Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, a clarification for Members. This is the same amendment that Senator Hatch proposed earlier today. I understand Senator Hatch engaged in some conversation with Senator Leahy about withdrawing his amendment. I think it is vitally important for the Senate to vote on this amendment. It is an important amendment. It is an amendment that is relevant to this bill because it deals with terrorism. We had the same agreement yesterday, I understand, to vote on this amendment. We had consent to do so, and there was an objection filed at the last minute. We are now going out of session and will not be back until next week, and I think it is important we have a record vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. Right.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. My concern is to have a vote. I would be comfortable to have a vote on that legislation which, while I understand it is not identical to the amendment I offered, is legislation that accomplishes the same purpose. Why don't I suggest the absence of a quorum, and we can see if we can work this out.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I was about to finish. I am happy to do so. I encourage my colleagues, No. 1, as I said before, to see if we can work out some sort of bipartisan agreement. This should not be a partisan bill. This should be a bill on which we work together in the Senate. No. 2, I encourage, as a good starting point for that bipartisan arrangement, to support this very minimalist amendment, with all due respect to my colleague from Kentucky. It is a minimalist amendment to eliminate the most egregious aspects of lawsuits available to plaintiffs who want to sue victims of terrorism; that they at least should not be punished, pay compensation as a punishment, unless there was some sort of criminal behavior attached to the victim. I yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am a lawyer. I did practice law before I came here, but not as much as many here. But I do know, one of the things that happens when you file lawsuits is, you do not leave anything out. If you have damages available to you, you file for them and you let those who are responsible for making the decision as to what your plaintiff should receive--whether it is the jury or judge--you let them decide what the plaintiff is permitted to receive. There is no question in my mind. Imagine, that victims of terrorism-- --

Mr. SANTORUM. Let me finish my statement, and then I will be happy to. There is no question in my mind that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits where victims of terrorism will be sued for punitive damages in order to punish them because they were victims. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for further clarifying his own amendment. I think it is important to say if someone is, maybe, in complicity with a terrorist or did something with respect to his business that was, as the Senator from Kentucky said, criminal in nature, that would be prosecuted. Then I think it is a reasonable recourse for some sort of civil damages to be awarded. But to have a blanket provision that says every victim is a potential defendant in a lawsuit, where the lawyer is saying you should be punished because you were a victim in a terrorist act, I find that to be almost something that is so absurd; it is remarkable to me that we are even debating the existence of this provision.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I was just about to finish.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Friday, June 14, is our National Flag Day. This year, Flag Day has special meaning for many in Lancaster, PA, it will be a day of remembrance for the life and work of W. Ralph Gamber. It is particularly appropriate that Ralph's legacy will be honored on Flag Day; in many ways, he lived the American dream through the kind of patriotism that is grounded in community involvement and love of family. The company Ralph founded in 1946, Dutch Gold Honey, Inc., will also be honored as part of his legacy and those who will gather at the site of his family business in Lancaster will dedicate a flagpole in his memory. Ralph Gamber began his honey processing business with a $27 investment in three beehives in the mid-1940s. What was initially a hobby of canning honey in the family garage grew to be a vehicle for innovation and a model for the success of hard work and family cooperation. Today, Dutch Gold Honey is one of the largest independent honey packers in the nation and, as an industry symbol of quality and partnership, remains family-owned and operated. The plastic honey bears seen on the shelves of every grocery store in America are Ralph's invention and their success led to the creation of the Gamber Container Company. Ralph, his wife Luella, and his three children have made an incredible contribution to the Lancaster area through their business accomplishments. Ralph served a term as president of the National Honey Packers & Dealers and in 1992, was recognized as Pennsylvania Entrepreneur of the Year by Entrepreneur Magazine. Additionally, the Gambers established the Gamber Foundation, a resource to support local charities and nonprofit organizations, honeybee research, and scholarships for the children of Dutch Gold Honey employees. Ralph Gamber's legacy, however, is not limited to his honey-related work. His life's worth of community and family focus is what earns him particular attention on Flag Day. To Ralph, work was an extension of family togetherness and he firmly believed that when families pray together, they stay together. Evidently, a family that stays together is one that can also share in building a unique, successful business. Ralph would count his 66-year marriage, three children, eight grandchildren, and nine-great-grandchildren among his greatest accomplishments. He was involved with the Salvation Army and helped to found his local fire company. He was a veteran of the Second World War and, with a strong connection to his church, Ralph acted as Sunday school superintendent for many years, was a member of his church council, and later chaired the church's stewardship committee. Throughout his life and through his livelihood, Ralph has demonstrated his commitment to the community and people he cared so much about. I share his story today because I believe it is worthy of our admiration and it is evidence of how the American Dream continues to inspire us. My thoughts will be with the family and friends of Ralph Gamber this Flag Day. When our national banner is raised over Dutch Gold Honey, it will be a reminder to all who see it that love, perseverance, and community are the keys to success in family and in life.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that given the way this body operates and the Congress has operated over the past several years since I have been in Congress, we have not seen very many reserve accounts set aside for debt reduction that are not raided continually for spending in Washington, DC. The Senator can say that money is set aside, and that is a nice little accounting mechanism, but the fact is we will spend that money and then some increases--whether it is supplemental appropriations without caps, since we do not have caps now, we would be flying through that money and we would be blowing through caps as we have in the past. Second, I did say the tax dollars would not be given to the American public. They would be back in the budget and, yes, they would be used to increase spending in Washington, DC. The fact is, it does not fund the President's priorities or the Nation's priorities with respect to national security, No. 1. No. 2, it does take money that was targeted hopefully for the pockets of the American taxpayers and brings it back to Washington to be spent. No. 3, and I quote the Washington Post headline, ``Senate Democrats Tap Social Security in Budget Plan.'' I hear over and over how these horrible Republicans want to raid Social Security and raid the Social Security trust fund. The budget we have before us, in the words of those who use this lingo, ``raids the Social Security trust fund.'' It is horrible to suggest that, but it does. It does not fund the Nation's priorities with national security. It does increase spending in Washington, DC, for more and more domestic spending programs. It does raise taxes vis- a-vis the President's budget, and it does raid the Social Security trust fund. Given what this budget does, I can understand why it might be difficult or why many Members, the leader, and the chairman of the Budget Committee did not want to bring this bill to the floor because such a budget would be very difficult to pass because it does not please very many Members on either side of the aisle. There was no attempt in the process to try to form a bipartisan budget. Every effort by Senator Domenici and the budget Republicans was thwarted by the majority. So there was no attempt to build a bipartisan budget. Faced with very difficult fiscal realities, including raiding the Social Security trust fund, which this budget does, it is very difficult to get votes on a bipartisan basis when we have a very closely divided Senate. I am not saying this would not be a very difficult political task--it would be--but it is one the Senate is required to do. This is a debate that we should have. This is a debate that has been denied to the Senate, has been denied to the American public, and, as a result we are going into waters very much uncharted, uncertain waters when it comes to setting spending priorities over the next few months through the appropriations process and whatever other bills that may be coming through that require expenditure of funds. I understand there are attempts being made to create mechanisms to do other things that are sort of quasibudget in nature. That is all well and good. But the fact is, the chairman of the Budget Committee and the majority leader had a responsibility and obligation under the act to bring a bill before the Senate and debate a budget, and they have abdicated their responsibility. They have abdicated their responsibility to the Senate and to the American public. I am going to give them an opportunity. We have waited 2 months. Many on our side were suggesting: Why don't we offer this on April 15? Because many of us thought: Let's see if we can work out something; let's see if we can, in fact, get some bipartisan resolution; maybe the chairman of the Budget Committee will bring forth a budget resolution. Senator Daschle continually in his dugout said: We will get to that budget resolution; we will get to it; we will get to it. I was willing to hold off longer. Now there are all these phony budget talks going on in this Chamber where we are going to do all these machinations to look like we are doing a budget. I thought: I am willing to put off while people have good-faith negotiations to get something done. But when we come out to the Chamber in the context of a supplemental and start playing games like we are doing a budget, let's call a spade a spade. Let's do a budget. You have not done a budget. Let's do a budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I have sent up is the Democrat budget that was passed out of the Senate Budget Committee. We heard the chairman lecture the Senate that we need to have budget discipline and we need a budget. Yet for the first time in the history of the Senate, since the Budget Enforcement Act was put in place in 1974, we have no budget. We have not even been offered a budget. The chairman of the Budget Committee, whose responsibility it is to bring a budget to the floor, has not brought a budget to the floor. This is the same chairman of the Budget Committee who, back in 1998, after we passed a budget but it had not gotten a conference report, said: The budget resolution was due by April 15-- He said this in October. The President plays no role in the budget resolution. That is the responsibility of this Senate and of the House of Representatives. These bodies have failed in their responsibilities. He made that comment after we passed a budget here, but we were not able to agree between the House and Senate. In this case, the Senate has not even brought up the issue. We are in a situation where we are now, after a few years of surplus, heading into a deficit and we have no budget discipline in place. We have not even had a debate on the floor of the Senate as to the future of the budget of the United States of America. Every single family in America has to budget. It is our responsibility--in fact, it is an obligation under the law that we pass a budget. But the chairman and the majority party in the Senate have refused to consider the budget, refused to bring this resolution to the floor. We have seen all these amendments back and forth about why we are going to create psuedobudgets and deeming resolutions and sort of psuedobudget enforcement, skimming around the issues of the budget, without being serious with the public as to what the budget really is. That is disingenuous on the part of the Senate. We should have a full and fair debate on a budget and see whether we can get a compromise. Last year we had a divided Senate. We did something historic, and I give credit to the chairman and ranking member for putting together a bipartisan budget for the first time in a long time that actually passed the Senate. It was tough. I am sure if you ask the Senator from New Mexico, he would say it was one of the hardest things he ever did. He had a 50-50 Senate. It was not easy to craft a budget that could get votes on both sides of the aisle. It is hard when it is divided. It was a difficult task, but it was one that the Republican majority and Senator Domenici took on because we knew it was important for the future of the country to have fiscal discipline, to have a budget in place, so enforcement mechanisms could be put into place, so we could put some sort of caps on discretionary spending and have enforcement mechanisms for taxes and mandatory programs. It is an important framework to governing this country. It is not even a discussion that we have had. We are almost 2 months past the time we were supposed to have this budget, and this is the first day I can remember we even have had this discussion, much less had the bill before us. So I thought it was important, since we are having this sort of kabuki dance here about budgets, that we actually put a budget on the floor. So that is what is on the floor now. We have on the floor the budget passed out of the Senate Budget Committee. If we adopt it, if the majority can get the votes to adopt their budget, then we can have a budget resolution on the floor and we can go through the process of amending the budget resolution, coming up with what is important for this country, which is setting forth the framework of operating the Government of the United States. It is our responsibility. The President has sent a budget. He sent up a budget that was very specific. The House has passed a budget. It was hard to do with the very narrow majority over there, but they were able to pass a budget. The fact that we had not even brought a budget up, almost 2 months after the date which it was due to be here, is something we should not be proud of. We set a precedent that is not a good one. It is a precedent that says we are going to leave things to chance in the Senate at a time when the appetite for spending is always very high. What does this budget do? Well, it does several things. The President laid out in his budget three priorities: national security, increasing defense spending so we can address not only the threats that we have had for many years, which are sort of the conventional threats that we have had to deal with--we were potentially going to be involved in some sort of conflict with a large deployment of our troops, which is what our military has been geared to fight. We have a lot of equipment and trained men and women who are there to do that. But as you know from recent events--and even before recent events--the military was going through a transformation process--now accelerated because of these asymmetric threats to America. Not only do we have to maintain the existing force, but we have to deal with another security threat on Americans here and in the world at large. So in this environment, in a war against terrorism, faced with different threats, we need to dramatically increase defense spending. It is not really that dramatic; it is less than 10 percent in spending. They fund the President's priorities, as far as defense, for the next 2 years. After that, it does not. In fact, it reduces defense spending back basically to the rate of inflation, or below, but it dramatically increases and continues to allow the increase in domestic spending. At the same time, it takes even more money that was due for tax reductions by making the President's tax cuts permanent and puts that money back and, of course, spends that money, too--not on defense spending but on domestic spending--in a time of war, a time of reshaping our military to protect this country. It reshapes the budget into more porkbarrel projects for Members of Congress. That is what this budget does. It takes money out of your pockets and puts it--

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I thank him and Senator Stevens for moving forward quickly with the amendment to alleviate any question in the minds of the airline industry, but in particular, as Senator Byrd alluded, US Airways and US Airways employees. Over the last week, having been in my State of Pennsylvania, I have heard everywhere I go, traveling through the airports, the grave concern that employees of US Airways have with respect to this loan fund and the availability of the loan fund resources to help this company get through what is a very treacherous time in the company's history, treacherous in terms of trying to negotiate a very difficult environment for the airline industry generally but a much more complicated one for US Airways as a result of probably being more impacted by the events of 9/11 than any other airline in the country. I can tell you, after the events, they had no intention of ever having to access this fund. They were hoping they would survive on $1 billion in cash, and they have burned through most of that as a result of the losses they have suffered over the past 7 or 8 months. Now under new leadership, they have a new vision for restructuring this company to try to make a go of it as a more efficient carrier. They will need, I have been told, these resources, these loans, and their application will probably be forthcoming within the next weeks or months. So this original provision in this bill which would have made this money unavailable until October 1 would have been certain death for this company. They have simply run out of money and no bank would have lent them the money. They are in the process now of negotiating with their employees. I can tell you, I have heard from employees--the folks on the lines, pilots, folks at the reservation desks, and the flight attendants--that the negotiations are vigorous, but there is a new spirit in the airline, and I am very excited about it. We have over 25,000 employees of US Airways in Pennsylvania. It is a big deal in Pennsylvania. This amendment allows the program to continue. It will not remove money from the program. What it does not do is guarantee that US Air will get the loan guarantees. What it does is say that the program is still going to be here, and US Airways would be able to apply. But there is still the question of whether there will be sufficient reorganization of the airline so they can then go to the board and get this kind of loan. In the Senate, we have included the first step. I hope that provision will not be in the conference report. I know Senators Byrd and Stevens will work hard to make sure that occurs. I thank them for this amendment. I certainly fully support it.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to voice my support for the pending legislation, the trade promotion authority, as well as the TAA, a bill that is before us, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. While it is not a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination, it is important in two respects. It promotes trade and it gives the President the opportunity to craft free trade agreements and open markets. Pennsylvania, for example, had exports in 2000 to the tune of $24 billion. We export to over 204 foreign destinations. It is a very important part of Pennsylvania's economy, and it would be vitally important for Pennsylvania if we could open markets particularly with South America. We can begin to structure free trade agreements. Several South American countries, for example, are very big users of the Port of Philadelphia. Free trade agreements would mean a lot to businesses in Philadelphia, as well as our transportation industry in Pennsylvania, which is a big part of the Pennsylvania economy. We have tremendous opportunities in Pennsylvania with our manufacturing base, our high-technology industries, our agriculture, to export not just to South America but around the globe. This is a great opportunity for this administration to structure deals, to bring down tariffs, and to allow us to compete better in the global marketplace. While I do have some concerns about the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, I do believe it is important for us to pass a trade adjustment assistance act that does deal with some of the downsides. I think there are a lot of upsides, a lot of good, quality jobs. But there will be some who will lose their jobs, and we need to be there to be helpful, to deal with those who are hurt by the actions of the Federal Government, by trade agreements that result in people losing their jobs. In the end, there is no question that trade is a net positive for this country. It will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans, and not just for those who will get better paying jobs because of trade but also people will be able to get better quality goods and less expensive goods as a result of trade with countries around the world. So this is a win-win, in my opinion. We will be taking care of those who will be hurt and, at the same time, we will be expanding opportunities for millions of people and create a better way of life for our citizenry here at home. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I want to pick up on what the Senator from Arizona said. He is ranking member on the Commerce Committee. They worked diligently on putting together the aviation loan program. One airline has access to the program, and that happens to be America West. There is another airline that is on the brink of bankruptcy that is hemorrhaging money right now, but it has brought in a management team to restructure the airline. Part of this restructuring plan is US Airways' access to this fund. What is in the appropriations bill will deny them access to this fund until the fall of this year, which may be too late for them to be able to get the adequate capital to continue operation. We may be bankrupting an airline that serves the whole northeastern quadrant of the United States for I don't know what reason. I have no idea why this provision is in here, but we are pulling the rug out from under an airline that was probably the airline most affected by 9-11. This is the airline with its hub at Reagan National, which was shut down and flights were restricted. This is an airline that flew out of New York, and it served the area most impacted by 9- 11. And now we have an appropriations bill that is going to probably deny them survival. It is the most impacted airline by 9-11 and we have a bill here that is supposed to help us recover from 9-11, and it may be the death knell of the airline. The bottom line is, this bill is not ready for passage. There are serious changes that must be made in this legislation for this bill to go through the Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for moving forward with Judge D. Brooks Smith's nomination for the Third Circuit. He is an impressive judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania. He has a distinguished 14-year career on the bench. He has a distinguished 2-year career on the Common Pleas Court in Blair County, PA. I thank, in particular, Senator Biden, Senator Kohl, and Senator Edwards who supported the nomination and enabled the nomination to come out of committee. I certainly hope we will schedule his confirmation on the Senate floor when we return from the Memorial Day recess. We have a couple of vacancies on the court in Pennsylvania. This would be a most welcome addition to the Third Circuit.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I stand in this Chamber as a strong supporter of the steel industry. In fact, I would match my record of support for the steel industry, for steelworkers, and for steel retirees, with any person in this Chamber or in the other Chamber. We have had a long history in western Pennsylvania--from my days in the House and prior to that--in the steel industry. We have dealt with crises, one after another, in this industry. The most recent crisis has perhaps been the most crippling, costing lots of companies going into bankruptcies, costing lots of steel jobs, and, tragically, lots of steel retirees losing their health care benefits. In the last session of Congress, I worked with Senator Rockefeller to follow through with the U.S. steelworkers' No. 1 priority, which is to try to get a quota bill passed in the Senate. I worked very hard on my side of the aisle, and we got a majority of our Members to vote for a quota on steel imports. The other side of the aisle was not so generous. In fact, my recollection is, if we had gotten just half the Democrats, we would have been able to pass that, but we did not. So we failed in the No. 1 request from the United Steelworkers Union. Last year, at the beginning of this session, management and labor got together, retirees got together, and they came up with their No. 1 priority for this Congress. It was to file a section 201 action, to try to find comprehensive relief for the steel industry. So like I did the session before, I took on that challenge. I think I am very safe in saying I was the first Member of Congress--certainly the first Member of the Senate--to personally ask the President of the United States to file that action. I did so. I think in his first month in office he was in Beaver County, PA. I talked with him at length about the importance of this industry to Pennsylvania, to the country, the importance to our steelworkers' and to retirees. I continually worked with the President, the Secretary of Commerce, our Trade Representative, other Secretaries who were involved-- Secretary of Treasury--and pushed for the President to file the section 201 case. After several months of exhorting them to do so, publicly and privately, the President followed through. He followed through and he filed the case. I testified, not once but twice, before the ITC in support of the section 201 case. When the decision came down, I again went back and worked with the administration on making sure there were adequate remedies. We met on a continual basis, daily basis toward the end, to make sure that there were adequate remedies. Why? Because the steelworkers, the retirees, and the companies understood the most important thing we could do is stop the hemorrhaging, stop the bankruptcies of steel companies, because these companies that were going into bankruptcy now, under the current climate of steel, were not going to go into bankruptcy to reorganize and come back out again. In most causes, they were going to liquidate. That means, when they liquidate, retirees lose their health care benefits, they lose their pension benefits. We lose jobs, too, because they liquidate. They sell off assets. Some are reused; some are not. The ones that are reused, they have new contracts. The jobs were not as ``lucrative'' as they are today. This is why it was the No. 1 priority, because it helped retirees; it helped workers, and it helped companies stay alive and pay benefits and have good- paying jobs. I worked and worked and worked, and we got 201 relief that everyone in the steel industry feels very good about. It helped retirees. There are retirees receiving benefits today who would not be receiving them if the President had not enacted the remedies he did under section 201. That is a fact. There are companies in business today that would not be in business today if that had not happened. There are companies that did not file bankruptcy. Every steel company in America, maybe with the exception of a major steel company, maybe with the exception of Nucor, had said they were going to file bankruptcy if 201 remedies were not sufficient. To my knowledge, there have been no bankruptcies since 201. The fact is, we have done more for the steel industry, I have worked to do more for the steel industry, than anybody else. There was a second component about which the steelworkers and retirees and companies were concerned. That was legacy costs. What was the issue with legacy? Legacy was important because we wanted to help retirees have security. But the most important part of the legacy cost, picking up the cost, was to encourage the steel industry to consolidate, to become more efficient, to restructure. Why? So they would be stronger entities that would be able to carry those retiree costs in the future and carry those companies in the future. What we were going to do was to help the consolidation by picking up some retiree costs of some companies to encourage these companies to consolidate with stronger entities. A few months ago during the energy debate, I worked with Senator Stevens and others to try to craft a bill that would do just that. It would be a substantial benefit to enough retirees to encourage the steel industry to consolidate and become more efficient, become stronger in competition with foreign competitors. We had an amendment to the ANWR drilling bill. Why was it an amendment to the ANWR bill? Because ANWR produced billions upon billions of dollars in revenue to the Federal Government that we could use to help pay for retiree benefits. We could fully fund a program that would incentivize restructuring. The whole purpose of doing the retiree benefit was to incentivize restructuring so we could have a more stable industry to take care of retirees for the long term and provide better quality jobs for the long term. We offered a piece of legislation that did that. Let me be very clear. The steelworkers unions walked away. They walked away. Why? Because it was on a bill they were not in favor of. It was on a bill, ANWR, that they were not in favor of and that the majority leader was not in favor of, and many others from the other side. They walked away. Why? Politics. They walked away from a comprehensive restructuring of legacy costs. Why? Politics. Of the people who are offering this amendment on which cloture will be voted on Tuesday, of the seven sponsors of that amendment, six voted against a comprehensive legacy cost restructuring; six of the seven voted no on a much more comprehensive benefit that would have incentivized restructuring of the steel industry. What are we offering today? We are offering a very narrow 1-year benefit that will not only do nothing to encourage restructuring but, from the industry representatives I have talked to, will in fact do the opposite. It will discourage restructuring because of the way it is so limited in its application. It picks winners and losers. Yes, we will provide retirement benefits to retirees of companies that have gone bankrupt and stopped paying retiree benefits for health care. We will do that for 1 year. But the consequence of it is, we will not get the restructuring we need. I am opposed to this amendment, not because I am opposed to the Senate doing something to pick up restructuring costs for the industry, not because I am opposed to having something done in the Senate to help pick up retiree health care costs. This is the wrong step. It is politics. It is raw, blatant politics. What is this amendment attached to? It is attached to the bill to which virtually every one of the sponsors of the legislation is opposed. You have heard from many on my side of the aisle and a few on the other who have said if this amendment is included, they will vote against the trade bill. They will sink this bill. So what are we doing? We are playing a cruel hoax. It is a hoax. We are playing a hoax on retirees. We are playing a hoax on steelworkers. We are playing a hoax on the steel industry. The hoax is that this is somehow going to help retirees. In the long term it will not. It will not lead to the restructuring of the steel industry. What this will do is help sink the trade bill, which I know many who are supporting this amendment would love to see. But that is a hoax. To stand up and say you are for retirees when you are introducing a piece of legislation that is going to be counter to restructuring, which is the best thing we can do for retirees, is a hoax. Yes, I am opposed to this legislation. It doesn't solve the problem. It is politics in its rawest, in its most crass form. You are preying on retirees who desperately need health care. You are playing politics with their health. It is wrong. It is not the right course. We had a chance to do the right thing for the industry, for workers, and for retirees, and because of politics, under ANWR, the answer was no. Now we play politics again, and we play with people's lives. The answer should be no. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her excellent comments and for her introduction of that legislation.