Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read for the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 355, S. 1720.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, the charitable giving bill. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken; the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-Baucus amendment at the desk be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the charitable giving bill, as amended by the Snowe-Grassley-Baucus amendments, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 3 to 2 and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. I object. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada has suggested we simply amend the bill we passed earlier this year and send it back to the House. I respectfully suggest to the Senator from Nevada, through the Presiding Officer, we did that once. We passed this bill once and sent it to the House, and the House struck that bill and sent their version back. I don't think we gain anything by then taking the very bill they rejected and sending it back to them and expecting them to pass it. That is what I would call ping-pong. That is back and forth with nobody getting anywhere. That is why there are things such as conferences, where we actually sit down and try to work out differences. I am not familiar with the list of bills the Senator from Nevada laid out when he said we have been able to accomplish passing of legislation without having a conference. And that is true. We are going to do one, hopefully, tomorrow, the Syria Accountability Act. But the changes between what the House wanted and what the Senate wanted were very minor changes, a couple of finding changes and basically a change in the waiver status. We talked to the House and they were willing to accept it because they were minor changes. That is an important piece of legislation. I would consider that a major piece of legislation, but it is not a particularly complex piece of legislation as we are dealing with--with a lot of the moving parts--as we have in the charitable giving act, the CARE Act. This is a rather complex piece of legislation, complex tax law. There is a whole issue of $10 billion that is not paid for in one bill, in the House bill, and it is paid for here. How are we going to tell what, if anything, will be paid for and how much; what vehicles, what measures, we will use to offset this? This is a very complicated issue that has not just one--as the Syria Accountability bill--issue. There are many issues. There is the food donation provision. There are provisions on IRA rollovers. There are provisions on people who do not file long forms, people who do not itemize being able to deduct charitable giving. That is just three of probably a dozen issues we are going to have to deal with on this bill. To suggest we can do so by ping-ponging the bill back and forth and trying to find some equilibrium--I suggest the people who have been in this Chamber for a lot longer than I have would recognize that a bill of this complexity does not get handled that way. I hope we will recognize we have an obligation to try to finish this legislation. I hope we can do so in a way that will do well by the Senate. We have my commitment, the commitment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, to be inclusive, not just because that is the way we have done it but that is the way we need to do it in order to be successful and get a compromise that will pass both the House and the Senate. I respectfully have to object to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Nevada and hope we can continue to think of this and work on it and get to a successful conclusion.

Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator from Nevada. I suggest in response to that, again, this bill is the bill that has already passed the Senate. We already sent it over to the House. The House has already looked at the Senate bill and said: We have a better way. We do not want to have offsets to this bill; we do not want to have social service block grant funds; we do not want to have as generous a food donation provision. We want to have some other provisions that you do not have in this legislation. They sent it back. Now when you have such differing viewpoints on how to solve this problem, the tradition in this body, and out of necessity, is to convene a conference and get that done. Sending different versions back and forth does not make progress and, with all due respect, I do not believe will solve the problem. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, to comment on the legislation the Senator from Tennessee was discussing, I have some concerns about the Internet and taxation of the Internet. I listened with great interest to the arguments the Senator from Tennessee has made. I think they are very good arguments. I have another argument that causes pause for me and that is that, while, yes, everybody is talking about all the commerce that occurs on the Internet, there is a lot more depravity that occurs on the Internet than commerce. The top Web sites visited on the Internet are Web sites having to do with pornography. As the father of six young kids, I have to tell you that continuing in the sense of subsidies by not allowing taxation concerns me. It seems to me these Internet IFCs and others who are so concerned in coming up here saying don't tax us and don't hold back the potential of the Internet seem to be a heck of a lot less concerned about the impact of culture debasement that is going on as a result of the exposure of pornography and violence and what I would consider antisocial activities that occur with frequency and that are even more harmfully imposed on young kids in popup ads, through e-mail and spam and through other vehicles that these lecherous members of the international community--it is not just in this country--use to try to sell their wares on the Internet. I am speaking not as a Senator but as a father who is very disturbed about people coming here and crying, Don't tax us, at the same time they are doing very little to stop what I think is one of the scourges that attacks the decency of our society. As someone who has been a supporter of the moratorium, as someone who has never seen a tax cut I didn't like and never saw a tax I did like, I don't like what I see going on on the Internet. This whole comment about it is commerce, if you look at where the commerce is, it is not the kind of commerce I think we want to be supporting.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that we proceed to the Pryor nomination. But I would just ask the Senator from Nevada if there is a possibility that we could get a unanimous consent agreement, however much time the minority would need, to debate this nominee so we can give the attorney general of Alabama, who has been nominated to the Eleventh Circuit, the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, which has been the custom here for over 22 years.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will not take any more time than necessary because I know the Senator from Nevada, who has spent countless hours here on the floor, would like to leave, like so many others here, but I raise again the issue of H.R. 7. H.R. 7 is the charitable giving act, the CARE Act, that passed both the House and the Senate. I want to state again for the Record this is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that was worked out in the Senate by Senator Lieberman and myself. I worked with Senators Durbin and Reed of Rhode Island and others when they brought up concerns about this bill. We wanted to have a balanced bill, a bipartisan bill, one that could pass here with the kind of support for a bill which encourages charitable giving and individual development accounts for low-income individuals and social services block grants to help those organizations that meet the needs of people who are hurting in our communities. It should pass on a bipartisan basis. We were able to work that out. I even worked out something I wasn't sure I could work out, which is a commitment to try to work with the House to make sure they didn't include language which Senator Reed of Rhode Island requested and Senator Durbin requested; that it not include language having to do with faith-based organizations and expanding charitable choice. Charitable choice is a provision in the law that was passed here three times and signed by the President three times to allow faith- based organizations to participate in social service funding programs the Federal Government implements. I said I would do my best to make sure that it was not in the House bill, and lo and behold, I was successful and it is not in the House bill. It is not a conferenceable issue. The biggest concern by about government and faith being mixed together is not in this bill. It is not a conferenceable item. There is no poison pill that can come back in this bill because it is not a conferenceable item. I kept the commitment on a bipartisan basis to keep this bill clean. There are controversies between the House and Senate bills. The Senate bill is paid for. We have offsets in the bill. The House bill is not paid for. The social services block grant, which is a very important component of this mix, is in the Senate bill and is not in the House bill. There are a variety of different tax provisions that are treated differently in the House and Senate. This isn't going to necessarily be an easy conference. There will have to be a lot of give and take, as in most conferences, when we are dealing with taxes and spending. I think it is important that we sit down with the House and have a conference. I will tell you that I fully anticipate needing and wanting support from my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle to get this bill done. We are going to need that kind of leverage to go to the House and be able to work out this compromise. I will need their support because I want to pass this bill. It is a bill that is on the President's agenda. This is one of the bills he really wants to accomplish. I fully anticipate that if this bill comes back in the form that is not acceptable to the minority, there is probably very little chance they are going to give us the votes to be able to pass it. To be crass about it, we have to work together. But to be honest about it, I want to work together. I think I have shown throughout the entire legislative history of this act that I have done so, and I have done so honestly and straightforwardly. We have produced a bill that has gotten overwhelming support. Actually a higher percentage of Democrats voted for this bill than Republicans. I am concerned. I understand the minority has said and the Senator from Nevada has said with frequency they are not being treated fairly in conference. I understand that, and I don't necessarily want to get into that issue. They may have points, and they can take them up with the committee chairman and with the leader. I am talking about this bill. This is the first bill on which this charge has been leveled. We are not going to conference on this bill because of those reasons. I think it is not the best bill to pass. There may be other bills that have not been worked on on a bipartisan basis. But the prospect of having a bipartisan compromise is less likely than with this bill. This is a bill that helps poor kids. This is a bill that is going to provide social services funding to make sure people do not go homeless or hungry. This is a bill that we need to finish before the holiday season. It makes no sense for us to use this vehicle as sort of the line in the sand that the minority is going to draw to say we are not happy with the way we are being treated. Fine. You are not happy with the way you are being treated, I understand that. But you certainly haven't been treated poorly on this bill. On this bill, you have been treated, I hope, as good as on any bill that has been passed through this Chamber. I anticipate that continuing. I anticipate--in fact, solicit and expect--full participation from Senator Baucus, with whom I have talked on this issue, and Senator Grassley, with whom I have talked. Senator Grassley came to the floor yesterday and said he anticipates, as he does with most if not all of the conferences he has been involved with, working on a bipartisan basis as is the custom in the Finance Committee. I say in conclusion, before I enter into the unanimous consent request, to please look at what this bill has the potential of doing--2 billion pounds of food and more will be donated as a result of this bill passing over the next few years, 2 billion pounds of food that will be donated so people in America who are hungry and people who will be homeless will no longer be hungry and homeless; people who want quality education will have a better opportunity to get that education; people who want to save and invest and start a small business or to go to school or to buy a home will have the opportunity to do that which they don't have today. That is what this is all about. This should not be about disappointment over past practices. I hope we can focus on the goodness of this legislation and not take something that is accepted by both sides as a desirable and good thing for those who need help in America and use that as the point of departure of a new idea that says we are not going to go to conference because we have not been treated fairly. I just hope in searching yourselves on the minority side that you will grab another piece of legislation and use that as the starting point. I don't think this legislation deserves it. I don't think the people who will benefit from it deserve it. I hope after further consideration we can have a reasonable conference and get this accomplished.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Executive Calendar No. 299, the nomination of Michael Garcia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period not to exceed 30 days of Senate session, and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to clarify a point the Senator from Vermont made about the White House. I think if the Senator from Vermont will go back and look at the White House's proposal, and how much money they said they would spend when they put the proposal forward--which I think the Senator from Vermont rightly said was praised by the international community--the Senator from Vermont will discover that the President's proposal had less than $3 billion in the first year, actually roughly $2 billion in the first year, and then over the course of the following 4 years it was ramped up to in excess of around $4 billion. So I think to suggest that the administration announced a plan with one hand and then somehow pulled back with the other is not accurately reflected by the record in this case. The White House has been clear from the beginning as to what they have believed was the capacity for spending appropriately within the 14 countries they have outlined in the plan. They have stuck to that plan. They have insisted the numbers they put forth in the first place are accurate. I share the Senator's concern that number may be low, and that is why I worked with Senator DeWine and Senator Frist to come up with some additional funds, some $400 million, to see if we could do more bilateral aid as well as provide more money for the global fund. We have accomplished that. But I just want to set the record straight. The administration has announced their policy, which was warmly received by the international community, a community that understands that the capacity now is not what it will be 5 years from now as a result of the efforts of this administration, and that the money then can and should be ramped over a period of time based on the efficient capacity to be able to distribute, for example, the antiretroviral drugs the Senator from Minnesota talked about today that are sitting in a warehouse with an expiration that is nearing, with no ability to get those drugs out. That is the current state in many areas in Africa. And to suggest that because the administration recognizes there is a failure of capacity of any areas in Africa is somehow coldhearted or, more importantly, that it has reneged on its promise does not accurately reflect what happened. It does not, in any way, in my opinion, accurately reflect the tremendous compassion and leadership which the administration and this President have shown on this issue.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the DeWine amendment accomplished everything that is absolutely necessary to fight global AIDS at this time. It is $2 billion. The authorization stipulated fully funding the authorization of $2 billion and $400 million to match the $800 million that had been pledged by the international community. As meeting with the authorization, $1 of American for $2 of international. The $2.4 billion, which is in the bill, fully funds our AIDS commitment on the authorization and overfunds what the President requested by $400 million.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I also congratulate the Senator from Ohio as well as the majority leader for the tremendous work they have done on this issue in crafting a compromise that will keep within the budget. This DeWine amendment did keep within the budget and meeting the need that is out there in Africa and the Caribbean to address the greatest health crisis that maybe the world has seen. I respect the Senator from Illinois. I share his passion for trying to do more. But I think we need to look at what, No. 1, our commitment was and, No. 2, what is the best and most prudent way of going about building the capacity, meeting the needs in a responsible way to all involved. Let me talk first about what our commitment is. The commitment by the President, when he announced his plan--this was before the bill passed the House and Senate and was signed by the President--was to spend $15 billion over the next 5 years and ramp up as capacity would ramp up within those 12 countries in Africa and the 2 in the Caribbean. As capacity would ramp up, we would ramp up funding. That makes sense for those who have traveled to Africa. I had the opportunity to meet with Ambassador Tobias today, who is in charge of the AIDS effort in Africa. I also had a chance to meet with Richard Feachem, who is in charge of the Global Fund, this afternoon. I can tell you that while, yes, there are lots of organizations out there, to suggest there is the capacity at this point to take on the amount of money that is being contemplated here I think overstates the case, at least according to the experts, the people who are in charge of distributing this money. In fact, the administration makes a very strong argument that the money that was added to the DeWine amendment may not be able to be spent within the fiscal year. But we believe if there is a potential that that could happen, we would rather put a little bit more money there, just in case they do find that there can be some sort of expansion beyond what they, at this point in time, believe is possible. We provided that cushion for the administration, and $300 million is not a small cushion. It is a fairly substantial increase in the amount of bilateral aid that is going to be provided by the United States-- about a 15-percent increase. I suggest that we provide that cushion which allows for the expectations of the administration to be on the low side, and be able to grow, if necessary. Obviously, we don't want them to spend money if it is not going to be spent efficiently; it will not really help. We want them to be good stewards of the funds and be able to spend that money to provide treatment, provide prevention, and provide it for taking care of both the old and dying and those who are near death and those who are young. I suggest that the DeWine amendment accomplishes everything the Senator from Illinois wants to accomplish. The reason, by the way, it accomplishes what the authorization says is because there is now $2 billion for bilateral aid in the appropriations process this year. That is what the authorization says--$2 billion in bilateral aid, and up to $1 billion in matching from the Global Fund. Let us look at the Global Fund. I just met the Director of the Global Fund. The contribution pledged for next year, as of this moment, is $100 million which was announced yesterday. So it is up to about $770 million. In the appropriations bill that we are going to pass, it is $400 million. Actually, it slightly exceeds the pledge that is in the authorization. For every two dollars of international aid there would be one dollar of U.S. aid. If you take roughly $800 million, it is actually less because $400 million meets the pledge that we said we would provide in the authorization. To make the suggestion that we haven't in principle met it is just not right. That is how we came up with the number that was in Senator DeWine's amendment that was cosponsored by Senator Durbin. We have met our obligations to the Global Fund. We have met our obligations in the authorization to provide $2 billion in bilateral aid even though the administration doesn't believe we can spend $2 billion efficiently and effectively. I think we have pushed the envelope. The administration only pledged $200 million to the Global Fund. We have $400 million. We doubled the commitment that the administration said they would provide. We doubled it because we wanted to meet expectations. We have done so. I suggest that we have met our obligation for bilateral aid. We have met our obligation for the Global Fund. If, in fact, later when we get into 2004 and the Global Fund ends up raising more money--we have fiscal year 2005, which starts in calendar year 2004--at the end of 2004, and we did provide some more money to increase the match at the end of next year, a lot of money comes in from the other countries on a calendar basis. So we have an opportunity if we need to come up with more money to meet our match in the 2004 calendar year. But there is no need to further bust the budget or try to bust the budget on something where we have made our commitment in the authorization and exceeded the commitment that the President made when he announced the $15 billion over 5 years. The President is wise. We would be wise if we are going to make the $15 billion commitment. I don't think anyone in this Chamber would argue that $1 spent in 2004 after 4 years of building up capacity, efficiency, and effectiveness is going to be more efficiently and effectively spent than putting more money in year 1. I don't think one can make that argument. We may be able to build capacity quickly and less efficiently and costly, but that money would be used more wisely and efficiently in later years where we can put more money in the hands of people who get those needed drugs and needed care in a much more efficient and broadly based way. I think we have struck the compromise. I hope the Members of this Chamber will know that in good faith. I appreciate what the Senator from Illinois is doing. I have great sympathy for his cause, but I think we have struck the balance here and I hope this Chamber will vote accordingly.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in this sadly historic era of unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees, the truth is an unwelcome visitor to those in the minority who seek to deprive President Bush of his constitutional duty to nominate Article III judges. The latest salvo in this increasingly disappointing game is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's written statement regarding Thomas M. Hardiman, who was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on October 22, 2003. The ranking member claims that Mr. Hardiman has ``no judicial experience,'' which is of course not unusual for district court nominees. Although Mr. Hardiman has not stood for election as a State trial court judge in Allegheny County, a county where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin of more than 2-1, Mr. Hardiman is not without significant adjudicatory experience. In 1995 the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Mr. Hardiman as a Hearing Officer to adjudicate cases involving alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct brought by clients against their lawyers. Mr. Hardiman served with distinction in this capacity, on a pro bono basis, until his recent confirmation. In addition, Mr. Hardiman has adjudicated securities cases as an arbitrator under the auspices of the National Association of Securities Dealers. His work for the Disciplinary Board and the NASD has provided Mr. Hardiman with valuable experience ruling on motions, reviewing evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, deciding cases, and researching and writing opinions. Without doubt, Mr. Hardiman's experiences adjudicating these cases has increased his preparedness for the Federal bench. In addition to his quasi-judicial experience, Mr. Hardiman has impeccable academic credentials. As Senator Specter has noted, Mr. Hardiman graduated with honors from both the University of Notre Dame and Georgetown University Law Center. He was appointed to the prestigious position of Notes and Comments Editor of the Georgetown Law Journal, was a semifinalist in the first-year moot court competition and participated on the Criminal Law moot court team. Mr. Hardiman's academic credentials are especially impressive considering the fact that he is the first in his family to attend college and he worked part-time during most of is law school career. Consistent with his academic achievements, Thomas Hardiman has had a distinguished career as a litigator and trial lawyer. After working for the prestigious law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Hardiman and his wife moved to Pittsburgh in 1992 where he has been a rising star in the Pittsburgh legal community. Mr. Hardiman is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. He has been a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Tax Court, as well as the court he now joins. He has handled well over 60 trials. For the record--and to address the ranking member's semantic game regarding the number of trials Mr. Hardiman has conducted--a ``trial'' is defined as ``A judicial examination and determination of issues between parties to action . . . whether they be issues of law or fact.'' Black's Laws Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979. Among these 60-plus cases are: four cases before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, two cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and 11 cases before the intermediate appellate courts of Pennsylvania. Mr. Hardiman has been lead counsel on several jury and non-jury trials in Federal and State court, and has tried cases to judgment on a variety of dispositive motions at all levels of the Pennsylvania judiciary. Mr. Hardiman has been lead and associate counsel on several equity matters in Federal and State court as well. Finally, he has handled matters involving real estate, contracts, securities, taxation, Medicare fraud, civil rights, and cases arising under the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In sum, Thomas Hardiman has deep and broad experience as a trial lawyer which is particularly extraordinary for a man his age. In a letter dated June 18, 2003, Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and lifelong Democrat Ralph J. Cappy wrote of Mr. Hardiman: ``As a professional, he is outstanding. His competence and ethics are beyond reproach. It is rare that we see a person of his age and experience argue before our Court, often successfully, with a courtesy and depth of knowledge which could serve as a benchmark for any who appear before us.'' The Chief Justice continued: ``As an individual, Tom is exemplary. He is extremely bright and knowledgeable in the law.'' Another prominent Democrat and Professor of Law at Duquesne Law School, Kenneth Gormley, wrote on June 19, 2003: ``Tom is a first-rate litigator, who is conscientious about every aspect of his work; he is a perfectionist when it comes to representing clients in a professional manner. As an appellate lawyer, Tom possesses an extremely high level of sophistication when it comes to analytical reasoning and writing. His written work product is first-rate. An an oral advocate, he is as good as any appellate lawyer I have seen in action in twenty years.'' Professor Gromley said of Mr. Hardiman: ``He is a lawyer of superior intellect, good judgment, and boundless energy. It is my opinion that he will constitute an excellent addition to the federal bench here in the Western District of Pennsylvania.'' Finally, the dean of the Democratic bar in Allegheny County, David Armstrong, wrote of Mr. Hardiman on June 17, 2003: ``I have come to know Mr. Hardiman as an excellent lawyer and a person of great intellectual curiosity and ability, as well as personal integrity. Mr. Hardiman's temperament, intellect, character and experience in my opinion, would make him an excellent member of the federal bench.'' Significantly, attorney Armstrong came to know Mr. Hardiman through trials they litigated against one another. As the aforementioned facts demonstrate, the ranking member's unfair criticism and inappropriate reliance on the comments of a disgruntled lawyer in Pittsburgh who was the chief contributor to the local bar's rating of Mr. Hardiman demonstrate beyond doubt that the only partisanship involved with Mr. Hardiman's nomination and confirmation emanated from those who slandered him in an effort to defeat the nomination of a good and able man. It is always more appropriate to raise allegations about a nominee at his hearing rather than after his confirmation by the Senate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight and I commend the Senate for its confirmation of Thomas Hardiman who will serve the people of Pennsylvania well as a Federal judge.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Fine. If there is time remaining, I am happy to let the Senator stay on this subject.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is left on both sides?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these documents related to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 be made a part of the permanent Record for October 21, 2003.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I have taken the floor to talk about obstructionism of the other side of the aisle with respect to judges. That has been a main point of contention on my part, that it is something that is doing damage to our judiciary and to the Senate. Today I want to talk about another aspect of that obstructionism. That is the tone and substance of the debate occurring on judges that are being put up, particularly for the circuit court. Yesterday we experienced something in the Judiciary Committee that I find beneath the dignity of the Senate and raises serious concerns about how we are going to attract good people to put their names before the Senate for confirmation to judicial office. I have behind me a copy from a Web site that displayed this cartoon that was the topic of discussion at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing on the supreme court justice of California, Janice Rogers Brown. She had a hearing yesterday before the committee and was greeted with this cartoon that was displayed on a Web site. The Web site of blackcommentator.com. The cartoon has President Bush and Justice Rogers Brown walking into a room and the President is saying: Welcome to the Federal bench, Ms. Clarence--I mean Ms. Rogers Brown, you'll fit right in. And then in the background are Justice Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice. The bottom says: News item: Bush nominates Clarence-like conservative to the bench. On the Web site, it says: This cartoon can be found in the following commentary: A female Clarence Thomas for the DC Federal Court? A statement by People for the American Way and the NAACP. I don't know from this Web site and I don't know from any other commentary I have seen what the relationship between this cartoon is and the People for the American Way and the NAACP, but I think it behooves both of those organizations to clarify their position on this cartoon which can be found in the following commentary by these two organizations. The stereotyping that goes on in this cartoon and the blatant racism that is displayed is overwhelming. To look at the depiction of Justice Brown, the picture speaks for itself. Let me show you a picture of what Justice Brown looks like. I would suggest the cartoon does not at all comport with what Justice Brown looks like. It is a purely slanderous depiction, stereotyping at its worst. That is the tone and substance of the debate we have now degraded ourselves into as a result of the obstructionism that is occurring for extreme political purposes in the Senate. Justice Brown was asked about this at her hearing yesterday. I quote what she said: The first thing that happened was I talked to my judicial assistant yesterday. Her voice sounded very strange, and I said to her, ``What's wrong? What's happening?'' And I realized she sounded strange, because she was choking back tears. When I asked her what was wrong, she really started to cry. She's a very composed, very calm woman. And she started to cry. And she said, ``Oh judge, these horrible things--you haven't seen what they've done.'' I, of course, was not there to comfort her. I've been here meeting with anybody who would meet with me. But while I've been having those meetings, people have said to me: ``Well, you know, it's not personal, it's just politics, it's not personal.'' And I just want to say to you that it is personal, it's very personal--to the nominees, and to the people who care about them. She speaks not only for herself but she speaks to the hatchet job being done on Attorney General Pryor, being done to Judge Pickering, that was done to Miguel Estrada, is in the process of being done to Carolyn Kuhl and God knows how many more nominees who are being slandered and dragged through the mud, people of stellar reputations, a supreme court justice in California, reelected with 76 percent of the vote, a stellar educational record, and she is being treated in such a demeaning and degrading fashion. We had the attorney general of the State of Alabama who was questioned on his deeply held beliefs because he happens to be a conservative Catholic. Where are we going, folks? What are we turning this process into, that we will demean and degrade and tear down people for some extreme ideological agenda who have served this country, served their States, served their communities? This is wrong. We should stop this. If we don't stop it, it will go on and it will expand and grow like a cancer. That side is doing it now. If they keep it up, one day we may be doing it to them because, of course, we have to get them back for what they did to us. This is wrong. It has never been done before. Stop this insanity of degrading people, of coarsening the debate, of creating a chilling effect on those who would like to be Federal judges. It is wrong and it must stop now. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I say to both the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Arizona, I hear their words of encouragement. I encourage them and would like their assurance that this amendment, as it is adopted, will be held in conference. This is an important issue that we need to deal with, and I hope they will fight to make sure this amendment--the House has a similar amendment, but I would argue it is not as strong as this one, and I hope they will fight for the stronger language of the Senate amendment in conference.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Arizona. My 10-year-old John takes cyberclasses on the Internet. I am appalled by the filth he has to go through every day, whether it is e-mails or pop-ups, in trying to get his work done. We have to do something about this. I am as much for free speech and free advertising as anybody else, but it reaches a point where it is intruding upon the American family and doing real damage to young people, and we have to take a stand. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Arizona. I speak on behalf of Senator Enzi; we appreciate their consideration and adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Arizona that I appreciate he and the ranking member accepting this amendment that Senator Enzi and I have proposed. As a father of six little children who spend some time--not a lot of time--but some time on the Internet, just viewing the amount of spam, the pornographic spam that comes into my 10-year-old's site, in some cases, is just absolutely frightening. Senator Enzi and I had been working on separate tracks, and those tracks came together today in proposing an amendment which would provide a warning label on those kinds of materials that will be in the subject line of the e-mail so young people, as well as old, do not have to subject themselves to this rather disgusting attempt at advertising, if you want to call it that. This is an important piece of legislation. I ask the Senator from Arizona, if I can get his attention for a moment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Biotechnology Future Investment Expansion Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Carper is cosponsoring this important, bipartisan bill. Biotechnology holds great promise for breakthroughs in health care, agriculture and defense against bioterrorism. However, recent years have seen promising biotech medical therapies endangered due to flawed tax treatment and a lack of willing capital. This legislation will level the playing field to encourage further investment and innovation in this vital sector of our economy. The nearly 1,500 biotechnology companies in the U.S. have produced 130 FDA-approved products while another 350 biotech drug products and vaccines are currently in clinical trials. Most biotechnology researchers work in promising, but relatively narrow fields, and only a small number of their peers are qualified to evaluate the theoretical promise of any new idea. On average, it takes these researchers more than 10 years and $500 million to develop a new biotech therapy, and this highly capital-intensive research is more often done at small-to- medium-sized companies that are yet to market a saleable product. These factors combine to create an industry structure that is unique in our economic history. Unfortunately, this unique structure prevents the biotechnology industry from utilizing research incentives intended to promote just the kind of research it engages in. Specifically, net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs), which are meant to allow research- intensive industries like biotechnology to apply current losses against future profits for tax purposes, are routinely made worthless to biotech companies due to an unintended consequence of the tax code. In fact, the current tax treatment of NOLs impairs, rather than fosters, biotechnology research. This is because rules designed to prevent abuse of NOLs through acquisition often inadvertently trigger restrictions on the use of a biotech firm's NOLs, rendering them useless in many cases, when all the company has done is raise more capital. Section 382, which for the most part has proven to be an effective guard against tax abusive NOL trafficking, describes the many circumstances that can be classified as an ownership change. Unfortunately, those circumstances apply to and penalize the frequent biotech practice of raising equity in successive financing rounds. This practice is essential to successfully negotiating the long product development and Food and Drug Administration approval processes. These limitations unintentionally discourage biotechnology research and leave the firms that would otherwise conduct that research in dire financial straits. Without these firms, the money that is being poured into research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and elsewhere to combat diseases such as cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, cardiovascular ailments, diabetes, and central nervous system disorders, as well as many rare diseases, will have a significantly reduced potential to lead to new cures. We may never know what cures will be lost without action. Recognizing the unique structure of the biotech industry--a structure that the architects and stewards of the Tax Code likely never imagined--this legislation is narrowly drafted to exempt certain qualified investments in biotechnology from Section 382 restrictions. This change will spur investment in biotechnology, so we can continue the pursuit of innovative and life-saving therapies, all while continuing to prevent the fraudulent use of NOLs, as Section 382 intends. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.