Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd. He came over to me a few minutes ago. He was in line to take the next slot, and I appreciate his willingness to give me the opportunity to speak. I am here on the anniversary of the President's first nominations to the circuit court to, once again, focus the Senate on what really is a great obstruction of justice that is occurring as a result of the actions within the Judiciary Committee. We have seen the first 11 nominees the President put up for the circuit court--which is the appellate court in this country at the Federal level, and then you have the Supreme Court, obviously. We have 11 nominees the President put forward. Three were moved. But they were three holdovers from the prior administration. The first original, if you will, Bush nominees have not even had a hearing. If they were eight people who had very little to account for, if they were people who were not considered well qualified, if they were people who had clouds hanging over their nominations, that would be one thing. But not one of them has received anything but well qualified, and the vast majority were well qualified by Senator Leahy's and the Judiciary Committee's standard, which is the American Bar Association, which is not necessarily friendly to Republican nominees for the court. We have a situation where we have preeminent jurists and litigators who are being held in committee for a year without a hearing, and without explanation. That is sort of the remarkable thing throughout this entire discussion. There is no explanation as to why any one of these nominees is being held up. We haven't had any discussion, to my knowledge, on the floor or in the press as to the specific reason any one of these nominees has been held back. There is no cloud that I am aware of. It is simply stopping the President's judicial nominees, and stopping qualified jurists from serving. These are people who have been nominated, and when you are nominated for a position such as this--the Presiding Officer knows; he was Governor--in State office or Federal office, they have to begin to sort of unwind their affairs. They have to begin the process of setting themselves up, because who knows how quickly they could be considered and moved through the Senate? In the case of Nebraska, I guess there is one house in which they go through in the process. We have eight people of impeccable integrity who began that process a year ago. Where are they? They are hanging out there. Their lives are in limbo. That is not fair to them. It is not fair to the people who are not getting justice and not having their cases heard on appeal, or are having long delays in getting the resolution of their cases. That is not fair either. That impacts the administration of justice, particularly on the civil side, which tends to suffer. We are getting criminal cases through because they are a high priority. But you have people whose lives are almost in limbo because they are not getting the quickest administration of justice that they deserve in our court system. I want to talk about one particular nominee. He is from Pennsylvania. I will give you sort of the rundown of where we are in Pennsylvania. We had 11 openings on the district court level in Pennsylvania. We have two circuit nominees who are Third Circuit nominees--who are sort of Pennsylvanian, assigned to Pennsylvania in this informal agreement we have across the country. One of the nominees for the circuit court-- the only nominee so far, because the other circuit vacancy just occurred a few weeks ago--is Judge D. Brookes Smith. Judge Smith is the present judge of the Western District in Pennsylvania. He is a very distinguished jurist. He has been on the court for over 10 years and has served on the Common Pleas Court in Blair County and Altoona. But he is from Altoona. He is from just an impeccable law firm and practiced before he was judge. He has great reputation as a common pleas court judge in Pennsylvania, and now as a district court judge. Again, he has a flawless reputation. He is a man of highest integrity. He is rated well qualified unanimously by the ABA. Thankfully, we had a hearing on Judge Smith. But that hearing was roughly 3 months ago. Judge Smith continues to be held in committee. Again, if you look at what I said before about your life being held in limbo, here is someone who has already had a hearing and is being held for months without being moved through the process. Are there serious allegations about any actions Judge Smith has taken while he has been a member of the Western District of Pennsylvania? Are there any decisions out there that have been seriously attacked? The answer is no. There is no ``gotcha'' case, or line of cases, or opinions Judge Smith has offered that has caused any problems. The only issue I am aware of with respect to Judge Smith is that he belonged to a rod and gun club in Pennsylvania. We are very proud of our sportsmen activities in Pennsylvania. We are a great hunting and fishing State. He belonged to the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club. Some of you who can think 20-odd years ago and of Spruce Creek, you think of Jimmy Carter. That is where Jimmy Carter used to go. You may remember the incident about the rabbit on the boat. That was in Spruce Creek. Judge Smith was an avid fisherman and someone who belonged to this club for years, and belonged to it when he was confirmed as a judge in the first Bush administration. Comments were made that this club did not allow women members. They allow women to go to the club and participate in activities, but they don't allow them to be voting members of the club. When asked about that, Judge Smith said he would try to change that policy. There is a woman who is a county commissioner who served with him when he was a common pleas judge in Blair County who is a member of NOW, a Democrat, who came out and said she knew of nobody who had done more to help women and to promote women in the legal profession than Judge Smith--he has an impeccable record on women's issues--and the promotion of women within the legal system and the court system. We had five litigators come to Washington, DC, most of whom were Democrats, and all of them practiced in front of Judge Smith. They went through story after story about how he, unlike, unfortunately, some other members of the bench, treated women with particular dignity and respect and was very accommodating to some of their concerns. One of them happened to be pregnant during the trial. He was very accommodating to her particular needs. So he has a great record. What is NOW saying? They opposed Judge Smith because he belonged to a gun club that didn't permit women members. It permitted women on the premises. It permitted women to participate in their activities. But it did not permit them to be members. Judge Smith during his initial confirmation said he would go back and try to change that. He did. Every time there was a meeting and the bylaws were reviewed, Judge Smith attempted to change it. He tried I think four or five times. When he felt that he could no longer stay in the club because he didn't see any hope that in fact they would change that policy, he left. I will make the argument against NOW's position--that he stayed there after he had been made aware of that and he should have left right away. Had he left right away, there would have been no chance that the club would have changed. Judge Smith did stay in there to fight to change it. If you wanted to argue anything, you could argue that Judge Smith should be faulted for not still being in the club trying to change it. By walking away from the club, you could make the argument that he walked away from a fight he shouldn't have walked away from. That is not their argument. The argument is he shouldn't have fought in the first place, he should have just gotten up and left. That is not how we change things in America. We change things by standing up for principles and fighting for them. And Judge Smith fought for women membership. And now, because he did, he is not qualified to be a Federal appeals court judge? He has been a judge for over 15 years. They have looked at all his cases. There are no complaints about any of the cases. The reason they oppose him is because he stayed in a gun club too long, fighting for allowing women to become members. That is the great sin. That is the reason why. Although we will have no admission of this, so far, publicly, I am told the reason Judge Smith is still in committee is because of that--a man who has incredible credentials, a man who has been a fighter for women in the legal profession, a man who has fought in the ``Old Boys Club'' to admit women as members. We are saying now that he should not be elevated to the third circuit because he fought for women. How remarkable a place this can be sometimes. How remarkable a place this can be. I would suspect that maybe had he quit, they would have come back and argued: See, he quit. He should have stayed and fought. And they would oppose him for that reason. This is wrong. This is a man of incredible integrity, terrific credentials, great judicial temperament, who is scholarly, gentlemanly, and he is being subjected to being called anti-women. Even though he has staked out, in his judgeship in the Common Pleas in Blair County, in his judgeship in the Western District, and now as one of the President's nominees, that one of his highest priorities has always been the promotion of women in the court, he has been targeted as anti- women. This is wrong. This is wrong. This is what is going on here. These are the attacks that are leveled at people who want to serve. His nomination is being held in committee, and has been for months. It is wrong. This is a man who has worked diligently for women. We had lawyer after lawyer after lawyer from the Western District come here, the Women's Bar Association, supporting Judge Smith. We have not heard anybody from the Western District, who has appeared before Judge Smith, who is a woman saying anything negative. It is just the opposite. I received letter after letter in support of Judge Smith. So you say: Well, that seems unfair. Yes, it is. If you were Judge Smith, imagine how you would be dealing with this. This is a human being. I know we all put these charts up in the Chamber, and we show the numbers--such and such percent get through, and such and such do not--but we are talking about a human being who has dedicated his life to serve, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of women in the legal profession. I have to tell you, I come from western Pennsylvania. At times, I have to say that our area of the country has not always been the most progressive when it comes to promoting women to the bench. He has bucked a lot of the ``Old Boy'' network in doing what he's done for women. And this is what he gets rewarded with, these kinds of outrageous charges which are not based on fact. It is based on the fact that Judge Smith happens to be moderate to conservative. You see, if you are anywhere right of center here, and if you are looking at the third circuit or you are looking at the sixth circuit or you are looking at any other circuit, you need not apply because we will find some reason--some outrageous, silly reason--that has nothing to do with the incredible track record that you put together through your career; we will find some bogus reason to hold you up and tar you--the politics of personal destruction on decent people who are working hard to make this country better, all for this agenda that no one will talk about. No excuse will be given. This is one example. I am sure you heard earlier today about others. We have eight people nominated for the circuits that have been sitting out here for a year and, unlike Judge Smith, have not even been given a hearing, have not even been given the decency of presenting their credentials to the committee and saying: Evaluate me based on me, my merits, my record, my temperament, and my ability. The committee has said: No, we are not going to give you the opportunity. The President has selected you, we understand. But we don't even believe you deserve the opportunity to convince us. Why? That is the question I keep asking. Why? Don't we have to ask ourselves why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the committee have decided not to even give these people the opportunity to present themselves to the committee? What are they afraid of? Let's be very honest about this. If these eight people are that bad, if they are that ``out there,'' if they are that dangerous, if they are that destructive to the judicial system, then it would be in your favor to bring them up here and show how bad they are, how subversive they would be to the laws of the country, how dangerous they would be to the litigants who would come to their court--but nothing. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid if you put Miguel Estrada up there, and you listen to this articulate, brilliant, competent, well- tempered man, that this charade that you have been putting on will come collapsing down upon you? Is that what you are afraid of? That is a legitimate fear. But what you are doing to these people, what you are doing to the litigants in this country, what you are doing to the President is wrong, it is unfair, it is unjust. If you have a case against them, present the case. Bring them before the committee. Present the case. If you don't have a case against them, then treat them justly. These are outstanding men and women who deserve their day in court, who deserve the opportunity to present themselves to the committee and the Senate. They have earned it because they have earned the trust of the President of the United States, who has nominated them for these positions. What are you afraid of? Or is it something even more sinister than that? I hope not. It has been a year. It has been a year in the lives of these people that I am sure they will never forget. It has not been a year that has reflected particularly well on the Judiciary Committee or this Senate. We have an opportunity, on this anniversary, to begin to start anew. We saw, just a few minutes ago, the two leaders have a little bump in the road. When we have bumps in the road here in the Senate--we often do--we always sort of step back and say: OK, for the good of the Senate, for the long-term health of the Senate, can't we put some of these partisan one-upmanships aside and do what is right for the Senate? Because this place will be here, God willing, much longer than we will be. What we do here does set precedent. And the precedent the Senate Judiciary Committee is setting right now is dangerous to this country, because now there will always be this precedent that we will be able to look back to and say: See, they did it. The precedent has been set. When you set a precedent, particularly a precedent that is damaging to the rights of Presidential nominees to be considered, you lower that bar, you harm the entire judicial system in the future. We have a chance yet, before the end of this session, to fix this. We have a chance to get a proper, a sufficient number of circuit court nominees approved by the Senate that comports with the historical precedent. It is still possible to do that. It is also possible that we won't do that. That will set a precedent here, a precedent that, unfortunately, once set will be revisited by somebody somewhere down the road. I don't know which party it will be. It may be our party; it may be your party. The point is, it is not good for this institution, and it is horrible for the country. I understand the partisan advantage. I understand you don't like the philosophy of some of these people the President nominated. I have voted for judges whose philosophy I hated. But the President won the election. He has the right to nominate good, decent people with whom you disagree on philosophy. He has that right. If they were good, decent people who were qualified and had the proper temperament, I approved them, whether I agreed with their philosophy or not. That is the role of the Senate. What is going on here may fundamentally change the role of the Senate for the worse. You can't think about the next election or the partisan advantage or even the set of issues we are dealing with today in America. Those sets of issues 40 years from now will be different. The precedent you set now will have a huge impact on those issues. Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't open up a hole in the precedents of the Senate that somewhere down the road will drive a truck over something you may care very deeply about. It is not the right thing to do. You still have a chance to change it. I pray that you do.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report. I do so first by talking about a couple of things that are good in this bill. Oddly enough, one of the things I am most excited about in this bill is a move from a Depression-era farm program, the Peanut Program, that has actually been taken into somewhat more of a modern era--not to the market, which is what I would like it to ultimately have gone to, but we have taken it from a quota system, where the Government is micromanaging the production of peanuts, excluding those who did not have a license or quota to grow peanuts. We got rid of that onerous Government-controlled program, and the farm bill is treating peanuts as we do the rest of the commodity programs. In that respect, we had a program way out here on the left, regarding Government involvement, and moved it to the right. The problem is in the rest of the bill. We were to the right, and we have moved it to the left. We now have Government back into the business of supporting crops, micromanaging what goes on around the country, leading to what has been heard from many who oppose the legislation, to more certain misery in farm country, more concentration, more large farms. Most of the money in this bill for production is going to the row crops. In Pennsylvania, we have some corn, we grow a little bit of beans and other items. But the bottom line is most of my farmers are not the big row crop farmers who qualify or participate in these programs. The benefits will not go to the vast majority of States and, I argue, farmers in this country who do not live in the South or Midwest, who are the principal beneficiaries of the program. Two-thirds of the commodity money will go to 10 percent of the farmers in America. Two-thirds of the money in this bill for production will go to 10 percent of the farmers in America. Where is the great sympathy for the small farmer? All of the programs are justified because we need to help rural America, the small farms. We have to keep the fabric of rural America. Two-thirds of the money goes to 10 percent of the farmers. They are not small farmers. As to this concept that we are here to preserve the rural way of life and this will be a breath of fresh air for rural America, this is another nail in the coffin of the family farm in America, by the Government not only giving all this money to these large farmers and, by doing so, creating an oversupply situation so those who do not get the money are going to have lower prices, but our little farmers will not have markets to be able to make any kind of profit in what they do. This is bad policy for farming. If we did anything such as this for any other industry in America, we would be called one of the great socialist regimes in the world. Imagine talking about the paper industry and saying we will provide all the subsidies and programs for anyone in the paper industry, or in the furniture business, or in the lighting business. We would be laughed out of this place if we tried to do that. Yet we are going to micromanage agriculture and pour hundreds of billions of dollars into big farms, where only a very few States are going to benefit from this program. It is wrong for America. It is wrong for farming. It sets a horrible precedent. The sad thing is, on top of all else, it will be very expensive for the taxpayers of America. Senator Lugar has reestimated a $57 billion increase in commodity supports for crops. We are talking about a $57 billion increase over the next 10 years. I guarantee today--I put a nickel on the table--that number will be at least $25 billion more, just in supplementals for farmers. Why? Because prices will be so darn low, we will have to put in more money to bail out those who are hurt. By the way, most of this helps farmers who have a crop. If you don't have a crop, there is not as much help. We will come back and help folks for the floods, for the droughts, and for everything else. This is going to be much more expensive than what we are talking about today. We have shown the rest of the world we are really not interested in opening markets, we are not interested in growing our exports, we are really not interested in setting an example for the world as to how we can be better trading partners. It is incredibly ironic, when we negotiate trade promotion authority, we bring up a bill that has everything we deplore about the Europeans. That is what we are doing in this bill. We are setting a bad example that costs the taxpayers billions, and we are not helping the little farmer who needs the help. We are not helping the little guy out there trying to make it. Why? Because all of the subsidies are going to the big farms. They will produce. They have no incentive not to produce. They are being guaranteed a price to produce. Produce all you want. Drive that price down. Put my little farmer who gets no subsidy out of business. Congratulations. We struck a blow for rural America. We struck a blow for the taxpayer. The problem is, the blow is right between the eyes. And it will knock them down, and in too many cases it will knock them out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the women and men across the Nation who daily stand on the front lines of the health care profession. This week, May 6 through May 12, we celebrate National Nurses Week in their honor. Through their service to the patients and communities for whom they care, nurses continue to deliver health care despite the unprecedented difficulties they face. It is a testament to their sustained professionalism and genuine compassion that, regardless of these challenges, America's nurses are still the first to respond to the everyday tragedies and the first to be prepared for the extraordinary ones. America's population is not only growing larger, it is growing older and the implications of these demographic trends are severe for the health care delivery system. The nursing workforce, in both the private and public sectors, is challenged by personnel shortages as nurse recruitment and retention becomes more problematic. Cutbacks in Medicare reimbursements have exacerbated the situation, and our rural and elderly communities have suffered from the inaccessibility of care as a result. The Department of Veterans Affairs is particularly affected by this situation as the aging veteran community becomes increasingly more care-dependent. The Health Resources and Services Administration released a study in February of 2001 describing the plight of registered nurses in the United States and recommending that significant steps be taken to preserve the nation's supply of nurses. To this end, I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation, put forth by Senator Hutchinson, that addresses these issues and offers genuine solutions to the problems underlying the nursing profession's shortage. Portions of this bill were incorporated into legislation that the Senate passed in December, and the House of Representatives has acted favorably on a bill to boost nurse employment as well. I am hopeful that the differences between the two chambers' bills can be reconciled and that a final measure can be soon sent to the President for his signature. Enactment of the proposed nursing legislation would initiate new approaches to retaining and recruiting highly qualified individuals in this field of health care. Among these approaches would be expanding nurse-loan repayment and scholarship programs, career ladder and faculty development opportunities, and multi-media campaigns to encourage Americans to consider nursing as a career choice. Preserving and promoting the nursing workforce is imperative if we are to maintain our country's ability to deliver first-class medical care. Nurses, and the indispensable position they serve in medicine, are near and dear to me; theirs is a commitment to health care I have witnessed throughout my life, my mother, sister and wife all have nursing backgrounds, and mine is a keen appreciation for the profession. Nurses deserve our appreciation and support, particularly as they weather the administrative difficulties of their practice. I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking America's nurses today for the vital role they play as the healers and caretakers of our Nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Federal Government should not be paying benefits to fugitives from justice. Today, I am introducing legislation which denies Social Security Old Age Survivors Insurance, OASI, and Social Security Disability Insurance, DI, benefits to fugitive felons and requires the Social Security Administration, SSA, to disclose information about the fugitives to law enforcement officers. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. There is precedent for this legislation in current law. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, disqualified fugitive felons from receiving welfare cash assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SSI, food stamps, and housing benefits. Likewise, it allowed law enforcement officers to obtain the current addresses, photographs, and Social Security numbers of fugitives who received such assistance. I was the author of these prohibitions on Federal assistance for fugitive felons. I am pleased to report that the current fugitive felons law is having a positive effect. It is saving taxpayers millions of dollars. More important, it is getting violent criminals off the streets. For instance, the Inspector General of USDA reported that as of January 2, 2001, more than 6,800 fugitive felon food stamp recipients were arrested. Similarly, SSA identified more than 28,000 fugitive SSI recipients, 14,000 of whom were identified in fiscal year 2000. The legislation offered by Senator Grassley and myself would further curtail a fugitive's financial ability to escape the law. In testimony before the Finance Committee on April 25, 2001, James G. Huse, Jr., Inspector General of the SSA, expressed frustration that SSA does not have the statutory authority to deny OASI and DI benefits to fugitive felons. The inability to cut off benefits to these fugitives costs the Social Security Trust Fund $39 million per year. He also testified that the Privacy Act prohibits SSA from providing law enforcement officials with information, such as the current addresses and Social Security numbers of fugitive felon recipients, which could lead to their apprehension. Mr. Huse told the Finance Committee, . . . this waste of Federal funds goes to the heart of our mission, and our inability to stop these payments is frustrating. What is more frustrating to us as a law enforcement organization is that these benefits were paid to some 17,300 fugitives, many of whom could have been apprehended had my office been able to provide law enforcement agencies with felons' addresses. The loss of money is disturbing; the thousands of criminals that could have been incarcerated but remain free is worse. Mr. Huse further advised, ``Congress may want to consider legislation, this session, that will permit us to treat felons as felons, regardless of the types of Social Security benefits they are using to finance their flight from justice.'' That is exactly what this bill does. The majority of Americans would agree it is bad policy to pay Federal benefits to fugitives from justice. The effect of such policy is to give criminals the financial means to continue avoiding the law. It is time to close legal loopholes which allow felons to receive OASI and DI payments while in fugitive status. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Federal Government should not be paying benefits to fugitives from justice. Today, I am introducing legislation which denies Social Security Old Age Survivors Insurance, OASI, and Social Security Disability Insurance, DI, benefits to fugitive felons and requires the Social Security Administration, SSA, to disclose information about the fugitives to law enforcement officers. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. There is precedent for this legislation in current law. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, disqualified fugitive felons from receiving welfare cash assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SSI, food stamps, and housing benefits. Likewise, it allowed law enforcement officers to obtain the current addresses, photographs, and Social Security numbers of fugitives who received such assistance. I was the author of these prohibitions on Federal assistance for fugitive felons. I am pleased to report that the current fugitive felons law is having a positive effect. It is saving taxpayers millions of dollars. More important, it is getting violent criminals off the streets. For instance, the Inspector General of USDA reported that as of January 2, 2001, more than 6,800 fugitive felon food stamp recipients were arrested. Similarly, SSA identified more than 28,000 fugitive SSI recipients, 14,000 of whom were identified in fiscal year 2000. The legislation offered by Senator Grassley and myself would further curtail a fugitive's financial ability to escape the law. In testimony before the Finance Committee on April 25, 2001, James G. Huse, Jr., Inspector General of the SSA, expressed frustration that SSA does not have the statutory authority to deny OASI and DI benefits to fugitive felons. The inability to cut off benefits to these fugitives costs the Social Security Trust Fund $39 million per year. He also testified that the Privacy Act prohibits SSA from providing law enforcement officials with information, such as the current addresses and Social Security numbers of fugitive felon recipients, which could lead to their apprehension. Mr. Huse told the Finance Committee, . . . this waste of Federal funds goes to the heart of our mission, and our inability to stop these payments is frustrating. What is more frustrating to us as a law enforcement organization is that these benefits were paid to some 17,300 fugitives, many of whom could have been apprehended had my office been able to provide law enforcement agencies with felons' addresses. The loss of money is disturbing; the thousands of criminals that could have been incarcerated but remain free is worse. Mr. Huse further advised, ``Congress may want to consider legislation, this session, that will permit us to treat felons as felons, regardless of the types of Social Security benefits they are using to finance their flight from justice.'' That is exactly what this bill does. The majority of Americans would agree it is bad policy to pay Federal benefits to fugitives from justice. The effect of such policy is to give criminals the financial means to continue avoiding the law. It is time to close legal loopholes which allow felons to receive OASI and DI payments while in fugitive status. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara Louise Berk from my staff be permitted to be on the floor for debate on this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes on this amendment on steel. We had an opportunity to do something to profoundly help the steel industry this year. The President has done the right thing. He did something tremendously important to help steel jobs by creating the tariff decision a few weeks ago. But the second piece of this puzzle was to do something about the legacy cost, so the steel industry can consolidate and be much more efficient. We had an opportunity in this bill, because we had a pot of money, to be able to fund this program. I don't see any other pot of money out there that is substantial enough to meet the needs of people who are basically without health insurance now because of the failure of so many companies in the steel industry. We had the money. All we needed was the will. Fortunately, you had the steel companies saying let's do it and make this our chance because the money is here, the will is here. The steelworkers passed. Many people here who are advocates for steelworkers are taking a pass. The reason is because they cannot get a commitment from the President to sign this exact piece of legislation. I am going to vote for this legislation, but if that now is the standard, I am going to adopt that standard. I will not vote for another piece of steel legacy legislation on the floor of the Senate. I will not advocate for another piece of steel legacy legislation until we have a commitment from the President, before it leaves the Senate, that he will sign it. Since that is the commitment that was necessary here, that will now be the commitment to get my support and advocacy on this side of the aisle for any future steel legacy bailout. You have made your bed, and it is an uncomfortable one, and it is not going to be a satisfying one for the people who could today be realizing health care, could be realizing a restoration of the health care benefits that were promised them. But some people decided to take a political pass. Go ahead and take your political pass, but the impact on all of these workers is profound, and the impact on all of these retirees is profound. It is a very sad day for the steelworkers and the retirees as a result of the politics being played on this issue. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Madam President, first and foremost I congratulate the Senator from Kentucky. He is truly a lawyer for the first amendment and for the Constitution of the United States. I listened to most of his remarks. They are about as thorough a discourse on this issue as I have heard. There is not much for me to add, but I will make a couple of comments about what I think we are doing today and the impact it is going to have on the political system. Assuming this is all held to be constitutional--and I agree with my colleague from Kentucky, I have grave doubts whether that will be the case, but assuming it will all be held constitutional, this will do several things. No. 1, I got to the Senate and the House of Representatives as a challenger. I came out of nowhere in almost both those situations. I did it the hard way. I had support basically from only one special interest group: the Republican Party. That was it. In my first race for Congress, I was outspent 3\1/2\ to 1. I think I got $10,000 in PAC contributions. I was a nobody. I was a guy who was knocking on doors. The Republican Party said: We will help him a little bit; we will get the folks organized to help out. And they gave me a little money. Guys like me are going to have a lot harder time getting to the Senate or the House of Representatives. None of the special interest groups was fighting for me because they did not think I had a chance. They are going to be the ones to hold the power now. Political parties are not going to have the resources to support challengers. I heard this comment among my colleagues over and over--it is this frustration level, and I do not mean to point fingers and I will not, but I hear this frustrating comment from my colleagues who support this bill: I am sick and tired of all these people playing around in my election. I am tired of all these outside groups running ads in my election. Well, excuse me. Excuse me. Gee, I did not realize when I ran for office that this was my election. You see, I thought this was an election for the Senate or, before that, for the Congress. I certainly did not believe I had ownership of this election. But I will tell you, in private meetings, over and over I hear this comment: I am sick and tired of all these people, all these speeches--speeches meaning ads-- all these folks attacking me in my election; I want control back over my election. ``My election.'' If you do not think this is an incumbent protection plan, I guarantee you have not been listening. This is all about protecting incumbents. Do my colleagues think we are going to pass something which helps folks who run against us? How many folks are going to say: I like being here, but I want to give the guy who takes me on a better shot at me? I can guarantee if my colleagues read this bill, there is no way they can see that. All you bothersome people out there in America who believe you have some right to participate in my election, it keeps you at home. You just stay home. Leave me alone 60 days before my election so I can do what I want to do and tell the people what I want to tell them. That is the first thing this does--it shuts you up because--you know what?--you are an annoyance. You guys go out there and say things I do not like, I do not agree with, and it may not be true, so we are just going to shut you up. That is the first thing this bill does. The second thing this bill does is it destroys political parties. One of the great things about this country is that we have had a stable two-party system. Travel around the world and look at other democracies and see fragmented governments, all these very narrow parties. We do not have that in America. We have two very broad mainstream parties. People say that does not leave room for dramatic advances in ideological thought at one end of the spectrum or the other end. That may be true, but it has served this country pretty well. What we are doing with this bill is shifting power from those broad, mainstream parties that support people not because of any litmus test on the issues, but support them because they run under the broad banner of center or right of center if you are Republican, or center or left of center if you are a Democrat. We are now going to replace that with very highly specialized interests that I believe in the end will begin to develop parties, although not in a formal sense, but begin running candidates because of their ability to funnel undisclosed money to those candidates. We will begin to see more fringe players on the horizon. We may even see many elected. If we look again at Europe and other places, other democracies, in many cases these fringe or extreme parties tend to hold the balance of power. It is not a very constructive thing at all for this country. I do not know what possesses someone to think that political parties, for all their good or all their bad, are somehow negative for this country; that having political parties supporting their candidates is somehow bad, is somehow destructive to our political process when, in fact, it is just the opposite. Political parties protect us from extremism by their support of more mainstream ideas. So this bill destroys, in most respects, political parties and their ability to have influence on elections. It shuts up you. It shuts up you, the average voter in America. It says you need not participate in what we are doing. Who is the greatest beneficiary? Well, obviously, I mentioned before the greatest beneficiary is the incumbent or the person with incredible deep pockets who can spend their money. Those are the great beneficiaries. If you have a lot of money or you happen to be in here-- I got mine, too bad about you--you are going to be OK in this legislation. I do not know that I would necessarily wave the banner of reform and say that is the end result of this process. Who else is going to benefit? Senator McConnell mentioned this, too. The greatest beneficiaries are the folks who do not have to shut up 60 days before the election. The greatest beneficiaries are candidates and the media. The media is a huge winner. All of you, Americans, unless you have a newspaper or a radio station or a television station, have to sit on the sidelines when people begin to focus on elections 60 days before. Not the media. If all of you are quieter, their voice naturally becomes louder because it is the only voice out there other than the candidate. Of course, those supporting this measure want to shut you up anyway. So we now have a system where candidates and the media become the dominant voices in our political structure, and the average American is shut out. And this is reform. I argue that what we are doing is a direct assault on the first amendment. If one has any doubts about that, in the Senate, at least the last two times that I recall that we debated this issue, there was an amendment offered to McCain-Feingold to amend the Constitution to allow these provisions to be constitutional. Think about this. In the Senate, there was an amendment offered to, in essence, amend the first amendment of the Constitution so this bill would be seen constitutionally. Over a third of the Senate voted to limit political speech in the Constitution, which brings me to the point I have made many times. I guarantee if we had a vote right now on the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, in the Senate they would not pass, because we know better. We want to keep this power with us, not the people. Those first 10 amendments were there to protect you, Mr. and Mrs. America; not us, Mr. and Mrs. Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Girl Scouts of the USA, as they are celebrating their 90th anniversary this week. Today, as the result of founder Juliette Gordon Low's vision, 2.7 million girls in more than 233,000 troops are learning the skills and building the character necessary to make a positive impact in the world. It is the Girl Scouts mission to help all girls grow strong by empowering them to develop their full potential, relate positively to others, and contribute to society. The Girl Scouts recognize the importance of training girls to become effective leaders by instilling in them strong values, increasing their social awareness, giving them responsibilities, and encouraging them to think creatively and act with integrity. The Girl Scouts also provide experience and instruction through a wide range of activities related to science and technology, money management and finance, sports, health and fitness, the arts, global awareness, and community service. This significant undertaking would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of Girl Scout adult members. I would like to note that 99 percent of the nearly one million adults involved with the Girl Scouts are volunteers. Their willingness to invest in the girls of America is highly commendable and is the kind of service that President Bush has been praising and encouraging. It provides a perfect example of the good that can be accomplished when dedicated people get involved in their communities. More than 50 million Girl Scout alumnae are a testament to their success. Over two-thirds of our doctors, lawyers, educators, community leaders, and women Members of Congress were once girl scouts, as were 64 percent of the women listed in Who's Who of American Women. Another facet of the Girl Scouts that makes them so admirable is the diverse membership they embrace. Troops can be found in every kind of community; girls are not limited by racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, or geographic boundaries. The Girl Scouts continue to expand, with troops now meeting in homeless shelters, migrant farm camps, and juvenile detention facilities. And because of a Girl Scouts initiative, called Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, girls can meet in prisons where their mothers are incarcerated. In addition to creating more troops, the organization has also established a research institute and has received funding to address violence prevention. The Girl Scouts is an organization that we in this country are very proud of. The combination of educational and service-oriented programs and exemplary leadership produces the caliber of responsible citizens America needs, especially in this time of uncertainty. So today I would like to thank the Girl Scouts for their outstanding contribution to our society, and I want to express my firm support and congratulations as they strive to carry out the mission that was begun 90 years ago.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the heroic life of Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman, whose family is from Windber, PA. Sergeant Chapman, who was buried today, was killed on Monday, March 4th, during a fierce firefight after his helicopter was shot down by al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. Sgt. Chapman, who was only 36 years old, is survived by Valerie, his wife of 10 years, and by their 2 young daughters, Madison age 5, and Brianna age 3. While I know that this loss is devastating to the entire Chapman family, I can confidently say to Sgt. Chapman's two young daughters that their daddy died for a great cause and that this cause was to protect the world and this Nation against evil people. These people seek to destroy the very foundation of our country which allows all of us to be free and safe and prosperous. As a Nation, we have been very fortunate in recent years; we have not had to face many casualties while defending our freedom. The death of Sgt Chapman and the seven other servicemen killed last week really hit home. These losses are painful, but this war has a real purpose, and a real national security implication. In my mind, the sacrifice made by these men is as important as any made during the great wars that we have fought in the past. We never like to lose even a single life. Each casualty we read about in the newspapers means the world to someone who has lost a father, a brother, or a friend. I grieve with the Chapman family and all of the families that have made this ultimate sacrifice, but it is important to remember that they did not die in vain. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Chapmans as they go through this difficult time. Sgt. Chapman died to protect the core values which define our country, and we will always remember him as a hero.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of one of my constituents, Mr. Louis M. Laino, a man who gave his life in defense of his country. I would like to call attention to a tragic accident which occurred on January 15, 1961, and which took the lives of 28 brave Americans, one of whom, Louis M. Laino, was a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. Laino was a crew member aboard Texas Tower 4. Texas Tower 4 was one of three Department of the Air Force radar sites installed in the North Atlantic Ocean in the 1950s whose purpose was to provide early warning in the event of an enemy missile or bomber strike against the United States. Texas Tower 4 was located approximately 85 miles southeast of New York City in 185 feet of water. Prior to the accident in 1961, Tower 4 had earned a reputation for being unstable and had been nicknamed ``Old Shaky'' by the crew members who served aboard the structure. On September 12, 1960, Texas Tower 4 was struck by Hurricane ``Donna.'' The storm's 130-mile per hour winds and 50-foot waves exceeded Tower 4's design specifications and caused structural damage to the platform. The Air Force decided that extensive repair work would need to be performed on Tower 4 the following spring. February 1, 1961, was established as the date for complete evacuation of the platform. In the meantime, a maintenance crew of 28 persons was stationed aboard Tower 4 to perform immediate repair work prior to more rigorous repairs being performed. Mr. Laino was among this group of workers, and tragically lost his life when a second storm struck Tower 4. This storm possessed 85-mile per hour winds, 35-foot waves, and proved to be too much for the already weakened Tower 4 to withstand. At 7:20 pm on the evening of January 15, 1961, Texas Tower 4's structure failed, and the platform, with all hands on board, sank to the bottom of the Atlantic. In closing, I would again like to call attention to the sacrifice made by Louis M. Laino in defense of his country. Mr. Laino made the ultimate sacrifice, that of his life. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, I salute Mr. Laino for his courage and bravery in performing a dangerous duty. Mr. Laino died so that all of us might be safer, and for that, he should be remembered.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I applaud the leadership and foresight of the Senator from Georgia in developing a peanut program that truly brings needed reform to the program while presenting new opportunities for young peanut farmers.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague for this unquestioned commitment to finding an agreeable resolution. I understand that these reforms may be difficult for some of his peanut quota growers. However, if we fail to provide real reform of the peanut program we will have done a great disservice to the entire U.S. peanut sector.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President this amendment is a continuation of my interest in the protection and humane treatment of animals, specifically, dogs and puppies. This amendment will crack down on breeders who do not abide by existing requirements for the humane treatment and care of dogs bred for the pet trade. It will also fill some gaps in the law that involve important humane concerns. There has been extensive coverage of the improper care, abuse, and mistreatment common at ``puppy mills'' across America. Unsuspecting consumers who purchase these puppies find out that they have latent physical and behavioral problems because of the poor care they received in the important early stage of their lives. This can lead to safety concerns, tremendous expense and heartbreak for families. And for the dogs, it often means they end up taken to shelters where they must be euthanized because they're too aggressive or sickly to be adopted. My amendment enjoys the support of national animal protection organizations, such as the Humane society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ASPCA, as well as 861 humane organizations, shelters, and animals control associations. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of these organizations, by State, be printed to the Record. Also let the Record reflect that my own State of Pennsylvania has 14 organizations on this list ranging from the Western Pennsylvania Westie Rescue Committee, the Humane Society of Lackawanna County and the York County SPCA.

Mr. SANTORUM. There are at least 3,000 commercial dog breeding facilities licensed to operate by the United States Department of Agriculture. These facilities are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, that sets forth minimal standards for humane handling and treatment. Inspections, to oversee compliance with AWA standards, are performed by the USDA. There are serious inadequacies with the current system that demand our attention and our action. One problem has been insufficient resources for the USDA to perform timely and routine inspections. Second, inspectors have too few tools to make the assessment of proper care that they must. I have worked for several years on strategies to solve these problems through congressional and agency action. I was very pleased to be joined last year by one-third of my Senate colleagues in seeking an increased appropriation for USDA to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. USDA has approximately 80 inspectors to inspect nearly 10,000 USDA federally-licensed facilities involving millions of animals. Increases in USDA's enforcement budget will certainly help the agency fulfill its responsibility to ensure compliance with the AWA. Counting Fiscal Year 2002, Congress has appropriated an additional $13 million since 1999 to enable USDA to track down more unlicensed facilities, conduct more inspections, and improve follow-up enforcement efforts. And while Congress is making progress addressing the AWA budget shortfall, it is also important to address gaps in the law to better protect dogs and consumers. That is why I introduced the Puppy Protection Act, along with my colleague Senator Durbin, to address these additional areas requiring our attention. Today's amendment is based on that bill, S. 1478, which we introduced on October 1, 2001. The Puppy Protection Act, and our amendment today, will make three very important and needed changes to the Animal Welfare Act's oversight of commercial dog breeding operations. First, legislation addresses the need for breeding females to be given time to recover between litters and to be protected from breeding in their first year of life. Second, it requires that dogs receive adequate interaction with other dogs and with people to help prevent behavioral problems in the future. Third, it encourages swift and strong enforcement against repeat offenders by creating a ``three strikes and you're out'' system for chronic violators. The science is clear that dogs who are raised without adequate contact with other dogs and with people are likely to have behavioral problems throughout their lives. This amendment recognizes the critical importance of the early weeks of a dog's life. The Animal Welfare Act does currently recognize this need. Our amendment also addresses the issue of breeding and its correlation to an animals's welfare. Sometimes a life of intensive breeding can begin at 6 months of age, well before a dog is mature enough to mother a litter of puppies and still remain healthy. Relentless overbreeding can cause severe nutritional deficiencies and impairs a dog's immune system, leading to increased risk of infections, illness and organ failure. These concerns go to the heart of humane treatment, and are as appropriate for Congress to address as other areas already covered by the AWA, such as adequate veterinary care, food, water, sanitation, ventilation, and shelter from harsh weather. Finally, our amendment addresses the problem of commercial dog breeders who repeatedly violate the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, but continue to operate. This carefully-crafted provision will help USDA take action against the genuinely bad actors while allowing for the rights of all individuals in the breeding business. I am deeply concerned about small business and the protection of private property rights, so I have worked with many interested parties to ensure this provision strikes the right balance. When families decide to buy or adopt a dog, they are taking in a new family member. When they find, after weeks or months of sharing their home with this dog, that their pet has behavioral problems or some latent disease, they often do everything in their power to help their dog with veterinarian care or behavioral training. Unfortunately, dogs that are maltreated early in life and that have been denied the early contacts that allow them to form solid bonds with people and other animals, may bite or lash out. Families that face these problems will often go to great lengths, and spare no expense, to find a cure for a problem that could easily have been prevented. Our legislation should not be controversial. It is about protecting animals from mistreatment. It is about preventing heartbreak and loss to families. And it is about doing what is responsible. Please support the Santorum-Durbin amendment for puppy protection. Exhibit 1 Endorsement List for Puppy Protection Act (861 Endorsements--Updated 11/27/01) Arkansas Anchorage Animal Control Gastineau Humane Society (Juneau) Sitka Animal Shelter (Sitka) Alabama The Animal Shelter (Anniston) Barbour County Humane Society Inc. (Eufaula) BJC Animal Control Services, Inc. (Birmingham) Central Alabama Animal Shelter (Selma) Circle of Friends (Montrose) City of Irondale Animal Control (Irondale) Dekalb County SPCA (Fort Payne) Greater Birmingham Humane Society Humane Society of Elmore County (Wetumpka) Humane Society of Etowah County (Gadsden) Humane Society of Chilton County (Clanton) Humane Society of Pike County (Troy) Mobile SPCA (Mobile) Monroe County Humane Society (Monroeville) Montgomery Humane Society (Montgomery) St. Clair Animal Shelter (Pell City) Tuscaloosa Metro Animal Shelter (Tuscaloosa) Walker County Humane Society (Jasper) Arizona Berryville Animal Care and Control (Berryville) Hot Springs Village Animal Welfare League (HPV) Paragould Animal Welfare Society (Paragould) Sherwood Animal Services (Sherwood) Arizona Animal Defense League of Arizona (Tucson) Arizona Animal Welfare League (Phoenix) Coconino Humane Association (Flagstaff) Hacienda De Los Milagros, Inc. (Chino Valley) Holbrook Police Department (Holbrook) Humane Society of Sedona (Sedona) Humane Society of Southern Arizona (Tucson) Long Lake Animal Shelter/Fort Mojave Ranger Department (Mohave Valley) Payson Humane Society, Inc. (Payson) California Actors and Others for Animal (North Hollywood) All for Animals (Santa Barbara) Animal Friends of the Valley/LEAF (Lake Elsinore) Animal Protection Institute (Sacramento) Animal Care Services Division, City of Sacramento (Sacramento) Animal Place (Vacaville) Antioch Animal Services (Antioch) Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (Davis) Benicia/Vallejo Humane Society (Vallejo) Berkeley Animal Care Services (Berkeley) California Animal Care (Pam Desert) California Animal Defense and Anti-Vivisection League, Inc. (Carson) City of Perris Animal Control (Perris) City of Sacramento Animal Care Services Division (Sacramento) City of Santa Barbara Police Department--Animal Control (Santa Barbara) Contra Costa Humane Society (Pleasant Hill) Costa Mesa Animal Control (Costa Mesa) Desert Hot Springs Animal Control (Desert Hot Springs) Divsiion (Santa Barbara) Dog Obedience Club of Torrance, CA (Torrance) Earth Island Institute (San Francisco) Eileen Hawthorne Fund Inc. (Fort Bragg) Escondido Humane Society (Escondido) Friends for Pets Foundation (Sun Valley) Friends of the Fairmont Animal Shelter (San Leandro) Friends of Solano County (Fairfield) Haven Humane Society, Inc. (Redding) The Healdsburg Animal Shelter (Healdsburg) Helen Woodward Animal Center (Rancho Santa Fe) Hollister Animal Shelter (Hollister) Humane Education Network (Menlo Park) Humane Society of Imperial County (El Centre) Humane Society of Tuolumne County (Jamestown) Kings SPCA (Hanford) Lake Tahoe Humane Society/SPCA (South Lake Tahoe) Lawndale Municipal Services, Animal Control Division (Lawndale) The Marin Humane Society (Novato) Orange County People for Animals (Irvine) Orange County SPCA (Huntington Beach) Pasadena Humane Society and SPCA (Pasadena) Pet Adoption League (Grass Valley) Petaluma Animal Services (Petaluma) Placer County Animal Services (Auburn) Placer County Animal Services (Kings Beach/Tahoe Vista) Pleasanton Police Department--Animal Services (Pleasanton) Rancho Coastal Humane Society (Leucadia) Reedley Police Department (Reedley) Retired Greyhound Rescue (Yuba City) Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation (Sacramento) Sacramento SPCA (Sacramento) Santa Cruz SPCA (Santa Cruz) Seal Beach Animal Care Center (Seal Beach) Siskiyou County Animal Control (Yreka) Solano County Animal Control (Fairfield) Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (Downey) Spay Neuter Associates (Ben Lomond) The SPCA of Monterey County (Monterey) Stanislaus County Animal Services (Modesto) State Humane Association of California (Sacramento) Town and Country Humane Society (Orland) Town of Truckee Animal Control (Truckee) Tracy Animal Shelter (Tracy) Tri-City Animal Shelter (Fremont) Tulare County Animal Control Shelter (Visalia) United Animal Nations/Emergency Rescue Service (Santa Barbara) Valley Humane Society (Pleasanton) Woods Humane Society (San Luis Obispo) Yuba Sutter SPCA (Yuba City) Yucaipa Animal Placement Society (Yucaipa) colorado Adams County Animal Control (Commerce City) Barnwater Cats Rescue Organization (Denver) Cat Care Society (Lakewood) Cherry Hills Village Animal Control (Cherry Hills Village) Delta County Humane Society (Delta) Denver Animal Control and Shelter (Denver) The Dreampower Foundation/P.A.A.L.S. (Castle Rock) Dumb Friends League (Denver) Good Samaritan Pet Center (Denver) Humane Society of Boulder Valley (Boulder) Intermountain Humane Society (Conifer) Larimer Humane Society (Fort Collins) Lone Rock Veterinary Clinic (Bailey) Longmont Humane Society (Longmont) Montrose Animal Protection Agency (Montrose) Rangely Animal Shelter (Rangely) Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (Boulder) Table Mountain Animal Center (Golden) Thornton Animal Control (Thornton) connecticut Animal Welfare Associates, Inc. (Stamford) Connecticut Humane Society (Newington) Enfield Police Department-Animal Control (Enfield) Forgotten Felines, Inc. (Clinton) The Greater New Haven Cat Project, Inc. (New Haven) Hamilton Sundstrand (West Locks) Kitty Angels of Connecticut (Coventry) Meriden Humane Society (Meriden) Milford Animal Control (Milford) Per Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) (Norwalk) Quinebaug Valley Animal Welfare Service (Dayville) Valley Shore Animal Welfare League (Westbrook) delaware Delaware SPCA (Georgetown) Delaware SPCA (Stanton) florida Alachua County Humane Society (Gainesville) Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (Pompano Beach) Animal Welfare League of Charlotte County (Port Charlotte) Arni Foundation (Daytona Beach) Baker County Animal Control (Macclenny) Central Brevard Humane Society-Central (Cocoa) Central Brevard Humane Society-South (Melbourne) Citizens for Humane Animal Treatment (Crawfordville) Clay County Animal Control (Green Cove Springs) Coral Springs Humane Unit (Coral Springs) First Coast Humane Society/Nassau County Animal Control (Yulee) Flayler County Humane Society (Palm Coast) Halifax Humane Society (Daytona Beach) Humane Society of Broward County (Fort Lauderdale) Humane Society of Collier County, Inc. (Naples) Humane Society of Lake County (Eustis) Humane Society of Lee County, Inc. (Fort Myers) Humane Society of Manatee County (Bradenton) Humane Society of North Pinellas (Clearwater) Humane Society of St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce) Humane Society of Tampa Bay (Tampa) Humane Society of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (Palm City) Jacksonville Humane Society Jefferson County Humane Society (Monticello) Lake City Animal Shelter (Lake City) Leon County Humane Society (Tallahassee) Marion County Animal Center (Ocala) Okaloosa County Animal Services (Fort Walton Beach) Panhandle Animal Welfare Society (Fort Walton Beach) Play Acres, Inc. (Wildwood) Prayer Alliance for Animals (Jupiter) Putnam County Humane Society (Hollister) Safe Animal Shelter of Orange Park (Orange Park) Safe Harbor Animal Rescue and Clinic (Juniper) South Lake Animal League, Inc. (Clermont) Southeast Volusia Humane Society (New Smyrna Beach) SPCA of Hernando County, Inc. (Brooksville) SPCA of Pinellas County (Largo) SPCA of West Pasco (New Port Richey) Suncoast Basset Rescue, Inc. (Gainesville) Suwannee County Humane Society (Live Oak) Volusia County Animal Services (Daytona) Wings of Mercy Animal Rescue (Panama County Beach) georgia Animal Rescue Foundation, Inc. (Milledgeville) Atlanta Humane Society and SPCA, Inc. (Atlanta) Basset Hound Rescue of Georgia, Inc. (Kennesaw) Big Canoe Animal Rescue (Big Canoe) Catoosa County Animal Control (Ringgold) Charles Smithgall Humane Society, Inc. (Cleveland) Cherokee County Humane Society (Woodstock) Clayton County Humane Society (Jonesboro) Collie Rescue of Metro Atlanta, Inc. (Atlanta) Coweta County Animal Control Department (Newman) Crawfordville Shelter (Crawfordville) Douglas County Humane Society (Douglasville) Dublin-Laurens Humane Association (Dublin) Fayette County Animal Shelter (Fayetteville) Fitzgerald-Ben Hill Humane Society (Fitzgerald) Forsyth County Humane Society (Cumming) Georgia Labrador Rescue (Canton) Glynn County Animal Services (Brunswick) Golden Retriever Rescue of Atlanta (Peachtree City) The Good Shepard Humane Society (Sharpsburg) Homeward Bound Pet Rescue, Inc. (Ellijay) Humane Services of Middle Georgia (Macon) Humane Society of Camden County (Kingsland) Humane Society of Griffin-Spalding County (Experiment) Humane Society's Mountain Shelter (Blairsville) Humane Society of Moultrie-Colquitt County (Moultrie) Humane Society of Northwest Georgia (Dalton) Lookout Mountain Animal Resources, Inc. (Menlo Lowndes County Animal Welfare (Valdosta) Okefenokee Humane Society (Waycross) Pet Partners of Habersham, Inc. (Cornelia) Pound Puppies N Kittens (Oxford) Rescuing Animals in Need, Inc. (Buford) Rockdale County Animal Care and Control (Conyers) Small Dog Rescue/Adoption (Cumming) Society of Human Friends of Georgia, Inc. (Lawrenceville) Toccoa-Stephens County Animal Shelter (Tocco) Town of Chester (Chester) Vidalia Animal Control (Vidalia) Washington-Wilkes Animal Shelter (Washington) hawaii Hawaii Island Humane Society (Kailua-Kona) Hawaii Island Humane Society (Keaau) Hawaiian Humane Society (Honolulu) Hauai Humane Society (Lihue) The Maui Humane Society (Puunene) West Hawaii Humane Society (Kailua-Kona) iowa Animal Control (Creston) Animal Lifeline of Iowa, Inc. (Carlisle) Animal Protection Society of Iowa (Des Moines) Animal Rescue League of Iowa (Des Moines) Appanoose County Animal Lifeline, Inc. (Centerville) Boone Area Humane Society (Boone) Cedar Bend Humane Society (Waterloo) Cedar Rapids Animal Control (Ely) Cedar Valley Humane Society (Cedar Rapids) City of Atlantic Animal Shelter (Atlantic) Creston Animal Rescue Effort (Creston) Friends of the Animals of jasper County (Newton) Humane Society of Northwest Iowa (Milford) Humane Society of Scott County (Davenport) Iowa City Animal Car and Control (Iowa City) Iowa Federation of Humane Societies (Des Moines) Jasper County Animal Rescue league and Humane Society (Newton) Keokuk Humane Society (Keokuk) Montgomery County Animal Rescue (Red Oak) Muscatine Humane Society (Muscatine) Northeast Iowa People for Animal Welfare (Decorah) Raccoon Valley Humane Society (Adel) Siouxland Humane Society (Sioux City) Solution to Over-Population of Pets (Burlington) Spay Neuter Assistance for Pets (SNAP) (Muscatine) Vinton Animal Shelter (Vinton) idaho Animal Ark (Grangeville) Animal Shelter of Wood River Valley (Hailey) Bannock Humane Society (Pocatello) Ferret haven Shelter/Rescue of Boise, Inc. (Boise) Humane Society of the Palouse (Moscow) Idaho Humane Society (Boise) Kootenai Humane Society (Hayden) Pocatello Animal Control (Pocatello) Second Chance Animal Shelter (Payette) Twin Falls Humane Society (Twin Falls) illinois Alton Area Animal Aid Associaton (Godfrey) Anderson Animla Shelter (South Elgin) The Anti-Cruelty Society (Chicago) Chicago Animal Care and Controll (Chicago) Community Animal Rescue Effort (Evanston) Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control (Bridgeview) Friends Forever Humane Society (Freeport) Hindsdale Humane Society (Hinsdale) Homes for Endangered and Lost Pets (St. Charles) Humane Society of Winnebago County (Rockford) Illinois Federation of Humane Society (Urbana) Illinois Humane Political Action Committee (Mahomet) Kankakee County Humane Society (Kankalee) Metro East Humane Society (Edwardsville) Naperville Animal Control (Naperville) Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter (Peoria) Peoria Humane Society (Poeria) PetEd Humane Education (Hinsdale) Quincy Humane Society (Quincy) South Suburban Humane Society (Chicago Heights) Tazewell Animal Protective Society (Pekin) West Suburban Humane Society (Downers Grove) Winnebago County Animal Services (Rockford) indiana Allen County SPCA (Fort Wayne) Cass County Humane Society (Logansport) Dubois County Humane Society (Jasper) Elkhart City Police Department-Animal Control Division (Elkhart) Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control (Ft. Wayne) Greene County Humane Society (Linton) Greenfields, Hancock County Animal Control (Greenfield) Hammond Animal Control (Hammond) Hendricks County Humane Society (Brownsburg) Home for Friendless Animals Inc. (Indianapolis) Humane Society Calumet Area, Inc. (Munster) Humane Society of Elkhart County (Elkhart) Humane Society for Hamilton County (Noblesville) Humane Society of Hobart (Hobart) Humane Society of Indianapolis (Indianapolis) Humane Society of Perry County (Tell City) Johnson County Animal Shelter (Franklin) La Porte County Animal Control (La Porte) Madison County SPCA and Humane Society, Inc. (Anderson) Martin County Humane Society (Loogootee) Michiana Humane Society (Michigan City) Monroe County Humane Association (Bloomington) Morgan County Humane Society (Martinsville) New Albany/Floyd County Animal Shelter/Control (New Albany) Owen County Humane Society (Spencer) Salem Department of Animal Control (Salem) Scott County Animal Control and Humane Investigations (Scottsburg) Sellersburg Animal Control (Sellersburg) Shelbyville/Shelby County Animal Shelter (Shelbyville) South Bend Animal Care and Control (South Bend) St. Joseph County Humane Society (Mishawaka) Starke County Humane Society (North Judson) Steuben County Humane Society, Inc. (Angola) Tippecanoe County Humane Society (Lafayette) Vanderburgh Humane Society, Inc. (Evansville) Wells County Humane Society, Inc. (Bluffton) kansas Animal Heaven (Merriam) Arma Animal Shelter (Arma) Caring Hands Humane Society (Newton) Chanute Animal Control Department (Chanute) City of Kinsley Animal Shelter (Kinsley) Finney County Humane Society (Garden City) Ford County Humane Society (Dodge City) Heart of America Humane Society (Overland Park) Hutchinson Humane Society (Hutchinson) Kansas Humane Society of Wichita (Wichita) Lawrence Humane Society (Lawrence) Leavenworth Animal Society (Leavenworth) Medicine Lodge Animal Shelter (Medicine Lodge) Neosho County Sheriff's Office (Erie) Salina Animal Shelter (Salina) S.E.K. Humane Society (Pittsburg) Southeast Kansas Humane Society (Pittsburg) kentucky Boone County Animal Control (Burlington) Friends of the Shelter/SPCA Kentucky (Florence) Humane Society of Nelson County (Bardstown) Jefferson County Animal Control and Protection (Louisville) Kentucky Coalition for Animal Protection, Inc. (Lexington) Lexington Humane Society (Lexington) Marion County Humane Society Inc. (Lebanon) McCracken County Humane Society, Inc. (Paducah) Muhlenberg County Humane Society (Greenville) Woodford Humane Society (Versailles) louisiana Calcasieu Parish Animal Control and Protection Department (Lake Charles) Cat Haven, Inc. (Baton Rouge) City of Bossier Animal Control (Bossier City) Coalition of Louisiana Advocates (Pineville) Don't Be Cruel Sanctuary (Albany) East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control Center (Baton Rouge) Humane Society Adoption Center (Monroe) Iberia Humane Society (New Iberia) Jefferson Parish Animal Shelters (Jefferson) Jefferson SPCA (Jefferson) League in Support of Animals (New Orleans) Louisiana SPCA (New Orleans) Natchitoches Humane Animal Shelter (Natchitoches) Spay Mart, Inc. (New Orleans) St. Bernard Parish Animal Control (Chalmette) St. Charles Humane Society (Destrehan) St. Tammany Humane Society (Covington) massachusetts Alliance for Animals (Boston) Animal Shelter Inc. (Sterling) Baypath Humane Society of Hopkinton, Inc. (Hopkinton) The Buddy Dog Humane Society, Inc. (Sudbury) CEASE (Somerville) Faces Inc. Dog Rescue and Adoption (West Springfield) Faxon Animal Rescue League (Fall River) Lowell Humane Society (Lowell) MSPCA (Boston) New England Animal Action, Inc. (Amherst) North Attleboro Animal Control/Shelter (N. Attleboro) North Shore Feline Rescue (Middleton) South Shore Humane Society, Inc. (Braintree) maryland Animal Advocates of Howard County (Ellicott City) Bethany Centennial Animal Hospital (Ellicott City) Caroline County Humane Society (Ridgely) Charles County Animal Control Services (La Plata) Harford County Animal Control (Bel Air) Humane Society of Baltimore County (Reistertown) Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc. (Westminister) The Humane Society of Charles County (Waldorf) The Humane Society of Dorchester County, Inc. (Cambridge) The Humane Society of Harford County (Fallston) Humane Society of Southern Maryland (Temple Hills) Humane Society of Washington County (Maugansville) Labrador Retriever Rescue, Inc. (Clinton) Prince George's County Animal Welfare League (Forestville) Shady Spring Kennels and Camp for Dogs (Woodbine) St. Mary's Animal Welfare League, Inc. (Hollywood)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. Miller, regarding the peanut title of the proposed farm bill. My colleague represents the largest peanut growing State and I represent one of the largest peanut product manufacturing States. I compliment him for his leadership and I am pleased by the efforts of the Agriculture Committee in moving to a market-oriented peanut program. My foremost concern is for elimination of the peanut quota system, which has restricted peanut production in the United States. Do the provisions of this farm bill terminate the peanut quota program?

Mr. SANTORUM. I believe such provisions are useful, but I would like to have the compensation to quota owners terminated 1 year before the end of this 5-year farm bill. I have no problem with the House bill, which buys out quota owners over a 5-year period in the context of a 10-year farm bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the amendment and modification I just sent to the desk is an amendment that is referred to as the Puppy Protection Act that Senator Durbin and I have introduced. The reason I brought this up is because of my continuing concern, and I know Senator Durbin's continuing concern, about the treatment of dogs and puppies in some of the breeding facilities across the country. There are literally about 3,000 such commercial breeding establishments that breed puppies for sale into homes as pets. There are, unfortunately, numerous reports and evidence of very bad conditions in these puppy mills. I have had an ongoing concern about it. We have been working for quite some time with USDA to improve enforcement. They have some 80 people to enforce the existing Animal Welfare Act. They simply are understaffed. The problem we are seeing is not only are they understaffed but there are some holes in the animal welfare law. A lot of my colleagues have come to me because they have been hearing from some of their constituents who are saying: Why is Rick Santorum trying to expand the reach of the Federal Government to take care of breeding dogs? This doesn't seem to be something in which the Federal Government should be involved. First off, the Federal Government is involved. In 1966, we passed the Animal Welfare Act. We have had several amendments to it since--I think four or five times throughout the 1970s or 1980s. Because these are commercial breeding establishments that breed animals, we, the USDA and the Congress, have seen fit to have the Department of Agriculture regulate these large facilities. We do regulate in the area of handling, housing, sanitation, feeding, watering, ventilation, shelter, adequate veterinary care, and exercise. Those are provisions already in the existing veterinary law here in Washington, DC, which the USDA is responsible for regulating. But there are some areas we believe lead directly to not just the health of the dog but the suitability of the dog as a pet that results from, we believe, some bad practices. Before I go into detail about what my bill does, I want to be very clear about what my bill doesn't do. One thing my bill does not do--and the amendment of Senator Durbin and myself does not do--is expand who is covered under the Animal Welfare Act. We have heard from the American Kennel Club and some members calling my office, and I know other Members have gotten calls from AKC members within their States, saying this is a great expansion of reach; you are going to have all these breeders who are going to run afoul of the Federal Government now if this legislation passes. According to AKC's own records from 1997, which are the most recent ones we have, 97 percent of their breeders are not covered under the existing Animal Welfare Act. And our act does not amend who is covered. It just says what will be looked at upon inspection. Ninety-seven percent of their members will not be covered. Why? Because the Animal Welfare Act only covers breeders who breed four or more females. If you breed less than four females, you are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act and you are not covered under this proposed amendment to the Animal Welfare Act. Again, from their own numbers, only .04 percent of their members registered more than three litters in a year. So I say as to a lot of these calls coming in, saying: You are going to be harming the mom-and-pop breeder here, the folks who have a female dog they want to breed for a little extra income as part of their experience with their animal, you are going to be affecting them, the answer is no, we are not. What we are talking about here are facilities that are in the commercial breeding. We want to make sure these puppies that are bred, when they go into the home, go into the home healthy, No. 1-- I mean from disease and genetic maladies, but that they also go in properly socialized so they can be good pets. The areas we have focused in on are really three. No. 1 is the area of socialization or interaction. It requires that the puppies in these breeding facilities have interaction with other dogs and with humans. Can you imagine the situation where a dog is bred and put in a cage, basically isolated from human contact for several weeks and having no interaction with human beings and having no interaction with other dogs, and then placed in a home maybe with little children? The impact could be severe. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that that is one area. We just require some interaction. It is not particularly an onerous standard. We think it is a rather commonsense standard. I find it difficult for anyone to find a problem with that. The second area has to do with breeding. There is a lot of concern. One of the sponsors of my amendment is one of the two veterinarians in the Senate. There are two Senators who are veterinarians. But one of them dealt with small animals; that is, Senator Ensign from Nevada. He is a cosponsor of my amendment. He personally told me stories of the problems with large commercial breeders in overbreeding females and constantly breeding more than is healthy for the female. It has an impact, obviously, on the litter and the health of the litter with diseases and other complications. Here we are talking about a standard, it is my understanding, according to all reputable breeders which they adhere to already. It is a standard that puts in place what we believe are sound breeding practices based on evidence of producing a line of healthy puppies. I know Senator Ensign is planning on coming in next week to talk about this legislation. He will probably give many more good examples with a lot more technical expertise than I can possibly offer. But I wanted to make it clear that this is a problem. It is a problem when you have a very excited family that brings a new puppy into the home. They find out that this puppy, because of improper breeding, tends to have a lot of problems, gets ill, and maybe dies. That is obviously terrible for the puppy, but it is also very traumatic for the family. The last provision has to do with enforcement. Before I talk about this provision, let me make it clear that if the USDA goes in and finds a bad situation, they have the ability to revoke the license. These facilities are licensed by USDA. They have the ability to go in and immediately revoke the license if there is one severe infraction of the Animal Welfare Act. We don't change that. But we say under this legislation, if you have three such infractions within an 8-year period of time, USDA must automatically revoke the license. You can appeal and do all the things about the specific instances to get your license reinstated. But this ``three strikes and you are out'' provision really tries to suggest to USDA that when you have a pattern of mistreatment and violation of the law, that action should be taken. Again, let me remind everybody that USDA can do it right now. They have the discretion to do it with one infraction. We are saying that upon three, the license will be revoked. We are talking about commercial breeders. We are not talking about breeders that breed fewer than four animals. This is an amendment that has very broad support from over 800 animal welfare organizations, including the Humane Society and the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Of course, this legislation is, frankly, a very modest amendment. I cannot tell you how many changes I have made. I think this is the fourth change I have filed with this legislation in an attempt to try to deal with the research community that is concerned about certain aspects of this legislation and their application. We have dealt with the small breeders, even though, frankly, they are not covered by it. But we have tried to ameliorate some of the concerns from the American Kennel Club. We have really worked very hard to try to make sure that no one who is serious about the healthy breeding of puppies has a concern. It is not my intention to bring the dog police into every home in America that breeds puppies. The fact of the matter is there are large commercial establishments that, frankly, need to do a better job in breeding puppies for homes. I am hopeful that we can have very broad support. I have been working with Senator Helms. Senator Helms has been very helpful. I appreciate this morning his suggesting that we can now be supportive of this legislation as we have made the additional change in the legislation. We are trying to work through all of these matters. I would be very happy if we could get this in the managers' amendment. If not, I am certainly happy to take this to a vote. I think it will have very strong support from both sides of the aisle. Who wants to have puppies in the home that are not socialized or that have diseases or that are not in the best position to be good pets for our families across America? I thank the Chair for the time. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 2542.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now send amendment No. 2639 to the desk and ask my amendment be modified with the text of this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I do object to the fact we are standing in the Senate today, and we are taking care of one group of people --and we need to and I support it--in extending unemployment benefits, but there are millions of others who are sitting in their offices watching us working who are afraid that tomorrow may be their day and we are not doing anything to help them keep their jobs. We may be giving them unemployment checks, but we are doing absolutely nothing for the millions and millions of people in America who watch us on television as their neighbors get laid off, who watch what is going on around the country with layoffs, who think they may be next. We have done nothing to help them keep their jobs. We have done nothing in this bill. We will do nothing to help those who have been laid off, who are going to get unemployment checks, to get a paycheck again. That has been the fight all along. The President from day 1 said we need to extend benefits. We have been unanimously supportive of extending unemployment benefits for another 13 weeks. The problem has been, and consistently is, what are we going to do about the people who want a paycheck, not an unemployment check? What are we going to do about the people who are in jobs right now who are worried about losing their jobs? What are we going to do to help those businesses survive? What are we going to do about helping those individuals who are afraid of what might happen, not what has already happened? That is the problem with what has happened in the Senate. We have provided no security for the 90-plus percent of Americans who have jobs that they will be able to keep their jobs. That is the real unfortunate situation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very gratified that the House and Senate conferees included in the conference report of the elementary and secondary education bill the language of a resolution I introduced during the earlier Senate debate. That resolution concerned the teaching of controversies in science. It was adopted 91-8 by the Senate. By passing it we were showing our desire that students studying controversial issues in science, such as biological evolution, should be allowed to learn about competing scientific interpretations of evidence. As a result of our vote today that position is about to become a position of the Congress as a whole. When the Senate bill was first under discussion in this body, I referenced an excellent Utah Law Review article, Volume 2000, Number 1, by David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest. The authors demonstrate that teachers have a constitutional right to teach, and students to learn, about scientific controversies, so long as the discussion is about science, not religion or philosophy. As the education bill report language makes clear, it is not proper in the science classrooms of our public schools to teach either religion or philosophy. But also, it says, just because some think that contending scientific theories may have implications for religion or philosophy, that is no reason to ignore or trivialize the scientific issues embodied in those theories. After all, there are enormous religious and philosophical questions implied by much of what science does, especially these days. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that the scientific evidence behind them is examined in science classrooms. Efforts to shut down scientific debates, as such, only serve to thwart the true purposes of education, science and law. There is a question here of academic freedom, freedom to learn, as well as to teach. The debate over origins is an excellent example. Just as has happened in other subjects in the history of science, a number of scholars are now raising scientific challenges to the usual Darwinian account of the origins of life. Some scholars have proposed such alternative theories as intelligent design. In the Utah law review article the authors state, ``. . . The time has come for school boards to resist threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers, who teach the scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling controversy.'' The public supports the position we are taking today. For instance, national opinion surveys show--to use the origins issue again--that Americans overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific arguments against, as well as for, Darwin's theory. A recent Zogby International poll shows the preference on this as 71 percent to 15 percent, with 14 percent undecided. The goal is academic excellence, not dogmatism. It is most timely, and gratifying, that Congress is acknowledging and supporting this objective.