquire dogs for resale. Finally, PAWS expands the USDA's authority to seek injunctions against unlicensed dog and cat dealers. The term ``puppy mill'' is not new to many people, be it pet owners, consumers, animal welfare advocates, inspectors or just casual observers. Puppy mills are large breeding operations that mass-produce puppies for commercial sale with little regard for the humane handling and treatment of the dogs. Breeding and raising dogs without respect to the animal's welfare guarantees bad results for the unknowing owner, and for the health of the dog and her puppies. For dogs, puppy mill conditions can mean overcrowded cages, lack of protection from weather conditions, and an overall lack of veterinary care. The benefits of regulating commercial breeders and sellers are obvious. PAWS addresses the commerce in pets from many different angles, including imports, large direct sellers, Internet sellers, enforcement tools, and source records. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation, the subcommittee with jurisdiction, I am prepared to work aggressively to advance this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS). The introduction of this important animal welfare legislation demonstrates my continued interest in humane treatment of animals. As the proud owner of a German Shepherd, it is disturbing to see the number of high volume breeders who are careless and disregard their responsibilities to care properly for their animals. Across the United States, there are more than 3,000 commercial dog- breeding facilities that are licensed to operate by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Owners of these facilities are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which sets forth standards for humane handling and treatment. USDA inspections are also required to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Unfortunately, enforcement of AWA has not effectively stopped the inhumane treatment of animals within the pet industry. Because the AWA only covers breeders and others who sell at wholesale, many puppy mill owners have successfully avoided AWA requirements by selling directly to the public. The ability to use the Internet as a marketing tool for direct sales has only made selling directly to the public more prevalent and popular. Because USDA can only regulate wholesalers under the AWA, it has very limited authority to oversee the care and conditions of animals in these facilities. PAWS addresses this growing problem. PAWS would regulate breeders who raise seven or more litters of dogs or cats each year. This threshold test would differentiate those breeders who raise animals in mass numbers from those who are hobby breeders. In addition, this broad ranging legislation would cover importers and other non-breeder dealers who sell more than 25 dogs or cats per year, strengthen USDA's enforcement authority, and assure USDA access to source records of persons who acquire dogs for resale. Finally, PAWS expands the USDA's authority to seek injunctions against unlicensed dog and cat dealers. The term ``puppy mill'' is not new to many people, be it pet owners, consumers, animal welfare advocates, inspectors or just casual observers. Puppy mills are large breeding operations that mass-produce puppies for commercial sale with little regard for the humane handling and treatment of the dogs. Breeding and raising dogs without respect to the animal's welfare guarantees bad results for the unknowing owner, and for the health of the dog and her puppies. For dogs, puppy mill conditions can mean overcrowded cages, lack of protection from weather conditions, and an overall lack of veterinary care. The benefits of regulating commercial breeders and sellers are obvious. PAWS addresses the commerce in pets from many different angles, including imports, large direct sellers, Internet sellers, enforcement tools, and source records. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation, the subcommittee with jurisdiction, I am prepared to work aggressively to advance this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act of 2005. I am proud of the charitable work that is continuously done throughout this country. However, individual charitable giving rates among Americans have stagnated over the past fifty years. As legislators, we must provide incentives for charitable giving and opportunities for low-income families to build individual assets, and support faith-based and secular organizations as they provide charitable social services. We must also eliminate unnecessary road blocks that might keep businesses and individuals from donating to the needy. I remain committed to promoting increased opportunities for the less fortunate to obtain help through faith-based and community organizations. There are people all around the country waiting to give more to charity--they just need a little push. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act provides such a push. This legislation builds on the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 that immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. My bill prevents a business from being subject to civil liability when a piece of equipment has been loaned by a business entity to a nonprofit organization unless the business has engaged in gross negligence or intentional conduct. This provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, and I am hopeful we can do the same here in the Senate in the 109th. This bill also builds on the success of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act by providing similar liability protections for volunteer firefighter companies. The basic purpose of this provision is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations (most commonly heavy industry) and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus fire fighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the state level. Finally, my legislation provides commonsense medical liability protections to physicians who volunteer their time to assist patients at community health centers. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act would extend the medical liability protections of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) to volunteer physicians at community health centers. These protections are necessary to ensure that the centers can continue to lay an important role in lowering our Nation's health care costs and meeting the needs for affordable and accessible quality healthcare. Community health centers offer an affordable source of quality health care, but we need more of them. The President has proposed a $304 million increase for community health center programs to create 1,200 new or expanded sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by next year. In order to meet that goal, the centers must double their workforce by adding double the clinicians by 2006. Hiring this many doctors would be costly, but encouraging more to volunteer would help to meet this need. While many physicians are willing to volunteer their services at these centers, they often hesitate due to the high cost of medical liability insurance. As a result, there are too few volunteer physicians to meet our health care needs. Expanding FTCA protection to these physicians cannot come at a more opportune time. The spirit of giving is part of what makes America great. But more can be done to assist the needy. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act provides added incentives to those who wish to donate equipment or time. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act of 2005. I am proud of the charitable work that is continuously done throughout this country. However, individual charitable giving rates among Americans have stagnated over the past fifty years. As legislators, we must provide incentives for charitable giving and opportunities for low-income families to build individual assets, and support faith-based and secular organizations as they provide charitable social services. We must also eliminate unnecessary road blocks that might keep businesses and individuals from donating to the needy. I remain committed to promoting increased opportunities for the less fortunate to obtain help through faith-based and community organizations. There are people all around the country waiting to give more to charity--they just need a little push. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act provides such a push. This legislation builds on the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 that immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. My bill prevents a business from being subject to civil liability when a piece of equipment has been loaned by a business entity to a nonprofit organization unless the business has engaged in gross negligence or intentional conduct. This provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, and I am hopeful we can do the same here in the Senate in the 109th. This bill also builds on the success of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act by providing similar liability protections for volunteer firefighter companies. The basic purpose of this provision is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations (most commonly heavy industry) and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus fire fighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the state level. Finally, my legislation provides commonsense medical liability protections to physicians who volunteer their time to assist patients at community health centers. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act would extend the medical liability protections of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) to volunteer physicians at community health centers. These protections are necessary to ensure that the centers can continue to lay an important role in lowering our Nation's health care costs and meeting the needs for affordable and accessible quality healthcare. Community health centers offer an affordable source of quality health care, but we need more of them. The President has proposed a $304 million increase for community health center programs to create 1,200 new or expanded sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by next year. In order to meet that goal, the centers must double their workforce by adding double the clinicians by 2006. Hiring this many doctors would be costly, but encouraging more to volunteer would help to meet this need. While many physicians are willing to volunteer their services at these centers, they often hesitate due to the high cost of medical liability insurance. As a result, there are too few volunteer physicians to meet our health care needs. Expanding FTCA protection to these physicians cannot come at a more opportune time. The spirit of giving is part of what makes America great. But more can be done to assist the needy. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act provides added incentives to those who wish to donate equipment or time. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his excellent statement. I have been on the floor many times to talk about the issue of judicial nominations, to stand and speak in favor of many nominees to the bench who have been debated over the past couple of years. Last night, I had the opportunity to meet with Justices Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. I expressed to them my personal sympathy for them and their families, as I do to all of those who have had their lives, careers, and decisions unjustly dragged and contorted through the streets of debate on the floor of the Senate. Four years ago now, when Justice Owen was nominated, I am sure that was a very proud day for her. I am sure she looked forward to the challenges of the confirmation process and the challenges of serving in the circuit court. I don't think anyone could possibly have conceived that a person with her judicial standing, having been rated the highest qualified by the American Bar Association, having served as a supreme court justice in one of the largest States, having been elected in that State with over 80 percent of the vote, having accolades from Democrats and Republicans alike who have served with her on the court, as well as public officials in Texas--I don't think she could have possibly imagined she would be involved as one of the focal points of this maelstrom we see pouring out here over the last few days and, unfortunately, over the last couple years on the floor of the Senate. These nominees have my respect. They have my respect for their courage and for their perseverance. It has been an act of perseverance on the part of many of them. All of them could have easily walked away--not that they don't have good jobs and great careers, and if not universally respected in the legal community, they are certainly highly respected. They don't get nominated for these positions unless they are highly respected within the community. So I think it would have been very easy for many to walk away, but they have not. They certainly have earned my respect, no matter what happens here. I think it is a very sad day when we take highly qualified people who are willing to serve, and who have served in the judicial capacity, and treat them this way. We hear so much from the other side about many of us complaining about activist judges, and being critical of judges, and how it is a security threat to judges. Well, I suggest what we have been seeing over the last couple of years in the way these judges and their records have been distorted, they have added to the sense of frustration of the American public as to our judiciary and our system of justice in this country. We have an opportunity to correct that. We have an opportunity to step away from the mistakes of the past in the next few days and to allow up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate again. For 214 years, 214 years--in this Chamber and the Chamber just down the hall, and once in a couple other places--in Washington and other places, such as Philadelphia--we had votes by Senators who were elected at very difficult times in our Nation's history, at contentious times, where judges had major roles to play on the issues of the day. Think back to the times of slavery, during the early 1800s, when judges played a huge role in this issue that eventually fractured this country. I am sure there were times when either side, depending on who was the President and who controlled the Senate, felt it would have been unfair to their cause, the Northern cause or the Southern cause, to have a person on the Supreme Court who would vote against their interests. I am confident many felt very much tempted to vote and join a filibuster to block a nomination to require a supermajority vote. But if you think about it, it is remarkable they withheld from doing that and chose instead something most people would say is much more dramatic, and that is to secede from the Union. But Senators, enduring that very contentious time when there were fights on the floor of the Senate, understood that a very key part, an important part, essential part of the Senate is the process by which we govern ourselves; that the process protects our rights; the process protects the system of Government. They chose to withhold their passions--the passions of the moment for the issue of the day--for the right and controversy to do what was best for the institution of the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, potentially. And now we have seen this infection that entered into the bloodstream of the Senate. Whether you want to call it a partisan infection or an ideological infection, there certainly is a sickness. I think it is a sickness that, candidly, both sides of the aisle feel. I don't know too many people who feel very good about what we are going through on either side. It is making us all weaker, sicker, and it is so doing to this institution. We need a cure. We had a pretty healthy institution when it came to this issue for 214 years. I think we can look to the prescription that we had for 214 years for a cure to what ails us in this body today. The Senator from North Carolina accurately said we had an agreement-- he used the term ``gentlemen's agreement''--a handshake, that this was the way we were going to proceed. I argue those in the 1850s had the right to filibuster judges. Those in 2003 had the right to filibuster judges. I had the right, during the Clinton administration, to filibuster his appointments. There were those whom I wanted to filibuster and those whom I desperately didn't want to see on the court, and we stood down because in spite of the passions and in spite of what I thought was a mistake to put a particular person on a particular court, there was something lasting, something more important, something certainly not eternal, but certainly eternal for as long as the United States shall survive, and that is this institution. We should not go mucking around in this institution and changing the way we do things, particularly when it comes to the balance of powers and the independence of one of the branches of our Government, the judiciary. We must tread very carefully before we go radically changing the way we do business here, which has served this country well. We have radically changed the way we do business here. Some are suggesting we are trying to change the law, we are trying to break the rules. Remarkable hubris. Imagine, the rule that this is the way we confirm judges has been in place for 214 years, broken by the other side 2 years ago, and the audacity of some Members to stand up and say, How dare you break this rule, it is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me, how dare you bomb my city. It's mine. This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding, an agreement, and it has been abused. In a sense, what we see on the floor of the Senate is a reflection of what we often see in our society. What we often see in our society is a government that increasingly is passing laws. I get this from some of my constituents sometimes. They say: You guys are always passing more and more laws and more and more laws, and ultimately when you are passing laws, in many cases what you are doing is restricting people's freedom. The more laws we have on the books, the more laws there are to obey, the more laws you have the ability to break. So why do we do this? Because we respond to problems in society that come about certainly, in many cases, because what we once thought we did not need a law in place to keep people from doing, we now have laws in place to punish people who heretofore understood it simply was not a good thing to do. We did this recently with the corporate scandals. What did we do? We passed a huge law, Sarbanes-Oxley, in response to what? Activities by a group of people who simply forgot about the handshake, forgot about the duty we have to each other, and pushed the law well beyond what we intended. So we had to pass a new law, and we had to constrain 99 percent of the people in America who never even thought about breaking the law or doing the things that were done by Enron and Tyco and all those people. So we had to pass laws on everybody. Was it a good thing to do? We had to pass the law because there were some who could not live by the law, could not live civilly, could not live with not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. So we had to pass legislation that restricted freedom, that put burdens on people. That is why I have said many times I am not crazy about having to vote to eliminate the possibility of filibusters on judges. I am not anxious to do this anymore than I was anxious to pass some of the corporate responsibility provisions. One would like to think, particularly here, where we are supposed to be a reflection of what is best in our society, that we can understand what we are doing here is wrong and just step back from the ledge and let civility reign, let the tradition of the Senate be upheld. I do not want to have to pass a law. I want to see a Senate that can agree to act civilly, to respect tradition in the process of running this place that has worked well for 214 years. That is what I want. So I have encouraged many to sit down and try to negotiate. I encouraged our leaders to do so. I know our leader has tried diligently. I just spoke with him on the phone a few minutes ago, and he continues to work to avoid what no one--at least I hope no one in this Chamber--wants to see happen. I certainly do not. But we can no longer live--just like we cannot live with the opportunity of those to cheat shareholders and employees--we can no longer live with the minority trying to cheat those nominated by the President of the United States from a fair up-or-down vote in the Senate. We cannot tolerate that. That is behavior beyond the pale. That is behavior that no Senate, prior to the last one, tolerated. None. I have repeatedly asked and I know other people have asked repeatedly, Name one judge brought to the floor of the Senate who had majority support who was not confirmed. Name one, prior to 2 years ago. Never happened. Never happened in the entire history of the Senate. Never happened. We have 10, potentially 16 who would have that privilege because of this new precedent. I cannot understand how Members of the Senate can come here and say what we are doing is breaking the rules. Breaking the rules? I do not know how you can possibly contort the facts of this case around to where the Senate Republicans, by returning to the tradition of the Senate of 214 years, is somehow breaking the rules. This is truly a sad day. It has been a sad week. If you look and listen to my constituents--and I am sure all of our constituents--they are not happy about this debate. They are not happy a group of 100 leaders--100 leaders--cannot negotiate and find some way of acting civilly, of reflecting to our children and our grandchildren that we know how to play nice and we know how to play by the rules. But the passions of the moment, the passions of the moment have swept over us, and those groups out there that are fomenting this because of their own ideological agenda are the culprits, or at least the motivation, but the votes are here. The votes are here. I am hopeful there are enough on the other side of the aisle who will come to the realization this is not good for them, this is not good for their ideology, it is not good for their partisanship, this is not good for the institution, and this is not good for the country to continue down this path. When I came to the Senate, I came from the House, like the Senator from Georgia, from the legislature, like the Presiding Officer. I had never dealt with executive nominations before. So one of the things I looked into is how do I determine what a good judge is. We did a little looking around and determined how do you evaluate a judge. First, are they qualified? Do they have the educational skills, the experience to do the job? Second, are they ethical, not just did they break any laws, but are they ethical individuals and have a reputation for high ethics? And three, do they have an understanding of the role of a judge? Those are the three things. You did not hear me say, do I agree with them on this issue, this issue, or that issue, because my feeling is whoever is elected President will appoint people who agree with their philosophy. That is how it works, just as when you appoint a Secretary of Veterans Affairs or a Secretary of Energy, you appoint someone who intellectually agrees with your philosophy. When President Clinton was elected, I came here, and I supported almost every Clinton nominee. Did I agree with them? Absolutely not. Did I think most of them would be damaging to the court? Absolutely. Did I vote for them? Yes. There are a couple of exceptions. One in particular, I have to tell you, who caused me a lot of heartburn was Judge Richard Paez from California who showed a record of activism on the court that was upsetting to me and showed that he was not someone who understood the role of a judge. So under that he certainly was qualified, and I had no questions about his ethics, but I did have a question as to whether he understood the role of a judge. From his experience it showed me he did not. There were many who wanted to filibuster Judge Paez because of that very fact. In my mind, certainly from the standpoint of not wanting someone on the court, it would have been a justifiable filibuster, except for the fact that is not the way we do things in the Senate, because you know what. The President won the election, and he can nominate who he wants. And we in the Senate have had a tradition saying if you can get a majority of votes in the Senate, you get confirmed. It is about majorities. And by the way, I voted for cloture on Judge Paez and voted against him on the floor when an up-or-down vote came. He did not get 60 votes. Had we filibustered, he would not be on the Ninth Circuit today. We did not. I did not because it was not the right thing to do. It was absolutely not the right thing to do. I suggest that we have changed the qualifications from highly ethical, highly qualified and understanding the role of a judge to someone who is ``in the mainstream.'' That seems to be the idea now. So we are talking about ideology, in the ideological mainstream. There were probably--well, Richard Paez, certainly from my view, I would argue, is probably not in the ideological mainstream of America but they all supported Judge Paez. Probably Justice Harlan, who was the lone dissenter in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, was not in the mainstream at the time. Thurgood Marshall was confirmed in the Senate to the circuit court back in 1961 with 54 votes. As a lawyer for the NAACP in the 1950s, probably a lot of people in America would not have said he was in the mainstream. There are a lot of judges who are not ``in the mainstream'' depending on what stream one happens to be swimming in. Elections have consequences. In 1961, John F. Kennedy was the President. He won the election, and he got the benefit of the doubt on the Senate floor. He got an up-or-down vote. Majorities matter. I do not think my colleagues will hear the Senator from Georgia or any other Senator on this side of the aisle complain because for 18 months Priscilla Owen was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the chairmanship of Senator Leahy. I certainly will not complain. It was his right not to report her nomination to the Senate floor. Why? Because they were in the majority. If a majority of that committee did not support her nomination, fine, hold it in committee. Defeat her in committee. That is fine. No problem. If someone happens to be reported out and a majority defeats, fine, majority rules. This idea that 60, 80 whatever Clinton nominees were held in committee by Republicans during the last few years of the Clinton administration, they were held because the majority opposed them. The majority rules, up-or-down vote on majority vote. That is the 214-year tradition of the Senate. The idea now is the minority rules. One can lose the presidency, lose four seats in the House and control who is going to be the next circuit and Supreme Court judges in the United States? Very interesting. I guess elections do not matter. I guess who people vote for, for President is of no concern to the minority in the Senate. They are the ones who should dictate who the nominees of this President should be. They are the ones who should dictate who comes to the floor and whether they get a vote or not. That is not the precedent of 214 years. It has been an up-or-down vote. This is an outrage. This is an abuse of power. It is interesting we are in the Senate, and we are talking about the minority abusing power. Yes, the minority can abuse power in this case, and in my opinion they certainly have. One final comment, and I apologize to the Senator from Georgia and I appreciate his patience. I just want to make a comment on one case. Yesterday I heard the Senator from California make a statement with respect to Janice Rogers Brown, one I am particularly concerned about because it deals with the issue of Catholic Charities. I heard the Senator from California in describing Justice Janice Rogers Brown's decision in that case and she used the following words in describing her dissent: She, meaning Justice Brown, was the only member of the court who voted to strike down a State antidiscrimination law that provided a contraceptive drug benefit to women. That is her comment. Now, she did not go into the fact what this law said. What was this law? Well, it was a law that said that if an employer provided health insurance they must provide contraceptive coverage--must. Now most folks who have dealt in this area before would say: Is there not an exemption for those religious organizations who do not believe in contraception? The answer is the California legislature did provide such an exception. Let me read the exception. It said that we will exclude from coverage for contraceptive methods that are contrary to their religious tenets. Sounds reasonable. We do that all the time. If it is contrary to religious tenets of a religious organization, they do not have to offer this particular kind of care. As a Catholic, the tenets of the Catholic Church are that contraceptives are wrong, and therefore they do not want to, according to their religious tenets, offer that service to their employees. Well, this is the California exception for a religious employer: One, the entity whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values. Well, this is Catholic Charities. Is it Catholic Charities' role to inculcate religious values? No. One of the key roles of the Catholic Church is to care for the poor, to care for those who are less fortunate. It is a basic and core value of the church. We hear it repeatedly offered by Members on the other side. We have discussions about the church and its theology, how core and central helping the poor is. So they do not qualify under that. Two, that primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets. Well, Catholic Charities does not primarily employ people. They employ people who want to serve the needs of the poor, and they do not ask whether you want to go to church or not at a Catholic Church. Three, that serves primarily persons who share those religious tenets--in other words, only Catholics. Obviously not. They serve everyone. Mother Teresa is the classic example of a Catholic out on the front lines serving the needs of the poor irrespective of who they are. Four, and qualifies as a church under a particular section of Federal law. Obviously, Catholic Charities is not a church. Under the religious exception of the California statute, Catholic charities is an arm directly under the control of the bishop, a mission of the church, not a religious organization. What Justice Brown said was that is an outrage, that is unconstitutional, it is against freedom of religion to suggest that a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities, under that construct, has to offer services in their health care plan. I will agree she was the sole person but that is hardly striking down the rights of women to have contraceptive services. This was an infringement upon the Religious Liberty Protection Act. I find it very interesting a lot of folks come in here with their scorecards. Well, she voted against consumers this many times, she voted against women this many times, she voted against this, as if judges are supposed to keep a scorecard as to who they vote for and against as opposed to following what the law says. So if a consumer comes before a judge, they are supposed to be pro- consumer? If a business person comes before a judge, they are supposed to be pro-business? Is that what my colleagues want judges to do, have a scorecard and make sure they are 50-50 on all of these things? These litmus tests that are being spewed from the other side are a complete undermining of what the rule of law is to be about, about what justice is to be about. They are infusing politics, policy, and partisanship in this process. We must stop this. We must have up-or-down votes. I hope we do it in a way that does not force us to vote to do that.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, being mindful of yesterday's passage of SAFETEA, I rise to speak to an issue that was not addressed in the Senate bill. This is an area of the legal system needing reform that affects interstate commerce in the transportation sector--vicarious liability. These types of laws exist in only a handful of States where nonnegligent owners of rented and leased vehicles are liable for the actions of vehicle operators. Although a vehicle renting or leasing company may take every precaution to ensure that a vehicle is in optimal operating condition and meets every safety standard, these companies can still be subject to costly lawsuits due to the actions of the vehicle's operator, over which the company has no control. Under these laws, leasing or rental companies can be liable simply because they are the owner of the vehicle. Though only a few States enforce laws that threaten nonnegligent companies with unlimited vicarious liability, they affect consumers and businesses from all 50 States. Vicarious liability means higher consumer costs in acquiring vehicles and buying insurance and means higher commercial costs for the transportation of goods. Left unreformed, these laws could have a devastating, effect on an increasing number of small businesses that have done nothing wrong. The House acted in H.R. 3 to address these unfair laws by creating a uniform standard to exclude nonnegligent vehicle renting and leasing companies from liability for the actions of a customer operating a safe vehicle. Under this provision, States would continue to determine the level of compensation available for accident victims by setting minimum insurance coverage requirements for every vehicle. Vicarious liability reform would not protect companies that have been negligent in their renting or leasing practices or in the care of the vehicle. This provision is a common sense reform that holds vehicle operators accountable for their own actions and does not unfairly punish owners who have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, the Senate bill does not contain this important reform. I urge my colleagues. to consider the merits of this provision and retain the House-passed language in the conference bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, at a time when the importance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is highlighted by concerns over the safety of pharmaceuticals, it would be foolish to move forward with importation policies that would circumvent the safety regulations of the FDA. I want to take this opportunity to highlight a recent international Internet pharma-trafficking network that was shut down in Philadelphia, which I strongly believe provides a very accurate, and disturbing, window on what exactly a prescription drug importation scheme would mean for Americans. On April 20, 2005, the Department of Justice announced the unsealing of an indictment returned by a Federal grand jury on April 6, 2005. The indictment chronicled how the ``Bansal Organization'' used the Internet to fill orders for pharmaceuticals. In turn, this crime ring facilitated millions of un-prescribed pills coming into the United States--of which the bio-efficacy and the safety have yet to be determined--to consumers who only needed a credit card. These drugs included potentially dangerous narcotics, such as codine and Valium, drugs that can cause serious harm if not taken under a physician's supervision, and which have been highlighted repeatedly as drugs that pose special concerns as we debate possible importation. Stretching from America to countries such as India, Antigua, and Singapore, officials estimate that this international conspiracy provided $20 million worth of un-prescribed drugs to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide--most if not all of whom had no idea where their drugs originated. This drug scam exemplifies how the Internet can be a door to an unregulated world of just about any kind of pharmaceutical--including counterfeits and potentially dangerous narcotics. This is particularly concerning given the growing ease at which prescription drugs can be purchased over the Internet. At the heart of the debate on foreign importation of prescription drugs is the concern over the cost of prescription drugs. Often proponents claim that importation would allow Americans access to other countries' drugs at a cheaper price, despite thorough analysis by the U.S. Health and Human Services Task Force on Prescription Drug Importation. The HHS Task Force reported that any associated cost savings with importation would be negated by the costs associated with constructing and attempting to safely maintain such a system, and ultimately concluded what both past and current Administrations have found: the safety of imported drugs purchased by individuals, via the Internet or other means, cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, generic prescription drugs in America are on average 50 percent less than their foreign counterparts. This holds true in the case of the ``Bansal Organization,'' in which the vast majority of the trafficked drugs were sold at prices higher than what a consumer would have paid at a legitimate pharmacy. The safety of the American drug supply should not be sacrificed for supposed savings. Those that continue to purport that importation would provide cheaper drugs are misleading the American people, and as a result putting their health and lives at risk. Importation will not equate to cheaper drugs for Americans, but it will lead to an explosion of opportunities for counterfeiters to take advantage of the American people by compromising the safety of our drug supply. Many individuals, both patients and healthcare professionals, who testified during the HHS Task Force's proceedings expressed significant concerns that importation would compromise the integrity of the American drug supply by creating a vehicle through which terrorists could easily introduce harmful agents in the United States. Recall that in 1982, seven Americans died after ingesting Tylenol laced with cyanide. More recently, in July 2003 members of a Florida-based drug- counterfeiting ring who sold and diluted counterfeited drugs were indicted, and 18 million tablets of counterfeit Lipitor were recalled after evidence revealed that this popular anti-cholesterol drug had been manufactured overseas and repackaged in the United States to hide the deception. Importation would provide for any of these acts to be committed on a larger, exponentially more devastating, national scale. To put this in perspective, in 2003, 69 million prescriptions were written for Lipitor in the United States alone. The ``Bansal Organization'' bust is but the latest in a series of illicit pharmaceutical trafficking scams, which are extremely lucrative, and which our law enforcement officials are already struggling to combat on a daily basis. Why would we elect to open the door to importation when we know that doing so will create infinite opportunities to compromise the safety of our drug supply? As we continue to debate the best ways to ensure that Americans have access to the highest quality, affordable prescription drugs, I would caution my colleagues that importation is not the answer. It would be unconscionable to facilitate in any way the dangerous shortcuts utilized in the Philadelphia drug scam--shortcuts that circumvent the essential ongoing patient relationship with physicians and other licensed professionals trained to monitor potential medication interactions and side effects that can lead to serious injury and/or death. Congress should uphold the strong regulatory standards on drug safety that exist today, and not open our borders to prescription drugs from a world of unknown sources.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Health Center Volunteer Physician Protection Act of 2005 along with Senator Ron Wyden. Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced identical bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1313. Community health centers offer primary and preventive health care services to everyone, including low-income, underinsured and uninsured families. Community health centers are typically located in high-need areas identified by the Federal Government as having elevated poverty, higher than average infant mortality, and where few physicians practice. They tailor their services to fit the special needs and priorities of their communities, and offer services that help their patients access health care such as health education, transportation and home visitation. While low-income individuals have access to Medicaid and the elderly and the disabled have access to Medicare, uninsured and underinsured families often delay seeing a doctor or turn to emergency departments where treatment is several times more expensive. Community health centers, however, provide comprehensive and preventive care that adjusts charges for patient care according to family income. The Federal Government spends over $23 billion a year to offset losses incurred by hospitals for patients unable to pay their bills, and the Department of Health and Human Services note that medical care at community health centers cost only about $1.30 per day per patient served. In fact, medical care at community health centers is around $250 less per patient served than the average annual expenditure for an office-based medical provider. Community health centers offer an affordable source of quality health care, but we need more of them. The President has proposed a $304 million increase for community health center programs to create 1,200 new or expanded sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by next year. In order to meet that goal, the centers must double their workforce by adding double the clinicians by 2006. Hiring this many doctors would be costly, but encouraging more to volunteer would help to meet this need. While many physicians are willing to volunteer their services at these centers, they often hesitate due to the high cost of medical liability insurance. As a result, there are too few volunteer physicians to meet our health care needs. By comparison, volunteer physicians at free health clinics and paid physicians at community health centers already receive comprehensive medical liability coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Accordingly, the Community Health Center Volunteer Physician Protection Act of 2005 would extend the medical liability protections of FTCA to volunteer physicians at community health centers. These protections are necessary to ensure that the centers can continue to play an important role in lowering our Nation's health care costs and meeting the needs for affordable and access quality health care. The Community Health Center Volunteer Physician Protection Act of 2005 is supported by the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association. The impact that community health centers have on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is significant. Pennsylvania is the home to twenty-nine Federal grantees, including 11 of which are rural, and 151 different service delivery sites. These services are crucial in my home state which also faces a severe medical liability crisis. We must continue to encourage the spirit of giving and volunteerism, particularly in the healthcare arena. I urge my colleagues to support the Community Health Center Volunteer Physician Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will discuss steel grid reinforced concrete decking--a product that I understand to have significant technological benefits and the ability to accomplish the goals of bridge and highway officials across the country. I am told that the following are benefits of steel grid: long service life; rapid and/or staged installation; and reduced maintenance costs and closures. Despite these benefits, states are hesitant to use steel grid reinforced concrete decking because of the initial cost per square foot of steel grid. However, because of construction benefits and the fact that steel grid weighs much less than the cast-in-place deck alternative, it is my understanding that using this product can reduce the total cost of a project. Because this type of deck system is underused, I urge your support for language in the conference report that highlights the benefits of steel grid and encourages the further development and use of this product.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments about the SAFETEA legislation. I thank the managers of the bill for working with us in trying to address some of the concerns I had about the prior legislation from last session. As I stood here over a year ago when we debated this bill, I spoke very critically of that legislation and the damage that legislation did to Pennsylvania. Thanks to the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Missouri, in particular, we have been able to address some of what I consider to be inequities in this legislation. The point I made a year ago was that one of the major reasons for a Federal tax on gasoline in a Federal highway bill was the idea of promoting interstate commerce. Originally, the interstate system was certainly put in place for military purposes--at least ostensibly for military purposes--to move things around the country in a national emergency. Obviously, the more pedestrian reason, if you will--probably that is a bad word to use when we talk about highways, but nevertheless, the reason that is most often used is because it is for interstate commerce, to move goods around the country, to move people around the country, for travel and tourism, a whole host of other reasons. When you look at why the Federal Government does that, you have to step back and say transportation is a State function. Every State in the country has a transportation department. Why do we need a Federal transportation department? We need it because we have to make sure the goods that are produced in New Jersey can get to Ohio to Texas, or the goods produced in California can get to Georgia. The fact is it is important for us to be connected. If there are situations where States are in financial difficulty and they let their roads degrade, particularly the major interstates--for example, my State is occupied increasingly with traffic that does not stop in Pennsylvania--there would be much more of an impetus if you were a local legislator to invest money on roads which Pennsylvanians used and invest a lot less money on roads that are used by folks out of State. So we put together a Federal tax system, a gas tax, as well as Federal transportation legislation, to promote on the highway side--the transit is another piece, but we will talk about highways for a moment--to promote interstate commerce. So we have a situation where we have States that shoulder a large burden when it comes to that interstate commerce and we have other States that are the great beneficiaries as to the burden those States shoulder in getting a lot of what is referred to as passthrough traffic. That is traffic that does not stop in your State, does not benefit your State economically, to speak of, but, in the case certainly of trucks, beats the heck out of your roads. So you are in a sense carrying the load for States that are the economic beneficiaries, whether they are the originator of the freight or the destination of the freight, whether you are a State that is a passthrough State for travel and tourism. Those are the States you want to pay particular attention to. Again, the nature of the program is to make sure we have a seamless highway system, that we have good interstate commerce. The reason I came to the floor last year was to point out that Pennsylvania is a State that certainly shoulders the lion's share or certainly major share of this passthrough traffic. We have in Pennsylvania about as many interstates as any State in the country. I think there are three States that have more interstate miles. Texas, California and Illinois are the only three that have more interstate miles than Pennsylvania. We have 22 interstates in Pennsylvania. Actually, another one is under construction. There are only four States that have a higher number of ton-miles than Pennsylvania. Again, they are much bigger States than little old Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Ohio and Illinois. I will show a chart that shows the importance of interstate commerce and what Pennsylvania has to deal with. First, the statistic I throw at you, 47 percent of the trucks that go through Pennsylvania do not stop in Pennsylvania. They do not originate there and are not destined for there. We get a lot of traffic from the New England States--New Jersey, New England--that goes through Pennsylvania to get out West or comes down through Pennsylvania to get down to the South. These lines are the traffic that goes through Pennsylvania that does not stop, coming from way out here in Seattle, and they go way up to Maine and lots of points in between. We see the resulting effect on the load of traffic in Pennsylvania. This is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the big thick black line. That is more than 80 million tons of traffic passing through Pennsylvania on this one road. We see several others that have between 60 and 80 million tons of truck traffic, heavy truck traffic. We have heard in the Senate the vehicles that do the most damage to the highways are your heavy trucks. Yes, we are in an industrial area. We have a lot of heavy steel, coal, and lots of other products that travel through our State. They do an enormous amount of damage. You throw on top of that the mountainous terrain we have in Pennsylvania, the numerous bridges. We have several thousand bridges that are in disrepair. We have lots of bridges, we have lots of mountains, we have a lot of freezing and thawing in Pennsylvania which wreaks havoc on the roads. So we have a lot of problems we have to deal with compounded by this heavy through traffic. When I came to the Senate last year and said I was going to oppose the bill in the Senate--because here is a State, I argue, that is one of the poster children for a Federal Highway System that focuses money on States such as Pennsylvania because it carries such a heavy burden for the rest of the country without any direct economic benefit. This was a State, logically, given the topography, the climate, and the congestion and traffic we bear, it would be a State that should do well under a Federal formula. Certainly as Members have said to me in the past, we have. However, under the bill last year, we actually became a donor State. We became a State that was going to subsidize the rest of the country. Here we are in Pennsylvania with this heavy burden of truck traffic. We rank fifth in the country in ton miles in Pennsylvania. Here is little Pennsylvania. (Mr. ISAKSON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, you have States such as Texas and States out West and many other States that are bigger geographically, such as Georgia. Yet Pennsylvania is fifth in the country in the ton miles our roads have to sustain. So what we are asking for is a little bit of equity. I see the chairman is in the Chamber. We have gotten equity, at least some degree of equity. Everybody always thinks they should always get more equity, but we have gotten some degree of equity in this bill. We are not, under this bill, a donor State. Being one I think was underserved. But we still, thanks to the chairman's amendment, get only a 15-percent increase in the amount of funding from the last bill to this bill. That is lower than any other State in the country. Actually, we tie with two other States as getting the lowest rate of increase. So we are a donee State, but we are declining as far as the amount of money. I would argue that is inappropriate given what I have laid out here and the purpose of a Federal highway bill. But we have done better. And we have done well enough that I, as you saw from the votes I have cast on this bill, have supported this legislation and will certainly support passage of this legislation. We have a serious problem in Pennsylvania. We have a lot of bad roads. Twenty-seven percent of our roads in Pennsylvania are rated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics as mediocre to poor. I see the Presiding Officer from Georgia. We have 27.1 percent of our roads rated mediocre to poor. Georgia has .2 percent rated mediocre to poor. Georgia, under this bill, receives a 30-percent increase. We receive a 15-percent increase. The Senator from Georgia just happens to be in the Chair, and I just wanted to point that out because it is a pretty big contrast. The Senator from Georgia has fought hard for his State, and he is a donor State, so I know he believes he deserves more. He has fought very hard and, obviously, very effectively to make sure his State has been treated, in his mind, and I am sure in the minds of the people of Georgia, more equitably. But I would make the argument that States around the perimeter of America really do benefit from States such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and the States through the middle part of the country that have to carry all this traffic to and from the border regions. That is why, if you look at the formula, most of the States that do not do well under these formulas are border States. Again, the reason is they do not have to carry the passthrough traffic, particularly the heavy traffic that we in Pennsylvania have to carry. In addition, they do not have the weather problems and the topography problems and a whole host of other problems that we have to deal with. Forty-two percent of our bridges in Pennsylvania are structurally deficient or obsolete. We have serious problems. So when I came here last year and opposed the bill last year, I did so because of the concern I had about the way my State was being treated. I am grateful, again, to the chairman for his effort to bring Pennsylvania into some semblance of equity. I thank him for that. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for the work he has done with me on the Banking Committee on the transit piece. Transit is a very important piece of the transportation infrastructure of Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, for example, 70 percent of the cost of our transit system is provided for by the State. There are seven States that do not contribute anything to their transit systems. Twenty-eight States contribute less than what the Federal Government contributes to their transit systems. So we made a major contribution in Pennsylvania to transit. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for making sure Pennsylvania is treated fairly under this legislation. One final point I would like to make. I see my colleague from Ohio is here. He probably can make a similar argument about the passthrough traffic that goes through Ohio. I thank the chairman for his effort on the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. There is a 73-percent increase over TEA-21. This is a piece of legislation that we were able to get into TEA-21. It has been a very important program for a lot of our innercities to be able to get to jobs out in the suburban ring where job development is certainly faster than it is in the core innercities. This transportation program has proven, at least in my State--in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in particular, and Harrisburg and other places--to be a very important project, to be able to increase the number of employed in the core urban areas with better quality jobs, and the availability of a better life. So I thank the chairman for his increase, and I certainly hope he will hold that increase in conference. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in 1939, before many Members of this body had been born, Miss Elizabeth Bryden of Waltham, MA, came to Washington, D.C. to work for Congressman Robert Luce. She continued to work on the Hill, with little interruption, until the start of the 96th Congress in 1979. Today, when most Hill staffers remain here for only a few years, Betty Bryden, as she was always known, remains an example of rare dedication and extraordinary public service. Her early employers are now mostly names for the history books. For example, Senator Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts and Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, not to mention Gordon Allot of Colorado and Congressman McIntyre of Maine. Several of those gentlemen chaired the Senate Republican Conference, a position I now hold. As the research librarian for the Republican Conference, in the days before computers, Betty would come into the Russell Senate Office Building hours before most staffers would arrive. By the time the Senate began business for the day, she would have copied, filed, and cross-filed, in what must have been one of the world's most elaborate reference systems, scores of that day's news items from a wide variety of sources. The cumulative result was a towering warren of filing cabinets, jammed with thousands of sheets of paper, the location of each of which she somehow remembered. It was not unusual for Senators to request urgent information from both the Congressional Research Service and Betty, knowing there was a good chance she would have it on their desks long before the official system could respond. With today's internet, of course, it is not necessary for our staff to literally walk across town through a winter blizzard in order to provide the day's news clips, but that is what Betty was known to do on occasion. Little wonder, then, that she had a special place in the hearts of many Senators. Another remarkable Republican woman, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, was especially close to Betty and requested that she join the board of the Smith Library in Maine, on which Betty still serves. It must be admitted that, during most of the period when Betty worked on the Hill, opportunities for advancement for women were limited. It's hard to imagine how they ran this place without the full participation of women; we could not manage to do that today. And yet Betty always found ways to make a difference. At the request of Senator Saltonstall, for example, she took under her wing a young man who needed to be trained as a legislative assistant. Even though, as a woman, she was not eligible for the job, she produced a first-rate legislative aide. The young man was named Eliott Richardson, and throughout his later career he never forgot his teacher and always made a point of paying his respects to her personally when his official duties brought him to the Senate. On behalf of the Senate Republican Conference and its leadership past and present, I salute Betty for her lifetime of labor in our behalf and, indeed, for the entire Senate. Betty's contributions to this institution are still appreciated, and she remains an inspiration to us all.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 7 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator is going to miss his train because of my 7 minutes, not because of his own speech, I will withhold. But if he is going to miss the train because of his speech--

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I along with Senator Lieberman am introducing the Savings and Working Families Act of 2005. The need for this legislation comes at a time when Americans face an ongoing savings and assets crisis. One third of all Americans have no assets available for investment, and another fifth have only negligible assets. The United States household savings rate lags far behind that of other industrial nations, constraining national economic growth and keeping many Americans from entering the economic mainstream by buying a house, obtaining an adequate education, or starting a business. 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 savings 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. The Savings and Working Families Act of 2005 builds on existing IDA programs by creating tax credit incentives for an additional 900,000 accounts. Individuals between 18 and 60 who are not dependents or students and meet the income requirements would be eligible to establish and contribute to an IDA. For single filers, the income limit would be $20,000 in modified aggregate gross income, AGI. The corresponding thresholds for head-of-household and joint filers would be $30,000 and $40,000, respectively. Participants could generally withdraw their contributions and matching funds for qualified purposes, which include certain higher education expenses, first-time home purchase expenditures, and small business capitalization. Additionally, this bill would create a tax credit to defray the cost of establishing and running IDA programs, contributing matching funds to the appropriate accounts, and providing financial education to account holders. Program sponsors could be qualified institutions, qualified nonprofits, or qualified Indian tribes, and would have to be an institution eligible under current law to serve as the custodian of IRAs. Sponsors could claim a tax credit that would have two components. The first would be a $50 credit per account to offset the ongoing costs of maintaining and administering each account and providing financial education to participants. Except for the first year that an account is open, the credit would be available only for accounts with a balance, at year's end, of more than $100. In addition, there would be a credit for the dollar-to-dollar matching amounts. IDAs work to spur savings by low-income individuals. The American Dream Demonstration, ADD, a 14-site IDA program, has proven that low- income families, with proper incentives and support, can and do save for longer-term goals. In ADD, average monthly net deposits per participant were $19.07, with the average participant saving 50 percent of the monthly savings target and making deposits in 6 of 12 months. Participants accumulated an average of $700 per year including matching contributions. Importantly, deposits increased as the monthly target increased, indicating that low-income families' saving behavior, like that of wealthier individuals; is influenced by the incentives they receive. Additionally, key to the success of IDAs is the economic education that participants receive. Information about repairing credit, reducing expenditures, applying for the Earned Income Tax Credit, avoiding predatory lenders, and accessing financial services helps IDA participants to reach savings goals and to integrate themselves into the mainstream economic system. The encouragement and connection to supportive services helps low-income individuals to keep early withdrawals to a minimum and overcome obstacles to saving. Banks and credit unions benefit from these new customer relations, and States benefit from decreased presence of check-cashing, pawnshop, and other predatory outlets. But more than income enhancement, asset accumulation affects individuals' confidence about the future, willingness to defer gratification, avoidance of risky behavior, and investment in community. In families where assets are owned, children do better in school, voting participation increases, and family stability improves. Reliance on public assistance decreases as families use their assets to access higher education and better jobs, reduce their housing costs through ownership, and create their own job opportunities through entrepreneurship. We must re-instill the value that Americans once put into saving and promote an ownership society. Saving must once again become a national virtue. At stake are not just the financial security and prosperity of Americans as individuals but America as a nation. This bill takes a step in reaching out to low-income Americans to meet this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Savings and Working Families Act of 2005.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the Democratic leader for a few moments talking about the House of Representatives and the compromise the House of Representatives just achieved on their ethics consideration. Three comments about that compromise: No. 1, it is interesting that ``compromise'' means the Republicans do what the Democrats insisted upon them doing. That is a compromise, No. 1. No. 2, that compromise meant the House went back to the way the House has always done things when it came to ethics. The compromise was to go back to the precedent and rules of the House they have always used. Third, that compromise means--and the Senator from Oklahoma has had experience over in the House, as have I--the rules of the House will continue to be that if a Member has an ethics claim filed against them by someone--and the Ethics Committee is equally divided--particularly, if it is a Member where there happens to be political value in having an ethics claim filed against them, if the other side decides, politically, they are simply not going to hear the case, it stays on the docket forever, for as long as the session lasts, with no need to dispose or rule on that. So the ethics charge hangs out there without a decision. It automatically goes forward, in other words, unless there is a decision on the part of a bipartisan majority to end the discussion. I think what we have seen in the past--and I know Members of the House are concerned about this--is that there has been an abuse, a politicization of the ethics process. We all know how damaging it is because the only thing we have in this body and before our constituents is our word and our reputation. They are intangible things that are easily affected and certainly are affected when ethics charges are filed. That does not mean ethics violations have been found but simply that ethics charges have been filed. The mere fact a charge has been filed is a very damaging thing to the reputation of a Member. To have that out there, without any need for disposition, I think is very dangerous and has proven to be--and I think will continue to be--a bad precedent. But that is compromise. I make the argument that capitulation is not compromise. But I will agree on the second point I made, that going back to the way we have done things in the past is usually a pretty good idea when you really aren't sure how to deal with things. So I too say I am glad that the speaker, the leader, and others in the House have broken this logjam, and they have done so in a way they can at least move the process forward in the House. I too commend the Republican leadership for trying to move it forward. I will say the same thing could be done here in the Senate. If we have a sincere disagreement as to how we should proceed with respect to judicial nominations, we could look to the example of the House of Representatives and go back to the way we did things for years and years and years. The way we have done things for years and years and years, 214 years prior to the last session of Congress, was that nominations that came to the floor of the Senate received an up-or-down vote. It was very interesting. The Senator from Nevada criticized one of our Republican Members who suggested that we would be willing to compromise by not including all executive nominations, just including certain executive nominations. When that was proffered, the Senator from Nevada criticized this compromise and said: It is disingenuous because it is not intellectually consistent. Lots of compromises aren't. But that was for the sake of compromise, to say that we believe--and 214 years of history have shown, and the tradition and the precedent of the Senate is--when executive nominations arrive on the floor of the Senate, they receive an up-or-down vote. That is the precedent. There is not one instance in which someone who had majority support here on the floor of the Senate for a judicial nomination did not receive an up-or-down vote and get confirmed, not one precedent until 2 years ago. Then things changed. So we have suggested we would like to go back to that 214-year precedent that served this country very well. We didn't have the acrimony we see here today. The Senator from Nevada repeatedly talked about how the public wants us to get things done. Then don't change the rules of the game and then complain the public is angry with the fact that we are not getting things done. Look at the cause of the controversy. The cause of the controversy lies with the previous leader of the Democrats, who put forward a strategy, a plan, a scheme to fundamentally shift the power away from the President to 41 Members of the Senate to determine what nominees will be confirmed in the Senate. That could have been done. I would agree with the Senator from Nevada and everybody else here. It could have been done 200 years ago. It could have been done 100 years ago. It could have been done 10 years ago. But it never was done. We showed restraint. I showed restraint. The Senator from Nevada talked about how I could look back at the Clinton administration and see how President Clinton's nominees were disadvantaged. Let's look back to the Clinton administration. I can think of two people I recall very clearly to whom I was adamantly opposed. They had records as judges that were deplorable in my mind. They didn't follow the law. They were activists on the court. They put their interpretation and their views ahead of the law repeatedly. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were their names. They were nominated for the circuit court. I adamantly opposed them. They were bad judges and, in my opinion, this country would be in worse shape by having them on the circuit court. I wanted them defeated. They were against a lot of what I strongly believed was bad for this country. That is what they were for, things which I strongly believed were bad for the country. There were a lot of groups outside, a lot of conservative groups, just as they are hearing from a lot of liberal groups, who said: Do it, block their nomination. Yes, they have majority support, but block their nomination because they will do so much damage. They are bad. That is what these outside groups were saying: These folks will undermine the judiciary. There is always a temptation to let the current fury cloud your judgment and to think about the immediate political posture or the next election or the folks who brought you here and do what they ask you to do. We had a leader, at that time, in Trent Lott, and we had a chairman, in Orrin Hatch, who said: I understand how you feel. I oppose these judges too. But there is something more here in the Senate than the passions of the day. There is something more than the groups who may support your campaigns today. When we do things that change the precedent of the Senate, it ripples, maybe forever, and can fundamentally change the balance of power, the way the judiciary functions, the way the executive functions and, as you have seen in the last 2 years, the way this body functions or ``misfunctions'' as a result. So for that moment in which I really wanted to block their nominations, when Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch filed cloture on those two nominees to move the vote forward, not to block their nomination, but to move their vote forward, I voted along with 85 of my colleagues. A vast majority of Republicans and all the Democrats voted to allow their vote to come. Richard Paez did not get 60 votes when his confirmation came up. In other words, had we wanted to filibuster Richard Paez, we would have been successful. He would not have gotten 60 votes. He would not be a judge on the circuit today had we wanted to block his nomination. But my belief is--and the vast majority of Republicans' belief was at that time--as much as we opposed the nomination, we supported the tradition and the precedent of the Senate because we are but stewards of this place. We don't own this institution. Yes, we say we run this institution. We don't run this institution. We are simply stewards. We are passersby. When we crack the foundation of the way things have been done and worked for this country for 200-plus years, we leave behind a foundation that may not sustain us as a people. To stand before the Senate, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done repeatedly over the last few weeks, and talk about how they are being aggrieved by what the Senate Republicans are trying to do and calling this the nuclear option repeatedly, and suggesting somehow or another this is destroying the filibuster, when it was never used--underscore that, never used--to block a judge on the floor of the Senate prior to the last session of Congress, when the Democratic minority decided they could not resist, they had to put politics over process. They had to put partisanship over the stability of this institution for the long term. I suspect there are a lot of folks on the other side of the aisle who regret that happening, and they probably regret it today. Where are the statesmen? Where are the folks who quietly whisper to one another that this was wrong? Where are they to stand up and set it straight? I desperately hope we do not have to cast this vote on the floor of the Senate to return the precedent of the Senate to the way it has been for 214 years because it would show what two sides were able to do for 214 years. I say to the Presiding Officer from Oklahoma, think about all of the conflicts and passions that have occurred through all of the great debates in the Senate. People were shot in the Senate, and there were fisticuffs and beatings. The passions must have been incredible at certain times. But we always were able to understand that there were some things bigger than the passion of the moment. This institution is one of them. The way this institution functioned to balance powers was one of them. What the other side of the aisle is doing, I say to the Senator from Illinois, is fracturing the foundation of this institution. So I hope we don't have a vote. I hope we don't have a vote. I hope there will be some on both sides of the aisle who would look to the 214-year precedent when, in spite of strong disagreements, the Senate was able to find comity to get things done. We need to get things done. I know the Democratic leader has threatened to shut down the Senate--his words, not mine, ``shut down the Senate''--if they don't get their compromise. What is their compromise? They want to continue to do what they did in the last session of the Congress. That is their compromise. I find it somewhat remarkable that the Senator from Illinois praised the Senator from Nevada for his ``compromise.'' His compromise says if the ten judges they were blocking from the last session--they have successfully blocked three because they have been withdrawn, and now they are suggesting they want to block at least three more. They don't care which ones they are. I know this was all driven by pure concern about each and every one of these, but for some reason they can pick which three. Some might suggest this is less about the individual and more about politics, but now we are sort of in this compromise and, fine, let's compromise. Fine. We will take ten, we get to kill six, and you get to pick the four we move forward with. That is compromise. Oh, and by the way, we reserve the right to continue to do this in the future. This is the great Henry Clay type of statement that we see before the Senate: Of the ten that we have blocked--against every precedent of the Senate--we will take six, and these fine individuals, all well qualified by the ABA--the ``gold standard,'' in Senator Leahy's words, not mine--we will take these fine upstanding people in the community and tarnish their reputations for the rest of their lives. By the way, you pick the three we are going to tarnish, and we will let you have four nominees. By the way, you can go ahead and expect that we will block others in the future. That is their compromise. That is the great olive branch: We will continue to abuse 214 years of history. I ask anyone if you can point out one nominee for the court on the floor of the Senate who had majority support who was blocked by filibuster. Name one who had majority support. It never happened. So what is the compromise? The compromise is that six judges who had majority support on the floor of the Senate will be denied confirmation, and we will do so to others in the future if we so desire. That is the compromise. I don't think most people objectively looking at that would see that as much of a compromise. The Senator from Illinois said another remarkable thing. I will go back and check the record. I find it hard to believe. He said Senator Frist came to the floor yesterday and said he would not be a party to any negotiation on this issue. That is what the Senator from Illinois said. Let me review the record. Senator Frist, in the last session of Congress, offered a compromise with Zell Miller called the Frist-Miller approach. It was a compromise. It is still a compromise that is out there. I know for a fact--and I suspect others on the other side of the aisle do, too--that Senator Frist has repeatedly offered compromises to the Democratic leader. I know also for a fact that the Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, is very much open to negotiation and compromise, to return the precedent of the Senate and find a way in which we get back to what was just lauded by the other side of the aisle--returning, as the House just did, to the way they have always done things. So, too, would we like to do that--return to the way we have always done things. But that is too much of a reach, I suspect, for some because we have partisan agendas. We have, even more so, I suggest, not just partisan agendas because I think in part it is driven by partisanship, but I think it is mostly driven by ideology. What I think is sadly true is that the agenda of the other side of the aisle--which we have not seen a whole lot of as far as solutions; we have seen a lot of obstruction, not a whole lot of ideas but a lot of obstruction--is not accomplished in democratic forums anymore. It is accomplished through the courts. So I think what we are seeing is a gasp of saying that we can no longer win elections on our agenda. We can no longer win votes on the floor of the Senate with our agenda--the most radical elements of our agenda, anyway--so we must hold on to the courts. We must hold on and make sure those individuals who are willing to be activists on the court and overturn the will of the Congress, create new rights in the Constitution, bypass the democratic process, amend the Constitution through court edict, as opposed to the traditional way laid out by our Founders, we want to make sure that we still have the ability to enact our agenda on the courts. Another point I will make is that I am very much for the filibuster. I believe the filibuster is exactly what our Founders intended when it comes to legislation--absolutely what they intended, that the Senate would be a place where the hot tea would be poured into the saucer and cooled. I support it and, in fact, I voted to support it because when I was first elected to the Senate, some Democratic Members offered a change to the rules that would have eliminated the filibuster and gone to a simple majority on all legislative matters. This was interesting because at the time, as I said, the Republicans were in the majority, and yet Democrats were offering this rather savory morsel out there for those of us who recently came to the Senate and wanted to get a lot of things done and understood how difficult it would be. We had a Contract With America, we may recall--the House was moving forward and wanting to pass a lot of bills. We had a lot of momentum over here. There was a part of me that said: That would be great, we could get rid of this. I said: No, the Founders had it right, the traditions of the Senate are right. We do not need to change this institution because of the whims of the moment, because of the passions of the day, because of the interest groups off Capitol Hill that would want us to do so. No, we have a higher duty. We have a higher duty. That duty is to this institution because this institution is the bulwark of this democracy that protects us from doing rash and sometimes irrational things in which at times the public gets swept up. No, that is what this institution is for when it comes to legislative passions. By the way, there were 19 people, 19 Democrats who voted to end the legislative filibuster, but not one Republican. Not one. So the legislative filibuster is important, and it will remain in place as a result of anything we do over the next few weeks with respect to judicial nominations. I close by saying I am hopeful we can find a compromise, but what I keep hearing from the other side is this incredible spinning that somehow or other what has gone on here in the last 2 years was part of the normal course, and the fact that this was done in previous Congresses, as the Senator from Nevada mentioned, in committee, in committee these nominations were killed. Were these nominations killed? Some nominations were held and defeated in committee, that is right. By whom? By the majority--by the majority. The majority on the floor of the Senate has defeated nominations. The majority in committee has defeated nominations. But never before has the minority in committee defeated a nomination. Never before has the minority on the floor defeated a nomination. Never before has the minority been able to dictate to a President who they will nominate either for their Cabinet or for some of the most important positions in the judiciary. Never before until now. This is taking power away from a popularly elected President who, under the Constitution, has the right to nominate people. President Clinton, I believe, had over 350 judges confirmed. I think I voted against maybe 5, 6, something like that; less than 10, I know that. I did not agree ideologically with probably more than 10, but as I went home and had to face some of my constituents who were upset with me for voting for one judge or another because they did not like their politics, I said: You will have to take it up with the American people because President Clinton won the election, and he has a right to nominate who he wants as long as they are within the mainstream. That does not mean they are going to agree with me philosophically. There are a lot of people in the mainstream who are center and left of center who have a right to serve, as people who are right of center have a right to serve, and I am not going to impose my ideology on somebody else's nominees. That is what is going on today. It is an ideological litmus test, and it is now infecting this body to the detriment of the Senate. I hope cooler heads will prevail, and that those of us who showed restraint and did not vote for filibusters, voted for cloture on nominees we did not like--that there will be those who will stand up and do the same on the other side of the aisle in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I along with Senator Lieberman am introducing the Savings and Working Families Act of 2005. The need for this legislation comes at a time when Americans face an ongoing savings and assets crisis. One third of all Americans have no assets available for investment, and another fifth have only negligible assets. The United States household savings rate lags far behind that of other industrial nations, constraining national economic growth and keeping many Americans from entering the economic mainstream by buying a house, obtaining an adequate education, or starting a business. 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 savings 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. The Savings and Working Families Act of 2005 builds on existing IDA programs by creating tax credit incentives for an additional 900,000 accounts. Individuals between 18 and 60 who are not dependents or students and meet the income requirements would be eligible to establish and contribute to an IDA. For single filers, the income limit would be $20,000 in modified aggregate gross income, AGI. The corresponding thresholds for head-of-household and joint filers would be $30,000 and $40,000, respectively. Participants could generally withdraw their contributions and matching funds for qualified purposes, which include certain higher education expenses, first-time home purchase expenditures, and small business capitalization. Additionally, this bill would create a tax credit to defray the cost of establishing and running IDA programs, contributing matching funds to the appropriate accounts, and providing financial education to account holders. Program sponsors could be qualified institutions, qualified nonprofits, or qualified Indian tribes, and would have to be an institution eligible under current law to serve as the custodian of IRAs. Sponsors could claim a tax credit that would have two components. The first would be a $50 credit per account to offset the ongoing costs of maintaining and administering each account and providing financial education to participants. Except for the first year that an account is open, the credit would be available only for accounts with a balance, at year's end, of more than $100. In addition, there would be a credit for the dollar-to-dollar matching amounts. IDAs work to spur savings by low-income individuals. The American Dream Demonstration, ADD, a 14-site IDA program, has proven that low- income families, with proper incentives and support, can and do save for longer-term goals. In ADD, average monthly net deposits per participant were $19.07, with the average participant saving 50 percent of the monthly savings target and making deposits in 6 of 12 months. Participants accumulated an average of $700 per year including matching contributions. Importantly, deposits increased as the monthly target increased, indicating that low-income families' saving behavior, like that of wealthier individuals; is influenced by the incentives they receive. Additionally, key to the success of IDAs is the economic education that participants receive. Information about repairing credit, reducing expenditures, applying for the Earned Income Tax Credit, avoiding predatory lenders, and accessing financial services helps IDA participants to reach savings goals and to integrate themselves into the mainstream economic system. The encouragement and connection to supportive services helps low-income individuals to keep early withdrawals to a minimum and overcome obstacles to saving. Banks and credit unions benefit from these new customer relations, and States benefit from decreased presence of check-cashing, pawnshop, and other predatory outlets. But more than income enhancement, asset accumulation affects individuals' confidence about the future, willingness to defer gratification, avoidance of risky behavior, and investment in community. In families where assets are owned, children do better in school, voting participation increases, and family stability improves. Reliance on public assistance decreases as families use their assets to access higher education and better jobs, reduce their housing costs through ownership, and create their own job opportunities through entrepreneurship. We must re-instill the value that Americans once put into saving and promote an ownership society. Saving must once again become a national virtue. At stake are not just the financial security and prosperity of Americans as individuals but America as a nation. This bill takes a step in reaching out to low-income Americans to meet this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Savings and Working Families Act of 2005.

Mr. SANTORUM

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