Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Arizona, who I understand has a legitimate concern about the way this bill is proceeding, and I appreciate his indulgence in allowing me to talk about an amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise to join my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in reintroducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased that Congressman Mark Kennedy of Minnesota has joined in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives that now has 120 bipartisan cosponsors. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently more than 40 million--remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. An Urban Institute study released earlier this year estimated that the nation annually spends about $35 billion on uncompensated care received by the uninsured, both those who are uninsured for a full year and those who lack coverage for part of a year. About two-thirds of uncompensated care, almost $24 billion, is provided by hospitals caring for uninsured people in emergency rooms, outpatient departments, and as inpatients. This study also estimated that a substantial portion of uncompensated care, perhaps as much as $30 billion, is already being financed by taxpayers through programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payments; Medicaid Upper Payment Limit payments; state and local tax appropriations, primarily to public hospitals and clinics; federal grants to community health centers, and federal direct care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service. These sobering statistics reveal that the price of being uninsured is very high, and they ought to serve as a catalyst for us to address the problem of uninsured Americans in a deliberate yet responsible fashion. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which again, enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers now inhibiting access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation, including payroll taxes. The Federal Government effectively subsidizes employer-provided health insurance to the tune of more than $80 billion per year. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy his situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs and which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the States could supplement the credit. I would like to apprise our colleagues of one improvement in particular which we have added to last session's bill that we believe will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured population. In an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation augments funding provided in the Trade Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, to State-run safety net insurance programs, currently operating in 30 States, and encourages more States to establish these important programs. And, as in our legislation last session of Congress, we seek to help further reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free of costly state benefit mandates. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Congress has already acknowledged the promise of this idea in passing into law the new Health Coverage Tax Credit, which helps folks who are eligible to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance or pension benefit payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Some 200,000 people across the country who meet eligibility requirements--nearly 200,000 of whom reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--now can obtain a tax credit covering 65 percent of qualified health insurance premiums. They can get this assistance in two ways. First, they can claim it on their tax forms in a lump sum next year on April 15th. Or, beginning in August, the Health Coverage Tax Credit program will allow eligible individuals and their families to directly apply the credit to their health insurance premiums every month. This advance payment option could make a big difference for families that are just getting by month-to-month or week-to-week. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low-income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senator Graham and me in endorsing this legislation to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise to join my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in reintroducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased that Congressman Mark Kennedy of Minnesota has joined in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives that now has 120 bipartisan cosponsors. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently more than 40 million--remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. An Urban Institute study released earlier this year estimated that the nation annually spends about $35 billion on uncompensated care received by the uninsured, both those who are uninsured for a full year and those who lack coverage for part of a year. About two-thirds of uncompensated care, almost $24 billion, is provided by hospitals caring for uninsured people in emergency rooms, outpatient departments, and as inpatients. This study also estimated that a substantial portion of uncompensated care, perhaps as much as $30 billion, is already being financed by taxpayers through programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payments; Medicaid Upper Payment Limit payments; state and local tax appropriations, primarily to public hospitals and clinics; federal grants to community health centers, and federal direct care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service. These sobering statistics reveal that the price of being uninsured is very high, and they ought to serve as a catalyst for us to address the problem of uninsured Americans in a deliberate yet responsible fashion. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which again, enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers now inhibiting access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation, including payroll taxes. The Federal Government effectively subsidizes employer-provided health insurance to the tune of more than $80 billion per year. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy his situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs and which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the States could supplement the credit. I would like to apprise our colleagues of one improvement in particular which we have added to last session's bill that we believe will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured population. In an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation augments funding provided in the Trade Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, to State-run safety net insurance programs, currently operating in 30 States, and encourages more States to establish these important programs. And, as in our legislation last session of Congress, we seek to help further reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free of costly state benefit mandates. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Congress has already acknowledged the promise of this idea in passing into law the new Health Coverage Tax Credit, which helps folks who are eligible to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance or pension benefit payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Some 200,000 people across the country who meet eligibility requirements--nearly 200,000 of whom reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--now can obtain a tax credit covering 65 percent of qualified health insurance premiums. They can get this assistance in two ways. First, they can claim it on their tax forms in a lump sum next year on April 15th. Or, beginning in August, the Health Coverage Tax Credit program will allow eligible individuals and their families to directly apply the credit to their health insurance premiums every month. This advance payment option could make a big difference for families that are just getting by month-to-month or week-to-week. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low-income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senator Graham and me in endorsing this legislation to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act. This bill would clarify the tax treatment of a large and growing industry that contributes to the economies of communities across the country. The Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act would provide certainty to track and speedway operators regarding the depreciation of their properties. The Internal Revenue Service has just recently raised questions regarding the depreciation treatment used by facility owners. For decades, motorsports facilities were classified as ``theme and amusement facilities'' for depreciation. This long-standing treatment was widely applied and accepted, until now. Over the years, relying on this understanding of the tax law, facility owners and operators invested hundreds of millions of dollars in building and upgrading these properties. Pennsylvania is home to many of these facilities, including Pocono Raceway, Nazareth Speedway, Lake Erie Speedway, Jennertown Speedway, Big Diamond Raceway and Motordrome Speedway. These tracks and others boost their local economies. Larger races can draw tens of thousands of fans, some from hundreds of miles away. These facilities are an important part of the fabric of our national economy. As motorsports continues to grow as a national pastime, we must ensure that Federal policy does not unnecessarily impede its contribution to the economy. To that end I have introduced the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act. This legislation would simply codify the well-understood, long- standing and widely-accepted treatment of motorsports facilities for depreciation purposes. While modest in scope, it will provide needed clarity to the hundreds of tracks throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I would like to hear the Senator from Alabama's comment on just a couple of things the Union Leader says. In talking about some ads running about Catholics not needing to apply for judicial vacancies, it says: Democratic Senators opposing President Bush's nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals because of his ``deeply held'' belief that abortion is wrong. I just suggest that a deeply held belief is rooted in his Catholic faith. That is where beliefs come from; they come from your moral teachings, much of which is through the faith that you were brought up on. I return to the article: In opposing Pryor's nomination on the grounds that he believes strongly that abortion is immoral, the Democrats are doing nothing more than playing sleazy partisan politics. The last comment is: What Senate Democrats are doing to the judicial nominations process is a disgrace to their party and to the country. cloture motion

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator from Alabama familiar with an op-ed in this morning's Manchester Union Leader: ``Judging judges: Conservatives, Catholics needn't apply.''

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act. This bill would clarify the tax treatment of a large and growing industry that contributes to the economies of communities across the country. The Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act would provide certainty to track and speedway operators regarding the depreciation of their properties. The Internal Revenue Service has just recently raised questions regarding the depreciation treatment used by facility owners. For decades, motorsports facilities were classified as ``theme and amusement facilities'' for depreciation. This long-standing treatment was widely applied and accepted, until now. Over the years, relying on this understanding of the tax law, facility owners and operators invested hundreds of millions of dollars in building and upgrading these properties. Pennsylvania is home to many of these facilities, including Pocono Raceway, Nazareth Speedway, Lake Erie Speedway, Jennertown Speedway, Big Diamond Raceway and Motordrome Speedway. These tracks and others boost their local economies. Larger races can draw tens of thousands of fans, some from hundreds of miles away. These facilities are an important part of the fabric of our national economy. As motorsports continues to grow as a national pastime, we must ensure that Federal policy does not unnecessarily impede its contribution to the economy. To that end I have introduced the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act. This legislation would simply codify the well-understood, long- standing and widely-accepted treatment of motorsports facilities for depreciation purposes. While modest in scope, it will provide needed clarity to the hundreds of tracks throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, in reintroducing bipartisan legislation to address the ruinous effects of America's most common tick-borne illness, Lyme disease. I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for his long involvement and leadership on this very important public health issue. With thousands of Americans contracting Lyme disease each year, it is essential that we work aggressively to wage a comprehensive fight against Lyme and other tick-borne disorders, which cost our country dearly in the way of medical expenditures and human suffering. The current lack of physician knowledge about Lyme and the inadequacies of existing detection methods stand out as deficiencies in our efforts to combat Lyme, and only serve to compound this growing public health hazard. We have it within our capacity to finally deliver on promises made to Lyme patients and their families to better focus the federal government's efforts to detect and research a cure for Lyme. Toward the end of the last session of Congress, the Senate passed this legislation, but unfortunately the House of Representatives did not have the opportunity to consider it. This legislation represents years of work with the Lyme advocacy community to reach consensus how we can best move forward on this issue. The goal of our bill is for the federal government to develop more accurate and more reliable diagnostic tools, and to provide access to more effective treatment and ultimately a cure. Between 1991 and 1999, the annual number of reported cases of Lyme disease increased by an astonishing 72 percent. Even as this dramatic increase took place, poor coordination and the lack of proper funding have left too many questions unanswered. This legislation will seek to set a new course for our public health strategies toward Lyme by ensuring that the proper collaboration is taking place between the Federal government and the people it serves. With this consensus legislation we are calling for the formation of a Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee that will bring Federal agencies, such as the CDC and the NIH, to the table with patient organizations, clinicians, and members of the scientific community. This Committee will report its recommendations to the Secretary of HHS. It will ensure that all scientific viewpoints are given consideration at NIH and the CDC, and will give a voice to the patient community which has often been left out of the dialogue. Our legislation will also provide an additional $10 million each year over the next five years for public health agencies to work with researchers around the country to develop better diagnostic tests and to increase their efforts to educate the public about Lyme disease. I sincerely hope that our colleagues will join Senator Dodd and myself in this most worthy cause and cosponsor this important bill. Lyme disease patients and their families have waited too long for a responsive plan of action to address their suffering and needs. The tremendous efforts of the Lyme patient and advocacy community have been very helpful in raising awareness and mobilizing support for this issue, and for this both Senator Dodd and I thank them. I look forward to working with them, Senator Dodd, and our colleagues to enact into law strong legislation to help correct the mistakes of the past, and to give greater hope for the future by ensuring patients that the federal government is doing everything in its power to provide better treatments and ultimately a cure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, in reintroducing bipartisan legislation to address the ruinous effects of America's most common tick-borne illness, Lyme disease. I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for his long involvement and leadership on this very important public health issue. With thousands of Americans contracting Lyme disease each year, it is essential that we work aggressively to wage a comprehensive fight against Lyme and other tick-borne disorders, which cost our country dearly in the way of medical expenditures and human suffering. The current lack of physician knowledge about Lyme and the inadequacies of existing detection methods stand out as deficiencies in our efforts to combat Lyme, and only serve to compound this growing public health hazard. We have it within our capacity to finally deliver on promises made to Lyme patients and their families to better focus the federal government's efforts to detect and research a cure for Lyme. Toward the end of the last session of Congress, the Senate passed this legislation, but unfortunately the House of Representatives did not have the opportunity to consider it. This legislation represents years of work with the Lyme advocacy community to reach consensus how we can best move forward on this issue. The goal of our bill is for the federal government to develop more accurate and more reliable diagnostic tools, and to provide access to more effective treatment and ultimately a cure. Between 1991 and 1999, the annual number of reported cases of Lyme disease increased by an astonishing 72 percent. Even as this dramatic increase took place, poor coordination and the lack of proper funding have left too many questions unanswered. This legislation will seek to set a new course for our public health strategies toward Lyme by ensuring that the proper collaboration is taking place between the Federal government and the people it serves. With this consensus legislation we are calling for the formation of a Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee that will bring Federal agencies, such as the CDC and the NIH, to the table with patient organizations, clinicians, and members of the scientific community. This Committee will report its recommendations to the Secretary of HHS. It will ensure that all scientific viewpoints are given consideration at NIH and the CDC, and will give a voice to the patient community which has often been left out of the dialogue. Our legislation will also provide an additional $10 million each year over the next five years for public health agencies to work with researchers around the country to develop better diagnostic tests and to increase their efforts to educate the public about Lyme disease. I sincerely hope that our colleagues will join Senator Dodd and myself in this most worthy cause and cosponsor this important bill. Lyme disease patients and their families have waited too long for a responsive plan of action to address their suffering and needs. The tremendous efforts of the Lyme patient and advocacy community have been very helpful in raising awareness and mobilizing support for this issue, and for this both Senator Dodd and I thank them. I look forward to working with them, Senator Dodd, and our colleagues to enact into law strong legislation to help correct the mistakes of the past, and to give greater hope for the future by ensuring patients that the federal government is doing everything in its power to provide better treatments and ultimately a cure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. I say for the purpose of edification of the Senator from North Dakota, the two leaders have met and talked and our leader went to the Democratic leader and actually suggested to do just that, vitiate in exchange for a time certain this week to finish this bill, which is what I know the Senator from North Dakota was looking to do.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for another question, I sincerely thank the Senator from Utah for his yielding to me for these questions and for his very articulate defense of this nominee and the principle which I believe and I think the Senator believes in. One of the reasons I brought the article up was, many people outside of this Chamber--not just Catholic, not just Christian, but of all faiths--are deeply concerned about what is going on in this Chamber. I thank the Senator for his willingness to stand up and to have the courage to articulate that. I make the point that he is not alone in coming to the conclusion he has come to, that many people in this Chamber have come to, that this litmus test that is being applied ultimately is a religious one.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Which is a very threatening thing. I say for the record, as a pro-life Catholic, I voted for hundreds of Clinton nominees who I knew were not pro-life--hundreds of them--never voted against one of them, never filibustered any of them. I will match up my fervor in defense of human life against anyone in this Chamber. But not once did I vote against one. Why? Because that is not my role as a Senator, as a civil servant. I know my duties under the Constitution. I know my role. I know what I am supposed to do. What we are experiencing here now is not, again, the separation of church and state but the separation from anybody who is faithful to their church from the state. That is turning separation of church and state that would cause any of the Founders to be spinning in their grave today. It is exactly what--you can call it anything you want--but that is exactly what is going on. The greatest of the freedoms we have in this country, the greatest that any country can have, is the freedom to believe the freedom to think. Because if you don't have the freedom to think what you want and the freedom to do what you want, the freedom to speak, to assemble--the freedom to do anything else is meaningless. It is the first of all freedoms. That is under assault in this process. I commend the Senator from Utah for standing up in defense of this.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. SANTORUM. To get to the rest of this letter by Carl Anderson, who is the head of the Knights of Columbus nationwide, I want to read the concluding paragraph and ask the Senator to comment as to whether he agrees with Mr. Anderson in his conclusion as to what is going on with this nomination. He says this: As head of the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization and as a former member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, I am dismayed that the course of Mr. Pryor's nomination compels me to make a point which by now should be obvious: a good Catholic can also be a good public servant. Much as I would wish otherwise, a continuation of the trend that critics of Mr. Pryor's nomination have set in motion will compel American Catholics to face religious bigotry of a kind many of us thought to be extinct in this nation. Does the Senator agree that such continuation of activity could lead to such bigotry?

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to refer to a couple of paragraphs and I want the Senator to comment, because this is the point that I think is very important. There is a code word going on here--code words. When you hear the term ``deeply held beliefs''--I know the Senator from Illinois was upset when I used the term ``religious'' as a characterization. I think it is a completely accurate characterization of exactly what is going on. I am not alone. I will read a portion of the letter: Many have questioned Mr. Pryor's fitness for this position because of his ``deeply held beliefs,'' in particular his opposition to abortion. Yet, this ``deeply held belief'' is grounded in Mr. Pryor's adherence to his Catholic faith, which unequivocally declares abortion to be a grave evil. I am ending the quotation from Mr. Anderson's letter, and I just suggest that it is obvious to anyone that this code word is an antireligious bias--not an antireligious bias if you don't hold your faith deeply, but only if you do. Would the Senator from Utah care to comment on this letter I just quoted briefly from?

Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator familiar with a letter written by Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which was sent yesterday?

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. As a result, that was not accomplished. The Senator from South Dakota said that was not acceptable, so as a result we are now stuck on what seemingly some Members of this Chamber would like to talk about.