Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand the third one, that you are arguing for now, is not necessarily appropriate for this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that third amendment is not a tax- related amendment and would be appropriate to be offered, for example, if you wanted to, on the homeland security bill or another piece of legislation that is coming through. So there isn't a need to have that amendment attached particularly to a tax vehicle. I understand your second amendment has tax implications and is necessary to offer to a tax bill. But this amendment you could offer, if you wanted to, once we leave this unanimous consent, to homeland security. It probably has a much better chance of being passed and signed by the President in this legislation. So I would say to the Senator, if he wants to do that, I would argue that the better opportunity for him to do it is on homeland security, not this tax bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. The second amendment is highly controversial and would be an amendment that would surely sink any possibility of this legislation being passed.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this year, we did not wait passively for September to arrive; we began preparing weeks ago to greet this month with offerings of memorial in hand. At services across the Commonwealth and in remembrances around the country, last fall's attacks have again drawn the focus of our Nation. There is a new sentiment this time around, though, one that is hopeful, grateful, more determined, and less confused. For all of us, it has been a week of reflection on the losses and lessons of the attack that changed our history and our lives. The destruction wrought by a hateful few was intended to unravel America's strength, but it has only made us stronger. And from this strength, we have come to understand that the tragedy of last September 11 has in fact blessed us with an opportunity. The attacks are still tangible in Pennsylvania, and so we take this opportunity very seriously, proud to have a part in creating a positive legacy for 9/11. It was aboard the plane that crashed in Shanksville that America's response to terrorism first began. Somerset County, for this reason, will be a symbol of the heroism and sacrifice that a few brave, ordinary citizens chose to exhibit when faced with the most difficult and dangerous situation of their lives. Shanksville, the World Trade Towers, and the Pentagon can all be reminders of what the American spirit is capable of overcoming, of what Todd Beamer meant when he said, ``Let's roll,'' if we as a Nation choose to make it so. The anniversary of September 11 should, therefore, be about the resolve to honor the memories of all those lost to the terrorist attacks by living to make ourselves, our communities, and our country better. Looking back over the past twelve months, the most inspiring aspect of the national recovery effort was the compassion, cooperation, and concern that citizens across the country shared with one another. Through the charity of time, prayer, blood, consolation, money, and other expressions of support, Americans exhibited a goodwill that is rarely seen so universally, but comes so naturally to us all at times of crisis. As we settle back into our normal, peaceful lives, however, this goodwill tends to steal away from us. As a result, our collective awareness of a common humanity and a world view larger than our own back yards also begins to fade. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the years to follow the shock of terrorism on our soil, we must renew the commitment we have to our neighbors, our communities, and our Nation. Across the country, we can make the courage and responsibility displayed by the heroes at Ground Zero endure. In this way, we will triumph over evil and devastation, and we can try to make sense out of all that we have suffered. When I first visited the cratered field in Shanksville, and when I returned to that crash site this week, I was struck by the importance of our continued hope. I was also inspired by the strength of those Flight 93 family members, now carrying the torches of their loved ones who gave their last measure of bravery for our nation. I have resolved to make every day a memorial to September 11th by working to keep the bigger picture in mind and a better world in sight. I hope you will find your own way to keep and exhibit this renewed American spirit in your lives. May God bless you and our great country.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise tonight to address the important resolution pending before the Senate concerning the authority to use military force against the Republic of Iraq. I firmly believe that this resolution we are debating will strengthen the hand of President Bush and the international community in forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm and to ensure his compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. I believe President Bush will do everything possible before deciding to commit U.S. military forces against Saddam Hussein's regime. The President has not decided to employ military force, nor does this resolution demand that he do so. Rather, the resolution signals to the President that Congress stands behind his decision to employ military force if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm or abide by all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. When he addressed the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush convincingly and accurately presented the case against Saddam Hussein and his flouting of international norms and agreements. President Bush rightly called attention to Saddam Hussein's abysmal track record on complying with the terms of disarmament he accepted at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In so doing, President Bush bucked current international attitudes that would prefer that we not call attention to his regime's activities. Ever since the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war, we have seen Saddam behave with contempt towards those countries that see value in the United Nations resolutions and that ultimately seek a peaceful and stable Middle East. For more than 10 years, the world looked the other way and ignored the problem with the hope that Saddam Hussein and his regime would go away. Regretfully, Saddam Hussein has displayed remarkable staying power and a powerful appetite for acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I commend President Bush for seeking congressional authorization for possible military action against Iraq and for consulting with Congress on the drafting of a truly bipartisan resolution. In response to those who condemn the United States for displaying ``unilateralism,'' President Bush took his case to the United Nations and forced the world to acknowledge the realities of the Iraqi transgressions. The President is also right to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. These inspectors must have unfettered access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq. There can be no conditions or dickering over Iraq's national sovereignty. Saddam Hussein lost a war he initiated, he sued for peace, and he needs to accept the terms and conditions he pledged to honor. To expect anything less would be to condone his transgressions. The President is being practical by raising the ``what if'' element to the debate. History has shown Saddam will go to elaborate measures to conceal and elude efforts to uncover his weapons of mass destruction capabilities and development efforts. It is only prudent that the U.S. Congress and all members of the U.N. Security Council consider authorizing measures to force Iraq's compliance with efforts to ensure disarmament. Earlier today, the House of Representatives passed this same resolution on a vote of 296 to 133, and I firmly believe that overwhelming bicameral approval of this resolution will strengthen the hand of the President in securing the strongest possible United Nations Security Council resolution. In plain terms, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is analogous to the threat posed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver is a threat to all on and in close proximity to the road. Behind the wheel of a rolling weapon, it is only a matter of time before the drunk driver crashes into another car, kills an innocent bystander or causes immense damage to someone's personal property. Saddam is this drunk driver careening along the road, a threat to all those innocents who have the misfortune to cross his path. It is time to get Saddam off the road before he can kill or injure innocents who cross his path. For those who are critical of discussion or references to ``regime change,'' I call to your attention section 3 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, P.L. 105-338. Section 3 of the act states: ``It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.'' Through this provision, Congress has already expressed its views on this subject. I applaud the efforts of the Bush administration to engage Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein and to work with these groups to provide a democratic alternative to this tyrant. The United States has a strong record of restoring order and cultivating democracy in post-conflict regions of the globe. Examples such as post-World War II Germany and Japan are stellar illustrations of how the U.S. has worked to better defeated nations that strayed from the norms and rules of acceptable international behavior. In addition, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a wealthy nation with natural resources, an educated populace and a middle class--all elements that will bolster the chances of democracy thriving in this country. There is no reason to expect that with a concerted effort by the U.S. and other democratic nations that Iraq cannot join Israel as the only other Middle Eastern democracy. But perhaps most important, benign neglect is not morally acceptable. Looking the other way will not and cannot improve the situation in Iraq and the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the world. There is a parallel between today's situation and the situation that confronted the civilized Western World of the 1930s. In that era, democratic leaders sought to appease the ambitions of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. World War II, the Holocaust and millions of military and civilian casualties are the outcome of that deferral of action. President Bush's effort to compel compliance with applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions is our best chance for peaceful disarmament. Not one speaker here in the Senate has indicated that the status quo is acceptable or reasonable. It is painfully clear that one way or another we--preferably the U.S. in concert with our allies and the support of the United Nations--must deal with Saddam and his threat to our interests, our allies' interests, the stability of the Middle East and the interests of the civilized world. In conclusion, given the events of September 11th, given the past transgressions of Saddam Hussein, and given the threat posed to the world by his weapons of mass destruction programs, it is imperative that we provide President Bush with the strongest hand possible to seek compliance with all applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions. The attacks of September 11th and the fateful decisions not taken in the 1930s illustrate that there is a cost to not taking corrective action in a prompt and decisive fashion. It is my sincere hope that this resolution will rally the United Nations Security Council to draft a strong resolution forcing the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and his regime of terror. If the U.N. fails to act, the U.S. must do what is in the best interest of our national security interests and disarm Saddam Hussein. Today represents our best opportunity for peaceful disarmament disarmament on our terms and according to standards established by the U.N. and other civilized nations. To do or expect anything less is to shirk our moral obligation to meet the national security obligations of our country. It is for this reason that I will vote in favor of the bipartisan resolution which is before us now.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise briefly to express my disappointment and dismay at what is going on in the neighboring State to Pennsylvania--New Jersey. What we are seeing play out in New Jersey is not something that, as an elected official, I find particularly ennobling for public officials. This is not something that gives people a whole lot of confidence in the political process in which we are engaged. It is obvious some are trying to change the rules right at the end of the game, and in a way to advantage one political party. I find that very disconcerting. I find it potentially--as the New Jersey Supreme Court contemplates what they are going to do in this case, seeing the precedent that could result, it could result in a lot of ridiculous things happening at the end of a lot of elections. If you find a candidate behind, you simply change horses right at the end. Instead of having the people decide, you have the courts decide. Remember just 2 years ago a lot of people were gnashing their teeth saying elections should not be decided in the courts. They should be decided by the people on the ballot. Here we have a situation where there are people on the ballot, and now we are having people go to court to change that ballot. That is very disconcerting. But I guess one of the things that bothers me the most is that there is a connection here in Washington, DC, to what is going on in New Jersey. The connection here in Washington, DC, as the Senator from New Jersey announced, is that it is his intention, by trying to get his name removed from the ballot, to save the Senate for the Democrats. It was not to give the people of New Jersey a choice, as many of the pundits are arguing and many of the politicos are arguing, that the people of New Jersey deserve a choice. No, this was about potentially having a candidate who was going to lose the election and that could result in the Democrats losing control of the Senate. So from the press reports, we see lots of pressure being brought to bear on the Senator from New Jersey, from a variety of different quarters, to take one for the party and step aside so the Democrats can continue to control the Senate. That is what this is about. This is not about giving the people of New Jersey a choice. It is about trying to keep power, whether breaking the rules or not, trying to keep power. There are a lot of discussions in this Chamber about the rule of law, that we have to respect the rule of law. We preach all over the world about the importance of the rule of law. Yet we have a statute that is in place under the Constitution because the Constitution says the legislature shall set the laws of elections within the States, not the courts. The legislature clearly acted in New Jersey. So what are people here trying to save the Democratic majority trying to do? Well, they are trying to change the law through the courts so they have a better chance of winning the election. Again, the disturbing part is from press reports that some of that is being orchestrated out of Washington, DC. We have a report from the Washington Post that says: Senate majority leader Tom Daschle warned McGreevey, the Governor of New Jersey, that substantial national party funding for the race would be in jeopardy. ``It was basically, `Not with my money,''' Democratic officials said. --unless they picked a particular candidate to substitute for Senator Torricelli. Again, I am hearing a lot of talk that the people of New Jersey deserve a choice. Yet it sounds like the choice is being dictated here in Washington, DC. Another quote from the Newark Star-Ledger: In what may be the strangest twist yet in a bizarre election year, New Jersey Democratic leaders last night chose Lautenberg as their standard bearer on the insistence of Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. They quote a Democratic source saying: ``Lautenberg or nothing.'' The nothing in this case was a threat by the national Democrats to abandon New Jersey in order to put stronger campaigns for incumbent Democrats in other states where they stood a better chance of winning. . . . So let's put this in context, the highbrow comments that ``the people of New Jersey deserve a choice.'' Let the people of New Jersey understand whose choice it was. It was not their choice. It was a choice dictated by the political operation here in Washington, DC, and according to these reports, by the Senate majority leader, as to who that choice would be for New Jerseyans to choose from. That is deeply disturbing. That is deeply disturbing that we see this kind of interplay, in an attempt to change the outcome of an election that did not seem to be going in a positive direction. I find it very interesting we have another case that just occurred on the unfortunate death of a Representative in Congress from Hawaii, someone who served this country through a long and distinguished career, a very popular Member of the House, and very popular in her district. What I understand is that the Democratic Party in Hawaii is not going to remove her name--is not going to remove her name from the election ballot. Why? Because she is a very popular Member and there is the suggestion that has been reported in the press that even though she is deceased, that she would probably still win the election. Yet we have in New Jersey someone who is alive and well who they are insisting must be removed from the ballot. This is the kind of crass political calculation that undermines people's faith in the electoral and political process in this country. The sad part is, in part, some of this is being orchestrated out of Washington, DC. This is a crude attempt by those who took power in the Senate, not through the electoral process, to regain power in the Senate through the court process, not through the electoral process that has been established by the State of New Jersey. How far do we go to keep power? How important is power? What rules must be broken? What principles must be set aside to keep power? That is what is going on here. That is why the public is outraged and deeply disturbed at what they are seeing in New Jersey. I find it very troubling that we have Members from this body who are participating in orchestrating those developments. It is not something that reflects positively on the Senate. It certainly does not reflect positively on the electoral system in this country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Wisconsin and Nevada. I rise to offer a unanimous consent request for the Senate to consider the partial-birth abortion bill that passed the House recently. We have been working diligently for the past 18 months, since the Supreme Court decision, to craft a partial-birth abortion bill that meets the constitutionality muster of the Nebraska decision. We think we have accomplished that, and I would argue that the House agrees with us. The House recently passed this legislation 274 to 151. I understand time is short, and we have held this bill at the desk. I am hopeful and have been working to try to get a unanimous consent agreement that we can bring up this legislation for debate and discussion. We are willing to do it on a very limited time agreement, limited amendments, or as many amendments as the other side thinks is necessary. This is an important piece of legislation. It is one the President said he would sign. It is one that received an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House. I believe it will have a very strong bipartisan vote in the Senate. While I understand this unanimous consent will be objected to this evening, I am hopeful we can continue to work together to try to bring up this very important piece of legislation that has been voted on here at least in the last three sessions of Congress with very strong majorities. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by President Clinton. We now have a President who will sign it. We have language that will meet constitutional muster. We will continue to work and seek the unanimous consent request to bring this up. I now offer that request. I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 521, H.R. 4965, a bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. I further ask unanimous consent that there be one relevant amendment on each side, with 1 hour of debate equally divided on each amendment, and that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I figure I am on solid ground in that regard.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, yes, the House does have a budget, but the Senate does not. The Senate's top line number is higher than the House's. That is why we go through the budget process, so that we can have agreement between the two bodies on the top line number, and we can apportion the money accordingly. There is a discrepancy between the two bodies. That is what creates the problem for the House in being able to move their appropriations bills--that trap into which they may be entering. That is not the reason I got up to talk. I know the good Senator has spent considerable time talking about this, and I respect his opinion. I wanted to very politely disagree with some of the conclusions in his discussion.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. With the conclusion. My mother always told me to try to disagree without being disagreeable. I am trying to do that at this time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, one quick comment about being stalled. I suggest that in defense of my colleagues in the House--and I try to be a defender of them in the Senate--I suspect one of the reasons is that we don't have a budget. It is very hard to mark up appropriations bills when you don't have an agreement between the two bodies. I think that is difficult. The fact that the Senate has not passed a budget has put us in a situation where we have been unable to get conference reports--or even bills passed, in some cases--because of the uncertainty of what those numbers are.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to talk about an issue of grave importance. The Presiding Officer is from New York, and she knows of the great tragedy that has befallen her State as a result of 9/11, and the tremendous generosity that has been pouring out to the victims of terrorism in New York, northern Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania. What I am sure Members know also is that, as a result of that tremendous outpouring of giving, in a lot of other areas of the country charitable giving is actually off between 20 and 25 percent. Overall, charitable giving is up, but it has been channeled--legitimately so--toward the victims of terror. As a result of that, and for other reasons, too, Senator Lieberman and I have been working diligently with the President and our colleagues in the House to try to get a bill through the Congress this year because of its timeliness. It is a 2-year bill to try to get emergency help to faith-based organizations--but, frankly, if you read the legislation, to all nonprofit organizations that are out there trying to improve our society. This is a bill targeted at charitable organizations in an attempt to get more resources to them at a time when we have economic distress, wartime distress, as the war on terror goes on, and the distress coming from the terrorist attacks in the United States. We are trying to respond in a compassionate way with resources to the very organizations that really do meet the human services needs. We are working in the Senate on a strong, bipartisan basis to try to find a consensus. Now, this issue of the President's faith-based initiative has attracted a lot of controversy. Basically, it is centered around the issue of employment discrimination for those who would receive Federal dollars, whether they would be allowed to--because they are religious organizations--discriminate in employment. Senator Lieberman and I have attempted to build a bipartisan consensus to try to move a bill through the Senate and have chosen to set that issue aside, basically. Probably Senator Lieberman and I have different views, and there are different views probably on both sides of the aisle. We thought this issue was so important, getting these resources at a time of economic need, at a time of war, to the nonprofit organizations was so important that, even though I believe this hiring discrimination language for nonprofit organizations is important, I was willing to set it aside. The President has agreed to set this aside in order to get bipartisan consensus to really work in the sort of bare bones, or the nuts and bolts, of what the President's initiative was about--getting help to charitable organizations, or to the ``armies of compassion,'' as he terms it. Senator Lieberman and I came up with the CARE Act, and I thank Senators Baucus and Grassley. It has moved through the Finance Committee and has broad bipartisan support. It has the Presiding Officer's support and also the majority leader's support. He has announced his support for the legislation. It is, I believe, from most people's perspective, a noncontroversial bill. There are some who I understand have some concerns about the legislation. We have some on our side, and I understand there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle with specific provisions of the bill. Over the past several months, Senator Lieberman and I have been working with our leadership and the Democratic leadership trying to clear this legislation so we can get the bill considered on the floor, with some sort of time agreement, because we are close to wrapping up the session, and with some limitation on amendments. I would be perfectly willing to allow for two, three, four, five, or whatever amendments are necessary to meet objections on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, I don't see many objections, per se, to the bill, although I understand there are some. I also know there are people-- because this is a tax bill--who would like to see a variety of tax issues considered on this bill. I am willing, if that is how we will reach a consensus, and I think Senator Lieberman will be willing to debate those. We have been informed by the majority leader that he does not want that debate. He would like to limit this to one amendment on each side with a relatively tight time agreement. That was a little bit of a heavy lift from our side of the aisle, but I proceeded, with the help of the rest of our leadership team, to work through our side of the aisle to get some amendments in the managers' package, and from that side of the aisle also. Yet we came down here with, yes, we can whittle it down. In fact, last week we cleared a unanimous consent request for one amendment on our side--the one by Senator Gramm from Texas, who has an amendment to a provision that isn't in the CARE Act, but it is in the package on the floor. Senator Gramm would like to have an amendment. We submitted that to the Finance Committee 2 weeks ago and to the Democratic leader 2 weeks ago. They have been able to review that amendment. We have been working on a managers' amendment, and last week we were able to get a consensus. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus and their staffs for working diligently in trying to run through and get the consensus managers' amendment, which has been shared with my Republican colleagues. It is a rather voluminous amendment, I might add. It is 200-some pages. That amendment was shared--and I thank the Finance Committee staff--with the Republican leader and with the minority Finance Committee members. We have that amendment. It is my understanding that amendment has been cleared on both sides. We are at a point now where we have an amendment that has been available for 2 weeks on our side of the aisle. We have been able to hold off all other amendments, and I guarantee I have a long list of Senators who would like to offer amendments to this bill. But in the spirit of trying to pass what I believe is very important legislation-- and I think most Members would agree getting help to charitable organizations during a time of economic stress and war is a good thing to do. It is a short period. It is not a long and permanent change to the Tax Code. It is a short period of infusion of resources into the charitable community. We now are at a place where we can try to move forward. I know the Senator from Nevada, who is in the Chamber, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, have been trying to work on the Democratic side of the aisle to clear this amendment and this bill and try to get unanimous consent. I will propound a unanimous consent request, and I am curious to hear the comments from the majority whip as to where we are in the state of play on the Democratic side of the aisle at this point. The reason I do so, I want to announce beforehand, is that last week when I came to the floor, having worked this now for several weeks, I said it is important we try to bring this issue to a head, and if we could not get a unanimous consent agreement offered by the leader that I would do so to attempt to provide to the Senate a better understanding of where this process stands and the likelihood for success in getting this done between now and the end of the session. Unanimous Consent Request Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 496, H.R. 7, which is the House-passed President's faith-based initiative, and that it be considered under the following limitation: That there be 1 hour for general debate on the bill equally divided between the two managers; that the only amendment in order, other than a managers' substitute, be the following: One first-degree amendment offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island regarding charitable choice; and one first-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Gramm of Texas regarding land/water sales or exchanges; that the amendments be limited to 60 minutes each to be divided between the proponents and opponents. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above amendments and expiration of debate, the bill be read for a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to talk about a plan that is being discussed here in the Halls of the Senate and a very important plan in this time of economic recovery when we are looking at the 1- year anniversary a week ago of September 11 and the tragedy that has befallen so many people. When we look at a lot of hardships going on in America, and while we had a great response and outpouring of support from the American public to the victims of 9/11, if we look at the rest of the charitable world, charitable giving is off about 20 percent. Part of that is the stock market, and part of it is because of the funds and worthy causes supporting the victims of 9/11. A lot of the service needs, artistic needs, and educational needs in communities all across the country are doing with a lot less money this time of year--at a time when the need is very great. We are looking at a piece of legislation and working on a piece of legislation in the Senate. The Finance Committee marked up a bill in June to try to help the situation as part of the President's faith- based initiative. It is a charitable giving package that will strengthen the nonprofit sector of our economy--those who help in the human service area--as I mentioned, education and the arts. We have been working very hard to try to get this legislation on the floor. Senator Daschle, I know, has given a commitment to the President that he will in fact bring this measure to the floor of the Senate and have a vote before the end of this session. We are winding down to the final days of the session, and that has yet to happen. Senator Lieberman, I know, has been working very hard, as have I, to get this legislation to the floor and do it under a unanimous consent agreement. Obviously, there are a lot of important issues being discussed, and we want to have the opportunity to have debate and amendments offered. We are willing on our side of the aisle to have a limitation on amendments and a limitation on debate. We have had a discussion back and forth. The majority leader has suggested the way he would feel comfortable bringing this legislation up is to have one amendment on each side. I have been working very hard on our side. I thank our leader, Senator Lott, and our ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, for getting together as a team and working our side of the aisle to make sure we get that down to one amendment. We shared that amendment with the Democratic side of the aisle last week. So we had that amendment out so everybody would know what our amendment is. There are two other amendments. One will be an amendment on the Democratic side. I understand Senator Reed from Rhode Island will be the offerer of that amendment. And then there will be a managers' amendment. There will be a managers' amendment because there are certain issues in the underlying CARE Act that Senator Lieberman and I worked out with the White House several months ago that are not under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and cannot be reported out of the Finance Committee. They have to be added on the floor. Senator Lincoln had concerns about provisions in the act. We worked diligently. Again, I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for working this issue. We now have agreement, I understand, on Senator Lincoln's provision and that is going to be included in the managers' amendment. We had an amendment on our side of the aisle from Senator Hutchison of Texas which had bipartisan support, as Senator Lincoln's did, and we put that in the managers' amendment. We had things pop up, and we have been able to work out compromises and make this happen. I was just informed a few minutes ago that the majority committee staff has actually given us the managers' amendment. I thank them for moving the ball down the field. We are reviewing that amendment. We can now, with that managers' amendment, actually go through the process of hotlining the bill on our side of the aisle. I am very sanguine about our chances of getting approval on our side of the aisle for this very important legislation affecting millions of people in need in our society and the thousands upon thousands of volunteers, people who are committed to helping those less fortunate in our society. They are waiting for this legislation to pass. I know the President in speech after speech has asked the Senate to move forward on this legislation during this time of economic need. We are approaching that point. I encourage this work to continue. I understand there is a good-faith effort ongoing, but we are reaching the end of the session. We have 3 weeks to go. If we pass this legislation, we have to get our colleagues in the House to act on it. We do not know how they are going to act on it, but I am hopeful we can work out something to get this bill to the President before we adjourn on the 11th of October. I wish to report that progress is being made. I am hopeful that, with this information, we can get approval on our side of the aisle for an agreement. I am hopeful an agreement also can be reached on the Democratic side so we can move forward and get this very important bipartisan legislation passed. Senator Lieberman and I are sponsors of it. I know Senator Daschle announced publicly he is in support of it. There is broad support on this side of the aisle for the legislation. This bill affects the people, the armies of compassion on the front lines meeting the needs of Americans in every State of the country. This is something very good we can do. It looks small, but it has a huge impact on millions of Americans if we do this before we leave. I encourage all those who have an interest in this legislation to come forward and make sure a unanimous consent agreement is accomplished very quickly. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, on achieving an important milestone in its work to eliminate lymphatic filariasis, LF. Last month, the pharmaceutical company produced the one hundred-millionth tablet of its drug albendazole for donation to LF patients, marking a significant step toward eradicating this devastating disease. Lymphatic filariasis, commonly known as elephantiasis, is a disabling and disfiguring tropical disease caused by thread-like worms that live in the human lymphatic system. It mainly affects people in the tropical and sub-tropical areas of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Approximately 120 million people are affected by LF, with more than one billion people at risk of infection. In 1998, GlaxoSmithKline and the World Health Organization formed the Global Alliance to Eliminate LF. The goals of the Alliance are to interrupt transmission of LF, country by country, until LF has been eliminated as a public health problem. GSK supports the Alliance by donating its antiparasitic drug albendazole and by helping with initiatives for coalition-building, planning, training, and communications. LF is one of the world's leading causes of disability, affecting people in nearly 80 countries. The estimated economic loss through disability, illness, and missed work days is in the billions of dollars each year. By breaking the cycle of infection between mosquitoes and humans, the administration of albendazole is an important component of sparing the next generation from the deforming manifestations of LF. GlaxoSmithKline maintains its U.S. headquarters in Philadelphia, and I am proud to represent the company's 6,000 Pennsylvania employees searching for cures and treatments to improve the lives of citizens worldwide. I commend GSK for its dedication to the eradication of lymphatic filariasis and wish the company success in fulfilling its commitment to produce and donate 6 billion albendazole tablets to this end.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we have been trying over the last few hours to get a unanimous consent agreement on the President's faith- based initiative called the CARE Act, passed out of the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. We have been working, first, to clear a unanimous consent agreement to get the CARE Act, as passed by the Finance Committee, cleared without amendments being offered by either side, simply a managers' amendment that includes provisions not in the Finance Committee mark because the Finance Committee didn't have jurisdiction over those elements of the bill that Senator Lieberman and I and the President have agreed on as a compromise. We tried to clear that, and there was objection. So Senator Lieberman and I talked with Senator Daschle to see if we could clear a unanimous consent with the limitation on amendments--not relevant amendments but simply tax amendments. We suggested five on either side. That was cleared on our side. That was acceptable to us, to have a limitation on amendments of five on each side. We have just been informed that is not acceptable on the Democrat side. We asked if six was. No. Seven? No. So my concern is that we will not take the bill clean or with a limitation on amendments. I guess I have to ask--and I will not propound a unanimous consent request, but I believe there are Members on both sides working in good faith to see if we can get this piece of legislation before the Senate and get it enacted into law. It is something I know Members on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about--to support charitable giving at a time when charitable giving has really taken it on the chin, other than with respect to 9/11. With the stock market down, we have seen charitable giving go down and, in some cases, dramatically. This is needed to help the nonprofit sector to provide for the human service needs out there in America. So I will withhold a unanimous consent request, even though I think we had some agreement to try to propound one tonight, because there are objections on the Democratic side of the aisle. I just encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to work with us to see if we can find a regime in which we can bring this legislation to the floor with some sort of limitation on amendments and debate and have a good discussion and then move forward and pass this legislation. Maybe even if it is acceptable, we can get the House to accept it and move it on to President, and we must go to conference. I hope we can work in a bipartisan spirit to help. This is targeted to help those who are in need in our society. It is something the President cares about and Senator Lieberman, as do others, including Senator Daschle. Let's have a good-faith effort here to move forward on this legislation and find some sort of unanimous consent agreement to move us forward on this important piece of legislation that is so needed by those who want to be helpful to others in need in our society. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, they said they are standing with the American public on what they are demanding. The American public is demanding health care insurance. The Patients' Bill of Rights dramatically increased the cost of health insurance. If we are interested in what the American public is demanding, it is lower health insurance bills. What they would have gotten if this bill had passed and become law in the Senate is higher health care bills, because under this bill we would allow employers to be sued--yes, not HMOs. You always hear HMOs, HMOs. Look, I am happy to have HMOs, but what this bill allows, what they have been arguing for from day one is to allow people who have employer-provided insurance is to let the employer be sued. To be clear, I haven't talked to one employer in Pennsylvania who, if the Senate bill were passed, which allows employers to be sued simply by providing insurance to their employees--I haven't talked to one who said: I am out of the insurance business; that is not my job; that is not why I provide insurance to employees. I do it as a benefit and to be competitive in the marketplace. But do you know what. I am not going to open up the books and the entire revenues of my company to trial lawyers suing on behalf of my employees because they got a bad health care outfit. This bill will not only drive up costs, but it will drive employers out of providing health insurance. That is not what the American public is demanding. They are not demanding higher costs and to be uninsured by their employers. That is what this bill would do. I respect greatly the President for standing firm and saying we are not going to cause massive uninsurance, we are not going to cause massive increases in health insurance, all to the benefit of the trial lawyers of America. That is not what we are about, and it is not what the American public wants, and that is not what we are going to do. I thank the President for not going along with this scheme to end up driving the private markets into the ground and then having those who drove the market into the ground come back to the Senate floor and say: See, look, private employers are not doing their job anymore, so we need a Government-run health care system; let's pass that. Madam President, that is not why I got up to talk. That is what happens when you listen to other people's speeches.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this bill. The Senator from New York says these are wonder drugs. They do not drop out of the air. They come from a tremendous amount of investment from pharmaceutical companies which create new drugs and save people's lives and create a better quality of life for Americans. We are sacrificing future cures for political payout today, which is cheaper drugs for our folks back home. The long-term consequence of what we are doing today is that more people will die as a result of drugs not being invented because of the reduction in the amount of research and development that will go on because we have now tipped the balance toward generic drug companies, which do no research and investment and create no new drugs. So understand what you are doing. We are sacrificing, yes, a great vote to say we are going to provide cheaper drugs. But long-term we are providing less cures and a lower quality of life.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding me some time, and I also thank the Senator from Vermont for allowing Senator Specter and I to speak first on this nominee. I, too, like Senator Specter, am very proud tonight to praise the nomination of Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and to congratulate the President on an excellent nominee. I certainly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for his confirmation. I truly hope they look at his record of 17 years of judicial service and experience on both the Federal and State level. He is someone of paramount integrity, someone who is obviously academically qualified, having been confirmed already as a Federal judge some 13 years ago. He has impeccable credentials academically and professionally prior to being a judge, and I think his service on both the trial court level and the common pleas court of Blair County, as well as on the Federal bench of the western district, now serving as chief judge of the western district, has been exemplary. He is someone who has been a model judge, someone who has steered a course, as most people who have described his nomination, right down the center, someone who follows the law and is very steadfast to what the role of a judge is, which is not to go out and make law but simply to serve in the capacity of meting out justice in a fair and equitable way that meets the expectations of the litigants. He has been highly praised by everyone. He has gotten a letter of support from almost the entire Pennsylvania congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike. He has been rated well qualified by the ABA and highly recommended by the Allegheny County Bar Association, which is their highest rating. Allegheny County is the bar where the Western District of Pennsylvania is located. He has gotten support from every prior U.S. attorney from Jimmy Carter on through President Clinton's appointments to the U.S. attorney position in the western district. They have all come out in support of him. His colleagues on the statewide bench from the supreme court, superior court, on down, have written letters of support, both Republicans and Democrats alike, for his nomination. One of the most disturbing aspects of this nomination was what some on the far left-wing groups have done to try to impeach Judge Smith's integrity. Senator Specter reviewed the three things that have been brought up in a 17-year career. Probably the most outrageous of all of them is the fact that Judge Smith belonged--I know this might be shocking to some of my colleagues--to a sportsman club that only has male members. I know that none of my colleagues have ever heard of such a thing, but believe it or not most sportsman clubs in America, I would suggest, have limitations on memberships. If anyone is interested in the opposite, where sportsman clubs limit membership only to women, go to www.womensflyfishing.net, and they will find 60 organizations where only women are permitted to be members. At this particular club, the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, only men are allowed to be members, but women certainly are allowed on the premises and allowed to use the facilities. They simply cannot be members of the club. This club is a beautiful place. It is right in the heart of Pennsylvania. It has attracted many people from around the country because of its fabulous fly fishing. One such person who is an annual visitor, according to his own article on the subject, to this limited club is former President Jimmy Carter. Former President Jimmy Carter goes to this club to which Judge Smith used to belong. When President Carter was President, my colleagues may recall the incident when the rabbit attacked his boat. That was somewhat of a famous incident during the Carter Presidency. That happened at the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club. This is purely a social organization. When Judge Smith was before the Judiciary Committee, it was unclear whether he should continue to belong to such an organization. He was confirmed nonetheless. He promised at that time, when it was unclear whether that membership was unethical in some respects, that he would try to reverse the policy, and if he was unsuccessful he would resign. Subsequent to that, in 1992, the judicial code was changed and, as Senator Specter said, this kind of club does not fall into the ethical category of invidious. Therefore, as a result, he was not required under the judicial conduct code to resign. Nevertheless, he tried for several years. Every year at their meetings, he would try to have women allowed to become members, but he failed. Eventually, I think after 9 or 10 years, he decided he would give up that quest and leave. This was some 5 years ago. I understand there are a lot of women's groups that are complaining about this. To be candid, the complaint should be not that he resigned too late but that he is not still there trying to change it. That, to me, would be legitimate, to say he should have continued to stay there to try to get women as members. Instead, he gave up the fight, as some might suggest, and decided simply not to belong. I think they have sort of missed the point, and the point is--this is ridiculous is really the point. The point that he belonged to this club has nothing to do with his ability to be a jurist. Probably the worst aspect of this whole thing is it brought up this tenor that somehow Judge Smith was anti-woman. Well, we had the president of the NOW organization in his home county, Blair County, former Democratic county commissioner, come to the Senate, to the LBJ room. She did a press conference talking about how Judge Smith, when he was a common pleas court judge, did more to help her in her role as county commissioner than anybody else she met in county government, and that he had an excellent record in regard to violence on women, and a variety of other things, as he did as a common pleas court judge. Then later on, we heard from members of the women's bar association of western Pennsylvania going on at length about how Judge Smith was the best judge they had to deal with, who was the most respectful of women in the courtroom, most accepting of women in the courtroom. This is the most frustrating part for the judge, and I know Senator Specter commented how difficult a process this has been for him, to be attacked for things that are so spurious and tangential to this whole process, and trying to then frame them for something that he has worked all his life to prove that he was not. It was really unfair. Senator Specter went through the other two issues that have been highlighted. One is a case where he should have recused himself earlier. The trustee in the case, the former Attorney General and Governor, Richard Thornburgh, who said he would have been the aggrieved party in the case, as it turned out, said, no; that Judge Smith handled the case properly and forthrightly. The judge who eventually was assigned the case commented she would have handled the case in the precise manner Judge Smith handled the case. The Securities and Exchange Commission looked at this and stated Judge Smith did nothing improper. There is absolutely nothing there when it comes to these ``improprieties'' of Judge Smith on the bench. This is reaching. This is trying to find a reason to oppose someone who has an impeccable record of service in the judicial community of western Pennsylvania, someone who has been outstanding in everything he has attempted. He is an incredibly well-qualified person for this position. He has done nothing but prove that his nomination for the Third Circuit is warranted. I am very hopeful that my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle--and I thank Senator Specter, Senator Edwards, Senator Kohl, and Senator Biden for their support of this nominee in committee--will be joined by many others on the other side of the aisle to confirm, as the ABA said, a well-qualified, very solid candidate, for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is a proud moment for me to speak on behalf of Joy Flowers Conti. I had the privilege of practicing with her as a lawyer in Pittsburgh. She is an outstanding litigator and outstanding person in the community, and I am very grateful that her nomination is coming to the Senate floor. The next vote will be on John E. Jones for the Middle District, another outstanding litigator and someone who is going to be a credit to the court. We still have six district court judges in Pennsylvania who have yet to be confirmed in the Senate and two third circuit-- Pennsylvania positions that need to be filled. I am hopeful those nominations will also make their way to the floor quickly.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for agreeing to recognize me. Now that the nomination has been confirmed by the Senate, I congratulate Kit Conner from outside of Harrisburg, PA, for filling the vacancy in the Middle District. Judge Conner is one of six members from Pennsylvania who are on the Executive Calendar in the Senate. Including him, there are five district judges and one Third Circuit nominee, and I am very gratified we have been able to unlock the logjam on judges and begin the process of moving forward. Kit Conner is a very distinguished member of the bar in the Middle District in Pennsylvania. He is a tremendous lawyer and advocate, someone who has made substantial contributions to his community and is going to be an excellent Middle District judge. I look forward to his swearing in ceremony very soon. If we go down the listing of judges in the order in which they appear on the calendar, the next judges to be confirmed are also Pennsylvania judges, at least nominees for judicial vacancies, and they would be Joy Flowers Conti from the Western District of Pennsylvania, John Jones from the Middle District, and then D. Brooks Smith, who is a judge from the Western District who has been nominated for the Third Circuit. Hopefully next week, maybe as early as Monday or Tuesday, we can get to these nominations in the order in which they appear on the calendar. That seems to be the way the Senate is proceeding, and so we can begin to fill some of these vacancies we have in Pennsylvania, and in particular the Judge Brooks Smith vacancy to the Third Circuit, so we can begin to get the expeditious justice that people in Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit deserve.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank Senators Hagel, Ensign, and Gramm. They have put forth a plan that focuses in on exactly the problem most Americans understand, which is that we have people who have a high cost of drugs but simply don't have the ability to afford them. They have to make difficult decisions about how to provide for themselves as well as provide the medicine they need. Secondly, they provide a focused attempt to help the lower income people, who may not have that high of a drug cost, but even with a small amount of the prescription drugs they need, they don't have the resources to pay for them. This is a commonsense approach. This is a focused approach. This is a good first step. It gets us very far down the playing field. To me, it is a little bit frustrating to see a proposal that makes so much common sense, is within the budget framework that has been worked out, and we find opposition to going way down the field in a proper direction. Some will say no because it doesn't give us everything we want, it doesn't get us the whole loaf, and somehow that is not good enough. This is a very solid proposal. I think it is something that should have very strong bipartisan support.