Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?

Mr. SANTORUM. I just want to say to the Senator from Georgia, I congratulate you and commend you. For many years we have had battles in the peanut program between those who are peanut consumers in large consumption States and those who are producers, but you have stepped in and provided great leadership for your growers through this transition process. I am very privileged and pleased to join you in a truly unique situation. I think it has not been seen here since the peanut program was instituted. Those who are the consumers of peanuts and those who are the growers of peanuts have found common ground to work on a piece of legislation that will transition us into a whole new era in peanut production. I commend the Senator for his great leadership from a great peanut- producing State, to help shepherd his growers into a much more market- oriented approach to growing peanuts. I commend the Senator for his great effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for working with me on this very important issue of Medicare provider payment policy, particularly in light of the unique financial pressures being faced by the hospitals in Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Williamsport, and Sharon metropolitan statistical areas, MSAs, which emanate in part from some glaring disparities in Medicare's payment formulas. As I travel around the Commonwealth, many health care leaders have conveyed to me their continued concerns about the impact of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, on their health care delivery operations. Our Pennsylvania constituents, who represent rural, urban and community hospitals and systems, have shared with us detailed information about the financially strained health care delivery environment under the BBA. We are all aware of the administrative and financial challenges that health care providers all across the country face, particularly in their service to our Nation's elderly population. But the environment in which the hospitals in these three areas of Pennsylvania are seeking to deliver quality health care to their respective communities is even more challenging given that their MSAs contain areas or border on areas from which higher compensated providers, with similar health care delivery costs, draw their patients, and more importantly, their workforce. Facilities located in these areas must compete for workers and patients against hospitals in neighboring MSAs with drastically higher wage indices, even when labor and health care delivery costs are virtually identical. This situation is simply not sustainable. And these problems are only exacerbated by our Nation's ongoing nursing shortage, and the scarcity of other skilled care givers. Health care workforce shortages are particularly acute in these areas of the Commonwealth, and they have the effect of driving up the cost of health care and precipitating the need to increase wages. And although these hospitals have taken the step of increasing wages, further reductions in the wage index will make it impossible for the hospitals to retain or recruit all the caregivers that the communities require. Other regions near the Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazleton MSA, including Newburgh, Allentown and Harrisburg, continue to recruit workers from its skilled workforce. Likewise in the Sharon MSA: All of the hospitals in the Sharon MSA compete with the Youngstown, OH, MSA for nurses, pharmacists, radiology technicians, and other allied health professionals. As Senator Specter had mentioned, Youngstown pays nurses $2 to $3 more per hour than hospitals in Sharon, yet those hospitals receive the lowest area wage index in Pennsylvania. I have been working on this unique Medicare payment problem for more than 2 years now, seeking to enact at least a temporary reclassification of several Northeastern Pennsylvania counties into the Newburgh, NY--Pennsylvania MSA; Northumberland County into the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle MSA; and Mercer County into the Youngstown- Warren, OH, MSA. As Senator Specter had mentioned, there are other areas around the country where glitches such as these can be found. And what we seek to do with the submission of this legislative language is to put our colleagues on notice that we are determined to work on a bipartisan basis to bring much needed relief to our negatively affected hospitals, and to do the same for other areas around the country where these circumstances have caused similar problems and merit similar response. I have recently spoken directly with Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Grassley about this very issue, and my strong desire to achieve a legislative fix as soon as possible. I am also a strong supporter of legislation to set the rural wage index nationally at a uniform and higher rate. However, whether or not Congress considers a national solution to this area of Medicare law is unclear, and our hospitals cannot afford to wait for a national solution that may be a year or two away. In closing, I wish to relay to our colleagues that achieving this financial relief for these hospitals in Pennsylvania is of utmost importance to myself and Senator Specter. We are willing to work with our colleagues in any way in order to bring about stability in the funding of these community health care providers and to ensure that the many Medicare beneficiaries living in the Commonwealth have access to needed care.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Sugar Program Reform Act. This bill is a continuation of my ongoing efforts to bring needed reform to Federal agriculture programs that have perpetuated Federal control over prices and production. While the 1996 farm bill modernized Federal agriculture policy for some commodities, the sugar program, however, only realized minor reforms. As a result, trade opportunities for other agriculture producers have been hampered, and Americans have been twice affected, both as consumers and taxpayers. A GAO report released in June 2000, presents information suggesting the Federal sugar program is not serving consumers and taxpayers well. That report, an update to a 1993 report on the same matter, estimated that the sugar program resulted in net losses to the U.S. economy of about $700 million in 1996, and about $900 million in 1998. Moreover, it found that the primary beneficiaries of the sugar program's higher prices are domestic sugar beet and cane producers who were estimated to receive benefits of about $800 million in 1996 and nearly $1 billion in 1998. In terms of trade opportunities, the sugar program harms other agricultural producers by slowing efforts to open foreign markets for American farm products. As long as the United States uses restrictive sugar import quotas to stiffle trade, these counties have a ready excuse not to drop their own trade barriers. The Sugar Program Reform Act, which I am pleased to introduce with Senate McCain, will finally bring major change to the sugar program. It will accomplish that goal by: reducing support prices and ending them after 2004; requiring that loans be repaid ending sugar processors' ability to turn over surplus sugar to the government instead of repaying the amounts they have borrowed; and assuring adequate supplies, requiring that import quotas be administered to maintain prices at no more than the price support level established by Congress. When the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize farm programs, I look forward to a spirited debate on the necessity of reforming policies that have not served the best interests of taxpayers or the agricultural community at large. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of S. Res. 175, which is at the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is an honor and a pleasure for me and Senator Specter, who is cosponsor of the resolution, to be here today to pay tribute to a great American, a great Pennsylvanian--although he was born in New York, we consider him a great Pennsylvanian--Coach Joe Paterno. This past weekend--and I see my colleague from Ohio here, so I mention Penn State defeated the Ohio State Buckeyes on October 27--he becomes the ``winningest'' coach in Division 1-A history, surpassing Paul ``Bear'' Bryant. I recognize and celebrate that great accomplishment of Coach Paterno, but the bottom line is, of all the things he has accomplished at Penn State, this is one of his lesser accomplishments. This is a man who has added so much to that university, to our Commonwealth, to the country, and to sports in general, a man of great integrity. When you think of Joe Paterno, words that come to my mind first and foremost are integrity and character. This is a man who really tries to hold athletics and everything he does to the highest level of integrity. He teaches that to his children--yes, to his children, and to his kids who are on the team, but he also teaches it to the whole university community and to us as a nation through his example. He is a man of incredible character. He said: Success without honor is an unseasoned dish. It will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good. This is a man who understands that there is more to life than just winning. He has won more than anybody, but he understands there is a much bigger picture, and if you talk to the kids who have graduated from his program--by the way, he has one of the highest graduation rates of any football program in the NCAA, almost double the average for the NCAA--this is a man who understands football is not just about winning but about building character, building a better foundation for our country through these kids and the people who touch the program. Finally, I must discuss his humility. Those in public life, in the eye of the media all the time, understand when you are the ``winningest'' coach in college football history, it is easy to be full of yourself, but this man understands that humility is the key to success. It is an important virtue that we have far too little of in this country. I quote again from Joe Paterno: Publicity is like poison; it doesn't hurt unless you swallow it. Joe Paterno has never swallowed the poison of media attention, trying to push him up. He understands his greatness is in his humility, his simplicity, and his integrity in doing the little things well every day. As a Penn State alumnus, I congratulate him. I congratulate Joe's wife, Sue, a great partner in Joe's career. I thank him for what he has done for the university, not just on the football field. They have done a tremendous amount of charitable giving and leadership for the university. I thank him and recognize him. As a Senator from Pennsylvania, he is someone I am very proud to call one of our own.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. McConnell to introduce bipartisan legislation aimed at improving long-term care health and rehabilitation options for Medicare beneficiaries, and also assisting family caregivers. We all recognize that our Nation needs to address sooner rather than later challenges of financing long-term care services for our growing aging population. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that national expenditures for long-term care services for the elderly will increase each year through 2040. But it is in just over a decade when we will see these challenges become even more pronounced when the 76 million baby boomers begin to turn 65. Baby boomers are expected to live longer and greater numbers will reach 85 and older. Given the expected growing costs of long-term care services, and combined with the fact that today so many American families are already serving as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors and providing such a large portion of long-term care services, it is more important than ever that we have in place quality options in how to best care for our senior population about to dramatically increase. This is why we are introducing the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act, legislation to offer home health beneficiaries more options for receiving care in a setting of their own choosing, rather than confining the provision of those benefits solely to the home. This legislation would give beneficiaries the option to receive some or all of their Medicare home health services in an adult day setting. This would be a substitution, not an expansion, of services. The bill would not make new people eligible for Medicare home health benefits or expand the list of services paid for. In fact, this legislation may be designed to produce net savings for the Medicare program. Permitting homebound patients to receive their home health care in a clinically-based senior day center, as an alternative to receiving it at home, could result in significant benefits to the Medicare program, such as reduced cost-per-episode, reduced numbers of episodes, as well as mental and physical stimulation for patients. Moreover, the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act could well have a positive impact on our economy, as it would enable caregivers to attend to other things in today's fast-paced family life, such as working a full- or part-time job and caring for children, knowing their loved ones are well cared for. It is unfortunate that today many caregivers have to choose between working or caring for a family member. It is estimated that the average loss of income to these caregivers is more than $600,000 in wages, pension, and Social Security benefits. And by extension, the loss in productivity in United States businesses is pegged at more than $10 billion annually. But it does not have to be an either-or proposition. The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act is a creative solution to health care delivery, which would adequately reimburse providers in a fiscally responsible way. Located in every state in the United States and the District of Columbia, adult day centers generally offer transportation, meals, personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical services and socialization benefits offered. We can and should offer both our Medicare beneficiaries and family caregivers more and better options for health care delivery, and that is exactly what the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act is designed to do. This legislation is bipartisan, and is supported by more than 20 national non-profit organizations concerned with the well- being of America's older population and committed to representing their interests. I hope our colleagues will join us in this cause. I again thank Senators Rockefeller, Lincoln and McConnell for working with me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. McConnell to introduce bipartisan legislation aimed at improving long-term care health and rehabilitation options for Medicare beneficiaries, and also assisting family caregivers. We all recognize that our Nation needs to address sooner rather than later challenges of financing long-term care services for our growing aging population. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that national expenditures for long-term care services for the elderly will increase each year through 2040. But it is in just over a decade when we will see these challenges become even more pronounced when the 76 million baby boomers begin to turn 65. Baby boomers are expected to live longer and greater numbers will reach 85 and older. Given the expected growing costs of long-term care services, and combined with the fact that today so many American families are already serving as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors and providing such a large portion of long-term care services, it is more important than ever that we have in place quality options in how to best care for our senior population about to dramatically increase. This is why we are introducing the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act, legislation to offer home health beneficiaries more options for receiving care in a setting of their own choosing, rather than confining the provision of those benefits solely to the home. This legislation would give beneficiaries the option to receive some or all of their Medicare home health services in an adult day setting. This would be a substitution, not an expansion, of services. The bill would not make new people eligible for Medicare home health benefits or expand the list of services paid for. In fact, this legislation may be designed to produce net savings for the Medicare program. Permitting homebound patients to receive their home health care in a clinically-based senior day center, as an alternative to receiving it at home, could result in significant benefits to the Medicare program, such as reduced cost-per-episode, reduced numbers of episodes, as well as mental and physical stimulation for patients. Moreover, the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act could well have a positive impact on our economy, as it would enable caregivers to attend to other things in today's fast-paced family life, such as working a full- or part-time job and caring for children, knowing their loved ones are well cared for. It is unfortunate that today many caregivers have to choose between working or caring for a family member. It is estimated that the average loss of income to these caregivers is more than $600,000 in wages, pension, and Social Security benefits. And by extension, the loss in productivity in United States businesses is pegged at more than $10 billion annually. But it does not have to be an either-or proposition. The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act is a creative solution to health care delivery, which would adequately reimburse providers in a fiscally responsible way. Located in every state in the United States and the District of Columbia, adult day centers generally offer transportation, meals, personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical services and socialization benefits offered. We can and should offer both our Medicare beneficiaries and family caregivers more and better options for health care delivery, and that is exactly what the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act is designed to do. This legislation is bipartisan, and is supported by more than 20 national non-profit organizations concerned with the well- being of America's older population and committed to representing their interests. I hope our colleagues will join us in this cause. I again thank Senators Rockefeller, Lincoln and McConnell for working with me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the Statement of the Managers accompanying the Interior and Related Agencies Conference Report, there is language on page 117 that sets certain limitations on the types of projects eligible to compete for Clean Coal Power Initiative funds. Specifically, the language states; ``Further, all co-production projects must provide at least half of their output in the form of electricity.'' This language could have the effect of precluding certain innovative co-production projects from competing for the funds appropriated. Can the Chairman explain the intent of this language?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, HIV/AIDS has become a world-wide pandemic. More than 16 million people have died of AIDS. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health Organization, WHO, have estimated that over 32.4 million adults and 1.2 million children around the world are already living with HIV. Half of all people who acquire HIV become infected before they turn 25 and typically die of AIDS before their 35th birthday. The overwhelming majority of people with HIV live in the developing world, and that proportion is likely to grow even further as infection rates continue to rise in countries where poverty, poor health systems, and limited resources for prevention and care fuel the spread of the virus. Sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt of HIV and AIDS, with close to 70 percent of the global total of HIV-positive people. Over 14 million Africans have already been claimed by the disease, leaving behind shattered families and crippled prospects for development. There have also been recent reports of growing problems in China, India, and elsewhere. Of course, the United States is not immune to this virus, and its spread globally only contributes to risks in America. It is estimated that approximately 90 percent of people in sub- Saharan Africa do not know if they are HIV infected or not. They have no means of gaining this vital knowledge so that they can protect themselves and others. Thus, testing is a critical aspect of the effort to stop the further spread of HIV/AIDS. However, one must be careful that tests are appropriate to the regions where they are used. In developing regions served by USAID, tests should be fast, accurate, simple, designed to assist those providing counseling, and have no need for labs or refrigeration. The importance of testing cannot be overstated. Early detection of HIV/AIDS might enable treatment to be more effective. We must do all we can to control and stop the spread of this dreaded virus, and I urge USAID to seek to develop rapid tests that serve this purpose.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, forever changed the United States, but caused particular devastation in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and New York City. Husbands and wives lost their spouses, brothers and sisters lost siblings; parents lost children and children lost parents. From this unspeakable grief, numerous individuals were motivated by their faith in God to heal and redeem this terrible tragedy. On this day, October 17, 2001, we and our colleagues in the United States Senate recognize the efforts of the following individuals, and their organizations and congregations, and the ten of thousands of others whose good works are motivated by their faith in God and love for their fellow man: Rev. A.R. Bernard and the Christian Cultural Center; Rev. Richard Del Rio and Abounding Grace Ministries; Mr. Joe Holland and the Christian Renaissance Corporation; Mr. Tom Jones and World Vision; Pastor Donna Keyes and the Glad Tidings Tabernacle; and Rev. Marcos Rivera and the Primitive Christian Church.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will protect the right of charities, faith-based organizations, and other nonprofit groups to use the nonprofit mail rate for their fundraising activities. The legislation clarifies ambiguities in the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, PRA, which established a nonprofit mail rate for charities. In recent years, the United States Postal Service, USPS, has increasingly applied PRA regulations that disqualify nonprofits from entering into agreements with commercial printing and mailing businesses to produce and administer mailings. Because of this misapplication, the USPS has been forcing charities to pay the full commercial rate on some fundraising letters merely because they hire third parties to print and prepare them. The result is a 40 percent increase in postal costs for these charities. My legislation would allow charities and faith-based organizations to share ownership of their mailing with commercial printing and mailing businesses and still qualify for the nonprofit mailing rate. In effect, it would permit charities to mail at nonprofit rates whether they prepare the mailing themselves or hire someone else to do it for them since the purpose of the mailing remains a nonprofit one. Representative Dan Burton has introduced similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1169. It is important to point out that this bill maintains existing federal law that prohibits unauthorized parties from using the nonprofit rate to sell goods or services by mail. Moreover, the legislation does not limit the USPS' authority to enforce any other section of federal postal law. The USPS has been consulted as a part of the development of the legislation. This legislation will enable charities, churches, synagogues, educational, advocacy, and other nonprofit organizations to negotiate the best agreements they can for their fundraising programs. The net result will be lower fundraising costs and more funds being available for nonprofits to serve others. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this initiative.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will protect the right of charities, faith-based organizations, and other nonprofit groups to use the nonprofit mail rate for their fundraising activities. The legislation clarifies ambiguities in the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, PRA, which established a nonprofit mail rate for charities. In recent years, the United States Postal Service, USPS, has increasingly applied PRA regulations that disqualify nonprofits from entering into agreements with commercial printing and mailing businesses to produce and administer mailings. Because of this misapplication, the USPS has been forcing charities to pay the full commercial rate on some fundraising letters merely because they hire third parties to print and prepare them. The result is a 40 percent increase in postal costs for these charities. My legislation would allow charities and faith-based organizations to share ownership of their mailing with commercial printing and mailing businesses and still qualify for the nonprofit mailing rate. In effect, it would permit charities to mail at nonprofit rates whether they prepare the mailing themselves or hire someone else to do it for them since the purpose of the mailing remains a nonprofit one. Representative Dan Burton has introduced similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1169. It is important to point out that this bill maintains existing federal law that prohibits unauthorized parties from using the nonprofit rate to sell goods or services by mail. Moreover, the legislation does not limit the USPS' authority to enforce any other section of federal postal law. The USPS has been consulted as a part of the development of the legislation. This legislation will enable charities, churches, synagogues, educational, advocacy, and other nonprofit organizations to negotiate the best agreements they can for their fundraising programs. The net result will be lower fundraising costs and more funds being available for nonprofits to serve others. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this initiative.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, in introducing the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, legislation aimed at conferring upon current Social Security beneficiaries an explicit property right to their benefits. As the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security and Congress continue to consider options about how best to put our most vital social program on sound financial footing, it is increasingly important to assure today's beneficiaries that they are not going to be adversely affected by any reform proposal that Congress may ultimately enact into law. Although reasonable people can disagree about how best to restore Social Security to a path of long-term solvency, philosophical or political leanings should not obstruct us from meeting our moral obligation to preserve and protect the benefits of current beneficiaries. Both basic fairness and practicality dictate that individuals and families who are currently receiving Social Security benefits should not be expected to adapt to any of the steps necessary to shore up Social Security's long-range financial health. Indeed, President Bush outlined as his very first principle in the creation of the present Commission that ``Modernization must not change Social Security benefits for retirees or near-retirees.'' No matter what reform plan Congress may consider, one of the more productive interim steps we can undertake is to create an environment where constructive, bipartisan policy options can be pursued. Toward this end, I believe that it is important to remove the ``demagoguery factor'' from the Social Security reform discussion by ensuring seniors that they receive every cent that the government has promised them, including an accurate annual cost-of-living increase. That is why we are introducing the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act today. Unfortunately, current law affords no such protection for our nation's elderly. In the Supreme Court's 1960 decision Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, the Court held that Americans have no property right to their Social Security benefits, and that Congress has the power to change Social Security benefits at any time. One unfortunate byproduct of this case law is that current beneficiaries have fallen victim to scare tactics from politicians, interest groups and others stating or implying that sustainable long-term Social Security reform will lead to a reduction or endangerment of their benefits. Social Security reform is too important to working Americans to allow short-term political demagoguery to drown out serious bipartisan efforts to put our most vital social program on sound fiscal and actuarial footing. By passing an explicit property right to Social Security benefits for those eligible for and receiving benefits, Congress can assure seniors that their benefits will be protected and focus the reform discussion on the future, where it belongs, and how we can best preserve Social Security's financial dependence at a cost that future generations can bear. In closing, it is my sincere hope that our colleagues will join Senator Voinovich and me in supporting this commonsense legislation to provide America's seniors peace of mind during the inevitable policy challenges that lie ahead for Social Security's financing. I again thank Senator Voinovich for working with me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, in introducing the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, legislation aimed at conferring upon current Social Security beneficiaries an explicit property right to their benefits. As the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security and Congress continue to consider options about how best to put our most vital social program on sound financial footing, it is increasingly important to assure today's beneficiaries that they are not going to be adversely affected by any reform proposal that Congress may ultimately enact into law. Although reasonable people can disagree about how best to restore Social Security to a path of long-term solvency, philosophical or political leanings should not obstruct us from meeting our moral obligation to preserve and protect the benefits of current beneficiaries. Both basic fairness and practicality dictate that individuals and families who are currently receiving Social Security benefits should not be expected to adapt to any of the steps necessary to shore up Social Security's long-range financial health. Indeed, President Bush outlined as his very first principle in the creation of the present Commission that ``Modernization must not change Social Security benefits for retirees or near-retirees.'' No matter what reform plan Congress may consider, one of the more productive interim steps we can undertake is to create an environment where constructive, bipartisan policy options can be pursued. Toward this end, I believe that it is important to remove the ``demagoguery factor'' from the Social Security reform discussion by ensuring seniors that they receive every cent that the government has promised them, including an accurate annual cost-of-living increase. That is why we are introducing the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act today. Unfortunately, current law affords no such protection for our nation's elderly. In the Supreme Court's 1960 decision Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, the Court held that Americans have no property right to their Social Security benefits, and that Congress has the power to change Social Security benefits at any time. One unfortunate byproduct of this case law is that current beneficiaries have fallen victim to scare tactics from politicians, interest groups and others stating or implying that sustainable long-term Social Security reform will lead to a reduction or endangerment of their benefits. Social Security reform is too important to working Americans to allow short-term political demagoguery to drown out serious bipartisan efforts to put our most vital social program on sound fiscal and actuarial footing. By passing an explicit property right to Social Security benefits for those eligible for and receiving benefits, Congress can assure seniors that their benefits will be protected and focus the reform discussion on the future, where it belongs, and how we can best preserve Social Security's financial dependence at a cost that future generations can bear. In closing, it is my sincere hope that our colleagues will join Senator Voinovich and me in supporting this commonsense legislation to provide America's seniors peace of mind during the inevitable policy challenges that lie ahead for Social Security's financing. I again thank Senator Voinovich for working with me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001. On September 11, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of the bill is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' The legislation is modeled after legislation passed into law in Texas in 1997 which has resulted in an additional $6 million of equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Representative Castle has introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, H.R. 1919, which has 63 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. The Texas program has already received more then $6 million worth of equipment for volunteer fire departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the State level. The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill gets rid of unnecessary inspection bureaucracies, whether they are State run or a manufacturer's technician. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking the winners and losers. The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas state law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the last Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001. Volunteers comprise 74 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,082,500 volunteer and paid firefighters across the country, 804,200 are volunteer. Of the total 31,114 fire departments in the country, 22,636 are all volunteer; 4,848 are mostly volunteer; 1,602 are mostly career; and 2,028 are all career. In 1998, 54 of the 91 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in the other States. At this time when all of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great Nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001. On September 11, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of the bill is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' The legislation is modeled after legislation passed into law in Texas in 1997 which has resulted in an additional $6 million of equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Representative Castle has introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, H.R. 1919, which has 63 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. The Texas program has already received more then $6 million worth of equipment for volunteer fire departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the State level. The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill gets rid of unnecessary inspection bureaucracies, whether they are State run or a manufacturer's technician. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking the winners and losers. The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas state law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the last Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001. Volunteers comprise 74 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,082,500 volunteer and paid firefighters across the country, 804,200 are volunteer. Of the total 31,114 fire departments in the country, 22,636 are all volunteer; 4,848 are mostly volunteer; 1,602 are mostly career; and 2,028 are all career. In 1998, 54 of the 91 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in the other States. At this time when all of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great Nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Puppy Protection Act of 2001. Introduction of this legislation comes as a continuation of my interest in the protection and humane treatment of animals, specifically, dogs and puppies. In short, the Puppy Protection Act will crack down on breeders who are negligent in their responsibilities of breeding dogs in a healthy and humane environment, already required by law. Across the United States, there are more than 3,000 commercial dog breeding facilities that are licensed to operate by the United States Department of Agriculture. Owners of these facilities are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, which sets forth standards for humane handling and treatment. Inspection, to ensure compliance with AWA standards, is performed by the USDA. The shortcomings of this system, however, have been: One, inadequate resources to perform timely and routine inspections, and two, too few tools to assess the proper care and handling of dogs in federally- licensed kennels. My interest and action over the course of several years speaks to both issues. Earlier this year, I spearheaded an effort with my Senate colleagues to increase the appropriation for USDA to enforce the AWA. One problem has been too few resources, approximately 80 inspectors, to inspect nearly 10,000 USDA federally-licensed facilities. Adequate resources for inspection will go a long way in ensuring strong enforcement. Introduction of the Puppy Protection Act addresses the second concern of too few tools to assess the proper care and treatment of animals in commercial breeding facilities. Let me be clear, there are many responsible breeders throughout the United States who exercise appropriate care and judgment in their breeding practices. This bill is not intended to be punitive to those breeders. This bill will, however, crack down on facilities where even the most basic of needs required by law are not being met. The term ``puppy mill'' is not new to many people, be it pet owners; consumers; animal welfare advocates; inspectors; or just a casual observer. Puppy mills are considered to be large breeding operations that mass produce puppies for commercial sale with little regard for the humane handling and treatment of the dogs. Breeding and raising dogs without respect to the animal's welfare guarantees bad results for the unwitting owner, and for the health of the dog and her puppies. For dogs, puppy mill conditions can mean overcrowded cages; lack of protection from weather conditions; overbreeding; lack of veterinary care; and lack of interaction with humans at early stages. What this could mean for the consumer is caring for a pet with developmental problems, such as aggressive behavior or anxiety, and various physical difficulties that require extensive and costly medical attention. My interest and involvement in this matter stem from the regrettable circumstance of Pennsylvania being home to many large scale commercial breeding facilities operating like puppy mills. On a State level, Pennsylvania has been active, and has made gains in the area of public awareness and education, and stronger enforcement through increased inspection. What the Puppy Protection Act focuses on is the role of Federal inspectors, and the tools they have to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. Specifically, this bill will make the following important changes: One, creates a ``three strikes and you're out'' enforcement policy for animal welfare violations, such as a lack of food or water or basic veterinary care; two, addresses the need for breeding females to be given time to recover between litters since currently there are no protections against over-breeding, which causes physical hardship for females and may compromise the health of puppies; and three, requires that new puppies have adequate interation with other dogs and with people, enhancing their well-being and helping to minimize behavioral problems faced by pet owners. I believe these changes will go a long way in cracking down on negligent and irresponsible breeding activities that have long-lasting impacts for owners and their pets alike. I am pleased to have Senator Durbin join me in introducing this important bill. I ask unanimous consent to have the list of some 827 organizations nationwide who support this bill printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Puppy Protection Act of 2001. Introduction of this legislation comes as a continuation of my interest in the protection and humane treatment of animals, specifically, dogs and puppies. In short, the Puppy Protection Act will crack down on breeders who are negligent in their responsibilities of breeding dogs in a healthy and humane environment, already required by law. Across the United States, there are more than 3,000 commercial dog breeding facilities that are licensed to operate by the United States Department of Agriculture. Owners of these facilities are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, which sets forth standards for humane handling and treatment. Inspection, to ensure compliance with AWA standards, is performed by the USDA. The shortcomings of this system, however, have been: One, inadequate resources to perform timely and routine inspections, and two, too few tools to assess the proper care and handling of dogs in federally- licensed kennels. My interest and action over the course of several years speaks to both issues. Earlier this year, I spearheaded an effort with my Senate colleagues to increase the appropriation for USDA to enforce the AWA. One problem has been too few resources, approximately 80 inspectors, to inspect nearly 10,000 USDA federally-licensed facilities. Adequate resources for inspection will go a long way in ensuring strong enforcement. Introduction of the Puppy Protection Act addresses the second concern of too few tools to assess the proper care and treatment of animals in commercial breeding facilities. Let me be clear, there are many responsible breeders throughout the United States who exercise appropriate care and judgment in their breeding practices. This bill is not intended to be punitive to those breeders. This bill will, however, crack down on facilities where even the most basic of needs required by law are not being met. The term ``puppy mill'' is not new to many people, be it pet owners; consumers; animal welfare advocates; inspectors; or just a casual observer. Puppy mills are considered to be large breeding operations that mass produce puppies for commercial sale with little regard for the humane handling and treatment of the dogs. Breeding and raising dogs without respect to the animal's welfare guarantees bad results for the unwitting owner, and for the health of the dog and her puppies. For dogs, puppy mill conditions can mean overcrowded cages; lack of protection from weather conditions; overbreeding; lack of veterinary care; and lack of interaction with humans at early stages. What this could mean for the consumer is caring for a pet with developmental problems, such as aggressive behavior or anxiety, and various physical difficulties that require extensive and costly medical attention. My interest and involvement in this matter stem from the regrettable circumstance of Pennsylvania being home to many large scale commercial breeding facilities operating like puppy mills. On a State level, Pennsylvania has been active, and has made gains in the area of public awareness and education, and stronger enforcement through increased inspection. What the Puppy Protection Act focuses on is the role of Federal inspectors, and the tools they have to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. Specifically, this bill will make the following important changes: One, creates a ``three strikes and you're out'' enforcement policy for animal welfare violations, such as a lack of food or water or basic veterinary care; two, addresses the need for breeding females to be given time to recover between litters since currently there are no protections against over-breeding, which causes physical hardship for females and may compromise the health of puppies; and three, requires that new puppies have adequate interation with other dogs and with people, enhancing their well-being and helping to minimize behavioral problems faced by pet owners. I believe these changes will go a long way in cracking down on negligent and irresponsible breeding activities that have long-lasting impacts for owners and their pets alike. I am pleased to have Senator Durbin join me in introducing this important bill. I ask unanimous consent to have the list of some 827 organizations nationwide who support this bill printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area. This bill is a companion to H.R. 695, introduced by Representative John Peterson, which passed the House of Representatives on September 10, 2001. This legislation is significant not only to Pennsylvania's history but to our Nation's history and modern, commercial development. The creation of a national Oil Heritage Region will support the preservation of many natural, cultural and historical resources associated with the site of the first successfully drilled oil well. The notion of drilling for oil was first considered by the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company who believed that ``digging'' for oil was too time consuming. Acting on the prospect of greater efficiency, the company sent Edwin ``Colonel'' Drake to Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1858 to undertake a drilling endeavor. Throughout the next year, Drake spent his time convincing investors; securing financing; and laying the groundwork to begin actual drilling. A year later, the derrick was built and drilling began. Results did not come immediately, but eventually. And so began the modern commercial petroleum industry. Without a doubt, petroleum has played a major part in the history and ultimate development and industrialization of our country. Currently, more than 300,000 workers are employed in the oil industry nationwide with more than 8,000 companies producing oil in the United States. The importance of a national heritage region designation will ensure that the vision of a Pennsylvania company and Edwin Drake's persistence and ultimate success in oil drilling is not only preserved but shared. Establishing a national heritage region will coordinate preservation activities and promote the region's cultural richness through exhibits, displays, and the development of educational and recreational opportunities. I would be remiss not to mention the significant grassroots support associated with this effort. Introduction of this legislation is the product of much collaboration from individuals, businesses, and local government. A key element to securing designations of this kind is assurances of the community's collective and widespread support. I am confident that such support has been capably demonstrated and proven. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also recognized these local efforts, as well the region's historical significance, by granting a state heritage park designation. Today, visitors are able to enjoy cultural and recreational opportunities in the scenic valleys and restored rivers like the Allegheny River and Oil Creek. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is rich with historical firsts, and the fruitful efforts of Edwin Drake and the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company are tops among them. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, and to have the shared support of my fellow Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area. This bill is a companion to H.R. 695, introduced by Representative John Peterson, which passed the House of Representatives on September 10, 2001. This legislation is significant not only to Pennsylvania's history but to our Nation's history and modern, commercial development. The creation of a national Oil Heritage Region will support the preservation of many natural, cultural and historical resources associated with the site of the first successfully drilled oil well. The notion of drilling for oil was first considered by the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company who believed that ``digging'' for oil was too time consuming. Acting on the prospect of greater efficiency, the company sent Edwin ``Colonel'' Drake to Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1858 to undertake a drilling endeavor. Throughout the next year, Drake spent his time convincing investors; securing financing; and laying the groundwork to begin actual drilling. A year later, the derrick was built and drilling began. Results did not come immediately, but eventually. And so began the modern commercial petroleum industry. Without a doubt, petroleum has played a major part in the history and ultimate development and industrialization of our country. Currently, more than 300,000 workers are employed in the oil industry nationwide with more than 8,000 companies producing oil in the United States. The importance of a national heritage region designation will ensure that the vision of a Pennsylvania company and Edwin Drake's persistence and ultimate success in oil drilling is not only preserved but shared. Establishing a national heritage region will coordinate preservation activities and promote the region's cultural richness through exhibits, displays, and the development of educational and recreational opportunities. I would be remiss not to mention the significant grassroots support associated with this effort. Introduction of this legislation is the product of much collaboration from individuals, businesses, and local government. A key element to securing designations of this kind is assurances of the community's collective and widespread support. I am confident that such support has been capably demonstrated and proven. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also recognized these local efforts, as well the region's historical significance, by granting a state heritage park designation. Today, visitors are able to enjoy cultural and recreational opportunities in the scenic valleys and restored rivers like the Allegheny River and Oil Creek. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is rich with historical firsts, and the fruitful efforts of Edwin Drake and the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company are tops among them. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, and to have the shared support of my fellow Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I want to say to the Senator from Delaware, those are very eloquent and appropriate and I think appropriately forceful remarks. I am in agreement with every word he said. I think you are going to see today the U.S. Senate in agreement. Everyone is standing up in support of each other and in support of the President and the people. We are here for them. We are meeting today. We are meeting for them. I think it is an important sign that this beacon of freedom is open and that the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, is meeting, talking, and I hope acting today, tomorrow, and for the weeks and months to come this year. My wife, Karen, and I, and our whole family, watched television yesterday, just in amazement, in grief, in sorrow, and in tears. We went to church and prayed. We didn't know what else to do but go to church and pray that somehow and in some way people would survive this horrible tragedy. It has been a very difficult time for a lot of us. It has been a horrible time for the people of New York and the people in northern Virginia. We are committed, as you heard the President say today, to do everything we can here in Washington, DC, to help those who are struggling and to support those who are doing heroic things in Pennsylvania trying to recover what is left of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. And of course in New York as well, there are incredible stories of heroism, and at the Pentagon in northern Virginia. Our sympathies and our support go out to all of those men and women and their families. I think it is important for us to know, as the Senator from Delaware said, that things should not change here in America. I could not agree with him more. Things must not change with respect to our freedom and our democracy. But there are certain things that must change. I think the Senator from Delaware hit the nail on the head when he said that our actions towards terrorists must change. What happened yesterday was not merely a hijacking of a domestic airline flight. What happened yesterday was an enemy missile loaded with explosives--11,000 gallons of jet fuel--that exploded into targets here in the United States of America. It was an act of war. It was an enemy missile that was directed at our country. We must respond accordingly to this act of war--to those who perpetrated it. We are at war with terrorists and with those nations that harbor them, that finance them, and that in any way encourage and support them. I think it is important that we say so here in the United States Senate, at some point, that this is war with the forces of evil that attacked this country. This is not--and I can't stress this more strongly--a time merely to bring people to justice. It is a time to wage war and win a war against those who committed this act, and against those who harbor those who committed this act, and against those who support and encourage those who committed this act. In the U.S. Senate, there are things we can do, sensible things we can do, to support our President and to support the American people. First, as I mentioned before, we can support the American people right now with the resources they need to try to find survivors and repair the damage that was caused in this country. Second, we need to bring up the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill right now. We need to make sure we have the necessary tools in place to be able to defend our country. We need to look at the intelligence and counterintelligence operations of this country and determine soon whether we should enhance that capability, which is obviously insufficient. We here in the United States Senate must do something about it. We must do something about it now. It is important for us to come together at a time of national crisis and emergency, when our country is threatened, to pass the necessary bills for our Government to fight the war in which it will be engaged during the coming weeks, months--and maybe longer. We need to make sure we have the diplomatic representation to represent us, as the Senator from Delaware said, and I agree with him 100 percent, we need to form an international coalition. We need a U.N. Ambassador. We do not have an Ambassador to the United Nations. I cannot think of a more important time since the U.N. was created that we need an Ambassador to the United Nations. And we don't have one. That nomination is sitting in the Foreign Relations Committee. I hope we can get that nomination to the floor as quickly as possible so we can begin the very important work the Senator from Delaware has laid out in building a coalition necessary to fight this terrible scourge that has attacked this country. Finally, we need to do something about our energy needs. Members have told me about places in America where they were charging $3 to $5 a gallon for gasoline yesterday. Yes. Energy will be a very important issue for this country, and very soon. We need to consider this bill. Particularly if we are engaged in fighting terrorism around the world, we need to have more domestic security. We need domestic energy security. These are the kinds of things I hope we in the Senate can join together to pass measures that are important and to prepare ourselves for the war ahead. This is a time for us to begin to put the building blocks in place so we can engage in a war against those who attacked this country. I am hopeful, in fact I am confident, that we can do so in a bipartisan way, in a way that will lend great honor and credibility to this great institution. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.